|
Joementum, what's your take on the first Clinton impeachment? e: My take is that, while it was politically a horrible thing for Republicans, the Republican House was well within its rights to bring Clinton up on impeachment. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Apr 25, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Joementum, what's your take on the first Clinton impeachment? Completely absurd, but also understandable. It's what the Republicans were promising their constituents they would do and lo, they did it. An excellent reflection on the priorities of that party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:My take is that, while it was politically a horrible thing for Republicans, the Republican House was well within its rights to bring Clinton up on impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And Well you need to be clearer because when you said that she's an out group here I assumed "here" was the USA in general. If you meant this subforum you should have said so. Also I don't recall ever "bemoaning" her. I actually intend to vote for her in 2016 assuming she gets the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The House is within its rights to impeach on a majority for pretty much whatever the gently caress it wants. And yet, Obama remains unimpeached, thus proving the GOP isn't racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well you need to be clearer because when you said that she's an out group here I assumed "here" was the USA in general. If you meant this subforum you should have said so. Also I don't recall ever "bemoaning" her. I actually intend to vote for her in 2016 assuming she gets the nomination. They're talking about the 08 elections and the various posters who don't support Clinton. Most of this forum is center left there aren't too many left wing posters but they get talked about alot because it makes it easier too ignore complaints if you can go "loving commie won't settle for anything less than full socialism  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:And yet, Obama remains unimpeached, thus proving the GOP isn't racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Completely absurd, but also understandable. It's what the Republicans were promising their constituents they would do and lo, they did it. An excellent reflection on the priorities of that party. Pretty much, it was dumb but they spent so much time saying "WE'RE GONNA DO IT JUST WATCH" they kinda had to. That's why they've been more cagey about saying the I word with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Pretty much, it was dumb but they spent so much time saying "WE'RE GONNA DO IT JUST WATCH" they kinda had to. That's why they've been more cagey about saying the I word with Obama. They could push the drone thing into a successful impeachment now that they control both houses imo, especially with the US citizen deaths the news has been blaring constantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:And yet, Obama remains unimpeached, thus proving the GOP isn't racist. That's because they don't have a valid reason that wouldn't backfire. If Obama lied under oath about getting a b hizzie I guarantee you McCain and the Turtle would die in the stampede to cast impeachment votes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And wait who's joking
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:That's because they don't have a valid reason that wouldn't backfire. If Obama lied under oath about getting a b hizzie I guarantee you McCain and the Turtle would die in the stampede to cast impeachment votes. Nah. Boehner is the reason there won't be impeachment. He's smart enough to know that it wouldn't help the party. Obama would be getting impeached at this very moment over the immigration stuff if someone less pragmatic was at the wheel
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Nah. Boehner is the reason there won't be impeachment. He's smart enough to know that it wouldn't help the party. Obama would be getting impeached at this very moment over the immigration stuff if someone less pragmatic was at the wheel Yeah, as much poo poo as we give that chain smoking oompa loompa most of it stems from him trying and failing to herd the feral cats formally known as tea partiers which is why he can't do poo poo to even push the GOP addenda. I mean I never thought I would have said this 5 years ago, but thank the tea party faction for being uncompromising true believers since that's been the major thing keeping the establishment GOP from actually passing horrible poo poo left and right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah, as much poo poo as we give that chain smoking oompa loompa most of it stems from him trying and failing to herd the feral cats formally known as tea partiers which is why he can't do poo poo to even push the GOP addenda. I mean I never thought I would have said this 5 years ago, but thank the tea party faction for being uncompromising true believers since that's been the major thing keeping the establishment GOP from actually passing horrible poo poo left and right. And that's why unless you
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The poor transition that began Bill's first term led to a series of crises that contributed significantly to the Republican takeover in '94 and caused Clinton to pivot to the right in '96. It had real consequences that lasted throughout his time in the White House. Mistakes often have real consequences. And you are countering an argument that I didn't make. My entire point was that in order to have something worthy of concern you must not simply state that a mistake was made but also show that no lessons were learned from it. When you indicate that they cleaned up their act in the same post that you describe the mistake you are doing the opposite of that so your case that I should be concerned here is not convincing. Not many people get a second chance to have a transition ... Did historic presidents that had non-consecutive terms do better or worse in their second transitions? Why should prior experience not give Clinton an advantage here? Joementum posted:The "team of rivals" metaphor was used to describe the Obama transition, not Hillary's campaign, I disagree. From outside the political junkie sphere the "Team of Rivals" description was everywhere to refer to a book published about Lincoln on the best seller list ( and my nightstand - also a slog btw ). It was a popular meme used to apply to everything and both candidates latched onto its popularity in different ways seeking to gain credibility be assuring people that they invited many points of view. Because clinton lost there was a fair amount of scapegoating going on - as always happens when a group of humans loses - and in post mortem books about her campaign the conclusion was that they worked against each other rather than with each other and Clinton didn't reign them in adequately. The book I got that impression from was recommended on this forum possibly by you Joe. They may or may not have used the catchphrase, but they were certainly giving the strategy a try. Joementum posted:Have they learned from these experiences? As I mentioned, the early evidence from the setup of her campaign this year suggests that they have. Podesta and Mook are aggressively leaking internal memos that say they won't tolerate infighting. So why bring it up? I mean, you didn't mention it as a footnote in a list of concerns, you made the focus of your entire post nebulous concerns about a situation that you acknowledge the evidence suggests is clearly in hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
McAlister posted:She is an out group here. Which is why when you guys bemoan her it's mostly tone arguments or hand waving about how she shouldn't be given credit for good thing X because she's really a horrible selfish money grabber who is just pretending to be a caring person. I believe this is true, but on the other hand it is also true of the majority of politicians on the national level. Grapplejack posted:They could push the drone thing into a successful impeachment now that they control both houses imo, especially with the US citizen deaths the news has been blaring constantly. They love the drone program as long as the person in charge has an R next to their name, so that won't happen. Fuckt Tupp fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Nah. Boehner is the reason there won't be impeachment. He's smart enough to know that it wouldn't help the party. Obama would be getting impeached at this very moment over the immigration stuff if someone less pragmatic was at the wheel We dump on Boehner, with great justification of course, but if there's one thing he deserves some recognition for it's managing, barely, to keep the slavering fanatics from completely slipping the leash. To be clear: I mean we ought recognize that takes political ability and not a little spine, not that his doing so is necessarily some great public service. McAlister posted:Also something I expect she has learned from? Somewhere in Redmond WA, a man with poor understanding of delegate allocation pauses to look at his phone for several minutes. It remains silent the entire time, and with a long sigh he turns back to his work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:And yet, Obama remains unimpeached, thus proving the GOP isn't racist. The Obama administration is possibly the most scandal free administration in modern times. I'm talking about real scandal, not the made up poo poo that the GOP parades out every news cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if comes out some day that Obama lived his presidency in fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, touching the wrong person at the wrong time. The guy had to establish a new moral high mark for being the President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
radical meme posted:The Obama administration is possibly the most scandal free administration in modern times. I'm talking about real scandal, not the made up poo poo that the GOP parades out every news cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if comes out some day that Obama lived his presidency in fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, touching the wrong person at the wrong time. The guy had to establish a new moral high mark for being the President. Well that's just racist to imply that this country has a higher moral standard for black people than for white ones...
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
radical meme posted:The Obama administration is possibly the most scandal free administration in modern times. I'm talking about real scandal, not the made up poo poo that the GOP parades out every news cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if comes out some day that Obama lived his presidency in fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, touching the wrong person at the wrong time. The guy had to establish a new moral high mark for being the President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I disagree. From outside the political junkie sphere the "Team of Rivals" description was everywhere to refer to a book published about Lincoln on the best seller list ( and my nightstand - also a slog btw ). It was a popular meme used to apply to everything and both candidates latched onto its popularity in different ways seeking to gain credibility be assuring people that they invited many points of view. You can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. The "team of rivals" meme from 2008 was explicitly about (and disseminated by) the Obama transition team to highlight his willingness to work across ideological boundaries, chiefly his (poor, as it turned out) decision to retain Robert Gates. quote:So why bring it up? I mean, you didn't mention it as a footnote in a list of concerns, you made the focus of your entire post nebulous concerns about a situation that you acknowledge the evidence suggests is clearly in hand. I guess I didn't make my point clear as I could have. Perhaps an example would help clarify. Terry McAuliffe is in South Carolina today acting as a surrogate for Hillary's campaign. If we have to put up with the Macker as a Governor to keep an insane Bible banger out of power, fine, I suppose. But I'd prefer not to see people like him get positions in the next administration when there are many more qualified, if less connected, individuals. He has plenty of company in the Clinton world and my main concern with her prospective administration is their promotion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:That's because they don't have a valid reason that wouldn't backfire. If Obama lied under oath about getting a b hizzie I guarantee you McCain and the Turtle would die in the stampede to cast impeachment votes. If Obama lied under oath about getting a b hizzie, I think we'd have a female President right now. radical meme posted:The Obama administration is possibly the most scandal free administration in modern times. I'm talking about real scandal, not the made up poo poo that the GOP parades out every news cycle. I wouldn't be surprised if comes out some day that Obama lived his presidency in fear of saying or doing the wrong thing, touching the wrong person at the wrong time. The guy had to establish a new moral high mark for being the President. Obama allowed the rise of ISIS out of fear of commitment, and only intervened when threatened with the imminent occurance of a second Benghazi, an act which most assuredly would have resulted in his impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:They're talking about the 08 elections and the various posters who don't support Clinton. Most of this forum is center left there aren't too many left wing posters but they get talked about alot because it makes it easier too ignore complaints if you can go "loving commie won't settle for anything less than full socialism I can settle just fine, thank you very much. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:The new head of the FCC is a guy who ran a cable ISP in the 80s similar to AOL that was run out of business by the telecommunication companies' and AOL's business practices so he knows a thing or two about this. Like the one time putting a businessman in charge of regulation works, he got screwed and wants to unfuck it for everyone else. Call me cynical, but I think he just wants revenge on the companies that hosed him, not because he gives a poo poo about consumers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Call me cynical, but I think he just wants revenge on the companies that hosed him, not because he gives a poo poo about consumers. It's also worthy to note that Wheeler doesn't exclusively control policy at the FCC, and one of the other Democrat commissioners (for those who don't know how commissions work, they typically have 5 members, 3 of which are the party of the president and 2 the opposition) has a good background in consumer advocacy, so she might pull things in that direction a bit. The other 3 commissioners are all pretty much establishment shills though
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It ain't a rumor that the Clinton Foundation has some awfully fishy donations going on. Yeah, it is. The "direct donations" claim hasn't been substantiated by anyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And that's why unless you Or go the Singapore route and construct a system of laws that allow you to bankrupt any critic and then use systemic over-criminalization and over-penalization with selective enforcement to shut them down for good. You run a one party dictatorial state and get praised as a beacon of freedom. Tyranny 2.0 - now with less bloodshed!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
RaspberryCommie posted:I can settle just fine, thank you very much. I'm willing to accept functional social democracy, myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It kinda surprises me actually. Get rid of the black radical muslim commie socialist usurper and you lose them as a means to bilk money from your idiot followers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
That's some Alex Jones/Glenn Beck logic right there. You should send that theory in to them. radical meme fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Apr 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Obama allowed the rise of ISIS out of fear of commitment, and only intervened when threatened with the imminent occurance of a second Benghazi, an act which most assuredly would have resulted in his impeachment. What are you talking about
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The poor transition that began Bill's first term led to a series of crises that contributed significantly to the Republican takeover in '94 and caused Clinton to pivot to the right in '96. It had real consequences that lasted throughout his time in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:What are you talking about He's repeating the common talking point and remembering history. Obama's commitment to ending Iraq and opposition to using ground forces in a middle eastern conflict is usually framed as "fear/weakness/treachery that made us lose in Iraq and now the people we are fighting there became ISIS". It was almost that word for word in the NR article I linked earlier this week. As to the second part, our intervention to save the Yazidi is commonly seen as when we started fighting ISIS but we first starting engaging them in response to the threats that led to us closing 19 embassies and consulates in 2013
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
It was also assumed before and during the war that our departure would leave a power vacuum that would be filled, likely by radical militants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The poor transition that began Bill's first term led to a series of crises that contributed significantly to the Republican takeover in '94 and caused Clinton to pivot to the right in '96. It had real consequences that lasted throughout his time in the White House. The "team of rivals" metaphor was used to describe the Obama transition, not Hillary's campaign, which was full of Clinton loyalists fighting for the influence of the candidate and her husband. Have they learned from these experiences? As I mentioned, the early evidence from the setup of her campaign this year suggests that they have. Podesta and Mook are aggressively leaking internal memos that say they won't tolerate infighting. But the recent squabble to lead the Clinton Foundation (along with that organization's seeming inability to provide competent accounting) and the fact her staff felt that setting up a private server for Sid to gossip with her about the Obamas was a good idea suggests that the lesson hasn't been fully absorbed. As I understand it, the decisions like the email server or the Clinton Foundation donations were all years ago. It's not necessarily contradictory to say that Clinton absorbed those lessons over time. Grapplejack posted:They could push the drone thing into a successful impeachment now that they control both houses imo, especially with the US citizen deaths the news has been blaring constantly. Impeachment requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. There's no way you get 12 Democratic Senators voting to convict Obama unless you've got him dead-to-rights on something Nixonian in scale. It's one thing to vote against someone's policy or vote to censure someone, it's quite another to vote the President out of office, and any Democratic officeholder who did so based on trumped-up Fox News Scandals would face a lot of backlash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:It was also assumed before and during the war that our departure would leave a power vacuum that would be filled, likely by radical militants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:If Obama lied under oath about getting a b hizzie, I think we'd have a female President right now. I love you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:What are you talking about Pay no mind to the littlest wonk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
radical meme posted:The Obama administration is possibly the most scandal free administration in modern times. What about all the illegal NSA spying? I'm probably in the minority but the whole Snowden affair pissed me off so badly that I'd actually welcome an Obama impeachment over it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:What about all the illegal NSA spying? I'm probably in the minority but the whole Snowden affair pissed me off so badly that I'd actually welcome an Obama impeachment over it. What illegal NSA spying? Do you mean the completely legal but awful NSA spying?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 23:32
|
|
