US Politics: It’s Not A Crime If Your Feelings Got Hurt

[Martell Spy]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't see how this would make it work -- if anything, it would increase the resistance to the plan. A substantial number of the people who are worst off today never went to college and will not see a dime of this money. Neither will the people who worked hard to pay off their loans and delayed important things like having children until the debts are paid. Other than the fact that the people who will be receiving money under this scheme have a high chance of voting for Warren to begin with, there is no reason why money should be handed out to this set of people rather than some other set. We could, for example, simply give money to the poorest without consideration for college. Alternatively, with the same $1.2T, we could fund literally a dozen moonshot programs to solve global warming to the tune of $10B per year per program. There's a whole bunch of other ways to spend the same money; I'm sure everyone can think of one that they like.

Do the Republicans, who you are voting for constantly, have a plan to give money out to the poorest? Or do they instead have a plan to slice up the flesh of the poor and feed it to the pigs? And why are you constantly voting for and cheer-leading for these domestic terrorists?

[Martell Spy]

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Another topic within US politics entirely:

It drives me crazy when people say that you can't impeach Trump because the GOP effort to impeach Clinton seemed to help Clinton.  This seems like unbelievably lazy reasoning as the situations are vastly different.

I don't mean to say that impeachment is a no-brainer for the Dem House right now.  I just mean to say that if anyone's like "but the GOP experience in the 90's!" then that is terrible reasoning.  I have heard some media person or other throw there out there too many times, and it's irritating.  

I think at a minimum they need to investigate Trump's financials before impeachment. I don't think voters will tolerate 2 attempts at impeachment. It seems wise to have all the evidence at a minimum for one attempt.

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Do the Republicans, who you are voting for constantly, have a plan to give money out to the poorest? Or do they instead have a plan to slice up the flesh of the poor and feed it to the pigs? And why are you constantly voting for and cheer-leading for these domestic terrorists?

To answer your questions in order: 1) No and I've never voted for them, 2) No and 3) Mostly because I find the rhetoric in this question and the many variations on this theme constantly brought up in these threads distasteful.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Triskele said:

It drives me crazy when people say that you can't impeach Trump because the GOP effort to impeach Clinton seemed to help Clinton.  This seems like unbelievably lazy reasoning as the situations are vastly different.

It may be vastly different, yes, but it's also literally the only relevant example - no, Nixon is not because the GOP was behind that as well.  So, in a way it's instructive to not make the same mistakes Gingrich and the GOP made during that fiasco.  In that way, yeah, I actually think it's good to keep that in mind.

[DMC]

47 minutes ago, Triskele said:

It happened over a prolonged period of time after more and more damning revelations came out.  

I think it's also important to remember that in both Nixon and Clinton's cases it was when they were lame ducks, or had already won reelection.  Granted, in Nixon's case that was inherent to the scandal, but that's the whole ridiculous part about Watergate in the first place - he would have easily won anyway.  It was just an example of a guy that was out of hand.  With Nixon it was because of a combination of depression and drinking.  Trump's a teetotaler, right? 

Maybe that's just a facade, but I think the abject depression is there.  There's the famous scene in Oliver Stone's Nixon where Nixon makes Kissinger pray with him.  I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is at that point.  I don't know where I'm going with all of this, except just to say Nixon's impeachment was a process - and that process wasn't coming up against a reelection.  The Dems can raise holy hell but still not initiate impeachment proceedings.  Thus far that seems the way to go.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Mostly because I find the rhetoric in this question and the many variations on this theme constantly brought up in these threads distasteful.

What, exactly, about this rhetoric to you find "distasteful?"  Maybe look inward on that one.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't see how this would make it work -- if anything, it would increase the resistance to the plan. A substantial number of the people who are worst off today never went to college and will not see a dime of this money. Neither will the people who worked hard to pay off their loans and delayed important things like having children until the debts are paid. Other than the fact that the people who will be receiving money under this scheme have a high chance of voting for Warren to begin with, there is no reason why money should be handed out to this set of people rather than some other set. We could, for example, simply give money to the poorest without consideration for college. Alternatively, with the same $1.2T, we could fund literally a dozen moonshot programs to solve global warming to the tune of $10B per year per program. There's a whole bunch of other ways to spend the same money; I'm sure everyone can think of one that they like.

I generally agree with this.  It's a pretty arbitrary proposal for a governmental expenditure (and does her plan address the tax bill side of this?  Because it will amount to people getting free money, and I kinda think that should be subject to tax somehow).    

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, DMC said:

It may be vastly different, yes, but it's also literally the only relevant example - no, Nixon is not because the GOP was behind that as well.  So, in a way it's instructive to not make the same mistakes Gingrich and the GOP made during that fiasco.  In that way, yeah, I actually think it's good to keep that in mind.

I know you already know this, but there’s a major difference between the two: popularity. Clinton was poll in the 60’s when he was getting impeached, while Trump is literally the only president to never crack 50% approval. A majority of Americans will always oppose him, so there’s a lot less to lose in impeaching him. I would do a lot of polling in Midwestern states beforehand, but if the data comes back with similar results then I’d go ahead and do it. Trump’s behavior cannot go unchecked. The precedent he’s creating is extremely damaging.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I generally agree with this.  It's a pretty arbitrary proposal for a governmental expenditure (and does her plan address the tax bill side of this?  Because it will amount to people getting free money, and I kinda think that should be subject to tax somehow).    

You’re a junkie.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re a junkie.

pretty much

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

pretty much

So at a tax lawyer party, do you guys chop up and snort a copy of the tax code?

Wouldn’t be the weirdest thing a person has snorted, to be fair. I once paid a kid to snort everything off of a table we were playing beer pong on (and previously kids were cutting up pills on). Safe to say it led to one of the worst bloody noses I’ve ever seen. Money well spent.

I think I also burned $1,000 that night. Saint Cloud can do that to a man. Fun times.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Clinton was poll in the 60’s when he was getting impeached, while Trump is literally the only president to never crack 50% approval. A majority of Americans will always oppose him, so there’s a lot less to lose in impeaching him. I would do a lot of polling in Midwestern states beforehand, but if the data comes back with similar results then I’d go ahead and do it. Trump’s behavior cannot go unchecked. The precedent he’s creating is extremely damaging.

Fair argument in terms of the difference between the two, but that still doesn't change the electoral calculation.  If you think impeachment will hurt the opposition effort - and it almost certainly will because all polling shows it's unpopular - then there's no point with no chance at conviction in the Senate.  Just pass a censure.  Hell, do dozens of them.

[DMC]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So at a tax lawyer party, do you guys chop up and snort a copy of the tax code?

I always assumed tax lawyer parties ended up at Patrick Bateman's house.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So at a tax lawyer party, do you guys chop up and snort a copy of the tax code?

Wouldn’t be the weirdest thing a person has snorted, to be fair. I once paid a kid to snort everything off of a table we were playing beer pong on (and previously kids were cutting up pills on). Safe to say it led to one of the worst bloody noses I’ve ever seen. Money well spent.

I think I also burned $1,000 that night. Saint Cloud can do that to a man. Fun times.

 

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I always assumed tax lawyer parties ended up at Patrick Bateman's house.

I actually belong to a tax club, so I'm qualified to answer this question.  Since the meetings occur at the University Club, I would say that the meetings are more like this.  Even funnier is that the guy who presides is this guy who has an uncanny resemblance to Mr. Burns, except for the fact that he is pretty left wing and a genuinely lovely human being.  Now the summer meetings get a little crazy, but what happens at tax nerd camp stays at tax nerd camp.......  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

actually belong to a tax club, so I'm qualified to answer this question.  Since the meetings occur at the University Club, I would say that the meetings are more like this.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Hey - how'd you get video footage of the Summer Meeting?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair argument in terms of the difference between the two, but that still doesn't change the electoral calculation.  If you think impeachment will hurt the opposition effort - and it almost certainly will because all polling shows it's unpopular - then there's no point with no chance at conviction in the Senate.  Just pass a censure.  Hell, do dozens of them.

Honestly, I don’t think anything matters that much at this point outside of a tanking economy. Trump’s support and hatred is baked in. The aftermath of the Mueller reported showed us this. An impeachment attempt will bring Trump supporters home in the short run, and excite the liberal base, but that’s it. If they’re going to do it, best do it sooner than later and get it over with.

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

I always assumed tax lawyer parties ended up at Patrick Bateman's house.

Bateman works in mergers and acquisitions, and his taste in music was far too cultured for tax attorneys.

They would probably approve of his morning preparations though. And his personal artwork.

[HexMachina]

Keeping on the right side of history again 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/22/us-un-resolution-rape-weapon-of-war-veto

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

I actually belong to a tax club, so I'm qualified to answer this question.  Since the meetings occur at the University Club, I would say that the meetings are more like this.  Even funnier is that the guy who presides is this guy who has an uncanny resemblance to Mr. Burns, except for the fact that he is pretty left wing and a genuinely lovely human being.  Now the summer meetings get a little crazy, but what happens at tax nerd camp stays at tax nerd camp.......  

So it’s like band camp?  

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

An impeachment attempt will bring Trump supporters home in the short run, and excite the liberal base, but that’s it.

No, that's not it.  Independent voters, at least the ~10% that are actually swing voters, still matter.  And polling strongly suggests they think impeachment is stupid.