U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but Sanders' extending his campaign beyond a reasonable point didn't help anyone.

So did Hillary's in 2008.  Why did Obama win in 2008 and Hillary didn't in 2016?  Because of their, and their respective campaigns, own merits - on top of, of course, environmental factors.  The data on prolonged or particularly competitive presidential primaries affecting that party's general election nominee is decidedly inconclusive, or null.  And many people have tried (myself included) - the reason you can't find many, if any, studies on this isn't publication bias, it's because the results don't tell us shit.

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sanders prolonged primary challenge was not what cost Clinton the election, but it did play some roll in it. 

There have been many efforts to operationalize this apparent roll/factor, and none of them have borne fruit.

[DMC]

Just catching up on today's hearings now.  I love Fiona Hill admonishing and lecturing the GOP members with her British accent.  The top-flight DC S&M establishments are gonna make a shit-ton of money tonight.

[Ran]

23 minutes ago, felice said:

It's not your fault if a bank error deposits a million bucks in your account. That doesn't make it wrong for the bank to take the money back.

Sure, but that's a situation where it was never your money in the first place, so you've no legal right to it. I don't think anyone can credibly contest that Buffett and Gates and so on don't actually have a legal right to that money they have. They obviously do.  It may be a problem that this is the case, but it doesn't mean the equitable way to fix it is to confiscate that wealth you consider excessive when what should be addressed are the presently-legal things that shouldn't have been legal in the first place.

To the rest, I'd just refer to @Mlle. Zabzie's response to these things.

[Zorral]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

I love Fiona Hill admonishing and lecturing the GOP members with her British accent. 

In the meantime, somehow, at least among 'independents', impeachment has fallen from their favor, They Say.

All these sudden changes -- Warren becoming enemy #1 for the nation and the Dems, odd others rising so well in some state, without any national change, etc. -- since the private meeting of the Big $zuck and bedbug.

[felice]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't think anyone can credibly contest that Buffett and Gates and so on don't actually have a legal right to that money they have. They obviously do.  It may be a problem that this is the case, but it doesn't mean the equitable way to fix it is to confiscate that wealth you consider excessive when what should be addressed are the presently-legal things that shouldn't have been legal in the first place.

They only have a legal right to it until the law changes. And it's generally accepted that governments can pass laws that remove people's right to money that they were previously entitled to keep (ie new/increased taxes). It might be difficult to get a federal wealth tax passed in the US, but it's at least theoretically possible, and it's not fundamentally different from or less reasonable than other existing taxes. And a fence at the top of a cliff might be better than an ambulance at the bottom, but that doesn't mean the people who've already fallen off should be ignored.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Look Jace, I know you're cynical about these things, and often times you're right to feel that way, but you're wrong here. Ethical individuals inside the government and in NGOs are probably our best hope to take Trump down. The only reason we're even having these hearings is because someone saw something and said something, and thank god s/he did. 

Counterpoint: it has not changed his polling one way or another, at all. 

This kind of magical bullshit thinking has been going on for 3 years now and it continues to be magical bullshit thinking. Again, LOL NOTHING MATTERS. The big difference between republican voters and democratic voters is that, like you, democratic voters are willing to turn on their own. Republcians aren't. 

There is no cavalry coming. The Republicans aren't going to turn on trump ever. If he shot someone the spin would be mostly about how the person they shot was no saint, and isn't the real issue how Warren wants to shoot everyone who is rich? 

Fuck your optimism about ethical government and honorable politicians and following the rules. That era is done, assuming it ever existed. 

[Kalbear]

Also counterpoint - if trump's plan had worked, we would have had a SIGNIFICANTLY better case for impeachment. That the whistleblower came forward was in many ways politically shit. Biden got, if anything, even more slammed for this and more negative press towards him, while trump once again simply failed to carry out his conspiracy successfully. 

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The Republicans aren't going to turn on trump ever.

I think this is too strong a statement. Certainly, neither Republican Senators (beyond perhaps an outlier or two like Romney) nor the majority of Republican voters are going to turn on Trump based on the kind of stuff we've heard thus far. However, if there was, for example, a video of Trump doing something very obviously wrong, I think most Republicans would indeed turn on him. It would take a lot though... and the amount it would take is increasing.

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm....

 

Graham launches his own investigation of the Ukrainian fiasco, focusing, of course, on the Biden's.

 

Trump claims he welcomes an impeachment trial, expecting Biden to be a key witness whose testimony will justify his behavior.  

 

And I'm wondering:  'really?  the presidents defense is a debunked conspiracy theory? And there are senior elected officials, entrusted with significant authority, who embrace this strategy? '

 

Anyhow:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wants-senate-trial-expects-joe-biden-to-testify-white-house/ar-BBX96P7?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/graham-launches-probe-of-bidens-burisma-and-ukraine/ar-BBX8Pkt?ocid=msnclassic

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Barack Obama exhorted some of Silicon Valley’s wealthiest Democratic donors to “chill” in their debate over the party’s candidates, seeking to ease the tensions among tech billionaires who have broken into separate camps backing Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and — most surprisingly — Elizabeth Warren.

And even if the eventual nominee is not “your perfect candidate,” Obama said, “I don’t care.”

At a high-dollar fundraiser on Thursday nestled across the street from hiking trails winding through the Los Altos Hills in California, the former US president downplayed 2020 candidates’ differences as merely disagreements over “tactics” — even as he reiterated concerns about his party possibly going too far to the left.

“Everybody needs to chill out about the candidates,” Obama said. “But gin up about the prospect of rallying behind whoever emerges from this process and making sure that we’re hitting the ground running.”

 

Barack Obama tells Silicon Valley’s leading donors to “chill out” over differences between candidates
“I don’t care” if it’s not “your perfect candidate.”

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/21/20976733/barack-obama-dnc-fundraiser-silicon-valley

[Kalbear]

54 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I think this is too strong a statement. Certainly, neither Republican Senators (beyond perhaps an outlier or two like Romney) nor the majority of Republican voters are going to turn on Trump based on the kind of stuff we've heard thus far. However, if there was, for example, a video of Trump doing something very obviously wrong, I think most Republicans would indeed turn on him. It would take a lot though... and the amount it would take is increasing.

We literally had him on video exclaiming in vulgar terms that he liked to sexually assault women and get away with it. AND HE GOT ELECTED AFTER THAT. 

Dems, meanwhile, turned on their candidate because of email security that ended up being bullshit. 

Kids are fucking dying in concentration camps on trump's explicit orders. They're washing up dead on the shore of the rio grande. What video of trump doing something horribly wrong wouldn't be spun as "we didnt elect a boy scout" or "the real problem is mexicans"?

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Hmmm....

 

Graham launches his own investigation of the Ukrainian fiasco, focusing, of course, on the Biden's.

 

Trump claims he welcomes an impeachment trial, expecting Biden to be a key witness whose testimony will justify his behavior.  

 

And I'm wondering:  'really?  the presidents defense is a debunked conspiracy theory? And there are senior elected officials, entrusted with significant authority, who embrace this strategy? '

 

A debunked conspiracy theory is a sound basis for government policies when the base is so successfully programmed that the debunking is official proof of its validity.

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Fuck your optimism about ethical government and honorable politicians and following the rules. That era is done, assuming it ever existed. 

Yeesh, this does not seem like a proportional response.  Clearly the cynical love and despair posture is still the right one to take right now - according to 538 support for removal continues to go down from 46.5% to 45.6% in the four days since I last mentioned it - but that doesn't negate Ty's point.  First, he didn't mention "honorable politicians" at all in the post you quoted.  Second, just because voters are not moved by these witnesses' testimony, that doesn't discount the importance of them coming forward and how their "ethical" conduct is unfortunately now the most important check to presidential power (dependent on party).

So since the hearings are over, let's take stock of that.  We've had..12 witnesses in the public hearings, I think.  All but Yovanovitch were directly hired by the Trump administration.  All but Sondland are career bureaucrats (even if technically all of them in their current/most recent positions would be counted as political appointees, operationally).  All but Morrison provided expressly damaging testimony impugning Trump and/or Giuliani's conduct.

Without these careerist bureaucrats, we would not know why Trump held up the military aid as long as he could before he got caught.  Without these careerist bureaucrats, Trump's conduct wouldn't be as politically damaging as these hearings have and will bog his reelection prospects down.  That's not nothing, even if Trump gets reelected and the worst case scenario happens with him going Palpatine all over America's asses.

Also, full disclosure, this whole thing is great fodder for someone completing his dissertation on the bureaucracy's impact on policymaking, specifically regarding its influence on Congress and the presidency.

[Rorshach]

For someone on the outside looking in:

A logical next step would seem to subpoena Bolton/Mulvaney/Giuliani. However, I seem to remember at least some of them challenging the legality of a subpoena. 

Is there anything happening on that front, and could it impact the next step, or have the proceedings come as far as they can?

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

A logical next step would seem to subpoena Bolton/Mulvaney/Giuliani. However, I seem to remember at least some of them challenging the legality of a subpoena. 

Is there anything happening on that front, and could it impact the next step, or have the proceedings come as far as they can?

All three mentioned have been subpoena'd and are refusing to comply.  The next step would be taking it to court to compel their testimony and/or relevant documents.  The Dems have made the determination doing so is not worthwhile based on the limited timeline.  They want to impeach by Christmas so the Senate trial is hopefully done by the Iowa Caucuses.  No presidential candidate wants this going on when they may be winning the primaries and becoming the standard bearer against Trump.  And Pelosi rightly doesn't want that to happen either.

[Rorshach]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

All three mentioned have been subpoena'd and are refusing to comply.  The next step would be taking it to court to compel their testimony and/or relevant documents.  The Dems have made the determination doing so is not worthwhile based on the limited timeline.  They want to impeach by Christmas so the Senate trial is hopefully done by the Iowa Caucuses.  No presidential candidate wants this going on when they may be winning the primaries and becoming the standard bearer against Trump.  And Pelosi rightly doesn't want that to happen either.

I think I can see the political calculus there, but it seems sort of risky losing the power of the subpoena unchallenged.

Or, to put it in (possibly) a better way: not challenging it may set a precedent for future attempts.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Rorshach said:

Or, to put it in (possibly) a better way: not challenging it may set a precedent for future attempts.

That's a fair concern, but I don't really think so.  This seems like simply a timing issue.  Of the three other examples we have of impeachment hearings, Clinton and Nixon were already reelected when it happened.  Johnson's impeachment actually is pretty close if you're just looking at a calendar, but primaries didn't exist then, campaigns were much shorter, and comparing administrations/elections from the 1860s is very faulty regardless.

Anyway, particularly after Sondland's testimony, I understand the urge to force Giuliani/Pompeo/Mulvaney/Perry/Bolton to testify.  But thinking about it, is it really gonna matter?  They're gonna either stonewall or be thrown under the bus just like this current round.  Forcing Giuliani is the only exception there, because everyone else - even Pence - is just gonna point the finger at him like Sondland did.  Moreover, if the public/voters aren't moved by this point, what makes you think they will by those guys testifying?

[Rorshach]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's a fair concern, but I don't really think so.  This seems like simply a timing issue.  Of the three other examples we have of impeachment hearings, Clinton and Nixon were already reelected when it happened.  Johnson's impeachment actually is pretty close if you're just looking at a calendar, but primaries didn't exist then, campaigns were much shorter, and comparing administrations/elections from the 1860s is very faulty regardless.

Anyway, particularly after Sondland's testimony, I understand the urge to force Giuliani/Pompeo/Mulvaney/Perry/Bolton to testify.  But thinking about it, is it really gonna matter?  They're gonna either stonewall or be thrown under the bus just like this current round.  Forcing Giuliani is the only exception there, because everyone else - even Pence - is just gonna point the finger at him like Sondland did.  Moreover, if the public/voters aren't moved by this point, what makes you think they will by those guys testifying?

I don't really think it will matter much, no. However, having people who deserve it be thrown under the bus is sort of saifying in its own right. Also, who knows what may come up as they throw each other under various busses.

Ultimately, for me here in Norway, it doesn't matter much.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

However, having people who deserve it be thrown under the bus is sort of saifying in its own right.

Heh, can't disagree with that.  That's basically what happened with Iran-Contra.  Then they all got pardoned.

[Larry of the Lawn]

How much of a sham is the Senate trial going to be?  Like can McConnell just decide that the judiciary just submits articles of impeachment and then the Senate votes but refuse to permit any oral arguments?