|
The ACA was a step in the right direction so small if you hosed a mouse with it she wouldn't feel anything.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:AOC isn't eligible I want to reinforce the point I was at the bar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Really hoping Democrats just boycott the SOTU Dems gonna stand and clap along with the republicans and you know it
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
okay, as before this thread will be reopening when things start up again monday (barring some truly massive development). have a good weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Since this thread is the place to discuss impeachment there is literally no reason to keep it closed over the weekend. Please don't randomly close threads to try and control what discussions are occurring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/waJop98baJA Apparently Pelosi is still convinced that Trump will not be acquitted, because, "without witnesses and documentation, you don't have a trial". Lady, if you still believe that after these past two weeks, you are sadly as delusional as the president himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Framboise posted:https://youtu.be/waJop98baJA I thought she was just saying you can’t call it an acquittal bc there wasn’t actually a trial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I thought she was just saying you can’t call it an acquittal bc there wasn’t actually a trial. that. she is saying its a sham trial, which it is. even the loving trial from alice in wonderland had witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
It's moot anyway; apparently that video is from Thursday before the vote for witnesses and my news feed decided to show it to me today. Thanks Google  It's still baffling. I can't imagine that he'll not be acquitted based on a technicality of semantics that implies that the GOP will have a scrap of honor or defer to the Chief Justice in the case of it not being a trial (because they intentionally made it so having an actual trial is not possible).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
I've long accepted he won't be removed from office but I'm going to have to do some heavy drinking when the first "TOTAL EXONERATION!!!" tweets come out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Medullah posted:I've long accepted he won't be removed from office but I'm going to have to do some heavy drinking when the first "TOTAL EXONERATION!!!" tweets come out. true. but he will piss away his victory and i am pretty sure both bolton and parnas will drop a ton of poo poo that day right after the vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Medullah posted:I've long accepted he won't be removed from office but I'm going to have to do some heavy drinking when the first "TOTAL EXONERATION!!!" tweets come out. I can't drink because my liver is bad but I sure as poo poo am going to be pissed off at how this country has become. The fact there is almost nothing we can do about it right at the moment is so infuriating. Ive called both of my senators offices as well as schumers and mcconnels. Ive donated to Bernie but I still think the DNC and MSM are going to find a way to ratfuck him out of the nomination considering what they just did for Bloomberg with the debate. Our political system in this country is just corrupt to its core. maybe its time to move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Watching Alexander on Meet The Press. What a milquetoast piece of poo poo with zero credibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Watching Alexander on Meet The Press. What a milquetoast piece of poo poo with zero credibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:He's the perfect example of why there ought to be a maximum age for a senator. No rational justification for why a 79-year-old almost retiree should be making decisions that are going to negatively impact our country for decades to come. None. He'll reliably vote Republican til he dies so that's all the rational justification needed!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:He's the perfect example of why there ought to be a maximum age for a senator. No rational justification for why a 79-year-old almost retiree should be making decisions that are going to negatively impact our country for decades to come. None. You're not wrong, but Bernie turns 79 this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:44
|
|
cowboy
|
And if it weren’t him, they would just have some younger ghoul with the same lovely views and decisions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:He's the perfect example of why there ought to be a maximum age for a senator. No rational justification for why a 79-year-old almost retiree should be making decisions that are going to negatively impact our country for decades to come. None. This is navel gazing. The corruption of the Senate is a reflection of the monied interests that control Washington, it isn't caused by the age or incumbency of the senators themselves. If you wanted to fix that problem the solution would be for the Democrats to start acting as an effective opposition party and for them to actually govern as though they really wanted to improve the lives of their own constituents when they manage to take office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
and the only way to get democrats to represent labour interests historically is mass organization that scares the poo poo out of the people that control them
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is navel gazing. The corruption of the Senate is a reflection of the monied interests that control Washington, it isn't caused by the age or incumbency of the senators themselves. If you wanted to fix that problem the solution would be for the Democrats to start acting as an effective opposition party and for them to actually govern as though they really wanted to improve the lives of their own constituents when they manage to take office. Truer words never spoken. The money has corrupted our house and senate to the core and they no longer work for us anymore. The fact the democrats offer no competing worldview that actually includes the working class in any significant way is proof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Framboise posted:https://youtu.be/waJop98baJA This is just a talking point my man. Just like how Trump was saying he wasn’t impeached because Pelosi hadn’t transmitted the articles to the Senate yet. It doesn’t have to make sense because it’s politics and you can just speak things into existence. For what it’s worth I think it’s a good line. We need lines like this to help reinforce casual voter’s memory that the trial was a sham. Otherwise this poo poo will fade just like Mueller, the concentration camps, the Muslim ban, the rape allegations, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
FFT posted:You're not wrong, but Bernie turns 79 this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:He is very much the exception. Not the only one, though, but the most obvious. The fact that there are a few exceptions should indicate that age isn’t the problem. Ideology is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
A slightly uncharitable reading of this thread would be that a lot of Democrats, particularly those who are relatively comfortable in their lives, are stuck in the bargaining phase of grief over the 2016 election and cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that the only way to stymie the forces Trump represents is to find ways to expand the Democratic electorate. Perhaps because they know intuitively that this change in strategy would de facto mean admitting that the current Democratic party is part of the problem and that strategies for how to fundamentally reform it are a necessary part of any meaningful discussion of contemporary politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:A slightly uncharitable reading of this thread would be that a lot of Democrats, particularly those who are relatively comfortable in their lives, are stuck in the bargaining phase of grief over the 2016 election and cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that the only way to stymie the forces Trump represents is to find ways to expand the Democratic electorate. Perhaps because they know intuitively that this change in strategy would de facto mean admitting that the current Democratic party is part of the problem and that strategies for how to fundamentally reform it are a necessary part of any meaningful discussion of contemporary politics. You are right. The change from being the party of the people and unions to being the party of wallstreet and corporations has caused a lot of people to fully check out. What do you think we can do to bring people back? For me and my family we are firmly on the left and the whole center right way the democrats do things now turns us off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:He's the perfect example of why there ought to be a maximum age for a senator. No rational justification for why a 79-year-old almost retiree should be making decisions that are going to negatively impact our country for decades to come. None. The rational justification is that people should be able to elect whoever they please, and all age requirements, term limits, and so forth preventing that are anti-democratic. Obviously those things are not nearly as anti-democratic as letting billionaires buy your politicians and media and everything else, depriving the electorate of time and education but bombarding it constant with misinformation - but still. Agitating for a maximum age limit would just be yet another way of deflecting attention from the real problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:A slightly uncharitable reading of this thread would be that a lot of Democrats, particularly those who are relatively comfortable in their lives, are stuck in the bargaining phase of grief over the 2016 election and cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that the only way to stymie the forces Trump represents is to find ways to expand the Democratic electorate. Perhaps because they know intuitively that this change in strategy would de facto mean admitting that the current Democratic party is part of the problem and that strategies for how to fundamentally reform it are a necessary part of any meaningful discussion of contemporary politics. Sounds like a lot of assumptions about the circumstances of other posters without any explanation for why you think it's relevant to post about them rather than the topic of the thread, the impeachment of Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:A slightly uncharitable reading of this thread would be that a lot of Democrats, particularly those who are relatively comfortable in their lives, are stuck in the bargaining phase of grief over the 2016 election and cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that the only way to stymie the forces Trump represents is to find ways to expand the Democratic electorate. Perhaps because they know intuitively that this change in strategy would de facto mean admitting that the current Democratic party is part of the problem and that strategies for how to fundamentally reform it are a necessary part of any meaningful discussion of contemporary politics. The only context of being gung ho for the current democrats are in the sense of "better than the bloodgargling psychopaths in the GOP" I'm sure there's one of many Dems Are A Waste threads this discussion would be more appropriate for
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
I have no idea why you all are obsessed with keeping Democratic criticism separated from everything as if it's a genre of country music.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I have no idea why you all are obsessed with keeping Democratic criticism separated from everything as if it's a genre of country music. Because every thread being Dems are a waste is boring. Like, the vast majority of people agree in principle that Dems are a waste, so going into every thread to try to show how much you think that’s true turns into this weird performative leftism. Like things are actually happening, Iowa is Monday, a billion news articles are happening around impeachment issues, why should we just post Manchin is a waste over and over again? It’s white noise at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I have no idea why you all are obsessed with keeping Democratic criticism separated from everything as if it's a genre of country music. criticize democrats' impeachment strategy, statements, etc. all you want here, it's all fair game. but it's a thread about a current event, not a platform to complain that other posters here are insufficiently left because they are talking about the thread topic rather than about the myriad problems with the democratic party and its electoral strategies at large (which i imagine the vast majority of people agree about)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:You are right. The change from being the party of the people and unions to being the party of wallstreet and corporations has caused a lot of people to fully check out. What do you think we can do to bring people back? For me and my family we are firmly on the left and the whole center right way the democrats do things now turns us off. Party politics is, as always, adjusting to please donors. Pushing for candidates to refuse corporate PAC and wealthy donor money is the best place to state. The base needs to revolt from the donors and wrest control of the party apparatus from people chasing cash for elections. This does put democrats at a disadvantage in elections, however, so no matter what, in the current "money = speech" and "corporations = people" environment, Democrats are going to be fighting an uphill battle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
eke out posted:criticize democrats' impeachment strategy, statements, etc. all you want here, it's all fair game. I agree it should be topical regarding impeachment, nothing wrong with wanting it to be relevent, it just shouldn't be smothered outright. The impeachment saga has actually gone on longer than I thought it would, and who knows if Trump opens himself up to loving up again very soon and perhaps earning double impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
eke out posted:Sounds like a lot of assumptions about the circumstances of other posters without any explanation for why you think it's relevant to post about them rather than the topic of the thread, the impeachment of Donald Trump. Trying to silo all discussion of impeachment in such a way that it ends up being discussed without reference to the larger political context of the moment - the collapsing legitimacy of American institutions, the competing explanations of whether Trump is an anomaly or the culmination of a long trend, the alienation of broad swaths of the public from any political institutions, the role of money in politics and all that entails - is silly. Impeachment is a fundamentally political process, its efficacy relies on the public's perception of politics and politicians. If it helps then I can meet you half way and say that if there are any major new revelations or some new development in the impeachment saga and yet people keep crowding out discussions of it by talking about more generalist topics then I will happily lend my efforts to get people narrowly focused again. However, on a Sunday afternoon without any major news events I think people should be free to discuss the case in the way that makes sense to them, including discussions of what motivates people to prioritize this impeachment over other issues. You're welcome to skip those posts if they don't interest you. This thread already allows for TV IV style posting so clearly nobody objects to occasionally skipping a page of content that doesn't interest them. eke out posted:criticize democrats' impeachment strategy, statements, etc. all you want here, it's all fair game. I am criticizing the Democrats' impeachment strategy, you just object to the fact that I'm arguing one function of the impeachment proceedings is to try and evade a deeper reckoning with the party's failure to either govern or act as an effective opposition party. As I was saying above though, I am happy to compromise and say that the thread can focus more on being a TV IV style current events thread during days on which there are actually significant new developments. Would that in any way allay your concerns here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
What even are other threads, really? Why even have specific, focused, high-content threads when every thread can just be a chat thread? Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Feb 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As I was saying above though, I am happy to compromise and say that the thread can focus more on being a TV IV style current events thread during days on which there are actually significant new developments. Would that in any way allay your concerns here? there are four days left until impeachment is over. if you are unilaterally changing the rules of this months-old thread so you can post about how dems are bad, i obviously can't stop you. but it's not a "compromise" for you to come into a thread you barely ever post in, be asked to follow the same rules as everyone else, then demand those rules not apply anymore mere days before it ends. i expect better from dnd mods eke out fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Feb 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:What even are other threads, really? Why even have specific, focused, high-content threads when every thread can just be a chat thread? if you are saying this TVIV thread is "high content" i have extremely bad news for you
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if you are saying this TVIV thread is "high content" i have extremely bad news for you It's not a TVIV thread, though? Maybe you should read Helsing's suggestion before jumping in to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Party politics is, as always, adjusting to please donors. Pushing for candidates to refuse corporate PAC and wealthy donor money is the best place to state. The base needs to revolt from the donors and wrest control of the party apparatus from people chasing cash for elections. Do you think the impeachment would have come out differently if the democratic leadership wasn't held by the wealthy donors? I'm sure they would be much more willing to burn biden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:Do you think the impeachment would have come out differently if the democratic leadership wasn't held by the wealthy donors? I'm sure they would be much more willing to burn biden. No because Republicans have clearly shown that they're willing to debase themselves to no end
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 22:46
|
|
