|
Kimsemus posted:I think one of the overlooked tragedies of this election was sending a hack like Marsha Blackburn back to the Senate. Phil Bredsen is a Democrat in a very red state, but was well liked and very middle of the road. Definitely could have seen some positive, bipartisan movement with him in the Senate, but alas. error found, please resubmit post
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Maybe that'll be the difference, because currently running against Trump has not been a winning strategy. Uh..
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Maybe that'll be the difference, because currently running against Trump has not been a winning strategy. I mean, the house flipped, seems like that's gotta be in part about loving over turmpp
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
ummel posted:I understand why trump thread existed now. 2 day in and it's manchinchat and pelosibad. I have created a bridge to a new thread, but Chris Christie shut it down
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:That's the kicker. IF (big if) the Dems can successfully put out the message that impeachment dies in the Senate, running on it against Trump/etc in 2020 is a good play. when you say "it" in this sentence, what do you mean? because it's not clear to me and the meaning changes pretty dramatically based on what you mean ("it" being "if you elect enough of us in 2020 we'll impeach" vs "here's all the evidence republicans tried to cover up, vote out Trump and vote out his cover-up buddies") the former makes no sense to me, the latter makes perfect sense and I agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I agree with this. People seem to weirdly think Clinton "won" his whole scandal and impeachment saga because he kept his job, but it effectively rendered him a lame duck very early in his second term. The minute the word "Lewinsky" hit and Clinton committed the Democrats to defending the lie, any hope of the Democrats taking back either house in 1998 was gone, and it gave Bush a pretty sizable opening in 2000. Yeah, Newt hosed himself into the woods with the whole thing, but other than that I don't see the downside to the GOP for how it went down nor do I see any fruits of victory for the Dems. It did back fire against the Republicans in 98. They were expecting to pick up seats, but instead lost seats. The Democrats taking back the House in 98 was a crazy long shot to begin with. Hell, that failure is what caused Newt to step down. Fun little fact from wikipedia: "It was also the first time since 1822 that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term." So to say the impeachment was the reason the Dems didn't take back the House and there wasn't a downside for the GOP seems to go against history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Realistically I do not think you can run on impeaching a president who is running for re-election. If the evidence is public and yet the public re-elects him, the public made their decision: it would be both anti-democratic to remove him anyway, and backfire politically. It is a definite gamble to institute impeachment proceedings pretty much no matter what, and it's possible it's almost better to let Trump's scandals continue to follow him. Even if a bunch of them are lost with how rapid the news cycle is, he seemingly has more up his sleeve every day. The greatest thing about Trump is how incompetent his corruption is; the worst thing is that members of his staff have actually had some success in waging a war on the information media such that the truth increasingly has no bearing on how much of the population sees him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Well this is some garbage poo poo to wake up to. My mom lives in Thousand Oaks and my town's cell network is down so I can't get a call or text out to her. She doesn't go to clubs we have a lot of family friends who do and I'm pretty worried 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Remember when Chris Christie shut down all the NJ beaches on a summer weekend, and was subsequently photographed on his private beach looking like a smug walrus? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1060562596628176897
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The Senate investigates, and please explain to me what happens if he ignores it. the house can also investigate things, although you may know this and may have been talking specifically about impeachment-related stuff if he / the white house ignores subpoenas, the House of Representatives goes to the courts and says "hey the president is ignoring a subpoena" and the judge says "right, cough it up Donnie"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1060366300931874816 This is likely going to happen as a reward for her dropping Trump University charges
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:Maybe that'll be the difference, because currently running against Trump has not been a winning strategy. disagree. a huge amount of why democrats won on Tuesday was because they were running against Trump. They just didn't need to say it, because everyone knew a vote for democrats was a vote against trump, so any time spent saying that was wasted time you could be spending on stuff that might persuade people. the people persuaded that you needed to vote democratic to vote against trump already knew it. people who wanted to vote against republicans because they tried to steal your healthcare needed reminding that that's what republicans did, because it was a year ago and they spent a year since then lying about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I agree with this. People seem to weirdly think Clinton "won" his whole scandal and impeachment saga because he kept his job, but it effectively rendered him a lame duck very early in his second term. The minute the word "Lewinsky" hit and Clinton committed the Democrats to defending the lie, any hope of the Democrats taking back either house in 1998 was gone, and it gave Bush a pretty sizable opening in 2000. Yeah, Newt hosed himself into the woods with the whole thing, but other than that I don't see the downside to the GOP for how it went down nor do I see any fruits of victory for the Dems. This is revisionist history. The 1998 election was an overwhelming success for the Democrats. The President's party ALWAYS loses seats in the midterms, ESPECIALLY in the second term. Democrats actually GAINED seats in the House and didn't lose any in the Senate. There was never any hope of winning back the House and Senate in 1998, it would have been historically unprecedented. And it was literally the 2nd time in modern history that the President's party didn't lose seats in the House in a midterm election. (The 3rd being in 2002)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Trump could be caught on tape chanting death to America between giving sloppy blowjobs to Putin and the senate would never convict so yeah I doubt that Read the goddsmn constitution and the wikipedia article on the Clinton impeachment. This has been explained to death three times in two pages - impeachment requires the house. Full stop. An impeachment trial has value. Full stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Let us all join hands and pray the Ruth Bader Ginsburg recovers from her fall. Broken ribs are tough at her age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:You will never convince a chud of anything I'm as positive/optimistic as they come, and I've learned that if someone still supports Trump at this point you can't even get to them if it's something they care deeply about. It's like facing a cultist, which I guess they are
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I agree with this. People seem to weirdly think Clinton "won" his whole scandal and impeachment saga because he kept his job, but it effectively rendered him a lame duck very early in his second term. The minute the word "Lewinsky" hit and Clinton committed the Democrats to defending the lie, any hope of the Democrats taking back either house in 1998 was gone, and it gave Bush a pretty sizable opening in 2000. Yeah, Newt hosed himself into the woods with the whole thing, but other than that I don't see the downside to the GOP for how it went down nor do I see any fruits of victory for the Dems. a big part of the 2000 impact was Gore overreacting to the scandal and picking noted shithead Lieberman as his VP specifically to distance himself from clinton (because Lieberman was one of the strongest voices against Clinton over the whole scandal in the Democratic party), and basically distancing himself from Clinton in his race instead of running on taking credit for clinton's (at the time, popular) economy and promising more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You can imagine a scenario where his impeachment would matter even if he was not removed from office, because the evidence presented makes it manifestly obvious he's guilty and he should be removed from office, and by forcing Senate Republicans to either snub their base and vote to convict or snub the vast majority (who we are assuming, for argument's sake, exist) of people including a sizable minority of Republicans who believe he is guilty and should be removed from office by voting to aquit. i think there is enough republicans out there who hate trump or at least embarrassed by him, i have a ton of Eisenhower type republicans in my family, and they all either hate trump or are disgusted by him. i truly believe that if enough bad poo poo comes out, the senate will be forced to gently caress him over if only because the vast majority of the country don't want to be embarrassed by this moron anymore. corn in the bible posted:I don't really think the Dems will keep the house in 2020 but I guess we'll wait and see christ, you are negative today. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
The most powerful Democratic strategy of all is to run against Dino Rossi. Can we get him to run for Senate please? Or, hell, for President?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:when you say "it" in this sentence, what do you mean? because it's not clear to me and the meaning changes pretty dramatically based on what you mean ("it" being "if you elect enough of us in 2020 we'll impeach" vs "here's all the evidence republicans tried to cover up, vote out Trump and vote out his cover-up buddies") the former makes no sense to me, the latter makes perfect sense and I agree. It's the latter. I'm thinking we've just been talking across each other. If the Dems tried to impeach as soon as the House officially flips I think it falls flat and looks petty to moderates. If they build the case up to 2020 it will become more apparent just how much cover the GOP is willing to give him and "here's all the evidence republicans tried to cover up, vote out Trump and vote out his cover-up buddies" becomes a solid strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It is special in that he is under active investigation by an extension of the Department of Justice and was clearly attempting to dissuade this process, up to and including firing the head of the FBI to accomplish that. I think you can also make a good argument that firing Sessions and putting a loyalist in charge is also obstruction. Krugman laid it out well imo. There is basically no way to prevent the contents of Mueller's investigation from coming out now that the Dems have the House. This is why it was so crucial we won it on Tuesday. https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1060556572215201792 https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1060558339078283264
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is not currently going to a runoff, because in the current vote count he has more than 50%. There is zero chance Abrams can pull in enough votes to pull ahead when all provisionals are counted; but her hope is to get enough that he drops below 50%. Ah, I only had heard the false reports. Man, fuckin bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:christ, you are negative one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
If Trump is impeached out instead of voted out then Pence gets to put a horse on the Supreme Court
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
My stance is Trump will die of a stroke after screaming like a baby about Don Jr or Kushner being prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think you can also make a good argument that firing Sessions and putting a loyalist in charge is also obstruction. The new AG will have to be confirmed by the Senate. This guy is a temporary condition, good up to 230 days. Small distinction but still there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Democrats just need to begin impeachment so they can subpoena Trump, and call Diamond Dallas Page as a surprise witness, the moment testimony begins he would come out of nowhere with a Diamond Cutter, which is a legally binding expulsion from office according to article Self-High-5
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think you can also make a good argument that firing Sessions and putting a loyalist in charge is also obstruction. Sessions resigned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:if he / the white house ignores subpoenas, the House of Representatives goes to the courts and says "hey the president is ignoring a subpoena" and the judge says "right, cough it up Donnie" Yes I know this. Trump can just continue to ignore it and honestly I expect this scenario to happen at some point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think you can also make a good argument that firing Sessions and putting a loyalist in charge is also obstruction. quote:Trump's anger over the loss may have moved him to act without thinking things through slow your roll there, buddy, let's not get crazy here Fart Amplifier posted:Yes I know this. Trump can just continue to ignore it and honestly I expect this scenario to happen at some point. that didn't go great for nixon and clinton lost his closely adjacent case
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:My stance is Trump will die of a stroke after screaming like a baby about Don Jr or Kushner being prosecuted. You're implying that Trump cares about either of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:Democrats just need to begin impeachment so they can subpoena Trump, and call Diamond Dallas Page as a surprise witness, the moment testimony begins he would come out of nowhere with a Diamond Cutter, which is a legally binding expulsion from office according to article Self-High-5 If DDP is not available then Jim Acosta can step in, as his martial art skills are legendary
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Kimsemus posted:The new AG will have to be confirmed by the Senate. This guy is a temporary condition, good up to 230 days. Small distinction but still there. I can't even believe I'm saying this, but if Christie is really the AG pick that is a legit good pick for the country given that Trump is picking. Christie's not as racist/hateful as Sessions and probably isn't going to cover up Trump crimes/fall on his own sword for Trump. So long as he agrees in his confirmation hearings that Trump isn't above the law he probably gets 70+ votes. corn in the bible posted:Sessions resigned. Semantics. His letter literally said he was resigning at the President's request. That's a firing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:It's also wrong. As much as anything can be said 2 years out, the House is likely safe. Plenty can shift between midterms and a general election, I wouldn't necessarily bank on it. The Senate is still being waited on obviously, if the Democrats win Arizona then may have at least a chance of taking back the Senate, if the Republicans, it is going to be much tougher. As for Trump, honestly his best bet is to use the AG as a shield, but let the report go through. Muller has already tampered down expectations, and without the possibility of impeachment, it is probably his better bet. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Sessions resigned. At the request of Trump. Which is just a cordial firing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Sessions resigned. He really should have demanded to be fired, if only out of spite. He probably would have held the position to term if he did, actually, since trump is too much of a coward to fire someone personally. VVV When are chuds not angry?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Is it possible that Trump really got so high on his own supply that he thought Republicans would retain the House? Is that why the chuds are so angry, despite the Senate results?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:It's also wrong. As much as anything can be said 2 years out, the House is likely safe. I probably agree with this, because it looks like what happened in the House was more of a partisan realignment than a pure enthusiasm gap. 2010 was an enthusiasm gap, but then it was gerrymandered into being locked in - Democrats could have taken it back in 2012 but for the gerrymandering. Here, it looks like suburbs who shifted from Romney to Clinton but still hadn't rejected the Republican party (still believing that "good republicans" existed and would be a check on Trump) fully defected to the Democratic party. That, I think, will persist in 2020 because Trump isn't exactly going anywhere, and 2018 turnout was pretty close to what we can expect in 2020 rather than only Democrats but not Republicans turning out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Yes you can, because part of the impeachment process is an investigation. It won't matter though because Trump is going to ignore it and the Senate won't convict. The Senate won't convict, but Trump wouldn't ignore it. He would have big baby meltdowns like we haven't seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:25
|
|
