Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Party Plane Jones posted:

Quote this post if you want the �I want nothing� Gang Tag whenever it gets uploaded.

For myself so I can just blindly search through pages and find people quoting these lines: Mohican

I want to be in a gang

# ¿ Nov 20, 2019 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 15:40

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Thought that was pretty cringey but she seemed to agree with him going off the dirty look she gave?

# ¿ Nov 21, 2019 21:40

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Eregos posted:

The fact McConnell will rig the Senate trial as much as he can get away with puts the pro-trial folks in the unusual position of either arguing that the Republicans won't be able to get away with another partisan power grab, and/or the rigging will be so egregious it backfires on Republicans. But given McConnell has been adept at slowly strangling American democracy to death while getting the politically disengaged to blame both sides, I wouldn't expect that outcome. Overall I'm tilting against a trial, there's strong arguments on both sides, but the dead certain outcome, openly intended rigging and insufficient popularity of impeachment tip the balance a bit against it. Again if Dems indefinitely suspend the process though, they need to go extremely hard emphasizing McConnell's rigging the trial and corrupt open collusion with the defendant because the current MSM framing isn't capturing that.

The argument impeachment will help Democrats retake the Senate seems incorrect, simply because the math isn't there due to impeachment not being popular enough. The basic problem is the states Democrats need to win are to the right of the nation, and impeachment is dead even in polling (according to 538's average). This just isn't good enough for Democrats. Retaking the Senate requires flipping 4 states, assuming Doug Jones loses and Trump is beaten, just to reach a zero-vote majority of 50. Only Gardner is likely to sweat an acquittal vote, but his is a must-win seat for Democrats they're ahead in anyways. It's plausible Collins could sweat it, but she already showed her true colors in the Kavanaugh vote as a bitter partisan. If being divisive in Maine were going to cost her, then a lot of that damage is already done. Impeachment will be underwater in Georgia, Iowa and Texas given it's tied nationwide. Impeachment won't help Dem odds in AZ or NC. If impeach and remove were at least 5 points more popular nationally, as popular as opening the inquiry was, I could go along with the argument.

If Pelosi and Schumer are somehow able to pressure McConnell into reasonable rules, and somehow get that commitment in a form he can't backtrack and betray, I could support a trial.

The problem for McConnell is that calling witnesses is polling at like 70-30 in favor. His polling advantage will die if those witnesses testify, but scuttling the trial will also gently caress him.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2019 02:06

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Eregos posted:

Never count on a democracy undermining power grab by the GOP to turn public opinion against them. If it's already against them it's another matter. But if polling is with them they'll almost always get away with whatever it is. Is there polling evidence that scuttling the trial would be disapproved by more than like 55-45? Because I think that's about the minimum margin where it could possibly start to matter, assuming voters still care by November which they won't. This can work to Democrats' advantage though.

Yes, there is

https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/20/most-voters-want-senate-to-call-more-witnesses-for-trumps-impeachment-trial/

# ¿ Dec 22, 2019 03:01

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

It doesn't mean that's the way it would pan out (...in a 5-4 decision yada yada) but my understanding of the exec privilege precedent is that it's not supposed to cover bad behavior or shield the executive from oversight. Normally that means fighting over every thing to decide whether the interest of the executive or the interest of the congress is controlling... but I'd think being a literal impeachment trial should void any claims of executive privilege as long as relevance can be established.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2020 20:04

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Tibalt posted:

I have pretty much the exact opposite analysis - Americans have been surprisingly bipartisan in viewing Trump's conduct as at least inappropriate. More reminders, consistently delivered over weeks, will just solidify the association in people's minds. The longer attention is paid to things like this, the more pressure on someone to break and reveal more incriminating information - Parnas being the current example. And it's hard to say whether Americans will care about the legitimacy of the Senate trial, but the opposite of outrage isn't support, it's indifference. I suspect that "trial" phrasing is creating expectations in the American public, and "sham trial" is going to be unpopular.

Jamming a sham trial through isn't going to stop someone like Parnas from testifying in the house. Transparently scuttling the trial without any evidence means any major revelations that come out after are hung around the GOP's neck.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2020 15:47

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Herstory Begins Now posted:

The strategy of just saying idiotic poo poo about the law that even first year law students can instantly spot as bullshit is a bold strategy in a chamber that is 55% lawyers.

Like the role of intent/mens rea is literally some of the very first stuff ever covered in an undergrad intro to criminal justice class

Fixed that for you

# ¿ Jan 30, 2020 04:52

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

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.

I honestly don't understand why this is treated as a crazy GOP talking point mirroring position.

Nothing about that is "corruption", it's garden variety privilege.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2020 12:26

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Killer robot posted:

I mean, a few things. Romney is still the same right-wing vulture capitalist that grinned at the news of the Benghazi deaths, but that still compares favorably with the people who were just as bad as him in 2012 but today are openly embracing lawless authoritarianism and open white nationalism at Trump's feet. So it's one of those "don't punish the behaviors you want to see" things.

Mormons as a whole are still religious right and have a lot of problems, but they haven't so uniformly followed Evangelical Catholics and Protestants into christian dominionism or nativism, even if it's just because they remember they're also on the list if it goes that way. They've even rolled back some of their anti-gay policies while other churches are cracking down. It's not that they're loved allies now, but they're just no longer "the main Christian sect lefties love to gripe about" like they were ten years ago. For that matter, the left and the fedora-tippers largely parting ways means "hurrr religious clothing" doesn't get the laughs it used to.

I have always had the impression Mormons are at least, for the most part, acting in good faith in accordance with their religion. This doesn't mean their horrendous right wing poo poo is okay.

It does distinguish them from Evangelical Christians who are just spiteful horrendous shits that twist their religion to justify their right wing garbage.

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 7, 2020

# ¿ Feb 7, 2020 13:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 15:40

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

theflyingorc posted:

That has poo poo all to do with the average adherent

This, I'm just talking about personal experience plus what I've observed having Mormon politicians . Definitely not trying to praise the Mormon church.

Faustian Bargain posted:

I mean if you want anecdotal evidence then I can point to tons of examples as a former member.

The old joke "why don't you take a single mormon fishing? they'll drink all you're beer" is absolutely accurate.

Yeah I'm not talking about perfect adherence to the faith, I'm talking about "Jesus would put children in concentration camps because they're refugees".

Edit: I'm probably wrong for over-generalizing. Just every Morman I've met seemed like they were at least trying to be a good person even if we completely disagreed what that meant. Whereas every person I've ever met who volunteered themselves as an evengelical Christian was a spiteful piece of poo poo.

I might be catching a proxy for "white male Southerner" though.

Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Feb 7, 2020

# ¿ Feb 7, 2020 18:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Impeachment Thread: * locks eyes with Nunes* "...Chalupa."