|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Schiff is great because he knows how to play the game. That's why he was such a great choice to lead the impeachment effort. Nadler was a disappointment for the most part. Nadler was... okay, he generated documents and testimony and pushed for impeachment, but Schiff is way better at all of it
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
LaserShark posted:So, when the loving turtle sweeps this all under the rug, the House can still conduct investigations in perpetuity, can't they? Especially with all this new evidence that keeps popping up? Yeah but the investigations can't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Nadler was... okay, he generated documents and testimony and pushed for impeachment, but Schiff is way better at all of it yeah. nadler isnt a stage person. he is good at grunt work and pushing stuff and such. not being a ring master.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Yeah but the investigations can't do anything. it can be public and built up more dem rage and make a blue wave bigger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Having Biden testify is completely pointless, because: 1: No matter what he'd say, GOP would spin up a storm about him being utterly corrupt yada yada yada... 2: If the dems got their hands on Bolton for instance, in exchange, it wouldn't matter either, because even if Bolton spilled every singular bean he has, GOP would just cry "DEM PLANT DEM PLANT!" I am by no means saying "nothing matters". But I AM saying that Biden testifying or not wouldn't influence the trial in any meaningful way. Let's remember, what party was it that spent a bazillion on countless investigations on Benghazi, not because there clearly was something dirty there, but because they
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:Having Biden testify is completely pointless, because: yeah. i am fine with him not doing this stupid poo poo show. i mean we possibly wont even have witnesses anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this too. there is no "good ending" for the GOP here. The good ending for the GOP is the precedent they're setting allowing them to get away with abolishing the vestiges of democracy you have left like they've wanted to do for decades now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:it can be public and built up more dem rage and make a blue wave bigger. The last one was public and uncovered the most obvious case of bribery and corruption possible and was obstructed in the most obvious way possible. I'm not sure that more of the same will accomplish much (it's still worth trying, just not getting your hopes up about)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The last one was public and uncovered the most obvious case of bribery and corruption possible and was obstructed in the most obvious way possible. I'm not sure that more of the same will accomplish much (it's still worth trying, just not getting your hopes up about) idk. the last 3 years elections have shown that trumps and co are getting hosed and trumps underwater in the pols. we will see i guess. but i doubt this will hurt us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
LaserShark posted:So, when the loving turtle sweeps this all under the rug, the House can still conduct investigations in perpetuity, can't they? Especially with all this new evidence that keeps popping up? The strategy may literally be to get this first 'not guilty' out of the way so they can seesaw back to the house calling in parnas under oath directly after the entire GOP goes on record of 'nope he didnt do it'
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:it can be public and built up more dem rage and make a blue wave bigger. As long as they try to do something. If the democrats, say, get a massive report from a law enforcement official detailing numerous presidential crimes and recommending impeachment and then sit on their hands while saying, "Whelp, nothing we can do!" then it's just going to tell those voters that there's no point in turning out for them. But that kind of blindly ignoring innumerable public offenses that demand the removal of the president until he eventually threatens the democratic party leadership directly would just be absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:As long as they try to do something. If the democrats, say, get a massive report from a law enforcement official detailing numerous presidential crimes and recommending impeachment and then sit on their hands while saying, "Whelp, nothing we can do!" then it's just going to tell those voters that there's no point in turning out for them. But that kind of blindly ignoring innumerable public offenses that demand the removal of the president until he eventually threatens the democratic party leadership directly would just be absurd. this poo poo wont go away friend. its only gonna build.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Sounds like word’s coming in Ted Cruz is demanding Hunter Biden’s testimony in exchange for John Bolton’s. Edit: Robert Costa’s taking about it on MSNBC. Don’t have a link or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
generic one posted:Sounds like word’s coming in Ted Cruz is demanding Hunter Biden’s testimony in exchange for John Bolton’s. i mean ok sure. gently caress if i care. like at worst he comes off as a victim. Edit. costa is pretty trustworthy sourcewise. what else is he saying? Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:
Cruz was just relaying the sentiments of GOP senators, wasn’t just his demand specifically. That was about it. No official statement or anything, but if they’re floating poo poo like this now, it’s pretty apparent that’s how they’re gonna rationalize not calling any witnesses at all, assuming the Dems aren’t willing to bring the Bidens into this loving sham trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
generic one posted:Cruz was just relaying the sentiments of GOP senators, wasn’t just his demand specifically. That was about it. No official statement or anything, but if they’re floating poo poo like this now, it’s pretty apparent that’s how they’re gonna rationalize not calling any witnesses at all, assuming the Dems aren’t willing to bring the Bidens into this loving sham trial. i mean id say give it to them hunter if he is up to it and than let them hang themselves more for November.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean id say give it to them hunter if he is up to it and than let them hang themselves more for November. I dunno. Last night in the thread, a bunch of folks were hashing out how this is gonna play, and I’m still of the opinion it’d be better to just let the Republicans have their stupid sham trial and dismiss it than call in the Bidens during the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, because: 1) If Joe and Hunter did some bad poo poo, let them be prosecuted in a relevant trial. It has zero to do with the articles of impeachment, because it doesn’t matter if they were doing bad poo poo. The president wanted a sovereign nation to launch an investigation into a political rival and went mob boss on their asses. The investigation was for his own personal gain, no matter the results of said investigation. Allowing Joe or Hunter to testify would conflate the two. 2). We have zero guarantee Bolton will testify with anything meaningful. He’s a complete unknown at this point, and regardless of what people have already testified, he could undo all of that with a simple “I don’t recall.” 3) Benghazi, on steroids. Even if the Bidens did nothing wrong, the appearance at trial will allow that poo poo to eat up news cycles and it’ll be a repeat of 2016, should Biden get the nomination. Note: I do not want Biden to get the nomination, I am all in on Sanders, I am just speaking to that hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I mean, yeah, Facebook and YouTube are a plague, but my point is that you can't make impeachment so boring that no one pays attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Yeah it’s clear to everyone that they’re acting in bad faith so why would you legitimize them turning this into a circus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
ascii genitals posted:The same can be done from the other side. A super cut of damning evidence being presented by Democrats with cuts to McConnell repeatedly tabling the amendments with increasingly bloody, wet eyes does not look great for Republicans. Or cuts to the president's smug dickhead lawyers making dumb arguments. There's a wealth of video to make attacks from. my point is that these people can, and will be, spoon fed every morsel of info they're going to get, be told that's all they need, and they'll stop there. make all the attack videos you want: they won't watch them. why would they pay attention to fake news? edit: facebook tells my boss they're building SO MUCH wall. how much? well it changes, but hundreds of miles have been completed. he knows this is true because facebook says so. wikipedia is fake news, anyone can edit it, and any news source is just lying. it pisses me off how easily they win while I haven't had a victory in loving years. meanwhile trump is diving both hands into the cookie jar, smearing chocolate chips all over his face, going live on the news with cookie all over his face saying "my haff mnwo idea what they're talking abrout" while a whole crowd of people line up to give him money and chant "four more years". gently caress this earth. InsertPotPun fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
I was listening to a stream at around 6:20 EST today and someone was screaming while someone was speaking. I think they got escorted out, and you could still hear the guy screaming in the hallway. Anyone know what happened?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
arbybaconator posted:I was listening to a stream at around 6:20 EST today and someone was screaming while someone was speaking. I think they got escorted out, and you could still hear the guy screaming in the hallway. Anyone know what happened? Heard that, too. No idea. Super curious about what was going on, but haven’t been able to find anything on it so far. I know that’s not super helpful, but at least we can both confirm neither of us were just imagining things? Edit: It was while Hakeem Jeffries was speaking, so at least that can be a point of reference. generic one fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:but the base will never watch that. Someone with money really needs to just target boomers with a bunch of left-serving blatant disinfo and not loving ask facebook permission to do it first this time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1220068332109467648 Perfect photo to use in that tweet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
generic one posted:Heard that, too. No idea. Super curious about what was going on, but haven’t been able to find anything on it so far. lotta reporters tweeting about that, he was screaming "JESUS" and then after being dragged out he was apparently yelling about abortion in the hallways
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
arbybaconator posted:I was listening to a stream at around 6:20 EST today and someone was screaming while someone was speaking. I think they got escorted out, and you could still hear the guy screaming in the hallway. Anyone know what happened?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
eke out posted:lotta reporters tweeting about that, he was screaming "JESUS" and then after being dragged out he was apparently yelling about abortion in the hallways Oh, cool. So... just normal right wing talking points and also probably Q related bullshit. Perfectly normal. PERRRRRFECTLY normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell posted:"Historians will regard this as a great irony of this era: That so many who professed such concern for our norms and traditions themselves proved willing to trample our constitutional order to get their way."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Really loving Schiff's narrative of events, even in spite of listening to most of the other hearings and speeches that contained 99% of the substance. Something about this timeline format seems much more engaging. Shame all the other Dem's who speak are awful in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Really loving Schiff's narrative of events, even in spite of listening to most of the other hearings and speeches that contained 99% of the substance. Something about this timeline format seems much more engaging. Shame all the other Dem's who speak are awful in comparison. yeah. i assume he is talking more tomarrow. i am curious what trumps argument will be. i assume its just gonna be loud shreaking and dumb breitbart bullshit. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1220161373910589441 lol this world is poo poo. lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Perfect photo to use in that tweet. Just an amazing moment in NBA history and I'm so glad it was captured perfectly by the photographer. Oh *ahem* and to be on topic, um yes it does have a bit of that tragicomedy to it. Even a Cleveland fan in that moment would have agreed it was me
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1220149200039686144 some more rage fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
I apologize if this has been brought up already (probably a while back or in another thread) but I was reading conflicting things so I was just hoping to clarify it. Can the Supreme Court Justice say “The Dems make a good argument for witnesses, therefore I’ll allow witnesses”? One thing I read said “Yes, absolutely.” and the other said “Yes, but the Senate can overrule it.” I’m guessing the latter but that it’d also look really bad for the Senate if they did that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Toobly posted:I apologize if this has been brought up already (probably a while back or in another thread) but I was reading conflicting things so I was just hoping to clarify it. who knows. i suspect they will work out some bullshit deal for witnesses but either way it makes the GOP look like monsters to anyone with a brain. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1220163042371145730
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:yeah. i assume he is talking more tomarrow. I put Fox News on during my commute earlier just to see if they were streaming the impeachment trial and all I heard was “CNN and other stations are playing this impeachment trial out because they want to drum up fear for this sham.” And a few other nonsense remarks making fun of the whole thing. They’re really driving home the “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” thing to their base
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Toobly posted:I put Fox News on during my commute earlier just to see if they were streaming the impeachment trial and all I heard was “CNN and other stations are playing this impeachment trial out because they want to drum up fear for this sham.” And a few other nonsense remarks making fun of the whole thing. They’re really driving home the “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” thing to their base its loving depressing. like this is our country. one of the major parties doesnt give a gently caress about law and order and the other party does but to a weird atypical amount which helps in some ways and fucks over in others. i am just hoping the various polls are right and trump and some of his friends are hosed over in November. i am trying to get involved in local campaigns but its a pain in the rear end finding them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
Rauros posted:Meanwhile, “I’d like to remind my colleague from Kentucky to, quote, ‘turn his monitor on.’”
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
Toobly posted:I apologize if this has been brought up already (probably a while back or in another thread) but I was reading conflicting things so I was just hoping to clarify it. Nope. All that poo poo gets voted on. Even if Roberts wanted to allow witnesses, which, you know, is doubtful, he can get overruled by a majority vote. This isn’t what you’d expect from a criminal trial, by any means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1220149200039686144 This guy has replaced Tom Cotton as my "Most likely to be the next, more competent, Trumpian fascist President."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Yeah, no way the GOP doesn't pull a bait and switch with Biden/Bolton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 03:41
|
|
