|
Helsing posted:The best way for the Democrats to improve voter enthusiasm would be for them to invest very heavily in a grassroots fundraising and mobilization model where they turn out their base with a policy agenda and communications strategy that offers a clear contrast with the Republicans and which leans into the energy of the post-2016 leftist surge within the party. Obviously the Democratic leadership has no interest in that and it isn't difficult to see how impeachment is a continuation of the Russiagate narrative and the attempt to stymie calls for a massive reform of the party. Those are both great ideas... but the first is totally unrelated to the question of impeachment vs no impeachment and the second is only tangentially so. There’s no reason why they couldn’t have done both, and impeachment proceedings wouldn’t have significantly hindered their ability to do either of those things.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The best way for the Democrats to improve voter enthusiasm would be for them to invest very heavily in a grassroots fundraising and mobilization model where they turn out their base with a policy agenda and communications strategy that offers a clear contrast with the Republicans and which leans into the energy of the post-2016 leftist surge within the party. They did this in 2018, and it continues at the state and local level (see: Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina). Helsing posted:Obviously the Democratic leadership has no interest in that and it isn't difficult to see how impeachment is a continuation of the Russiagate narrative and the attempt to stymie calls for a massive reform of the party. Depends on what you mean by "Russiagate", but this is false anyway because if "Russiagate" was the Democrats' sole focus then they would've taken the Mueller report and tried to make something out of it. Which they didn't. But you know, thanks for showing us all the real reason you tried to sabotage this thread. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Literally the only time I've heard russiagate come up in the last 6 months is weird tankie types bringing it up as they claim dems cant stop holding onto it. Also I have zero idea what it has to do with this thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Impeachment was needed because that is what was required of the government to do. It isn't really more complicated than that. Trump abused his power in a way that warrented impeachment, and it isn't the Democrats fault that the Republicans refused to do their job. It's like blaming some guy at work for doing what he is supposed to do because his co-worker is a shithead. The Democrats made the right call. Trump hosed up and did some extremely illegal poo poo and should have faced consequences for it. There is no doubt that what he did was illegal and there is no doubt that under a sane non-Trump worshipping senate he would have been sent packing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
The Democrats have much more potent weapons to use than impeachment so saying that this was their only option kind of demonstrates how effective their strategy of making a show of opposing Trump was, because clearly plenty of their supporters are willing to forgive them for voting in favour of Trumps military budget and other parts of his agenda as long as they go on TV and say Trump is a threat to the Republic. Stickman posted:Those are both great ideas... but the first is totally unrelated to the question of impeachment vs no impeachment and the second is only tangentially so. There’s no reason why they couldn’t have done both, and impeachment proceedings wouldn’t have significantly hindered their ability to do either of those things. In theory it is true that the Democrats could be doing all these things at once. Capability is not the issue. The issue is that they don't want to do those things. The function of the Russiagate fiasco and then the impeachment hearings has been to focus as much of their partisan supporters' limited attention as possible toward the realm of symbolism and theater where the Democrats can make a dramatic show of condemning the President while discretely enabling his agenda, large parts of which are actually favoured by the donor base of both parties. This "principle-agent" problem - that elected politicians have interests very different from those of their constituents - means that you can't just operate under the assumption that the Democrats are acting out of genuine civic duty or that they're automatically going to choose the most effective forms of resistance against Trump. Any time you're evaluating the behaviour of a politician you necessarily have to allow some space to consider how their behaviour is designed to maintain their power within the hierarchy of their party rather than to necessary try to maximize how often they win elections for public office. Angry_Ed posted:They did this in 2018, and it continues at the state and local level (see: Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, North Carolina). The Democrats did try to make something out of Mueller but it blew up in their faces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Curious what your solution for "the president committed a crime" would be. Trump committed impeachable offenses to which congress was obliged to impeach him. In theory this is what is done when a president commits a crime, and in theory it is the only way to stop a president. If the Democrats don't try for impeachment they are basically saying the president can do anything consequence free. Again it isn't the Democrats fault (no matter how much you want it to be) that the Senate Republicans said that a president can commit as many crimes as he wants without facing consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Curious what your solution for "the president committed a crime" would be. There's no solution for this
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Curious what your solution for "the president committed a crime" would be. Trump committed impeachable offenses to which congress was obliged to impeach him. In theory this is what is done when a president commits a crime, and in theory it is the only way to stop a president. If the Democrats don't try for impeachment they are basically saying the president can do anything consequence free. Again it isn't the Democrats fault (no matter how much you want it to be) that the Senate Republicans said that a president can commit as many crimes as he wants without facing consequences. Its just unfortunate that the only crime the president committed is one that explicitly targeted a corrupt scion of the political elite. Other than that he is completely innocent in all ways. Such a shame. BiggerBoat posted:Cross posting from the USPOL but I wish somebody would invite Bolton and Parnas as their guests to SOTU. Nix Panicus posted:I have to say I'm looking forward to the #resistance welcoming blood thirsty ghoul John Bolton into their ranks and buying his book en masse. The rehabilitation of right wing monsters because they have been critical of Trump has been loving wild, and indicative of how shallow #resistance ideology really is
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The Democrats have much more potent weapons to use than impeachment What exactly was the party's recourse? Do nothing? Let Trump keep doing what he's doing without flexing every ounce of muscle they have? Had they done so you'd be among the clamor of people calling them weak and feckless for doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Its just unfortunate that the only crime the president committed is one that explicitly targeted a corrupt scion of the political elite. Other than that he is completely innocent in all ways. Such a shame. I bet you think Joe Biden got Shokin fired for investigating Burisma too 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
If the Democrats really wanted to obstruct Trump's agenda then the most powerful tool they have would be the 'power of the purse', which was understood by the framers of the constitution to be the most potent check upon the power of the executive. Historically that has been the tool that parliaments, congresses, diets, etc. exercised over the executive or sovereign. Obviously that can be complemented with other actions including votes of censure or impeachment but substantively speaking it is control over the flow of money that actually matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:
Impeachment is about the Senate. It's distressing that it hasn't hurt Trump's approval but again, it's about the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
E: You know what? gently caress this; you're not arguing in good faith and I'm sorry it took me this long to realize it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If the Democrats really wanted to obstruct Trump's agenda then the most powerful tool they have would be the 'power of the purse', which was understood by the framers of the constitution to be the most potent check upon the power of the executive. Historically that has been the tool that parliaments, congresses, diets, etc. exercised over the executive or sovereign. Obviously that can be complemented with other actions including votes of censure or impeachment but substantively speaking it is control over the flow of money that actually matters. Yeah imagine if they told the president 'hey this money has been voted to go to our allies in Ukraine fighting against Russia and you can't stop it because Power of the Purse.' Surely that would've stymied Trump! Its not like he would just go 'lol no put a hold on it til I get an investigation publicly announced that'll make my perceived opponent in the next presidental election look corrupt as hell' that'd be ILLEGAL. Oh or they told him they specifically earmarked money to go to other military programs that weren't keeping kids in cages I bet that would tie Trump's hands because its not like he could declare a state of emergency at the border and appropriate funds otherwise not earmarked for that purpose! Power. Of. The Purse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:What exactly was the party's recourse? Do nothing? Let Trump keep doing what he's doing without flexing every ounce of muscle they have? Not voting for whatever Trump wants to push through would have been a good start. The Republicans stopped Obama cold for years with fewer Senators than the Democrats. Impeachment is just a fig leaf of #resistance when they keep voting for his policies and handing him legislative wins
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Its just unfortunate that the only crime the president committed is one that explicitly targeted a corrupt scion of the political elite. Other than that he is completely innocent in all ways. Such a shame. I mean, that's the only one where the evidence fell into their lap in an easily digestible format that only Trump bootlickers can deny. The fact that it was an attack on their former collegue and the (at the time) presumed presidential primary polling front-runner certainly gave a little extra motivation in this case, but there are still plenty of other investigations going on. It's just that most of those have been obstructed more effectively, whereas this one they had everything they needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If the Democrats really wanted to obstruct Trump's agenda then the most powerful tool they have would be the 'power of the purse', which was understood by the framers of the constitution to be the most potent check upon the power of the executive. Historically that has been the tool that parliaments, congresses, diets, etc. exercised over the executive or sovereign. Obviously that can be complemented with other actions including votes of censure or impeachment but substantively speaking it is control over the flow of money that actually matters. https://giphy.com/gifs/FxXMYXJyeB3rO This is what you're saying
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Yeah imagine if they told the president 'hey this money has been voted to go to our allies in Ukraine fighting against Russia and you can't stop it because Power of the Purse.' Surely that would've stymied Trump! Its not like he would just go 'lol no put a hold on it til I get an investigation publicly announced that'll make my perceived opponent in the next presidental election look corrupt as hell' that'd be ILLEGAL. They told the President these things and when he blatantly ignored them they continued to vote him new funds, not least of all an additional $120 billion in military spending, given to the President at the same time that he is withdrawing from the INF and promising to weaponize space. Meanwhile the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means committee in the House of Reps said that this was "the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades" and 181 Democrats in the House voted for the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act while only 41 voted against it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Not voting for whatever Trump wants to push through would have been a good start. The Republicans stopped Obama cold for years with fewer Senators than the Democrats. Impeachment is just a fig leaf of #resistance when they keep voting for his policies and handing him legislative wins The Republicans literally changed the Senate rules when they got power to do this though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Sir this is a thread about impeachment and republican criming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Sir this is a thread about impeachment and republican criming. Yea, this is kind of what eke out was talking out against. People Kramering in here with their "but don't you know that it is really the Democrats who are the worst because they didn't do some bullshit".
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Oracle posted:The Republicans literally changed the Senate rules when they got power to do this though. Yeah I'd say that underscores Helsing's fundamental contention that the democrats clinging to the rulebook and insisting on methods of accountability that have been universally understood to be ineffective and pointless all along is.... a questionable strategy, to say the least Also just loving lmao at the pathological inability of so many posters to just admit that Biden's shithead failson getting a do-nothing job for millions of dollars just because of his last name isn't also the exact kind of open grift and corruption that we should be outraged by sit on my Facebook fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:Also just loving lmao at the pathological inability of so many posters to just admit that Biden's shithead failson getting a do-nothing job for millions of dollars just because of his last name isn't also the exact kind of open grift and corruption that we should be outraged by The primary reason of this, I am sure, is that it isn't the point of the impeachment nor is it the point of this thread. If Trump wanted to go out of his way to expose this and mar Biden's name for nepotism (though lol at pointing fingers at nepotism from the absolute king of nepotism himself), he should have done it in ways that were not blatantly criminal, seeking information from foreign leaders via withholding aid for said foreign nations. And then lying about it, excessively. Because I mean if there is something that Joe or Hunter could or should be targeted for, that should be addressed in their own trial and not the president's impeachment trial, yes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Framboise posted:The primary reason of this, I am sure, is that it isn't the point of the impeachment nor is it the point of this thread. If Trump wanted to go out of his way to expose this and mar Biden's name for nepotism (though lol at pointing fingers at nepotism from the absolute king of nepotism himself), he should have done it in ways that were not blatantly criminal, seeking information from foreign leaders via withholding aid for said foreign nations. And then lying about it, excessively. Also I don't think it makes much sense to prosecute Joe and/or Hunter Biden for *checks notes* removal of a corrput Prosecutor General who was not investigating Burisma despite being told to by several people including various EU governments, his own government, and the US government. Whatever nepotism was at work with getting Hunter Biden a job at Burisma, it has absolutely nothing to do with the crimes of Donald Trump or their "good intentions" (HA!) and to talk otherwise is a distraction at best, and tacit support of Donald Trump's actions at worst. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Also I don't think it makes much sense to prosecute Joe and/or Hunter Biden for *checks notes* removal of a corrput Prosecutor General who was not investigating Burisma despite being told to by several people including various EU governments, his own government, and the US government. Don't forget, it was a bipartisan action at the time. You can still find the signed support from Republicans on their .gov site.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Framboise posted:The primary reason of this, I am sure, is that it isn't the point of the impeachment nor is it the point of this thread. If Trump wanted to go out of his way to expose this and mar Biden's name for nepotism (though lol at pointing fingers at nepotism from the absolute king of nepotism himself), he should have done it in ways that were not blatantly criminal, seeking information from foreign leaders via withholding aid for said foreign nations. And then lying about it, excessively. I follow this logic and totally agree, obviously, but the point of confusion for me is why a defense of the Bidens is what follows from it instead of the, to me, more appropriate reaction of "yeah so gently caress em, torch him too, it's irrelevant to Trump's impeachment either way." I'd argue that it's a much stronger rhetorical position since A) defending Hunter is basically just conceding to Republican attempts to move the goalposts and B) despite not being illegal corruption, it's still obviously the banal kind of legalized corruption that we're supposed to despise as good comrades, and C) Joe Biden sucks and him getting dragged is good
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:I follow this logic and totally agree, obviously, but the point of confusion for me is why a defense of the Bidens is what follows from it instead of the, to me, more appropriate reaction of "yeah so gently caress em, torch him too, it's irrelevant to Trump's impeachment either way." I'd argue that it's a much stronger rhetorical position since A) defending Hunter is basically just conceding to Republican attempts to move the goalposts and B) despite not being illegal corruption, it's still obviously the banal kind of legalized corruption that we're supposed to despise as good comrades, and C) Joe Biden sucks and him getting dragged is good i think i see your problem, you're confusing "there is no reason the Bidens should testify here" with "a defense of the bidens" many people think the former (though I think there were a variety of opinions about a witness trade, it was ultimately moot because republicans, not democrats, killed it), while basically no one is trying to do the latter. except maybe Joe Biden himself, who seems pathologically inable to say that Hunter's work might even have the appearance of impropriety -- but i don't think he posts in this thread eke out fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Show me the transcripts of the Biden defenders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
I think trading Biden testimony for witnesses the Dems want would have been fine, but I get the argument that legitimizing RWM nonsense is not worth the benefits of extending the circus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think trading Biden testimony for witnesses the Dems want would have been fine, but I get the argument that legitimizing RWM nonsense is not worth the benefits of extending the circus. yeah I think reasonable people can disagree on this, but it will remain totally hypothetical forever because republicans were afraid of even that
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Grace_Segers/status/1224803887531679744 There is no bottom to how stupid Collins thinks her voters are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There is no bottom to how stupid Collins thinks her voters are. it's honestly incredibly funny that she got a hall pass for witnesses then voted for complete acquittal it's so transparently trying to please both sides and i feel very strongly it is not going to help her at all
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
eke out posted:it's honestly incredibly funny that she got a hall pass for witnesses then voted for complete acquittal Voters are incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Voters are incredibly stupid. quote:In a dramatic drop that could signal trouble for her reelection bid in 2020, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is now the most unpopular senator in America, according to Morning Consult's tracking poll of Senate popularity. from two weeks ago. the trump administration has taken her from +40 to -4 in Maine lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
eke out posted:from two weeks ago. christ lol this strange feeling... is it... hope?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
eke out posted:from two weeks ago. Yeah but that doesn't mean she will lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah but that doesn't mean she will lose. here's her opponent for anyone interested in making this happen
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think trading Biden testimony for witnesses the Dems want would have been fine, but I get the argument that legitimizing RWM nonsense is not worth the benefits of extending the circus. there was no trade to be made. Republicans call any Biden they want by a 53-47 vote, and Democrats need a minimum of 4 Republican senators to switch sides to call anybody.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
oldskool posted:there was no trade to be made. Republicans call any Biden they want by a 53-47 vote, and Democrats need a minimum of 4 Republican senators to switch sides to call anybody. Yeah. Investigation of the Bidens and all the shady stuff they must be doing was something Republicans wanted to talk about and get in the news, but didn't actually want to be performed under public scrutiny. It's almost like this is a thing they do to their opponents regardless of actual crimes. It's also almost as though the same people on the left fall for it every single time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Countdown to trump’s I LEARNED NOTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO LEARN, PERFECT PHONE CALL tweet
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:41
|
|
