"They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the 
existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary 
and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and 

In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not 
motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and 
balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.

And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.

"They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the  populace 
outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could 
possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: 
racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be 
illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he is a 
symbol of "Their" failures.

Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong 
reasons, at the wrong time.

Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far more 
importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point that future 
Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad things."

There are so many other ways that the country could have been protected from 
Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those alternatives would require 
reason, effort, and, most importantly for "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." 


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 7:16 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> On 11/8/19 7:44 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost 
> > guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed 
> > intent.
> Well, my political intent is to actualize the checks and balances on 
> which the system was predicated. It's the duty, the job, of the House 
> to execute the inquiry. So, it's not clear *who* you're talking about 
> when you say "they". You're not talking about this impeachment 
> supporter, that's for sure. If, after the inquiry, the Senate "acquits" 
> and the electoral college re-elects Trump, so be it. We did the right 
> thing.
> But this does wrap back around into conflicting -isms. I'm sympathetic 
> to the idea that the electoral college is obsolete. I'm also 
> sympathetic to the idea that mob-rule is dangerous. If our system 
> (whether a good representation of what the Founders wanted or not) 
> doesn't integrate democracy with republic well enough, then a) do we 
> tweak it, e.g. with rank choice voting, or b) scrap it for a new one? 
> As much as I'd love to see a constitutional convention, my guess is too 
> few people care enough about others (other countries, the earth, other 
> life forms) to work authentically toward a solution. Every player would 
> be trying to game the system for themselves (or their "tribe", whatever 
> they think that is). So, scrapping it seems too risky. And we're left 
> with the technical debt and the rule-rot we have.
> Our Constitution and other supporting frameworks like common law are a 
> great example of a prematurely modeled integration that we're now stuck 
> with. Maybe there's no way out of this local optimum to a more global 
> optimum unless we scrap it.
> -- 
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe
> archives back to 2003:
> FRIAM-COMIC by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
archives back to 2003:
FRIAM-COMIC by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to