Prevention not just justice

We are facing a great danger here! One exceptionally common statement I am hearing in reaction to impeachment is: 'only 2 more years'... Not if it opens the door for all that follow to commit the same acts or worse!

We are not just talking about what someone has done and making them 'pay' as that would not change what has already happened. We are not just talking about a specific president, vice president, administration, or even party as any president, vice president, administration, or party could be allowed to commit the same atrocious acts or worse! For us to care so much more about 'Justice' or 'Revenge' than a logical recourse of prevention of any future acts, whether it is by any current entity or one in the future, or by republicans or democrats would be a grievous error as 'Justice' or 'Revenge' will not solve the biggest problem we really face, a problem that will last not just for the next couple of years, but a problem that will have deep impacts for more than just the rest of our lives, but for the rest of this country’s existence!

As it has been said: 'Justice is just a nice word for revenge'. Revenge does not change the past, it does not solve the problem as a whole. What revenge is capable of is prolonging and increasing anger, and can cause further escalating negative revenge responses traded until it has reached a state of saturation and cannot be taken any further as a direct result of the vengeful acts themselves, thus making any recovery quite impossible. Revenge is a useless, illogical and even childish response when one cannot comprehend a useful, logical response that can make progress to a solution. This endeavor towards impeachment should not be based in useless justice for acts of the past, but based in logical reasoning as a prevention of any future acts. A similar argument is used when trying to convince a victim of why they should testify in court despite their fears: ‘To prevent it from happening to someone else’. A few major differences here are that we are all the ‘victim’, and it will not just happen to someone else but will continually happen to us over and over again, and from not just those that committed these acts but from any that may follow.

There are those who believe that nothing or very little wrong has been done, and in following that logic, the only true final reason not to start an investigation towards impeachment is the time or cost to find a possible verdict of ‘not guilty’. However to take care and be certain to ensure this countries entire future or even existence as we know it, the time or cost involved obviously would be well spent and easily nullifies such an argument. Further, these individuals should weigh such costs against even the official reasoning of monies spent on other endeavors. Previous impeachment investigations were started over single questionably immoral acts that did not have direct relations to how the country was being run, whereas the questions being raised here involve a multitude of quite horrendous acts that deal with more than just how the country is run, but deal with every aspect of what this country is founded on and includes questions of possibly treasonable offenses. In light of this, I think an argument of ‘not needed’ becomes quite ridiculous.

There are a great many reasons to start impeachment proceedings, and I keep observing individuals forming their overall arguments on either singular points or, just as bad, a series of particular points where one point always becomes obscured amongst the many points. It may be helpful for most to continually reevaluate which reasoning to use for the basis of ones arguments. When determining which reasoning to base ones arguments on, one has to determine the priority of each reasoning. One aspect is determining the effective time frame of such reasoning. Does the reasoning have pertinence to the short term future, or even just the past, or does its range cover a long term future or possibly even the length of existence itself? Another aspect is its ability to stand up to the widest range of opposing arguments. Of coarse the argument that has the widest and farthest forward reaching time frame usually has the best resilience to other arguments. Another extremely powerful resilience factor of an argument is its basis in logic. When an argument has logic that is free from emotional reasoning and does not contain unreal relations between elements (some extremely obvious examples would be. ‘It is good because it is green’ or ‘bigger/smaller is better’) then it becomes quite difficult at best, and more likely impossible, to argue against.

With all this in mind I ask all of you why I do not see a better foundation for which to base these arguments of why to proceed with impeachment? Thus when determining which specific argument to open or close with or have as a basis for overall reasoning, are you going to:
-attempt to argue a specific point where it easily gets lost amongst the multitudes of the others, or
-attempt to argue a series of points where each becomes a target of controversy and where they become obscured amongst themselves, or
-attempt to argue ‘morally right’ arguments that have emotional basis and whose truth is based in personal opinion, or
-attempt to argue points whose time range is the immediate future or even the past,
-Or are you going to open, remind, and close with a reasoning that holds the foundation of the possibly foreseeable future and can shake the foundation of the other arguments?

Why do I see so little, if any, of the ‘Prevention’ reasoning as a main basis for proceeding with an investigation? I certainly hope this reasoning is used more often when attempting to convince others that we should proceed with an investigation. Especially where it counts,.. In interfaces with politically known individuals like Dean and others who may not be fully supportive of the idea. How could one not heavily consider the negative impact for the whole future if we do NOT proceed?