|
CascadeBeta posted:"And they were like 'No, no, no, Bolton, we want to do normal crimes, not WAR crimes!' and I just looked at them like they were crazy!" "I mean I love a good war crime or regime change, but even I have standards!"
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
ewiley posted:67 is a very high bar when you're starting with 45-ish Senators, many of whom are up for re-election in deeply red states in 2020. Honestly I am not sure how a 'damaged' Trump is any different from the current one we have now, other than possibly tipping the Senate to Dems in 2020. as mitch mcconnell identified in 2008: the public assumes that anything done on a bipartisan basis is good. if there's a bipartisan majority of senators to remove trump from power, even if there's not a bipartisan supermajority, that will significantly damage trump heading into 2020 it will also significantly damage his ability to make people walk the plank for him in the leadup to 2020
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
eke out posted:she's literally already doing this dude, it doesn't actually matter at all She's a grifting extremist moron thats basically a liberterian, that attracts thirsty conservative "liberals" and tankies for God knows what reason She's going nowhere fast TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Oct 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
here's the tweet about how mitch worked with graham to tone down his resolution specifically to get people on board who are not on board with trump's conduct https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1187569438817689605 that's why only having 46 votes at this point is so bad: because he doesn't have those 46 votes
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:given how close key states were in 2016, that a spoiler might pull "just" 1 in 100 democrats is actually kind of a big deal, every vote matters for a state like wisconsin Tulsi's far more interested in making bank as Fox News' future favorite Democrat than she is in running a quixotic third-party bid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
eke out posted:this is, jokes aside, exactly the kind of bureaucratic-bullshit-to-crush-his-internal-enemies stuff that Bolton is incredibly famous for from his days in previous administrations. his instincts to gently caress over fellow bureaucrats to take their power are almost as legendary as his instincts for starting unnecessary wars and murdering civilians But apparently Mulvaney and Barr are deeply involved so maybe I should stop being so surprised at the incompetent criming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:here's the tweet about how mitch worked with graham to tone down his resolution specifically to get people on board who are not on board with trump's conduct Yeah the goal here was to get every Republican to sign it, right? Which is why it was so milquetoast. And it still didn't work to get everyone!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
You guys are way too plugged in. Nobody other than politics junkies and presumably some Hawaiians even know she is. She’ll show up in fox for a few months as a token “reasonable” democrat before fading into total oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:given how close key states were in 2016, that a spoiler might pull "just" 1 in 100 democrats is actually kind of a big deal, every vote matters for a state like wisconsin this is like saying that i should be worried that we're alienating the Tim Ryan voters. poo poo, tom steyer is five times as successful as tulsi already. these people will always be out there, we just happen to have a lot of data about exactly how little voters care for or even think about her in particular due to the primary. if it comes down to the kind of person in Wisconsin who loves Tulsi (assuming, for the moment, your premise that those people even exist at all in that area) but hates [Warren/Bernie/Butt] we've already lost the election
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Yeah the goal here was to get every Republican to sign it, right? Which is why it was so milquetoast. And it still didn't work to get everyone! Yeah that's what's so damning, this should've been a softball "we stand with the prez" pointless resolution, and even how ineffective it was they couldn't get 100%. And with McConnell spiking Trump's characterization of their phone call I've come to think there's a nonzero chance of removal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Numlock posted:You guys are way too plugged in. Nobody other than politics junkies and presumably some Hawaiians even know she is. If she keeps up the Fox News grift a whole lot more people will learn about her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:"I mean I love a good war crime or regime change, but even I have standards!" It's because there's a realistic chance of him being held accountable for the domestic crime, unlike the war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i generally agree with the idea that trump's only real path to victory relies on spoiler candidates, so the idea of a tulsi campaign is...not great...but it is far from clear to me she's an effective spoiler. she seems to me much more likely to appeal to republicans who don't love trump but can't bring themselves to vote for democrats. she's not a far-left candidate, she's Republicans' Favorite Democrat and that sounds like someone who peels off republicans Tulsi has struggled to crack 1% in the primary polls, and didnt even qualify for the second to last debate because of it. She is FAR more popular with the right than the left (for obvious reasons) and it would be absolutely hilarious to run her as a third party candidate so that the GOP can cannibalize their own voterbase and cost themselves the election to own the libs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Numlock posted:You guys are way too plugged in. Nobody other than politics junkies and presumably some Hawaiians even know she is. the best way to ensure that future wingnut welfare slot is doing the third-party run, which fox will signal-boost incessantly
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Dubar posted:Tulsi has struggled to crack 1% in the primary polls, and didnt even qualify for the second to last debate because of it. She is FAR more popular with the right than the left (for obvious reasons) and it would be absolutely hilarious to run her as a third party candidate so that the GOP can cannibalize their own voterbase and cost themselves the election to own the libs. i agree that's pretty likely, but given that i think trump will be defeated unless he gets a favorable spoiler candidate i would rather avoid that less than 50% chance her spoiler run hurts dems
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Their entire line of attack is to attack the legitimacy of the process itself and make it look partisan, so a bunch of republican senators refusing to vote on party lines on a condemnation of that process hurts that narrative. It also implies that Trumps support may not be as strong as it seems outwardly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the best way to ensure that future wingnut welfare slot is doing the third-party run, which fox will signal-boost incessantly Couldn't this backfire for them? If she gets tons of airtime on Fox that's mostly boosting her recognition among Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:What are the chances that anyone signing a "this is a sham" proclamation would ever vote to convict? Graham getting this many on board already doesn't seem like that bad for Trump. It's enough to keep it from passing and also it means that support for the proceedings are bipartisan. It's a pretty clear sign that the firewall protecting him is starting to crack, not collapse yet, but it's not a good sign for him. It'll send a very strong message if the vote to convict is over 50 even if it doesn't reach the threshold to remove. Part of why the Clinton impeachment was a wet thud is that it didn't even get majority support in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Skex posted:It's enough to keep it from passing and also it means that support for the proceedings are bipartisan. yeah: all democrats voted to aquit, and some republicans voted to aquit: ergo aquittal was "bipartisan" and conviction was "partisan" if that flips that's not good for trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the best way to ensure that future wingnut welfare slot is doing the third-party run, which fox will signal-boost incessantly The Venn diagram of “Fox News viewers” and “People who might conceivably vote for a Democrat” is two circles separated by a distance you could fit the entire Milky Way into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Numlock posted:The Venn diagram of “Fox News viewers” and “People who might conceivably vote for a Democrat” is two circles separated by a distance you could fit the entire Milky Way into. once she's on fox enough, other news orgs might start to cover her because people talk about her fox news viewers do talk to people who are sorta on the fence about trump, and so fox news viewers talking incessantly to those other people will diffuse her out there i'm not saying it will work, just that would be the idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah: all democrats voted to aquit, and some republicans voted to aquit: ergo aquittal was "bipartisan" and conviction was "partisan" Yeah, Susan Collins was one of the R's that voted to acquit, I think. Which was part of the reason that until last year she was kind of considered open minded and a maverick or whatever the gently caress dumb terms they use for Republicans who sometimes show a sliver of a conscience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
I’m much more worried about a spoiler effect from someone like Bloomberg than Tulsi. Tulsi has very marginal support, but I think Bloomberg could peal off enough upper middle class to wealthy democrats to be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Tulsi looks like a Fox News anchor. Put her in some pastels and short skirt and a bunch of their viewers wouldn’t realize that she was a new arrival. This is the easiest media pitch one can make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:What are the chances that anyone signing a "this is a sham" proclamation would ever vote to convict? Graham getting this many on board already doesn't seem like that bad for Trump. Trump is stomping around shouting at his sycophants demanding they 'do more!' Many of them - the ones most afraid of Trump's ire - are desperately looking for performative ways to cool Trump off (at least in /their/ direction). And Trump seems to have leverage (beyond mere 'party loyalty') on a /lot/ of lawmakers. But signing your name to this proclamation doesn't amount to anything. It doesn't prevent the Senate from holding trial (with chief justice presiding). It doesn't stop the testimony from the house intelligence committee from becoming public knowledge. And the goal was to get /every/ person Trump thinks fears him to lick his boot and toe the line. He didn't reach that goal. And the thing about groupthink, with the wagons circled... as soon as one person stands up and says 'this is bullshit, I'm out!' - it makes it more likely that /another/ person will do it. When Trump turns out to be weak and wholly ineffectual at punishing dissenters from his party, it makes it safer for more to jump ship. When the first couple do it, get punished for it, and say 'Worth it!' (enjoying some 'good will' from folk that want Trump gone), it makes it even more likely that more will jump ship. Trump's support is eroding, and we've got another month at least before the trial can even begin in the senate. Yeah, Graham and Cruz are trying desperately to win Trump's approval with their efforts, but neither is actually being effective at shoring up their support - they're just performing so Trump doesn't drop dox on them and order his qanon army to murder them in the street (I'm still not sure if I'm being tongue-in-cheek on this?). The senate support will not grow from here. It's either hit its floor, or it will erode further. I thought his senate support would have been eroded when he started putting children in cages and sending the parents back to die in hellworld. That didn't budge it, at least not publicly. If Trump really had the kind of leverage he'd need for this dam to hold, you'd see a lot more Senators doing the performative defense - instead of staying silent. That's what the tea leaves in my cup say, anyway. Still not feeling confident the Senate will convict, though. I personally think there's a rebellion within the GOP ranks, between Romney and the mysterious anonymous author of that Opinion Piece... the bystander effect - which is Trump's most valuable cognitive tool here - has already failed him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Tulsi looks like a Fox News anchor. Put her in some pastels and short skirt and a bunch of their viewers wouldn’t realize that she was a new arrival. This is the easiest media pitch one can make. they'd need her to dye her hair blonde as well
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Numlock posted:The Venn diagram of “Fox News viewers” and “People who might conceivably vote for a Democrat” is two circles separated by a distance you could fit the entire Milky Way into. Every time she does one of these hits, we get someone popping into this thread like "Wait why is Tulsi on Fox?" and then those people get to learn about her actual beliefs. There are probably a lot of people who would vote for someone they don't know a thing about as long as she has a D next to her name, but when you're going on TV and waving a red flag, chances are people will start to see red flags.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they'd need her to dye her hair blonde as well her penchant for always wearing white will also be appreciated
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:once she's on fox enough, other news orgs might start to cover her because people talk about her I guess they will try, but the chances of it working are astronomically low. Might as well worry about Jacob Whorle actually finding real dirt on somebody and people being forced to take him seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
You are taking this in kind of a sexist direction
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:once she's on fox enough, other news orgs might start to cover her because people talk about her Frankly? I'm sick to death of hearing about her. Never, not for one second ever have I seen what's appealing about her outside of her own Congressional voting base. Voters who like her only do because she backed Bernie in 2016. Well whoop-dee-loving-doo. She's a Muslim and gay hating, dictator boot licking loving fraud and when she resigns from Congress I hope she fucks back off to a marginal gay-bashing group somewhere in Hawaii and I never hear about her ever again. Jesus loving Christ. VH4Ever fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Oct 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
E: Deleting, too close to primary chat for comfort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Numlock posted:The Venn diagram of “Fox News viewers” and “People who might conceivably vote for a Democrat” is two circles separated by a distance you could fit the entire Milky Way into. But she wouldn't be a Democrat - she'd be a "Former Democrat who has realized how evil the DNC is." This might leech from Trump's valuable constituency of "people who will vote for whoever the establishment seems to hate the most."
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Frankly? I'm sick to death of hearing about her. Never, not for one second ever have I seen what's appealing about her. Voters who like her only do because she backed Bernie in 2016. Well whoop-dee-loving-doo. She's a Muslim and gay hating, dictator boot licking loving fraud and when she resigns from Congress I hope she fucks back off to a marginal gay-bashing group somewhere in Hawaii and I never hear about her ever again. Jesus loving Christ. 100% 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
It's really weird how detailed you guys tend to get when dunking on how sexist conservatives are. "Their THIRSTY eyes following the hypnotic movement of THAT PERFECT rear end as it undulates in BLACK YOGA PANTS." *mops brow* (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1187742752685088769 michael flynn's lawyers released their batshit conspiracy piece de resistance, demanding that the judge throw out all the charges that flynn pleaded guilty to and repeatedly confirmed he did, because PETER STRZOK and LISA PAGE the sentencing hearing in December should be great. last sentencing hearing was the "Is this treason? Do you really want me to sentence you now?" and now it will be even worse, as he no longer will get credit for accepting responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1187742107852836864
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I go out of my way to not use the term, but I never really got how this is a "slur" or delegitimizing, since a party member is called a Democrat. You actually call them Democrats in your post. It seems totally innocuous. I think the implication is they are not "democratic" because that would be a good thing. "Democratic" just means you believe in democracy. Of course "Republican" doesn't really mean what it means either, but nobody really knows that word anyway. Like how "Catholic" is not the same thing as "catholic". Since most Americans still have a positive reaction to the idea of "democratic", Republicans feel it's useful to avoid that term when referring to the party. Shimrra Jamaane posted:LMAO this poll question This reads like they've been studying those old Jim Crow literacy tests. For reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:It just seems weird that the term Democrat isn't otherizing a person, but Democrat Party is, that's all. TheDeadlyShoe's marketing explanation makes sense, though. I bet you also don't have a problem with calling a woman "a female"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:This reads like they've been studying those old Jim Crow literacy tests. For reasons. This is how push polling always works- read out a lot of "context" intended to get the subject into a certain mindset, then ask a question whose answer within that context is obvious. eke out posted:https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1187742752685088769 ...he's trying to get his guilty plea overturned on the grounds that had the prosecution been required to do anything they would have done it wrong, which they weren't, because he pled guilty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 16:06
|
|
