Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
157. If you read my post you would know that's not correct. Nice try at a straw man, though.
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 07:19 AM
Jul 2019

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2019, 07:58 AM - Edit history (3)

But I'll bite -

If I say that I'm 'pro-choice' and I think whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a medical decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor, and that banning abortion is as destructive as Prohibition, someone who is anti-choice asks, "So you want a woman, at 38 weeks into a healthy pregnancy, to go to a doctor and tell them to abort, not deliver that child," the answer would be "No. That's not accurate."

They presented a false dilemma - you are either against abortion or you approve of any and all abortions at any and all times. Or that you want women to have abortions, because they think the opposite of Pro-choice is pro-abortion for every woman.

You seem to think that if one isn't supporting impeachment under specific conditions that they "don't support impeachment at all in any circumstance."

That's a fallacy that's been put forth about Speaker Pelosi.

Read my post again. I put forth possible scenarios, and stated that I defer to The Juciary Committee and the House Speaker. Just as I defer to a woman's decision on her own childbearing choices, because she is the best suited to make that decision.

Makes no sense to me. Goodheart Jul 2019 #1
I cannot understand that rationale either... kentuck Jul 2019 #2
Well, if we go ahead with it Bettie Jul 2019 #5
I think it's because the senate won't convict, regardless of the evidence. rsdsharp Jul 2019 #3
This. NurseJackie Aug 2019 #185
It defintely helped Pres Clinton . . . Iliyah Jul 2019 #4
I agree customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #94
because the idiot media is under trump's thrall EveHammond13 Jul 2019 #6
Just for me wryter2000 Jul 2019 #7
So, you're just arguing for a slower roll? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #9
Yes, scandals and investigations during an election year never helps incumbent uponit7771 Jul 2019 #18
Trump really could shoot someone and his base will stick by him. wasupaloopa Jul 2019 #102
His "base" wasn't enough to get him elected last time the dem base revolvted and 3rd parties uponit7771 Jul 2019 #103
it would 100% HELP Trump ! stonecutter357 Jul 2019 #8
There's no historical truth to that not at all. Dams didn't control the government for two election uponit7771 Jul 2019 #19
Every situation is different onenote Jul 2019 #21
Republicans did NOT take a hit, they stayed in control of the government. Gaining or losing uponit7771 Jul 2019 #23
Yes it is taking a hit Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #137
Again the context is controlling a branch of the government not gaining or losing seats uponit7771 Jul 2019 #141
That maybe your bar Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #142
That's realities bar, you don't control a branch of the government by just losing or gaining seats uponit7771 Jul 2019 #144
Again that is your bar Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #150
OK, the constitution does not assign control of a branch of government just off gaining or losing uponit7771 Jul 2019 #151
Actually Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #154
The impeachment vote on Clinton was in December of 1998 NewJeffCT Jul 2019 #46
+1, controlling the government is the goal not just gaining seats uponit7771 Jul 2019 #57
The OP was asking for explanation/rationale/logic for the argument. honest.abe Jul 2019 #82
!@#$%&*()_++-;:'"/?. stonecutter357 Jul 2019 #132
LOL.. honest.abe Jul 2019 #133
Because impeachment without removal will be viewed as a vindication of trump Gothmog Jul 2019 #10
Trump will say it's a vindication even if he's hauled off to jail in the orange jumpsuit in front of uponit7771 Jul 2019 #20
But in the real world, impeachment without removal could help trump win re-election Gothmog Jul 2019 #26
So, are Democrats like Peterson seriously saying Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #28
I do not want to give the GOP control of the House Gothmog Jul 2019 #42
What is driving the assumption that this *will* happen? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #52
Nothing, no historical precedence ... NOTHING. uponit7771 Jul 2019 #63
Polling data says that this stunt will hurt Democrats in swing districts Gothmog Jul 2019 #68
Same as Nixon's post Saturday Night Massacre. Again, there's no precedence where impeachment has uponit7771 Jul 2019 #71
Yes there is polling that shows that Democrats could lose swing districts due to this stunt Gothmog Jul 2019 #64
Ok. Well there's that I suppose Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #70
It doesn't, the polling posted was from republicans not some trusted source and pre Nixon polling uponit7771 Jul 2019 #75
We are hopeful of flipping six seats in Texas Gothmog Jul 2019 #76
Bunk polling "...PER NEW GOP POLLING..." really !??! We're supposed to trust any of that?! tia uponit7771 Jul 2019 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author Gothmog Jul 2019 #77
Why do we want to put swing House seats at risk for a stunt that will not work? Gothmog Jul 2019 #78
Based on KGOP polling !?!?!? AGAIN, !?!? You're source is sourcing theHill.com!!!! WTF !? Seriously? uponit7771 Jul 2019 #85
Honey, The Hill is cited all the time on DU. You're reaching... ehrnst Jul 2019 #178
Agree with your assessment totally Thekaspervote Jul 2019 #104
There's no precedence where impeachment has helped a party control any branch of government ... uponit7771 Jul 2019 #62
In the real world, the polling shows that this stunt could cost the Democrats control of the House Gothmog Jul 2019 #79
Bunk ***GOP POLLING***, Again... who in their right mind trust that?! You're source is theHill.com!? uponit7771 Jul 2019 #81
Feel free to ignore the facts but I do not want to give the GOP control of the House Gothmog Jul 2019 #83
There are no facts with ***REPUBLICAN POLLING !!! *** uponit7771 Jul 2019 #88
Sweetie, if you bothered to read the source... ehrnst Jul 2019 #177
I do declah, Goth! You have given someone the very vapahs! ehrnst Jul 2019 #179
The Hill being cited right here on DU? Perish the very thought!!! ehrnst Jul 2019 #180
Trump absolutely dreads being impeached, watoos Jul 2019 #11
What do you think he would do if impeached? ehrnst Jul 2019 #38
Sit on thumbs brutus smith Jul 2019 #44
"Sit on thumbs" ehrnst Jul 2019 #95
Correctly timed? he'd look at his poll numbers tank along with the people who enable him. uponit7771 Jul 2019 #93
Yes, Correctly timed.(nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #114
OK, is your position that there should be NO impeachment or correctly timed impeachment? tia uponit7771 Jul 2019 #127
No. That is not correct. ehrnst Jul 2019 #148
So no Impeachment? tia uponit7771 Jul 2019 #149
If you read my post you would know that's not correct. Nice try at a straw man, though. ehrnst Jul 2019 #157
Soooooo impeachment at the right time? uponit7771 Jul 2019 #162
*If* there is a right time, where the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks ehrnst Jul 2019 #170
you stated this a number of times stopdiggin Jul 2019 #51
I think many want it because of it would be a catharsis for them. ehrnst Jul 2019 #131
+1, not only that look at Red Dons hysteria post beginning of the impeachment process uponit7771 Jul 2019 #65
I originally thought that based upon the Clinton impeachment aftermath. Vinca Jul 2019 #12
that is my fear as well Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #32
I have not met a SINGLE voter that would meet that definition stopdiggin Jul 2019 #56
Neither have I Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #139
What evidence is there for that? Trumpocalypse Jul 2019 #138
I think the sooner the better for Trump.. stillcool Jul 2019 #13
Because HE started that assumption and controls the narrative. Claritie Pixie Jul 2019 #14
Who knows with this crazy felon - But here's a Help/Hurt analysis Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #15
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Caliman73 Jul 2019 #25
+1 Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #34
He would claim "exoneration" when the Senate refuses to remove him. ehrnst Jul 2019 #39
He'll claim that anyway, he already has with the Mueller report. He's not sane, so there's no uponit7771 Jul 2019 #67
Actually this discussion is very much about what Trump will or will not do. ehrnst Jul 2019 #159
He'll do crazy crap ... That we know uponit7771 Jul 2019 #161
He seems to get crazier as he feels more cornered. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #171
Way over thinking it :) Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #153
Just because I'm not wringing my hands in despair doesn't mean I'm overthinking it. ehrnst Jul 2019 #158
Instead of tearing into what I said, it would be much Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #155
Would you be helpful and explain to all of us what "the help him position" is? ehrnst Jul 2019 #160
Defend not impeaching please. It is super easy Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #165
So Democrats/Dem leaders who are not calling for impeachment are "helping Trump?" ehrnst Jul 2019 #166
Waiting for your defence points of no Impeachment Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #168
Is that a yes or no? Seems like a simple question. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #169
Crickets... I guess that means the answer is yes. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #172
It sure does seem like you are having a hard time Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #173
You sure are having a hard time with a simple question... ehrnst Jul 2019 #175
You're correct Laura brutus smith Jul 2019 #48
Limp ehrnst Jul 2019 #156
Please defend your position not to impeach Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #174
Please clarify the statement I asked you to clarify before you started evading ehrnst Jul 2019 #176
Get your pro-do-not-impeach defense out there Laura PourMeADrink Jul 2019 #181
Still evading the question, I see. ehrnst Aug 2019 #182
I give up. Doesn't sound like any of us will ever know Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2019 #183
Still won't answer the question. Afraid to? ehrnst Aug 2019 #184
More obfuscation. Just defend your side...think plenty Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2019 #186
See post #187 and #170, then answer my question. If you have the courage. ehrnst Aug 2019 #188
Here's an example setting up a faulty premise or false dilemma, and why it usually fails ehrnst Aug 2019 #187
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2019 #59
The reasoning goes like this: If the Republican majority in the Senate vote against removing Nitram Jul 2019 #16
Presumably Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #24
Raised Clinton's popularity but what did it do for the elections? Caliman73 Jul 2019 #33
The Senate trial was after the election FBaggins Jul 2019 #84
This should be its own OP !! uponit7771 Jul 2019 #96
(asterisks) statistical improbability of a party holding the WH for more than 2 terms, Nader ehrnst Jul 2019 #167
Impeachment has never been a positive for the impeached for the control of government ***NEVER*** uponit7771 Jul 2019 #17
Nor was the fact that all of those impeached were in their parties' second term in the WH. ehrnst Jul 2019 #29
Irrelevant, there are no party term limits in any branch of the US government uponit7771 Jul 2019 #31
Um... you base your assumptions on history, yes? ehrnst Jul 2019 #47
No, facts ... there are no party limits for any branch of the government and there have been parties uponit7771 Jul 2019 #53
Fact: there is no restriction on a party from winning the WH again after impeachment ehrnst Jul 2019 #115
We agree, impeachment has historically made gaining control of branches of government harde uponit7771 Jul 2019 #126
Actually, I don't know how much of a factor it was in subsequent elections, ehrnst Jul 2019 #129
No, not at the beginning for Nixon or Clinton ... the public did not want them out. It was after uponit7771 Jul 2019 #130
Straw man. Never said there were. ehrnst Jul 2019 #98
Irrelevant. Impeachment has never disqualifed a party for a 3rd term in the WH **NEVER*** ehrnst Jul 2019 #49
Strawman, never said it did uponit7771 Jul 2019 #90
Because Bill Clinton DeminPennswoods Jul 2019 #22
It may help the GOP in a few ways if it's timed badly. ehrnst Jul 2019 #27
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2019 #35
So, are there any other ways to meaningfully hold him accountable? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #36
Calling him out like Democrats are doing, continuing the investigations. ehrnst Jul 2019 #43
If he is as unstable as your comments portray him as (and I agree with you) Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #54
One can leave an abuser. We can't leave this one until 2021. ehrnst Jul 2019 #58
I've never been in an actual abusive situation (personally) Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #66
What "Something" exactly? ehrnst Jul 2019 #105
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2019 #99
Meaningfully being Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #60
So how does impeachment as a political process hold him "more accountable" ehrnst Jul 2019 #106
Impeachment historically reduces the impeached polling numbers when done correctly uponit7771 Jul 2019 #69
what do you mean by "done correctly?" And how would it be "done incorrectly?" ehrnst Jul 2019 #107
Right timing during an election year uponit7771 Jul 2019 #122
Nixon's numbers were OK before Saturday night massacre uponit7771 Jul 2019 #123
Again, we are fortunate that it is Speaker Pelosi who is making this call Gothmog Jul 2019 #121
More republican polling numbers ?! Really ?! uponit7771 Jul 2019 #124
We are fortunate that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are calling the shots here Gothmog Jul 2019 #136
If I had to choose anyone to be Speaker right now, based on resume and recommendations, it would be ehrnst Aug 2019 #189
Pelosi is amazing Gothmog Aug 2019 #190
It is evidence free, fear based defeatism nt Fiendish Thingy Jul 2019 #30
+1 Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #37
On whose part? Speaker Pelosi's? The majority of Dems in congress? ehrnst Jul 2019 #41
I was replying to the OP nt Fiendish Thingy Jul 2019 #116
+1, there are few if any factual political reasons against impeachment uponit7771 Jul 2019 #80
Because you say they're not factual? ehrnst Jul 2019 #108
No, reality says they're factual ... and :rolleyes: uponit7771 Jul 2019 #128
They are afraid of the "poor baby" effect. Kablooie Jul 2019 #40
I think it would be more like "The Dems are attacking US!" (nt) ehrnst Jul 2019 #45
"Leave Trump alone!!! Wah!!!" Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #55
Politics is complicated. Caliman73 Jul 2019 #50
to me the difference is while Bill's single downfall was "getting caught with his pants down", he onetexan Jul 2019 #113
It will help him by getting this all out of the way well before the election StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #61
I'm ok if there is a plan and timing must be factored in Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #74
Sharon their plan with you for me who - for even they have a plan - StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #87
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2019 #92
Polling shows that this stunt will hurt Democrats in swing districts Gothmog Jul 2019 #72
-1, this "polling" is based of Republican internal polling and should NOT be trusted. uponit7771 Jul 2019 #100
We are fortunate that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are calling the shots here Gothmog Jul 2019 #119
That doesn't address the fact you're taking a position based off of republican polling numbers uponit7771 Jul 2019 #125
Yes it does-Speaker Pelosi is the one making the decision Gothmog Jul 2019 #134
what i'm seeing play out is leadership support for *investigation* over impeachment 0rganism Jul 2019 #86
I dont really get it either. honest.abe Jul 2019 #89
+1,if we're damned if we do and damned if we don't we might as well do the right thing uponit7771 Jul 2019 #101
So, now you're just giving up defending it at all as the only reasonable, sensible choice but ehrnst Jul 2019 #109
His presidency has much, much more for history to damn him with as the worst POTUS ever ehrnst Jul 2019 #110
I think everyone is considering the cons of impeachment. honest.abe Jul 2019 #120
I don't think... Snackshack Jul 2019 #91
Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before he could be impeached. wasupaloopa Jul 2019 #97
Do you really think Trump might resign if impeached? Knowing he'll be indicted when out of office? ehrnst Jul 2019 #118
No I never implied he would wasupaloopa Jul 2019 #135
These are your words, yes? ehrnst Jul 2019 #140
I was correcting the idea that 4 presidents were impeached. wasupaloopa Jul 2019 #145
Apology accepted. And it was only 2 presidents, actually. ehrnst Jul 2019 #147
Wasn't he impeached but resigned before conviction? Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #164
Because of how the media reports things as they did with Mueller JI7 Jul 2019 #111
Comparing Trump to Clinton is not a good comparison Poiuyt Jul 2019 #112
But what about a Dem Senator incumbent candidate in a Red state having to vote yes for impeachment? ehrnst Jul 2019 #117
The impeachment inquiry we're doing now is perfect. gulliver Jul 2019 #143
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2019 #146
It's not really an Impeachment Inquiry per se Proud Liberal Dem Jul 2019 #163
Republicans "won" all three branches in 2000. BlueTsunami2018 Jul 2019 #152
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is there an assumptio...»Reply #157