|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:No, it's a broad bipartisan issue. I know low-level corruption is largely accepted, but I for one would like it to end, and can admit to the idea that maybe it undermined the democrats position. Nothing about that is "corruption", it's garden variety privilege.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
WE DID IT FOLKS
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:This whole show trial was staged explicitly to appeal to voters, since it never had a chance of actually succeeding. The complete failure of the democratic party to fully consider the issues of framing around their show trial, and the insistence of people like those above that framing is all conspiracy theories, is exactly why the democrats consistently lose on messaging, and why impeachment has had zero effect on Trump's popularity. alternatively, in the real world, the democrats framed it so well that every democratic senator voted to convict and a republican senator who was their former nominee for president gave a barnburner speech about how his party’s president is a crook and his colleges are collaborators in his crime and a majority of the country supported conviction potato pahtao
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:alternatively, in the real world, the democrats framed it so well that every democratic senator voted to convict and a republican senator who was their former nominee for president gave a barnburner speech about how his party’s president is a crook and his colleges are collaborators in his crime and a majority of the country supported conviction Also robbing the talking points of the GOP of "IT WAS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT!". This impeachment was very good and handled very well. It was never going to succeed, but the GOP paid for it and will continue to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
I would have hoped for at least one witness being called and at least 2 defectors. Honestly, I'm starting to think the leaks about Bolton's book hampered the push to get witnesses. Once it was clear that he was going to name Pompeo or Mulvaney, I think a lot of fence sitting Senators realized they had to have a bad witness vote at the beginning, or they were going to have a worse witness vote later. Calling no witnesses and shutting things down became the clearly better option at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Also robbing the talking points of the GOP of "IT WAS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT!". This is exactly how I feel. Honestly I think him being acquitted is actually better for us than him being removed. In the long run having the GOP senators on record supporting lawlessness and corruption is worth way more than trump being convicted. If he is removed they just put another even worse candidate up there because I think the republican party is forever changed into the party of trump. With acquittal we may get an edge in close senate races in the fall such as collins, gardner, etc. My hope is that the democrats keep hammering away at this. Keep pushing this message in the media. They need to stay in front of cameras and make sure this doesn't end up like every other scandal trump is involved in. The other thing I have been thinking is that more evidence will come out as FOIA cases go through and Trump's toadies come forward because they realize that their careers in politics are on the line. Maybe we ill see rats fleeing a sinking ship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
it's heartening to see the panicked flailing to turn this somehow into a defeat for the dems. Like it wasn't some world-ending victory, but it went massively better than they could have imagined and in particular the last few days they even managed to completely gently caress trump's victory lap and send him into a blind rage. The real waste is of course the republicans for sheltering a criminal president and lacking a faintest of spines
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
I guess my question would be, what does the GOP want that Trump cannot give them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I guess my question would be, what does the GOP want that Trump cannot give them? a more efficient genocide?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:26
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I guess my question would be, what does the GOP want that Trump cannot give them? The illusion of dignity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I guess my question would be, what does the GOP want that Trump cannot give them? A static america, eternally unchanging
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:The illusion of dignity. Ship has sailed on that at this point. Now that they know they can exist in full scope/power without it, its been cast aside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:it's heartening to see the panicked flailing to turn this somehow into a defeat for the dems. Like it wasn't some world-ending victory, but it went massively better than they could have imagined and in particular the last few days they even managed to completely gently caress trump's victory lap and send him into a blind rage. Feels like the 2018 election where people went full panic mode on election night before all the votes were counted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:This is exactly how I feel. Honestly I think him being acquitted is actually better for us than him being removed. In the long run having the GOP senators on record supporting lawlessness and corruption is worth way more than trump being convicted. If he is removed they just put another even worse candidate up there because I think the republican party is forever changed into the party of trump. With acquittal we may get an edge in close senate races in the fall such as collins, gardner, etc. My hope is that the democrats keep hammering away at this. Keep pushing this message in the media. They need to stay in front of cameras and make sure this doesn't end up like every other scandal trump is involved in. yeah at the end of the day people need to realize that the impeachment was not really putting trump on trial. he is guilty, everyone knows he is guilty - even republicans, so they have to argue "he did it but so what - and while there is probably a marginal amount of people who wouldn't have realized he was a criminal without this, they're a tiny minority. we all know who trump is. we knew it before the trial and we knew it afterwards; and we knew there was no real chance the senate would actually remove him. what the impeachment was about was putting the republican party on trial. the republican party maintains power through elected officials who paint themselves as "one of the good ones" - i'm a republican, but i'm not like trump. collins, gardner, and others needed that. and there were a lot of people who believed it: that they hated trump but thought that trump was an abberation and that their republican wasn't like that. but that's not true - there are no "good ones" and what impeachment was about was showing that. every single republican, but one, failed that test. they brazenly covered up his crime by blocking witnesses who were going to testify about his crimes, and were forced on record to do that. they all, except one, cleared him and ratified his illegal conduct (whatever nonsense they tried to claim in their press releases doesn't matter). every single one (except romney) has made it abundantly clear to anyone watching that they are not one of "the good ones" they are not "a check on trump" they are trump's toadies. that's what impeachment was all about. we all know who and what trump is. a sizable minority of the country will vote for him anyway (or because of) his criminality. hopefully, it helped a little bit to reinforce for people who don't really want to vote for trump but aren't really democrats that no, you can't sit out the election or vote for trump "for the judges" but not being a trumpist. but that's not the real potential political benefit: it's to make clear to the people in maine, colorado, north carolina, arizona, and everywhere else that their senator is not one of the good ones. if they vote for their republican senator, they're voting for trump. they are not voting for someone who will call them like they see them, who will be a principled small government conservative, or whatever nonsense people use to vote for republicans. they are voting for trump, period. and if they don't want to do that, their only option is to vote for their democratic challenger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I guess my question would be, what does the GOP want that Trump cannot give them? A slightly more polite racist fan base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
I feel like the reason the impeachment got so far is just dumb luck on the Democrats' part rather than concern for Biden. The thing which really set it off was when Trump just tweeted out the call notes in response to the whistleblower rumors. I feel that if it weren't for that we wouldn't be here today. The whole whistleblower thing was all second-hand and it would have been very easy for any Republican to dismiss concerns of wrongdoing. Even if other government officials eventually joined in to say that Trump did a bad thing it wouldn't have gotten anywhere (after all, the same thing has happened for every other major scandal). But then Trump tweets out the call notes where he clearly is doing the crime, and then for several days afterwards there's no consistent conservative narrative and then we get an impeachment inquiry. I think without that, this wouldn't have ended up being as much of a scandal, even if Democrats wanted to protect Biden from Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:I feel like the reason the impeachment got so far is just dumb luck on the Democrats' part rather than concern for Biden. The thing which really set it off was when Trump just tweeted out the call notes in response to the whistleblower rumors. I feel that if it weren't for that we wouldn't be here today. The whole whistleblower thing was all second-hand and it would have been very easy for any Republican to dismiss concerns of wrongdoing. Even if other government officials eventually joined in to say that Trump did a bad thing it wouldn't have gotten anywhere (after all, the same thing has happened for every other major scandal). But then Trump tweets out the call notes where he clearly is doing the crime, and then for several days afterwards there's no consistent conservative narrative and then we get an impeachment inquiry. I think without that, this wouldn't have ended up being as much of a scandal, even if Democrats wanted to protect Biden from Trump. releasing the entire call log was certainly an own goal there. made it utterly impossible to maintain any argument about mischaracterizing the call and the only defense left was "actually corruption is cool and good, as long as its by republicans"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
This whole thing was a long shot to begin with. I'm ready to move on and support Bernie for president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Furiously photoshopping Pelosi ripping up paper to have the paper say "Impeachment Documents"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this logic doesn't hold. to the extent impeachment motivates 'swing' voters (and you are using this term in an overly broad way) to vote against trump, it does so by in essence showing that trump is a corrupt criminal. the extent to which a swing voter who is repelled by trump being a corrupt criminal mattering will depend on how much they like the democratic candidate, true - they may be less likely to vote for bernie vs voting for biden, or they may be more likely to sit out if it's bernie (but not vote for trump) and actively willing to vote for biden. but here's the thing you're missing: it still helps democrats win even if you run bernie. it just might not help as much. but there are going to be some swing voters for whom corrupt criminal is a dealbreaker, period, and will vote for whoever the democrats put up that is not themselves a corrupt criminal. there are going to be some swing voters who aren't going to vote for bernie - but won't ever vote for trump now, and would have otherwise. It's possible that the impeachment will help the Democrats in individual senate races but whether it hurts Trump is difficult to predict. His historically unprecedented negatives didn't stop him last time and he Congress is unpopular enough that some voters are going to end up viewing this process as confirmation that Trump is trying to drain the swamp. I hope it does end up working against the Republicans and if it gave Trump a few panic attacks along the way then great. My point, though, was not about the impact of these proceedings on the general election but rather how they factored into the internal factional struggles of the Democratic party. Much like with the Benghazi hearings, the purpose of the impeachment wasn't exclusively to demoralize the other party or to win over swing voters. It was also an exercise aimed at achieving particular effects within the party's base of support and toward friendly media and activist organizations. Getting partisans to rally around the party and to view criticism of prominent Democrats like Biden with suspicion, or to just in general train voters to think accusations of Democratic leaders being corrupt are inherently suspicious arguments that are associated with the hated Republicans. I don't think they've done a very good job of pulling it off in the last couple years but it shouldn't be controversial to point out that from the perspective of elected politicians one of the important roles of partisan political conflict is to keep your own followers focused on the enemy rather than on your leadership. So hey, sure your party voted overwhelmingly in favour of Trump's incredibly dangerous military budget but at least you also impeached him!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's possible that the impeachment will help the Democrats in individual senate races but whether it hurts Trump is difficult to predict. His historically unprecedented negatives didn't stop him last time and he Congress is unpopular enough that some voters are going to end up viewing this process as confirmation that Trump is trying to drain the swamp. I hope it does end up working against the Republicans and if it gave Trump a few panic attacks along the way then great. For this trial, hurting Republican senators was absolutely the intended result. And it's a good goal, since clawing back Senate seats in swing states is so important. With McConnell as Majority Leader, it's a good question whether an incoming Democratic president will even be allowed to assemble a cabinet, much less nominate judges or pass legislation. As for Trump getting in despite all his negatives, I guess that makes sense if your argument is that Hillary was a charismatic and well-liked candidate who none of the current contenders can match ? Otherwise, haha, yeah. A lot of the reasons Trump won despite his huge negatives aren't there this year, and one of the biggest ones was " months of Trump scandals getting a lot less news coverage than buttery males."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
As with any big, visible and complicated political process I think this impeachment served multiple different goals, some of which are laudatory and some of which should be concerning. The issue arises when people stop viewing the Democrats critically as a deeply flawed but necessary mechanism for political reform in America and instead begin viewing the Democrats as "their" team and start emotionally identifying with the successes of the Democratic leadership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
Hahaha the pettiest poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah at the end of the day people need to realize that the impeachment was not really putting trump on trial. he is guilty, everyone knows he is guilty - even republicans, so they have to argue "he did it but so what - and while there is probably a marginal amount of people who wouldn't have realized he was a criminal without this, they're a tiny minority. we all know who trump is. we knew it before the trial and we knew it afterwards; and we knew there was no real chance the senate would actually remove him. Probably a dumb question but in regards to this: can't the Republican parties in these states primary their obviously unpopular senators? What's stopping Maine Republicans from recognizing that Collins has a fuckload of baggage & would probably get clobbered against a Democrat and pushing some rando state senator or whatever without that baggage to replace her?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:releasing the entire call log was certainly an own goal there. made it utterly impossible to maintain any argument about mischaracterizing the call and the only defense left was "actually corruption is cool and good, as long as its by republicans" But I heard it was perfect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As with any big, visible and complicated political process I think this impeachment served multiple different goals, some of which are laudatory and some of which should be concerning. The issue arises when people stop viewing the Democrats critically as a deeply flawed but necessary mechanism for political reform in America and instead begin viewing the Democrats as "their" team and start emotionally identifying with the successes of the Democratic leadership. Which people, though? Do you really think that there are enough Americans who see the Democratic Party as “deeply flawed but necessary for reform” to carry an election by themselves, or that impeachment success is the straw that would actually convert any of us into blind cheerleaders? That’s ridiculous. You’re literally arguing that it’s bad when the Democrats do good things or things that might get people to vote for them, because it might distract people from the bad things. Stickman fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Feb 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Hahaha the pettiest poo poo I would *think* this one could be pretty harmless since no company is going to want to invest any significant resources in those areas just to have those permits revoked by the incoming administration. But I don't know the details on these things, maybe there's some guarantee of a certain duration of a permit that the government would have to honor even if it stopped granting new ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:My point, though, was not about the impact of these proceedings on the general election but rather how they factored into the internal factional struggles of the Democratic party. Much like with the Benghazi hearings, the purpose of the impeachment wasn't exclusively to demoralize the other party or to win over swing voters. It was also an exercise aimed at achieving particular effects within the party's base of support and toward friendly media and activist organizations. Getting partisans to rally around the party and to view criticism of prominent Democrats like Biden with suspicion, or to just in general train voters to think accusations of Democratic leaders being corrupt are inherently suspicious arguments that are associated with the hated Republicans. I don't think they've done a very good job of pulling it off in the last couple years but it shouldn't be controversial to point out that from the perspective of elected politicians one of the important roles of partisan political conflict is to keep your own followers focused on the enemy rather than on your leadership. So hey, sure your party voted overwhelmingly in favour of Trump's incredibly dangerous military budget but at least you also impeached him! you should treat any accusation made by republicans, particularly ones that happen to be politically advantageous to republicans, with deep suspicion. this should not be a controversial point, and the idea that false republican allegations should be vigorously challenged and given no credence should be the default position of anyone not in the republican party, even if the person who is today's target is your political opponent in conflicts between various factions of the democratic party. suggesting this was an enterprise [i]aimed at[i] achieving particular effects within the party's base of support instead of a process that had that effect is a conspiracy-minded theory that you have provided zero support for and, i suspect, can provide nothing but vague handwaving that because it has that effect that effect must be intended here is why this process happened: donald trump is abusing the powers of his office in an attempt to rig the 2020 election. yes, he was looking to rig it against biden specifically, but it requires a real heavy level of special pleading to suggest that although he extorted an american ally to manufacture dirt against biden, he would never do such a thing against bernie so this is really just about biden and an exercise aimed at supporting biden specifically you do not need to identify with democrats as "your team" to not concoct conspiracy theories about how actually impeachment is partially an anti-bernie conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
oldskool posted:Probably a dumb question but in regards to this: can't the Republican parties in these states primary their obviously unpopular senators? What's stopping Maine Republicans from recognizing that Collins has a fuckload of baggage & would probably get clobbered against a Democrat and pushing some rando state senator or whatever without that baggage to replace her? The republican party is too broken for a successful challenge from the left. Any challenger to Collins that can win a republican primary is a far-right nutjob running on her being insufficiently loyal to The Leader. There is not a majority of republicans anywhere, in the bluest of states, willing to vote tactically to replace a republican with a more moderate republican who might be able to win.* Plus, if you replace the existing senator people voted for before with someone new, they see that new person as a generic republican until proven otherwise while people like Collins and Gardner persuaded a majority to view them as moderates once before, so it's easier to do it again. How are you gonna get a majority of republican primary voters behind "actually we need a senator who will say they were in favor of impeachment"? edit: I should also note that while Collins is beatable now, she has in the past been virtually unbeatable and as a sitting senator she at least has stuff she's done in the past she can change the subject to. even if she's badly damaged she's still probably the best shot republicans have. *except maybe kansas, where hard-right republicans hosed the state into such a deep hole they're struggling to get out that they lost to moderate republicans in 2018 evilweasel fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Feb 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As with any big, visible and complicated political process I think this impeachment served multiple different goals, some of which are laudatory and some of which should be concerning. The issue arises when people stop viewing the Democrats critically as a deeply flawed but necessary mechanism for political reform in America and instead begin viewing the Democrats as "their" team and start emotionally identifying with the successes of the Democratic leadership. I guess if your argument is that "of course it hurts Republicans and that's bad because it means it helps Dems" you can make that too but it's not particularly more sensible than "no one in this primary has Hillary Clinton likeability."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I guess if your argument is that "of course it hurts Republicans and that's bad because it means it helps Dems" you can make that too but it's not particularly more sensible than "no one in this primary has Hillary Clinton likeability." bill de blasio was in the primary even if he's not anymore
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I would *think* this one could be pretty harmless since no company is going to want to invest any significant resources in those areas just to have those permits revoked by the incoming administration. But I don't know the details on these things, maybe there's some guarantee of a certain duration of a permit that the government would have to honor even if it stopped granting new ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I would *think* this one could be pretty harmless since no company is going to want to invest any significant resources in those areas just to have those permits revoked by the incoming administration. But I don't know the details on these things, maybe there's some guarantee of a certain duration of a permit that the government would have to honor even if it stopped granting new ones. i expect the permit can't be revoked without compensation and/or cause once granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i expect the permit can't be revoked without compensation and/or cause once granted. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at the inclusion of such a thing, but I can't imagine even this administration would be able to write a permit so egregiously one-sided that it made it impossible to revoke. That seems, idunno, wrong-ish that a particular administration could undermine and handicap future ones so easily, though not unimaginable, I guess. But like I said, I'm not familiar with details on these things
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Is anyone else watching Trump's [strike]pep rally[/strike] address this afternoon? I keep having to pause to get some work done. I don't know why I'm sitting through this awful thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I would *think* this one could be pretty harmless since no company is going to want to invest any significant resources in those areas just to have those permits revoked by the incoming administration. But I don't know the details on these things, maybe there's some guarantee of a certain duration of a permit that the government would have to honor even if it stopped granting new ones. Beyond the drilling and mining are grazing permits for local farmers who relish in the thought of armed government standoffs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Ignoranus posted:Is anyone else watching Trump's [strike]pep rally[/strike] address this afternoon? I keep having to pause to get some work done. I don't know why I'm sitting through this awful thing. I’m running errands and every time I get in the car before my podcast starts I hear his voice and it makes me sick. Why is NPR airing this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
"Trump Says If He Didn't Fire Comey, He Wouldn't Be In Office" i, uh, what what is the context for "if i didn't fire the FBI director i'd have gotten tossed out on my rear end by the senate"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Devin Nunes just got a standing ovation at this hellworld speech
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1225481009480839175 https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1225481313781723136 lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:08
|
|
