|
theflyingorc posted:Her husband is an investment banker, one of the most lucrative careers that exists? Just ignoring the evidence of her insider trading? lol Your bias toward the incompetent morons that are the D establishment is pretty pathetic.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Zotix posted:I absolutely believe it does. Cenk on the Young Turks(I know he's not a favorite of everyone) had a good little segment on it last night. He might not known of the classified server, or the specific details that we all know now, but I bet he knew the contents of that phone call. And he basically Noped right the gently caress out at that point. And he called up his long time assistant Sue Gordon to nope right the gently caress out as well. He likely knew that stuff wasn't going to be good if he had to answer to it, and got out while it was still smart of him to. Yea this. There is also a chance that Coats was one of the people who discussed the whole thing with the whistleblower, and then resigned knowing what was about to come. Coats loving hates trump and has been very vocal about it for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The voters were against impeachment on everything else. They support it for Ukraine. I don't buy that the public really cares about Biden's connection to any of this. What they care about is that the President did something illegal. Nor do I believe for a second that they would say, "Oh, well, we were for impeachment on Ukraine, but now that you're dragging his hush payments to a pornstar, or his obstruction of justice w/r/t the Mueller probe, into this? Better call the whole thing off." As Mehdi pointed out, a majority of voters thought, and still think, that Trump obstructed justice with the Mueller probe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Just ignoring the evidence of her insider trading? lol What evidence? Please show your work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't buy that the public really cares about Biden's connection to any of this. What they care about is that the President did something illegal. Nor do I believe for a second that they would say, "Oh, well, we were for impeachment on Ukraine, but now that you're dragging his hush payments to a pornstar, or his obstruction of justice w/r/t the Mueller probe, into this? Better call the whole thing off." As Mehdi pointed out, a majority of voters thought, and still think, that Trump obstructed justice with the Mueller probe. The fact that Trump asked Ukraine for dirt on the front-runner is what makes this huge. If Biden is politically dead and irrelevant, that takes a LOT of the wind out of the sales for impeachment. Its not a surprise to the voters that Trump broke the law, they now think he broke many laws, this would just be one more on the pile. The political thing is what makes it explosive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The voters were against impeachment on everything else. They support it for Ukraine. yeah. my ideal is investigate poo poo out of ukraine and nail him for every crime you pick up during that investigation. for right now, focused impeachment seems to be doing well so idk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I don't get why anyone would defend Pelosi. What the gently caress is her track record of accomplishment that you want to defend? Even if you want to give her credit for the ACA, that was a decade ago! Her political track record in the Obama and Trump era's is heinous. Forget about her poo poo politics, just as a political leading of a parliamentary party she is an utter failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The voters were against impeachment on everything else. They support it for Ukraine. The voters in general that do care about the current issue probably don't care as much about it involving Biden as the out of touch old guard of the DNC. Dapper_Swindler posted:yeah. my ideal is investigate poo poo out of ukraine and nail him for every crime you pick up during that investigation. for right now, focused impeachment seems to be doing well so idk. If the house investigations get ahold of the other call logs this could easily explode. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The fact that Trump asked Ukraine for dirt on the front-runner is what makes this huge. Not really. It's that Trump asked Ukraine for dirt on any political opponent. It's that he outright asked/bribed a foreign official to interfere in an election. The fact that it was Biden is really, really, super-incidental to all of this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't get why anyone would defend Pelosi. What the gently caress is her track record of accomplishment that you want to defend? Even if you want to give her credit for the ACA, that was a decade ago! Her political track record in the Obama and Trump era's is heinous. Other things that were a decade ago, those same allegations of Insider Trading you now drag out. You can't play it both ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Other things that were a decade ago, those same allegations of Insider Trading you now drag out. You can't play it both ways. This is the most bad faith of bad faith defenses. You can't do better than this? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:yeah. my ideal is investigate poo poo out of ukraine and nail him for every crime you pick up during that investigation. for right now, focused impeachment seems to be doing well so idk. yeah, if Ukraine was going to take a while, thats fine. The problem with the "lets build lots of charges first" plan, is that Ukraine wont take long, at all. The Dems need a few interviews, and they'll be done. Completely, totally, done with their case on Ukraine well before christmas. Everything else wont be ready till well into next year. Add in the fact that the political value of this vote greatly diminishes after Biden is out if he loses, and they cant really wait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't buy that the public really cares about Biden's connection to any of this. What they care about is that the President did something illegal. Nor do I believe for a second that they would say, "Oh, well, we were for impeachment on Ukraine, but now that you're dragging his hush payments to a pornstar, or his obstruction of justice w/r/t the Mueller probe, into this? Better call the whole thing off." As Mehdi pointed out, a majority of voters thought, and still think, that Trump obstructed justice with the Mueller probe. this. if the dems drag other charges in on the impeachment show, bully for them. No one cares about the biden poo poo because he didn't really do anything wrong, he is losing the primary slowly and its boring. trumps crime is easy to sum up and him and his morons keep making the crime worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't buy that the public really cares about Biden's connection to any of this. What they care about is that the President did something illegal. Nor do I believe for a second that they would say, "Oh, well, we were for impeachment on Ukraine, but now that you're dragging his hush payments to a pornstar, or his obstruction of justice w/r/t the Mueller probe, into this? Better call the whole thing off." As Mehdi pointed out, a majority of voters thought, and still think, that Trump obstructed justice with the Mueller probe. I think it's premature to assume that these items won't also be tacked on to articles. I think it's safe to assume that anything that is already adjudicated would be included (Mueller's probe, for instance). At this point I think they don't want to wait months and months for court battles on other items like tax returns, that likely won't be concluded by the election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I don't buy any argument that has a base premise: "The American People are not stupid" I don't think that's the basis of Mehdi's argument at all, though. It's that the evidence we have available suggests that the public does care about Trump's other crimes, and wouldn't be against roping all that in with impeachment. skylined! posted:I think it's premature to assume that these items won't also be tacked on to articles. I think it's safe to assume that anything that is already adjudicated would be included (Mueller's probe, for instance). At this point I think they don't want to wait months and months for court battles on other items like tax returns, that likely won't be concluded by the election. Well, you and I have a different definition of a narrow scope of impeachment, then. I hope you're right, but the fact that they're trying to rush this in before the end of the year makes me skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is the most bad faith of bad faith defenses. You can't do better than this? So do things from a decade ago matter or not  EDIT: It speaks volumes that you won't even link the allegations, which means either A) it doesn't actually matter or B) you're arguing in bad faith
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:yeah, if Ukraine was going to take a while, thats fine. The problem with the "lets build lots of charges first" plan, is that Ukraine wont take long, at all. The Dems need a few interviews, and they'll be done completely, totally, done with their case on Ukraine well before christmas. Everything else wont be ready till well into next year. ok, then thats fine. they can try to nail trump on ukraine and use the senate failing to do anything(and trumps various reprisals) as ammo for presidency and senate seats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't get why anyone would defend Pelosi. What the gently caress is her track record of accomplishment that you want to defend? Even if you want to give her credit for the ACA, that was a decade ago! Her political track record in the Obama and Trump era's is heinous. Forget about her poo poo politics, just as a political leading of a parliamentary party she is an utter failure. Yes she's a terrible politician and a worse speaker. Asking you to support your claims about her illegal corruption isn't defending her, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So do things from a decade ago matter or not I said part of the reason that she got rich was insider trading. Did that money disappear in the last 10 years? Or did it make more money for her. That's the same thing as asking what a political parties' leader has accomplished in the last 10 years? Really? Are you that dumb? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't get why anyone would defend Pelosi. What the gently caress is her track record of accomplishment that you want to defend? Even if you want to give her credit for the ACA, that was a decade ago! Her political track record in the Obama and Trump era's is heinous. Forget about her poo poo politics, just as a political leading of a parliamentary party she is an utter failure. So you're demanding people say what things Nancy Pelosi has done, but only accepting things that happened while she was House Minority leader?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Once you get to next summer, I don't think the Dems would impeach Trump for anything whatsoever anymore other than, well murder or Tom Clancy poo poo. By then, the voters will go "uhh....whats even the loving point, we're voting soon. Let your presidential candidate use that, and let us decide."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Can't we dream of a scenario that takes out Trump and Biden? Why aren't any of the lower tier democratic candidates discussing the obvious corruption by Biden's son? They basically paid him for his connections and used his name to carry legitimacy. It isn't textbook corruption, but it isn't something that most Americans would see and think was okay. If Tulsi were to knife Biden with that in the next debate, it would be enough to drop him below warren and sanders I bet. Of course none of them will because they want that sweet sweet grift money. Edit, this should go in the DNC thread and not USPOL, sorry. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:No one cares about the biden poo poo because he didn't really do anything wrong, he is losing the primary slowly and its boring. He definitely did though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:Yes she's a terrible politician and a worse speaker. I posted the 60 Minutes piece I was talking about. Not my issue if you didn't click the link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not really. It's that Trump asked Ukraine for dirt on any political opponent. It's that he outright asked/bribed a foreign official to interfere in an election. The fact that it was Biden is really, really, super-incidental to all of this. Without polling cross-tabs you're just kind of guessing. I think the more likely scenario is that plenty of voters (like us) have been ready for impeachment since day 1, and attacking Biden put centrist decorum-types over the edge, which put centrist reps over the edge as well. Impeachment proceedings only began because enough people in centrist districts finally started calling their rep's offices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Once you get to next summer, I don't think the Dems would impeach Trump for anything whatsoever anymore other than, well murder or Tom Clancy poo poo. By then, the voters will go "uhh....whats even the loving point, we're voting soon. Let your presidential candidate use that, and let us decide." i don't think it will take that long. at latest, maybe January/February. nearly killed em! posted:He definitely did though. well the media isn't saying that outside fox and no one gives a poo poo really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I posted the 60 Minutes piece I was talking about. Not my issue if you didn't click the link. That article doesn't support your claim. Jesus gently caress, you smug moron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
I would like to submit for the thread's consideration that what the voters currently think about impeachment, or might speculatively think in the future, is more or less completely irrelevant in the context of an astoundingly openly criminal and corrupt executive
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I posted the 60 Minutes piece I was talking about. Not my issue if you didn't click the link. You put the link on an edited post a page back, instead of simply offering up the link again like a sane person you instead seek to blame everyone else for not seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Can't we dream of a scenario that takes out Trump and Biden? Why do you think it is in any way whatsoever a good idea to attack your opponent's son? Trump thinks its a good idea because he is a moron. Attacking Biden's son on stage gives him a perfect moment to react angrily and get back some momentum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is the most bad faith of bad faith defenses. You can't do better than this? Ya'll can keep discussing the topic but post better than this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, you and I have a different definition of a narrow scope of impeachment, then. I hope you're right, but the fact that they're trying to rush this in before the end of the year makes me skeptical. They're going to strike while the Ukraine scandal is hot, but if they were *only* going to include Ukraine in articles they would have formed a select committee. Pelosi specifically said that all committees would continue their investigations and allow Nadler to bundle it all up before submitting articles; whatever is done by the time the Ukraine investigation is done should be included. Like, this obviously could all change, but based on what Pelosi et al has said and done so far this looks like their strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:I would like to submit for the thread's consideration that what the voters currently think about impeachment, or might speculatively think in the future, is more or less completely irrelevant in the context of an astoundingly openly criminal and corrupt executive I agree that public opinion shouldn't matter in what course of action is taken. Impeach because you have the courage of your convictions, not because 50.01%+ of the voting population thinks its a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Once you get to next summer, I don't think the Dems would impeach Trump for anything whatsoever anymore other than, well murder or Tom Clancy poo poo. By then, the voters will go "uhh....whats even the loving point, we're voting soon. Let your presidential candidate use that, and let us decide." I agree but would also say that the current Ukraine scandal would likely be Tom Clancy poo poo, and there's plenty more of these being covered up currently, so who knows!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
skylined! posted:They're going to strike while the Ukraine scandal is hot, but if they were *only* going to include Ukraine in articles they would have formed a select committee. Pelosi specifically said that all committees would continue their investigations and allow Nadler to bundle it all up before submitting articles; whatever is done by the time the Ukraine investigation is done should be included. I think the only thing of substance they'd have ready would be to drag out obstruction of justice from out of the closet, blow the dust off of it, and throw that in. Any more than that would be scrounging for little things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
skylined! posted:Without polling cross-tabs you're just kind of guessing. Mehdi cites these polls in his piece. In most of them, you have more people saying that Trump obstructed justice than saying that he didn't. That's been the case for months. I don't believe for a second that, without the Democratic leadership dragging its feet on impeachment so flagrantly, those "yes" numbers wouldn't have been higher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
It is explicitly legal for members of Congress to insider trade, and if you think a person with an investment banker spouse is too noble to take advantage of that, then you're exactly the type of gullible peon that reflexively defends people like Pelosi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Can't we dream of a scenario that takes out Trump and Biden? Uhhhhhhhhhhhh because if they win the primary they're going to need Biden voters, who they likely won't then get..?!?! Because everyone that isn't Biden is trying to swing people currently on Team Biden to come to their team? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
skylined! posted:They're going to strike while the Ukraine scandal is hot, but if they were *only* going to include Ukraine in articles they would have formed a select committee. Pelosi specifically said that all committees would continue their investigations and allow Nadler to bundle it all up before submitting articles; whatever is done by the time the Ukraine investigation is done should be included. i mean it could be worse. lead with the straightforward obvious crime and if they get any other solid crimes of other throw it in at the end with it. personally. i think trump and co buried alot of poo poo on that server and such. more will come out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
skylined! posted:They're going to strike while the Ukraine scandal is hot, but if they were *only* going to include Ukraine in articles they would have formed a select committee. Pelosi specifically said that all committees would continue their investigations and allow Nadler to bundle it all up before submitting articles; whatever is done by the time the Ukraine investigation is done should be included. Again, I hope you're right. But again, Mehdi Hassan is correct that taking a super-narrow scope towards the Mueller probe is part of why it turned out to be such a bust. I'm not seeing much evidence that the Democratic leadership has learned from that mistake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:20
|
|