|
Fister Roboto posted:It's incredible how obvious it is that literally the only reason impeachment went through is because the Dems wanted to protect Joe Biden. Not the corruption, incompetence, or flat out evil. It was all about protecting the candidate that they were planning to run all along. eh i think they definitely responded part of the way they did is because virtually every single one of them is fully owned by their donors and you couldn't skip a rock through their without hitting another dozen Hunter Bidens
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
You guys don't actually believe in the moon landing, right? 0
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I get being pissed at ~the establishment~, but goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's incredible how obvious it is that literally the only reason impeachment went through is because the Dems wanted to protect Joe Biden. Not the corruption, incompetence, or flat out evil. It was all about protecting the candidate that they were planning to run all along. Could you share the obviousness with us? And explain how other reasons exist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
Yeah what
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
I mean they could have impeached him for literally all the other crimes he did, including putting kids in cages, but nope it was literally just the Ukraine stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I mean they could have impeached him for literally all the other crimes he did, including putting kids in cages, but nope it was literally just the Ukraine stuff. Probably because it was the most blatantly obvious and the most easily proven? They were sure as hell trying with the Mueller report, but that didn't work out as the slam dunk people were hoping for. Waiting for something with more substance was arguably one of the things they could do. This is craven bullshit territory, though, like what the gently caress did you want them to do? Sit around and wait for something less blatant but also less on the nose so as to quell any suspicions that they might be rallying around their own? Even when it's an incredibly obvious attempt by the opposition to discredit what was then, and still clearly is, a credible frontrunner, after Trump had already been investigated for rigging elections? How would it have looked if they'd have just done nothing? It should've been a loving slam dunk, but Rs did their usual gimmick of making GBS threads all over the rules. But somehow the Dems are the ones that are acting in bad faith here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
They should have been nailing him to the wall for his bullshit the minute they took back the House.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:It should've been a loving slam dunk, but Rs did their usual gimmick of making GBS threads all over the rules. Air Bud, rules don’t say dogs can’t play basketball, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
Unless my donkey brains are more advanced than I thought, the House can't do that unilaterally and loving lol to the Senate doing their job
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:Probably because it was the most blatantly obvious and the most easily proven? every seventh tweet he makes is a new emoluments violation he's repeatedly bragged about molesting pageant contestant, and making deals with organized crime families to get things built explain to me, a moron, what made whatever The Ukraine Thing was supposed to be damningly obvious e: the way to do this was written 30 years ago, just investigate the poo poo out of everything that could possibly be even slightly illegal, subpoena him on every detail, jump on every possibility of perjury, and bring a vote over and over. make the news be full of times "the son of a bitch denied it," fill everyone's heads with horrible stories of things he may have done or meant. it should be easier with Trump than it was with Obama or Clinton! and your supporters will not punish you for trying to impeach someone they hate ten times a year, even if they all fail, cf repealing obamacare. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Mar 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
There were witnesses stating it was no poo poo quid pro quo. But witnesses and evidence don't count
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:we cant even get enough people to adequately staff precincts to ensure you can vote within a 10 hour period. let alone do it an sanitary fashion. I didn't say we were going to do it. Just that we could, like during the civil war. The last time we didn't let the worst loving states drag us down with their bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:every seventh tweet he makes is a new emoluments violation The pageant molestations didn't happen while he was in office, so I dont believe he can be impeached for those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:The pageant molestations didn't happen while he was in office, so I dont believe he can be impeached for those. and whitewater went down well six years before clinton ran for president
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:and whitewater went down well six years before clinton ran for president I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I dont think Clinton was ever impeached for that. So why even bring it up in a conversation about impeachment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Horizon Zero Dawn is v.good. now that all the bars and restaurants have been closed in my state I'll probably finish it over the next week or so
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:every seventh tweet he makes is a new emoluments violation Yes, he committed impeachable offences the very second he was sworn in. I'm seriously in agreement with you on this. But, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo Doc Hawkins posted:explain to me, a moron, what made whatever The Ukraine Thing was supposed to be damningly obvious Because it reads like a loving Tom Clancy novel. POTUS conspiring with a former NYC mayor/US attorney turned mafioso enforcer and his cronies trying to wreck a US election through pressuring a comedian who rose above shallow entertainment to become the savior of a people cruelly oppressed by the resurgent Russian oppressors, oh my loving god, I can't even go on. Doc Hawkins posted:e: the way to do this was written 30 years ago, just investigate the poo poo out of everything that could possibly be even slightly illegal, subpoena him on every detail, jump on every possibility of perjury, and bring a vote over and over. make the news be full of times "the son of a bitch denied it," fill everyone's heads with horrible stories of things he may have done or meant. it should be easier with Trump than it was with Obama or Clinton! and your supporters will not punish you for trying to impeach someone they hate ten times a year, even if they all fail, cf repealing obamacare. Cool. Someone could have written a check half the size of the the one Rupert Murdoch wrote for Roger Ailes and handed it to someone half as competent, and everything would have been fine. Too bad someone wasn't around. Sorry I'm being dickish about this, I wish we could go back and fix this poo poo too. It takes reaching a lot more people and helping them understand. I don't think I know how to do that, even if I had a chance to go back 30 years to work on it. It loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I dont think Clinton was ever impeached for that. So why even bring it up in a conversation about impeachment? i edited the reason in: Doc Hawkins posted:e: the way to do this was written 30 years ago, just investigate the poo poo out of everything that could possibly be even slightly illegal, subpoena him on every detail, jump on every possibility of perjury, and bring a vote over and over. make the news be full of times "the son of a bitch denied it," fill everyone's heads with horrible stories of things he may have done or meant. it should be easier with Trump than it was with Obama or Clinton! and your supporters will not punish you for trying to impeach someone they hate ten times a year, even if they all fail, cf repealing obamacare. also, the house's ability to initiate impeachment is unreviewable, full stop. they can decide that someone who escaped conviction or even prosecution on criminal charges has betrayed the public trust and will be subject to trial in the senate. or even someone who broke no law! impeachment is intended as a fully general remedy for abuse of power and dereliction of duty. now it's your turn: why challenge sexual assault as an impeachable offense? e: more specific wording Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Mar 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Yes, he committed impeachable offences the very second he was sworn in. I'm seriously in agreement with you on this. i believe you quote:Because it reads like a loving Tom Clancy novel. POTUS conspiring with a former NYC mayor/US attorney turned mafioso enforcer and his cronies trying to wreck a US election through pressuring a comedian who rose above shallow entertainment to become the savior of a people cruelly oppressed by the resurgent Russian oppressors, oh my loving god, I can't even go on. too complicated, too much to prove, too hard to report on. if you don't have a senate majority, the point is to drag his name through the mud, and this isn't muddy enough. it could work great as one of four investigations you bring simultaneously, but the others better involve sex, drugs, death, or a good combination of them. quote:Cool. Someone could have written a check half the size of the the one Rupert Murdoch wrote for Roger Ailes and handed it to someone half as competent, and everything would have been fine. Too bad someone wasn't around. i am with you on wishing we had done more in the past 30 years, that's for sure. but the subject is what congresspeople had the power to do in the past three, and why (some of us imagine) they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that he's been committing impeachable offenses since day one, but having Republican witnesses willing to squeal on him with verifiable evidence isn't something that happens every day. That, and I'm not sure what calling out anything else would have accomplished. We all saw how Kavanaugh went; we all saw how the Mueller report went, and how everything else on the R side is going. They did not give a gently caress about any of it. The Ukrain poo poo had strings attached, and witnesses attached, that seemed like it might plausibly shame some of them into doing the right thing. Obviously, it did not. Again, given who the opposition is, what else would you prefer the Dems have done, to make it clear that this wasn't some bizarro-world conspiracy that edges into lefty-Infowars territory? As that was the initial wtf flashpoint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
Ffs quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
I don't loving know. I'm just sick of the only non-fascist party in our country being worthless, craven sacks of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:52
|
|
|
The impeachment would have worked if the Republicans cared at all about democracy and law, they don't. There is no real solution beyond a massive revolt which doesn't seem likely until things get really bad....which it might given the current climate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I don't loving know. I'm just sick of the only non-fascist party in our country being worthless, craven sacks of poo poo. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the political parties in the US in this day and age. There are the Republicans who SKU from libertarian to outright fascist with a fine sprinkling of Christian wackadoodles. and then you have the Democrats, who are literally everybody else. It's a really big tent. Democrats don't pop in the line the Republicans do and they do t have a major partinage system like the Republicans do, they don't have a dedicated media and grift machine pumping out information true or false for the last 30 years. Some of them suck some of them don't , some of them do amazing things and then back them up by doing something stupid. That's politics it's like cops, anybody who really wants to do it absolutely should be the last person to be in charge. If you're really mad about it run for a local office, run for city council, support somebody at a low level where you can make a difference instead of trying to rob the bank by snatching the presidency where at best you would end up with one party that demagogues you and another party that you spent the last five years attacking for backup. It's all horse-trading in favours it's dirty and stupid and awful and all politicians are bastards. if you think you found a politician that doesn't fall into this category, just give it some time. You've got everything from conservative light to the dirtbag left and whether they all like it or not they fall under the Democratic umbrella. If you wants a more focused Democratic party the Republicans have to be beat into the ground. You can't change the rules unless you win. this is going to lead to some really weird bedfellows and you might be working next to somebody one day and then fighting them a year later. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now. it's a garbage system but it's the one we currently have and we can't change it until we control it overwhelmingly. bird cooch fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Mar 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
I could make a big post, but what it ultimately comes down to is that Democratic voters and Republican voters are not the same, and the actions each party takes are rewarded or punished in different ways. Had the Democrats moved to impeach the second they took the House, the entire process would have been put under much harsher scrutiny by the media and dismissed entirely by the Republicans. As it stood, the Democrats were able to make impeachment bipartisan by a single vote, and that was with the most slam-dunk evidence and witnesses imaginable. e: also re: Clinton, the Republicans had the nakedly partisan Ken Starr who was given free reign to run around investigating whatever he wanted while coordinating with Republican leadership, while the Democrats got Bob "So singularly focused on playing by the rules and being non-partisan that you allowed yourself to be made effectively irrelevant" Mueller. And that difference absolutely mattered. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Mar 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
I mean I get Dems thinking it's a better idea and a better look to play by the rules while the opposing team shits in their hand and flings it in their faces, because it's very damned if you do, damned if you don't, re: responding as one might expect to having poo poo thrown in their face. They're trying to appeal to a bunch of people at once, from conservative Democrats, to forced birth Democrats, to Democratic Socialists. It's one of the main arguments for either spinning off a legitimately progressive party, or laying down a lot more set-in-stone ground rules for the Big Tent. I mean, don't forget, even Sanders played by those rules by endorsing a full-on anti-choice forced-birth Dem. They are heavily ingrained into this piece of poo poo party, and no one seem comfortable saying there have to be strict rules about who gets to run. Yes, you might pick up some seats in a backwoods bible belt shithole if you're running under the anti-choice banner, and endorsing that guy means more Dems in power, but what the gently caress does that matter when it comes time for something like, IDK, the ACA? Remember, it was, in part, anti-choice Dems that screwed the party harder than ever during those talks. Made it real loving clear we didn't have a supermajority at all, just a loose coalition of 'not those guys.' As a result, we got what we got, which wasn't a whole loving lot. Edit: I guess my point is mostly that fear of Rs and fear of losing what little legislative power they have has lead Dems to do a lot of stupid poo poo, like welcome in opinions and platforms that shoud have been banned decades ago. Old Boot fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Mar 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
I think I have the roni. Gonna look to see how I can get tested if I even qualify. Good thing my state MA is covering testing and treatment, although insurance will surely hit me for a flu test and not a roni test. Crazy how in a time of true pandemic our government is more focused on preserving the financial markets than our wellbeing. Socialism and M4A now. Pissed i had to look up how much my loving deductible and copay were before getting ready to call my PCP Also stay home, this thing is lurking everywhere. Those movement earnings came 2 weeks late. If I’m getting it, the 100s in the places I’ve been around will be too
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 08:06
|
|
|
Welp. My sister is in quarantine and awaiting test results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 08:16
|
|
|
Auckland?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
Yup
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
Really feel like we're only a couple of days from it popping up everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 08:58
|
|
|
Speaking of Caro, there’s someone in the USPOL Coronavirus thread that keeps posting these super long posts and they sound ALOT like Caro. I’m not saying I know enough to say.. but with the recent discussion about him in this thread I can’t help but wonder. I mean this most recent post is sure something. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&perpage=40&pagenumber=157#post503369715
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Speaking of Caro, there’s someone in the USPOL Coronavirus thread that keeps posting these super long posts and they sound ALOT like Caro. I’m not saying I know enough to say.. but with the recent discussion about him in this thread I can’t help but wonder. That's not Caro, that's just some dude who got his brain broken by C-SPAM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
I didnt read it but holy gently caress that post just kept going 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
I skipped down to see how long it was, saw something about most people are unnesary to current production or something and decided that reading a trump speech would be less detrimental to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
I 100% thought that would link to a comstar post, he’s been melting down in the general corona thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:
Am I the only one who remembers that the Starr investigation was considered so tainted that congress changed the Special Investigation rules / let the old rules expire and then created new, less expansive, rules for future Special Investigations? Like the whole game changed between Starr and Mueller, so comparing them is futile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 11:07
|
|
|
Nystral posted:Am I the only one who remembers that the Starr investigation was considered so tainted that congress changed the Special Investigation rules / let the old rules expire and then created new, less expansive, rules for future Special Investigations? Like the whole game changed between Starr and Mueller, so comparing them is futile. Pretty much. The independent counsel law was a post Watergate law and had a renewable 5 year expiration. It was not renewed in 1999. In the absence of any law, the creation of rules for such investigations fell to the Justice Department. The current DoJ rules are from 1999 when the statute expired. joat mon fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Mar 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 12:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Old Boot posted:It should've been a loving slam dunk, but Rs did their usual gimmick of making GBS threads all over the rules. But somehow the Dems are the ones that are acting in bad faith here? The Rules, that is, the Constitution, state that the Senate has to vote to convict. There was no way a Republican majority Senate votes to convict a sitting Republican president. To assume it was ever going to be otherwise is naive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 12:28
|
|