Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Dirt From Ukrainians, Bombs for Iranians, Shut Down Your Brainiums...


Secretary of Eumenes

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

and just call it for what it was: Trump pressured Ukraine's president to manufacture lies about Biden's son for his own political gain

How more impeachable high crimes and misdemeaners does get than that?

But in the meantime, Pelosi and her ilks stand around emoting to themselves: "To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question, whether it is nobler to blahblahblahblah and etc."

The unending investigation into Trump was biased in an unprofessional manner.  So of course Mueller didn't know this (or anything else, apparently) but someone spent a few minutes instead of years and put together what Mueller didn't care to, that his investigation had been Manufactured by the president's political rivals and never would have gotten off the ground without their cheating of the justice system to get it in gear. 

So, with all the recent manufacturing of evidence being done by the left, your statement here ^ is to imagine the president did something as heinous as your side has?  Something that even the wild assed media won't say?   As part of his pattern of behavior? ...he has always called in to news outlets to give them story ideas about himself.  But what's so great about the media today is he doesn't even have to call anymore- - - they're ready to cook up a new batch of lies all on their own each day to keep his name going strong.  Which really makes it their pattern of behavior moreso than his.    

Pelosi hasn't been sane for a while, but she remembers the feel of it.  She knows how to ape it, to pretend.   And she's the top dog at the business of doing what works, politically, which is why she's also been damned for some time.  So, for her to be the lone ranger holding out against the crazier crazies, that's a poetic end, a fitting tribute to the world she wrought.  If you rachet up the crazy long enough within the party, it will finally overflow and flood even the top floor of capital hill where she thought she was safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

That being said, as I argued the last time we talked about this a few months ago, the House Dems could turn up the volume on investigations - still pretty much waiting on that one.  It's not like they're too busy passing actual legislation, there's no excuse there.  Plus I still think the censure is a decent compromise.  It'd be pretty historic, and the Senate isn't even required to take it up if the House passes a resolution (and almost certainly wouldn't), so it's not gonna look like a loss.

The house can't do shit with regular investigations.  They ask fo stuff, get denied, they subpoena the administration, who don't show up, they hold them in contempt, and get laughed at as they give another Fox interview.

If you truly want to 'turn up the volume on investigations', the only tool that has any constitutional bite is to start an impeachment investigation.  I'm not sure what else could possibly be done to turn that kind of heat up without opening up an impeachment investigation.

A censure?  Nobody will give it more than 24 hours.  It's worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

The house can't do shit with regular investigations.  They ask fo stuff, get denied, they subpoena the administration, who don't show up, they hold them in contempt, and get laughed at as they give another Fox interview.

You don't need the WHO or even top cabinet officials' compliance to hold hearings - there are plenty of ways to 'turn up the volume.'

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

If you truly want to 'turn up the volume on investigations', the only tool that has any constitutional bite is to start an impeachment investigation.  I'm not sure what else could possibly be done to turn that kind of heat up without opening up an impeachment investigation.

Um, if your position is that regular investigations are toothless, why in the hell would impeachment investigations not be just as toothless?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

7 minutes ago, aceluby said:

A censure?  Nobody will give it more than 24 hours.  It's worthless.

How the hell would you know - or anybody?  Were you there that one other time a president was censured - in 1834?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sologdin said:

rile up his base even more

the weakness of this oft-repeated point is that his voters are always already riled up.  they don't have a realizable state of contentment. they are the accursed share of the modern world and can never be persuaded by any sort of argument--we will simply have to await their dying off and deal with their nuisance democratically until that time.

Um, so you didn't catch your slip up just now.    You just admitted that you're the one with no chance of ever changing, because it was stated automatically that you'll still be of the same opinion once the rest of humanity dies of gluten.  You're already looking forward to the senility division of this neverending bitchfit.   You know, for the last two years, you guys are the ones who've lost it and demonstrated this 'always riled up' demeanor.   The trump voters are much more likely to have resumed normal life.   And the Trump voters did change their minds.  They stopped voting blue in those battleground states and got him elected.   If the trump voters are 'accursed' it's a curse your ilk has imposed on America by refusing to accept the election and move on with your lives.  It's churlish.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said:

The trump voters are much more likely to have resumed normal life.   And the Trump voters did change their minds.  They stopped voting blue in those battleground states and got him elected.   If the trump voters are 'accursed' it's a curse your ilk has imposed on America by refusing to accept the election and move on with your lives.  It's churlish.

You know who else haven't exactly moved on and returned to their normal lives?  The 40% of House Republicans that have either quit or lost their seats since Trump was inaugurated.  But sure, that is the Democrats' fault by kicking their ass in 2018 and House GOP members anticipating they'll do the same in 2020 with Trump at the top of the ticket.  So, sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

You don't need the WHO or even top cabinet officials' compliance to hold hearings - there are plenty of ways to 'turn up the volume.'

Um, if your position is that regular investigations are toothless, why in the hell would impeachment investigations not be just as toothless?  That makes absolutely zero sense.

How the hell would you know - or anybody?  Were you there that one other time a president was censured - in 1834?

Hearings on what?  Nobody is showing up and no documentation is being given?  That's what they've been doing for months and have gotten nowhere.

They have more power under an impeachment investigation than regular ones.  The scope is broader, they have the ability to get documents they can't under normal circumstances, and the main reason the administration gives for ignoring requests is that there is no "legislative purpose" to the requests - which flies in the face of an impeachment proceeding.

As to the censure, I can actually see that backfiring worse than an impeachment investigation that goes nowhere.  A formal Tsk Tsk from Pelosi?  It looks spineless.

I can see being against an impeachment investigation, but not if you're suggesting more toothless investigations instead.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

Hearings on what?  Nobody is showing up and no documentation is being given?  That's what they've been doing for months and have gotten nowhere.

They have more power under an impeachment investigation than regular ones.  The scope is broader, they have the ability to get documents they can't under normal circumstances, and the main reason the administration gives for ignoring requests is that there is no "legislative purpose" to the requests - which flies in the face of an impeachment proceeding.

First, you can subpoena people who will show up - it's not like everybody in the intelligence agencies nor even the DoJ is going to ignore a subpoena just because the WHO asks them to.  Second, if you subpoena someone and the refuse to show up, you cite for contempt.  Third, if they refuse to turn over documents, you take them to court.  All of these things they could be doing right now and perfectly within their constitutional powers.  Fourth, what makes you think the administration will be any more inclined to comply with an impeachment proceeding?  If anything they'll be less so.  Where in Article 1 Sections 2 and 3 does it say impeachment investigations are broader in scope?  The administration is already ignoring the law by refusing to comply, they wouldn't be ignoring it more if it was an impeachment proceeding.

6 minutes ago, aceluby said:

As to the censure, I can actually see that backfiring worse than an impeachment investigation that goes nowhere.  A formal Tsk Tsk from Pelosi?  It looks spineless.

The rationale - publicly - by Pelosi is that there's no reason to impeach if we can't convict.  If that remains to be the case, I think the rationale for saying, "this conduct is unprecedented and therefore deserves unprecedented condemnation of the presidency" is a pretty strong case.  Impeaching without conviction looks just as spineless - and has the "exoneration" aspect in the Senate to boot.  I don't see how it makes any sense that a censure would look more spineless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paladin of Ice said:

it’s not like ____ and ________ and the Stormers of the world are ever going to stop riling people up, no matter the lies and fabrications that need to be told to serve their purposes

CNN and MSNBC fit in the blanks just as easily as Fox and Breightbart, though it's incredibly difficult to get anyone to say it, huh?   Clearly everyone has been getting riled.   Your fav sources have dropped many many many "smoking gun" stories over the recent years as soon as it became clear there was no gun and the only smoke was coming from their bongs.   The author of a book comes on the show, drops bombshells, then the next day when pressed admits he made that Trump stuff up, because it's how you get on TV.  And most of the time they don't even rely on outsiders like that, why when you can say outlandish stuff yourself as the host.  And these stories just disappear, no retractions, no accountability.  It's a war machine, only they've gone to war on their own country, messing with their viewers for ratings, to keep you riled.    But it's okay when you like what they're selling, so we only mention the other guys' news and not the need for all sides to check themselves.   You need a cooling down period before buying a gun.  How long should some of these news sources have to wait before doing political headlines again?  Two years if the penalty was equal to their abuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

If you have no chance to convict, which pretty everyone acknowledges (or at least should), then the calculous is purely political.  And it's gonna look like very damn bad politics when Trump is "exonerated" by the Senate, bottom line.

Personally I think it's more likely to make the Republican Senators look bad! It's going to be extremely obvious that they're acting corruptly, ignoring the facts of the case they're supposed to be judging in order to protect their own party. The Impeachment process puts the spotlight on Trumperdoo's actual crimes for an extended period, which can't be a bad thing however it ends. And if that sways public opinion enough, it's not inconceivable that some Senators could defect; it's not as if any of them actually like Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, felice said:

Personally I think it's more likely to make the Republican Senators look bad! It's going to be extremely obvious that they're acting corruptly, ignoring the facts of the case they're supposed to be judging in order to protect their own party. The Impeachment process puts the spotlight on Trumperdoo's actual crimes for an extended period, which can't be a bad thing however it ends. And if that sways public opinion enough, it's not inconceivable that some Senators could defect; it's not as if any of them actually like Trump.

I'm going to put this as delicately as I can:

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

With all due respect, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, felice said:

Personally I think it's more likely to make the Republican Senators look bad! It's going to be extremely obvious that they're acting corruptly, ignoring the facts of the case they're supposed to be judging in order to protect their own party. The Impeachment process puts the spotlight on Trumperdoo's actual crimes for an extended period, which can't be a bad thing however it ends. And if that sways public opinion enough, it's not inconceivable that some Senators could defect; it's not as if any of them actually like Trump.

See this line of thinking works when you have an educated, thoughtful citizenry. We have neither of those ATM, which is why we're in this s*** in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, felice said:

Personally I think it's more likely to make the Republican Senators look bad! It's going to be extremely obvious that they're acting corruptly, ignoring the facts of the case they're supposed to be judging in order to protect their own party. The Impeachment process puts the spotlight on Trumperdoo's actual crimes for an extended period, which can't be a bad thing however it ends. And if that sways public opinion enough, it's not inconceivable that some Senators could defect; it's not as if any of them actually like Trump.

Like I said, the only GOP Senators this may affect are those in immediate electoral peril (I did forget Gardner [CO], who's most imperiled).  But that's 4 Senators.  The rest aren't going to risk getting primaried in the future by voting to impeach their party's president unless Trump's GOP approval goes down to ~65%.  In which case conviction looks a lot more plausible, so sure, impeach away.  But it's far more likely that doesn't happen based on the intractability of Trump's base and GOP MCs for that matter.  So it's a rather pie-in-the-sky risk that is very likely to be a political loser when we have an election in 14 months anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, felice said:

Personally I think it's more likely to make the Republican Senators look bad! It's going to be extremely obvious that they're acting corruptly, ignoring the facts of the case they're supposed to be judging in order to protect their own party. The Impeachment process puts the spotlight on Trumperdoo's actual crimes for an extended period, which can't be a bad thing however it ends. And if that sways public opinion enough, it's not inconceivable that some Senators could defect; it's not as if any of them actually like Trump.

Not even bringing court orders, filing cases and bringing impeachment charges at this point when the entire frackin' world KNOWS he and his are breaking every law of the goddess and man every single minute of every single day is infinitely more damaging, in fact, ruinous than not successfully getting the senate to vote yes.  What it says to the whole world that from now on, whoever is president of the US is totally above and outside the law and immune to any consequence of any kind.  (Including, presumably, history's judgment, for there will be nothing left to make history out of this era.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

The unending investigation into Trump was biased in an unprofessional manner.  So of course Mueller didn't know this (or anything else, apparently) but someone spent a few minutes instead of years and put together what Mueller didn't care to, that his investigation had been Manufactured by the president's political rivals and never would have gotten off the ground without their cheating of the justice system to get it in gear. 

So, with all the recent manufacturing of evidence being done by the left, your statement here ^ is to imagine the president did something as heinous as your side has?  Something that even the wild assed media won't say?   As part of his pattern of behavior? ...he has always called in to news outlets to give them story ideas about himself.  But what's so great about the media today is he doesn't even have to call anymore- - - they're ready to cook up a new batch of lies all on their own each day to keep his name going strong.  Which really makes it their pattern of behavior moreso than his.    

Pelosi hasn't been sane for a while, but she remembers the feel of it.  She knows how to ape it, to pretend.   And she's the top dog at the business of doing what works, politically, which is why she's also been damned for some time.  So, for her to be the lone ranger holding out against the crazier crazies, that's a poetic end, a fitting tribute to the world she wrought.  If you rachet up the crazy long enough within the party, it will finally overflow and flood even the top floor of capital hill where she thought she was safe.

Any evidence of the bolded?  No? Didn't think so. 

Additionally, the Mueller investigation would have been concluded sooner if Trump had cooperated instead of dragging his feet at every possible instant.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Mother of The Others said:

CNN and MSNBC fit in the blanks just as easily as Fox and Breightbart, though it's incredibly difficult to get anyone to say it, huh? 

Equating Obama and Trump, CNN and Breitbart, or (to be a bit technical) Bob Woodward and Peter Schweizer, is crazy.
Yes, in the end their functions are the same within each political sphere, but to dismiss the fundamental differences between them as regards substance shows that you've basically lost any kind of ability to understand what is going on in US politics.

1 hour ago, The Mother of The Others said:

The author of a book comes on the show, drops bombshells, then the next day when pressed admits he made that Trump stuff up, because it's how you get on TV.  And most of the time they don't even rely on outsiders like that, why when you can say outlandish stuff yourself as the host.  And these stories just disappear, no retractions, no accountability.

I remember seeing the retraction of several stories in the Washington Post or the New York Times (Trump made a big deal out of some of those), but I don't remember writers like Wolff or Woodward ever admitting to "making stuff up." Did I miss something? Or are you thinking about sources whose credibility was dubious to begin with? I'm curious.

1 hour ago, The Mother of The Others said:

It's a war machine, only they've gone to war on their own country, messing with their viewers for ratings, to keep you riled. But it's okay when you like what they're selling, so we only mention the other guys' news and not the need for all sides to check themselves.   You need a cooling down period before buying a gun.  How long should some of these news sources have to wait before doing political headlines again?  Two years if the penalty was equal to their abuses.

I'll give you that the "mainstream" or "liberal" media has made mistakes and thus made their hatred of Trump quite clear, but to believe that they are "at war with their own country" is basically saying that you will now follow Trump whatever happens or close enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not even bringing court orders, filing cases and bringing impeachment charges at this point when the entire frackin' world KNOWS he and his are breaking every law of the goddess and man every single minute of every single day is infinitely more damaging, in fact, ruinous than not successfully getting the senate to vote yes.  What it says to the whole world that from now on, whoever is president of the US is totally above and outside the law and immune to any consequence of any kind. 

Well, I agree with you on court orders and filing cases, as I've mentioned, but how does failing to convict in the Senate when the case is as egregious as you describe it less damaging?  Doesn't that simply demonstrate for a certainty that as long as a president holds onto his base there aren't even political risks to illegal behavior?  Which in turn would be a clear-cut example for the president to know all he has to do to shirk any consequences is to continue to reinforce polarization.  Not exactly the historical precedent anyone should be looking to set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...