|
Barr destroyed his credibility by lying about why Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction, claiming obstruction is impossible without an underlying crime (though actually there were underlying crimes Trump sought to hide, just probably not indictable collusion) and other things, but that's not enough to impeach him. Being a useful idiot to protect a corrupt president isn't a high crime or misdemeanor unless a conspiracy can be proven. Hasn't happened with Barr yet and probably won't. As for impeaching Trump, I'm in the wait & investigate camp. Same with subpoenaing the full report. Barr's dishonesty gives the Democrats sufficient cover for a subpoena, since the manner of the release is his decision, but there's no reason not to wait a few days until the impact of the report settles. People haven't had time to digest the full impact of 300+ pages. The report itself gives the Democrats cover for further investigations but not impeachment at this stage. The smart thing to do as some Dems have pointed out is to proceed on a dual track. There are many hearings that can be conducted that are functionally impeachment hearings. The tracks won't really diverge for several months at least. In that time the Democrats could be in a stronger position to impeach, with further evidence of criminal conduct (like from following up on Cohen's testimony), which could likely be enough to make impeachment actually politically neutral. Right now impeachment would still be politically harmful to Democrats, though less suicidal than 2 weeks ago. For now, we have a report that validates much of the press coverage of the last 2 years, which is important actually, and will cause some moderate and reluctant Trump supporters to grapple with who he is. It's entirely possible we will look back on this moment and say the report made just enough difference to prevent his re-election. It's also possible it won't. I urge restraint. The US may be a 1st world country economically but it's now a 2nd world country politically. This shapes my perspective in numerous ways. Many in this thread underestimate how damaging it will be politically for Democrats to be seen focusing on impeachment. It's already bad enough that Democrats' investigations dominate the news cycle more than their legislative work. Most people are clear they care more about issues. The Democrats need more of the Republicans' message discipline to hammer home they are there to legislate, oversight and accountability are critical but ultimately second to that.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
The Barr situation is just another episode of 'Trump minion sacrifices their reputation, lying to the camera to protect Trump'. It's the Attorney General of the United States, so it's more serious, but it matches the pattern of what happened with Kelly, Mattis, Pompeo, Spicer, Tillerson, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Eregos posted:I urge restraint. The US may be a 1st world country economically but it's now a 2nd world country politically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Those don't mean what you think they do. It's not a ranking. though you could make a decent argument for the US now being a third-world country politically, in that all internal political activity is necessarily based around the terror of what would happen if you pissed off the President of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
1st world: Nato 2nd world: Soviet Union 3rd world: other people who aren't important So yeah, the us isnt gonna flip on that because it describes political affiliation from 30-70 years ago and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Eregos posted:I urge restraint. The US may be a 1st world country economically but it's now a 2nd world country politically. This shapes my perspective in numerous ways. Many in this thread underestimate how damaging it will be politically for Democrats to be seen focusing on impeachment. The reason we're in this mess in the first place is because Democrats have allowed Republicans to do whatever they want without punching back for decades now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Those don't mean what you think they do. It's not a ranking. I took Eregos's post as comparing US and Russian politics rather than as a ranking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I took Eregos's post as comparing US and Russian politics rather than as a ranking. Then he meant the opposite: our economy is more second world than first, and our politics are very first world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:1st world: Nato I forgot about the Russian collision, so I guess we were in the second world all along.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:1st world: Nato I mean - this is what it means absolutely if you look it up or you're writing an academic paper - but this is not at all what it means 99% of the time when you hear people say it. It's a rich country/poor country distinction, so it's entirely reasonable that somebody without a lot of historical knowledge would see 1st world/3rd world get thrown around and think there was a middle gradient in there. Silver2195 posted:I took Eregos's post as comparing US and Russian politics rather than as a ranking. Oh this didn't even occur to me
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
I'm pretty sick and tired of adding the caveat 'I mean 2nd world as in between 1st and 3rd world, which is an entirely valid definition used by many scholars, not 2nd world as in communist' so sometimes I don't bother. It's not just a matter of that being common parlance - this definition is actually used in academic circles also. In fact these differing definitions of 2nd world are part of the reason the term has fallen largely out of use. But I prefer it to 'developed world', 'developing world' and 'undeveloped world' because developing and undeveloped are often lumped together. Now that the Soviet Union is long gone and China is no longer meaningfully communist, there aren't any powerful ideologically communist nations, 2nd world really should be fully embraced as in between 1st and 3rd. But unfortunately no one can force society to recognize that change. Eregos fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Apr 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Traditionally, income inequality hasn't been a defining factor in assessing level of economic development, if it's weighed highly enough the USA could well be ranked below 1st world. There are also plenty of non-NATO non-US allied 1st world economies, like Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria. Without considering income inequality, the US is still a 1st world economy for the time being.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Eregos posted:I'm pretty sick and tired of adding the caveat 'I mean 2nd world as in between 1st and 3rd world, which is an entirely valid definition used by many scholars, not 2nd world as in communist' so sometimes I don't bother. It's not just a matter of that being common parlance - this definition is actually used in academic circles also. In fact these differing definitions of 2nd world are part of the reason the term has fallen largely out of use. But I prefer it to 'developed world', 'developing world' and 'undeveloped world' because developing and undeveloped are often lumped together. Is there even an "undeveloped world"? Bhutan, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
The undeveloped world really means very minimally developed, it traditionally includes nations like Eritrea, Chad, Mauritania, Mali, Central African Republic, Congo, DRC, Sierra Leone, Niger, and for the sake of geographic diversity, Papua New Guinea. In recent years the term Least Developed Countries or LDCs has become more popular amongst scholars because its more technically accurate and less likely to cause offense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:The reason we're in this mess in the first place is because Democrats have allowed Republicans to do whatever they want without punching back for decades now. Republicans have ruthlessly undermined norms whenever it suits them, with increasingly little restraint, it's true. Broadly speaking, political factions only show respect for norms when there is a price for not doing so. But for the past decade Republican voters entirely stopped punishing their elites for this behavior. Democrats should punch back when it's politically effective to do so, impeaching Barr or impeaching Trump at this moment would be political quagmires that would hurt public perception and distract from their agenda. After threatening to impeach Obama over the IRS scandal, Benghazi and Fast & Furious, House Republicans ultimately realized the same thing. The difference here is the Democrats actually have a plausible case for impeachment, but that's not enough to make it smart politics. Part of the reason for this is that moderation is found on the Democratic side in the US (moderate liberals like me), not the Republican side (anymore). As a result, Democrats risk more alienation and fragmentation by pushing things too far. Whereas Republicans are far more ideologically homogeneous, at least by region. An example - Republicans no longer watch or read the mainstream press but generally only absorb right-wing media, but Democrats still watch and read mainstream press and other Democrats primarily read left-wing press. Democrats should be out there forcefully on Fox News, right-wing and mainstream media pushing the proven fact Trump ordered and carried out acts of obstruction. They may or may not be prosecutable under civil code, but they are certainly highly unethical and improper and even illegal. (Not everything that's illegal is prosecutable, hopefully everybody learned that from the Hillary e-mail scandal). Again if the Republicans were in the Democrats' position, they'd do a much better job forcefully laying down this truth every chance they got. I've seen representatives skillfully pivot from this to discussing legislation but it doesn't happen often enough. It's a tough balancing act but it can be done. Eregos fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Apr 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
How did the 1st/2nd/3rd World terms become popularized anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
The cold war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:The cold war. Though their meanings were quite different. First World meant US allies. Second World meant Soviet allies. Third World meant non-aligned countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
It was also a play on the first second and third estates that were part of the French hierarchy before the revolution if memory serves (clergy, nobility, and Commoners)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
So here's something that happened in one of the more liberal towns in Alaska in April (with similar harassment apparently going back a few years): Restaurant vandalized with racist threats quote:Wasabi’s Bistro just outside of Homer was vandalized with a racist message sometime between Wednesday night and Thursday morning. Since this happened, the (decent half of the) community has stepped up support, but this poo poo is loving disgusting. Throw it on the pile for whenever some shithead tries to argue that Trump doesn't incite racism. E: The comments are all Smollet  E2: This is the same split town that made the news when the conservative half of the city council tried to recall the liberal half for making a non-binding resolution opposing intolerance, and then the loving Lower Kenai Peninsula elected the shitbird leading the initiative to the state house. Stickman fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Apr 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Stickman posted:So here's something that happened in one of the more liberal towns in Alaska in April (with similar harassment apparently going back a few years): Perhaps they should have put that time and effort into teaching kids how to spell. Unless the dude knew he'd make the news and wanted them to tell the world how "sic" he was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 12:15
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Perhaps they should have put that time and effort into teaching kids how to spell. Unless the dude knew he'd make the news and wanted them to tell the world how "sic" he was. Oh my god, it literally calls them Nigers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
i am harry posted:If anyone wanted to know what "move the campus" man looked like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1120560464935649281
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
All roads lead back to GITMO! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Ted Cruz is bad at writing tweets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
I mean, "the Internet grew up free from government regulation and we're restoring the status quo" is just a straight-up lie, too. It was a lie when that rear end in a top hat Ajit said it, and it's just as wrong today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I mean, "the Internet grew up free from government regulation and we're restoring the status quo" is just a straight-up lie, too. It was a lie when that rear end in a top hat Ajit said it, and it's just as wrong today. If anything, the Internet only started to go rotten when government control over it was lessened to scum-sucking corporations' interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:If anything, the Internet only started to go rotten when government control over it was lessened to scum-sucking corporations' interest. The internet has been all over the place when it comes to regulation. Internet media companies fought mightily to get the DMCA passed, which represents major government oversight (and not in the interest of the citizens). It was fairly lax early on, though of course if you go back far enough you'd start talking about DOD clearance and telecom access. Social media relies heavily on being able to redistribute media without being held responsible for it, which is an ideal level of laissez faire government for them, but Facebook's stock price crash last year represented a realization that it also signifies a major corporate weakness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:7. Maybe it's just more rats jumping off the sinking ship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gwupoe/status/1121057209536921601
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
What does Pelosi have to gain from trying to prevent impeachment anyway? More clout? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What does Pelosi have to gain from trying to prevent impeachment anyway? More clout? Decorum
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
I guess Clarence Thomas should be relieved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What does Pelosi have to gain from trying to prevent impeachment anyway? More clout? She doesn't want impeachment as a political spectacle. She wants impeachment as removing Trump from office, and we're not there yet. She has to dial up the pressure until the Senate Republicans crack. Then it's viable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What does Pelosi have to gain from trying to prevent impeachment anyway? More clout? She's rich, surrounded by rich people, and is only capable of conceptualizing politics as the rich do, which is as an idle indulgence, devoid of any real meaning, consequences, or pressing urgency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What does Pelosi have to gain from trying to prevent impeachment anyway? More clout? Her calculation is probably something like: Does impeaching Trump help D turnout more than it helps R turnout? And if so, does it do so to a sufficient degree to make worth it to ask vulnerable Dems take a stand on it in their purple districts? She probably discounts the "but we're normalizing the crimes" argument with the fact that all we've done since Nixon's pardon was let the GOP do whatever crimes it wants and simply move forward afterward. She might think that taking back control is the only way to really do good, in that maybe legislation can be passed to fix the problem, and any political action like impeachment must be seen in light of whether it helps or hurts winning elections. Kobayashi posted:She's rich, surrounded by rich people, and is only capable of conceptualizing politics as the rich do, which is as an idle indulgence, devoid of any real meaning, consequences, or pressing urgency. I'll change my answer to this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
All of the above things are true, and also she has to be the last House Democrat to say the words. Let the caucus get there. If they're not going to get there, that's more on them and their constituents than it is the Speaker. With all that said, I will again note that I agree with basically every nasty thing said about her on this page.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2019 17:15
|
|
