|
Dapper_Swindler posted:lol ok, do it rear end in a top hat, because poo poo like that won't help you win. He is a senator. "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Only the house of reps can bring impeachment.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:https://nypost.com/2021/02/14/sen-graham-says-kamala-harris-could-be-impeached-if-gop-takes-over-the-house/ I mean the Republicans basically have destroyed the impeachment power anyways, why not just finally kill it completely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
If GOP ever wins the House again then just lol Just lol forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If GOP ever wins the House again then just lol They've controlled it for the majority of my life. It's unusual that they don't control it now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If GOP ever wins the House again then just lol They have advantages to gaining control of branches of government that no other party has. As others have said, they can lose the popular vote by large margins and still come out winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Ghost of RBG posted:They have advantages to gaining control of branches of government that no other party has. As others have said, they can lose the popular vote by large margins and still come out winning. I know that, it is just completely baffling to me that the other side goes along with it all the time. Or campaigns on anything else except how insane that is. Like I think I have said before, the most shocking thing about the Capitol assault to me is that with this insane undemocratic joke of a system it hasn't happened before. Just the sheer idea of someone, much less millions and millions of people, continually accepting that their vote is worth less just hurts my brain. Especially from a country where most history seems to be in one way or other about civil rights. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Ghost of RBG posted:They have advantages to gaining control of branches of government that no other party has. As others have said, they can lose the popular vote by large margins and still come out winning. In 1790 this 'living in cities' thing was seen as inherently contemptible by the landed gentry. Real people of worth held land in perpetuity and passed that wealth securely on to the next generation requiring long term planning on how to hold on to wealth for centuries. Conservatism is inherently built in at every layer of the governing concept and land is far more important than people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I know that, it is just completely baffling to me that the other side goes along with it all the time. Or campaigns on anything else except how insane that is. I don’t think people inherently accept this, it’s part of an ideology forced by upon mostly unwitting people by the sheer cultural inertia and a healthy dose of brutalizing anyone who protests against the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Murgos posted:In 1790 this 'living in cities' thing was seen as inherently contemptible by the landed gentry. Real people of worth held land in perpetuity and passed that wealth securely on to the next generation requiring long term planning on how to hold on to wealth for centuries. Correct, which is why it’s so critical we recognize the fact that the “livable planet clock” is ticking down to zero and maybe the next time the GOP finds themselves with all 3 branches of government and enough social support to do what they want to do, we won’t have the luck of Donald Trump stumbling all over the place and throwing wrenches on all the gears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Ghost of RBG posted:Correct, which is why it’s so critical we recognize the fact that the “livable planet clock” is ticking down to zero and maybe the next time the GOP finds themselves with all 3 branches of government and enough social support to do what they want to do, we won’t have the luck of Donald Trump stumbling all over the place and throwing wrenches on all the gears. I guess my, not enunciated, point is that 'we' need to spend the next 20 years framing the conversation on how to fundamentally alter the balance of power at the state and federal constitutional level, not just papering over a systemically broken system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I guess my, not enunciated, point is that 'we' need to spend the next 20 years framing the conversation on how to fundamentally alter the balance of power at the state and federal constitutional level, not just papering over a systemically broken system. I don’t think we have the luxury of two decades, but yes, agreed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If GOP ever wins the House again then just lol They will. I promise you. People didn't think the bar could sink any lower than GWB and the Iraq war then a decade later we got Trump. The GOP base is dug in rather hard, a weird mix of the uneducated and cleverly smart that makes exploitation incredibly easy. Anything short of a Total "Christian" Theocratic Dictatorship is seen as failure so they'll have a lot to mad about for a good while. (Most of) The GOP leaders don't want that specific scenario but are smart enough to know they need to pretend to be to placate their base and generate votes. They're in a weird and weak position for sure but roughly half the country is weird and weak as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If GOP ever wins the House again, then just lol The GOP has given more people more money in the last four years than the Dems ever have. The Dems saw this, promised $2,000 checks, then made that $1,400 the second they won, and are now trying to means-test the $1,400. So yes, of course, the GOP is going to get the house again. Republicans did tangibly more for them than the DNC will. If the DNC somehow gave people money and healthcare in a standard, non-tax-deductible form, they would win re-election for several decades, but that isn't their M.O.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:The GOP has given more people more money in the last four years than the Dems ever have. The Dems saw this, promised $2,000 checks, then made that $1,400 the second they won, and are now trying to means-test the $1,400. this is crazy!!! do you have some good twitter follows you could refer me to learn more about this? maybe a failed comedian?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
I think the downside of essentially banning Republicans is they're still here, they just use the most frustrating framing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:The GOP has given more people more money in the last four years than the Dems ever have. The Dems saw this, promised $2,000 checks, then made that $1,400 the second they won, and are now trying to means-test the $1,400. Yo, how's the weather over there on Earth-2? Is it at least sunny there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:The GOP has given more people more money in the last four years than the Dems ever have. The Dems saw this, promised $2,000 checks, then made that $1,400 the second they won, and are now trying to means-test the $1,400. Pedantic arguments about that topic belong in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
generic one posted:Pedantic arguments about that topic belong in this thread. It's not pedantic to rightfully point out that they said $2000 and then immediately squelched on that promise. Gaslighting people with the $2000 vs $1400 argument isn't OK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:It's not pedantic to rightfully point out that they said $2000 and then immediately squelched on that promise. you should definitely start a thread on this very serious topic Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
They’re pretty close to constitutional convention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Aruan posted:you should definitely start a thread on this very serious topic Somebody asked if the Dems were going to lose in 22 and I responded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
Trump eliminated the national debt, and cut taxes. I rest my case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
generic one posted:Pedantic arguments about that topic belong in this thread. That thread's closed so I'm sure the 2000/1400 argument is going to leak back into USPOL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Gaslighting people with the $2000 vs $1400 argument isn't OK. No you're right it's not, so stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No you're right it's not, so stop. Yeah. The Dems promised 2k, then squelched on the 2k. Seems pretty straightforward. Edit* Do you think the Dems actually meant $1,400 and not $2,000 because the Republicans already forked over $600? Because if you believe that, then you would also believe that the Dems should only send out $200 checks because the Republicans sent out $1800 in total already. 
FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
Whether it's 2000 or 1400 is completely moot because nobody has seen a single penny of it yet, and probably won't for at least another month. You don't have to be a Republican to see that the Dems aren't doing enough, and that this will have very bad electoral consequences unless it is promptly fixed. Stop burying your heads in the sand. The Republicans can easily take back the House if the Dems let them.
Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Yeah. The Dems promised 2k, then squelched on the 2k. Seems pretty straightforward. Why the gently caress are you trying to start an argument about it in the now defunct impeachment thread? That’s what’s pedantic. God drat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:The GOP has given more people more money in the last four years than the Dems ever have. By what math or definition of "giving money"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:By what math or definition of "giving money"? $4 trillion to Wall Street in March last year and some other trillion to millionaires/billionaires the same year. Granted, it's not money to people that need it, but they did do that. Also the $2,000 vs. $1,400 argument is dumb as poo poo given all the literal campaign ads on video promising them (while also skipping over the "on day one" part of that promise). "The check will be sent eventually!" doesn't matter. The promise is broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:$4 trillion to Wall Street in March last year and some other trillion to millionaires/billionaires the same year. That's not too many people, is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:By what math or definition of "giving money"? The GOP sent out $1200 and $600 checks to people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:The GOP sent out $1200 and $600 checks to people. How delightful! Such an amusing little parlour trick, it tickles my fancy! And? Is that all you've got? Surely you must have something else; step on up, don't be shy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
It’s weird that people argue about $1400 vs. $2000 when no one has received any checks from our new illustrious government yet. The more time that passes the less useful even a full stimulus check will be. Most Americans that get these pathetic checks will just have to give them to their landlords.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:How delightful! Such an amusing little parlour trick, it tickles my fancy! Do you have anything of actual substance to say? Ghost of RBG posted:Its weird that people argue about $1400 vs. $2000 when no one has received any checks from our new illustrious government yet. Exactly
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:Do you have anything of actual substance to say? You're going to need to do better than use a $1200 and $600 check argument that the GOP didn't even want to push out in the first place to get an actual debate here, especially considering they were originally going to give out less to poorer people on that twelve hundred if it weren't for democrat intervention. But hey, keep stepping on those rakes there Sideshow Bob, I'm sure this time it'll be different!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:You're going to need to do better than use a $1200 and $600 check argument that the GOP didn't even want to push out in the first place to get an actual debate here, especially considering they were originally going to give out less to poorer people on that twelve hundred if it weren't for democrat intervention. No poo poo, but to the average person, they saw Trump's name on the check, and he was president at the time. Therefore, they will think that the GOP gave them more money than the Dems. But hey, you can go to each individual house and explain that "no actually, the Dems gave you more money!" to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
It does kind of surprise me that seven Republican senators voted to convict the man who was their President up until like, a month ago, but are remaining in the party after it was shown to be an extreme minority position. It's a bit like saying, "I think the party I'm part of is doing crimes, but yeah, I'm going to stay in" when you could have just gone, "No, no crimes here" and taken zero flak at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0UMAzveQR5SsQReU4hKt8g Andres Torres and AG on a new podcast do a breakdown and came up with the same conclusion...there is no reason they shouldn't called witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
DoomTrainPhD posted:No poo poo, but to the average person, they saw Trump's name on the check, and he was president at the time. Therefore, they will think that the GOP gave them more money than the Dems. But hey, you can go to each individual house and explain that "no actually, the Dems gave you more money!" to them. Actually most of those checks were direct deposit and thus didn't have his name on them, in fact if you recall Trump tried to hold up the payments because he wanted to have his name on the checks (that largely didn't exist) and instead settled for a letter that arrived weeks later and was probably promptly thrown out or used as toilet paper in an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Actually most of those checks were direct deposit and thus didn't have his name on them, in fact if you recall Trump tried to hold up the payments because he wanted to have his name on the checks (that largely didn't exist) and instead settled for a letter that arrived weeks later and was probably promptly thrown out or used as toilet paper in an emergency. And who was president at the time? Trump. So the vast majority of people think Trump gave them money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 19:27
|
|