Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 05-05-2019, 06:26 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
She means that Trump will contend that narrow election victories for democrats aren't valid results; that he'll contest close election results, claim the elections were "rigged", and whip up his supporters into a frenzy. And she's not wrong for worrying about that because he's already hinted that this is exactly what he would do.

That little bit at the end of a campaign where the loser makes the congratulatory phone call and accepts the results of an election is actually extremely important. It reaffirms the validity of the results, regardless of which side you're on. In one of his debates with Hillary Clinton, Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the election, which was an absolutely disgusting thing for a candidate of this magnitude to say, or refuse to say. There is every indication that he would be willing to contest the results of the election considering that an election loss threatens his freedom.
I know you said President Trump, but it sounds like you're writing about whats-her-face Abrams from Georgia.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-05-2019 at 06:29 AM.
  #452  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:08 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,501
He'll do all that anyway. Pelosi should drop that one.
  #453  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I know you said President Trump, but it sounds like you're writing about whats-her-face Abrams from Georgia.
It's pretty apparent she has a legitimate reason to not be a good sport, considering the guy running for the governorship was also the current secretary of state and who put 53000 vote registrations on hold, most of which were for candidates likely to support Abrams. But that's not really news to you; your side 'won' so it doesn't matter.
  #454  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:56 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
He'll do all that anyway. Pelosi should drop that one.
Her point is that it's important for Democrats to focus on the election issues. Impeachment could dominate the headlines, which is one thing if the president's popularity among his supporters craters. But when only 29% of the people support impeachment, it's clear that this is not the issue to campaign on.

Look at Trump's behavior. He's basically taunting the Democrats, almost as if he wants to be impeached, and that's probably because he views it as working to his advantage. The Democrats are better off attacking republicans on issues that resonate with working class Americans and staying focused on that.
  #455  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:51 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
She means that Trump will contend that narrow election victories for democrats aren't valid results; that he'll contest close election results, claim the elections were "rigged", and whip up his supporters into a frenzy. And she's not wrong for worrying about that because he's already hinted that this is exactly what he would do.

That little bit at the end of a campaign where the loser makes the congratulatory phone call and accepts the results of an election is actually extremely important. It reaffirms the validity of the results, regardless of which side you're on. In one of his debates with Hillary Clinton, Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the election, which was an absolutely disgusting thing for a candidate of this magnitude to say, or refuse to say. There is every indication that he would be willing to contest the results of the election considering that an election loss threatens his freedom.
At this point, with all the damming evidence and admission to obstruction of justice on national TV, I don't think there is any way that Trump will be imprisoned. Just can't do it to a former President. Can't even impeach the piece of shit.

He will, I hope, have to sit in a court room for the rest of his life while NY and other states show the world what a crook he is.

Trump will of course start the Trump channel once he is removed. It will make FOX 'News' look fair and balanced. His idiot supporters will eat it up. IMHO, this was his plan all along, but Russia did too good of a job and actually got the fucker elected.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #456  
Old 05-05-2019, 04:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I doubt they could even find those places on a map.
Quite correct. But they can understand 'what was US land now belongs to another nation.' They would try to rationalize it. But it would bother them, nonetheless.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
Seriously? What's he going to do? Barricade himself in the oval office? Slide executive orders under the door when his phone and computer are disconnected?
Why are you assuming that anyone would be on the other side of a barricaded door? Or that anyone would disconnect Trump's phone or computer?

Trump has control of the US Marshals and of the Secret Service. Why would they do anything to displease him, so long as the payoffs are impressive enough? And they'll have Congressional Republicans saying 'yes, this is perfectly lawful, Trump must remain in office until he ascends to sit on the right hand of God, because Democrats are evil terrorists and so we can't hold elections.'

There's nothing to prevent any of that. So long as the big-money donors are happy with Trump, Republicans in Congress will support pretty much anything. Constitution? What Constitution?
  #457  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:12 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,085
If everything had played out the same except Trump was a Democrat, would the Republicans be calling for impeachment right now?
  #458  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:17 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,685
Not right now, no. They'd have been calling for impeachment before he'd finished being sworn in.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #459  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:45 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Trump will of course start the Trump channel once he is removed. It will make FOX 'News' look fair and balanced. His idiot supporters will eat it up. IMHO, this was his plan all along, but Russia did too good of a job and actually got the fucker elected.
I agree but let's also have faith that he's a total fucking moron and it will fail spectacularly. So... there's that at least. Assuming he has time to gold-plate his name on some cameras in between all his state cases.
  #460  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:08 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,460
I tend towards the view that impeachment shouldn't be done for political reasons, and so it should also follow that it should not be not done for political reasons. If a president merits impeachment, then they should be impeached, and I'm not sure there's any president in US history more deserving of impeachment than Trump. I think the precedent set by not impeaching is potentially too significant for the future of US democracy to not do it. Republicans in the Senate will surely vote against his removal from office, but let that go on the record as a stain against them that will echo in history, just as the mark of impeachment will ever be on Donald Trump.

Here's a list of federal officials that have been impeached. Trump should be on it.
  #461  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Loss of territory might move the needle, too.

North Korea is flexing its missile might over the Pacific, and Vlad would like to take possession of Alaskan oil fields. If it became known that Donald rolled over on sovereignty of Guam or Prudhoe Bay, that might bother some of his fans.
This is such a bizarre hypothetical. A sustained invasion of US territory is most likely to be accomplished by aliens (the outer space kind), to give you some idea of the odds, but if some earthly nation we're foolish enough to try it, I'm sure President Trump would be delighted to order the military to slap the shit out of them and enjoy the approval ratings jump that would accompany such an action.

ETA: to put it in perspective, the military, under President Trump killed a few hundred Russians for trying to invade our corner of fuckin' Syria! The idea that he'd "roll over" if they invaded Alaska is laughably absurd.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-05-2019 at 09:50 PM.
  #462  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:27 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
ETA: to put it in perspective, the military, under President Trump killed a few hundred Russians for trying to invade our corner of fuckin' Syria! The idea that he'd "roll over" if they invaded Alaska is laughably absurd.
Yeah, um... you do understand, that's kind of literally how hypotheticals work? Imagining the chain of events to get us to a certain outcome? There are no realities in which Trump's delusional, fanatical base abandons him unless we inject some absurd contingencies.

You might reflect a bit on the different uses of 'hypothetical' vs. 'prediction'. I know, I know, you're just saying.
  #463  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:04 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Quite correct. But they can understand 'what was US land now belongs to another nation.' They would try to rationalize it. But it would bother them, nonetheless.
If they can't be bothered by a president who supplicates to Vladimir Putin and risks tossing away NATO, then I have a hard time believing they'd be remotely bothered by losing Guam or anything that Trump offers up to Putin short of authorizing the possession of their family farms, their SUVs, or their gun collections.

Last edited by asahi; 05-06-2019 at 07:05 AM.
  #464  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:41 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I doubt they could even find those places on a map.
Back in a Presidential election in another lifetime, control of Quemoy and Matsu was a big issue. No, really!

And hardly anyone could've found them on a map, either, especially with Google being a few decades away.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 05-06-2019 at 09:41 AM.
  #465  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
"I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." - Al Green (D-TX) on May 4, 2019
  #466  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:41 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
...do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Representative for Texas's 9th congressional district?
  #467  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:51 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,838
I believe Louis Gohmert, of TX 1st District (Greater Metropolitan Tyler, Texas), esteemed colleague, also shares that opinion. Not everybody knows that, but now you do.
  #468  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Representative for Texas's 9th congressional district?
I would not use the word "concerned", and I think he's likely to get re-elected regardless of whether they impeach him or not, so, overall, I guess I'd rate that a "disagree".
  #469  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:19 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
One thing I would say is that it would be wrong to hold back impeachment as a way of reversing the next election, should Trump win it.

So that means that if we're going to impeach him for things we already know about, the time to do it is in 2019, not in 2021. (If evidence is found later of additional crimes we don't now know about, they'd be fair game.)
  #470  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:36 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
One thing I would say is that it would be wrong to hold back impeachment as a way of reversing the next election, should Trump win it.

So that means that if we're going to impeach him for things we already know about, the time to do it is in 2019, not in 2021. (If evidence is found later of additional crimes we don't now know about, they'd be fair game.)
I agree with you (except perhaps with the phrasing of "additional crimes"), but the Dems are no more likely to get to 67 Senate votes in 2021 than they are in 2019, at least based on what we already know about, so it doesn't really matter.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-06-2019 at 09:36 PM.
  #471  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:36 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree with you (except perhaps with the phrasing of "additional crimes"), but the Dems are no more likely to get to 67 Senate votes in 2021 than they are in 2019, at least based on what we already know about, so it doesn't really matter.
Impeachment proceedings matter, even if they don't culminate in the removal of a President. They should be treated as serious business, and should not become just another political cudgel.
  #472  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:45 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Quote:
REP. AL GREEN: I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don't impeach him, he will say he's been vindicated. He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and didn't take up impeachment. He will say we have a constitutional duty to do it if it was there and we didn't. He will say he's been vindicated.
(Bolding mine)

Kinda feels like an intentionally misleading headline, not gonna lie.
  #473  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:00 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,490
Well, it is the Right's stock in trade.
  #474  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:06 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Impeachment proceedings matter, even if they don't culminate in the removal of a President. They should be treated as serious business, and should not become just another political cudgel.
I agree with this, but I don't think that's the direction things are heading, unfortunately.
  #475  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:31 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I agree with this, but I don't think that's the direction things are heading, unfortunately.
Trump has intensified the radicalization of the Republicans and the far right, and in doing so he has also inspired a similar radicalization among the left. This is how polarization can be used to a political group's advantage, and in this case, I think it works to the advantage of republicans. When people point out that Trump's approval rating is historically low, they're missing an important point, which is that we are now living in the age of fringe politics. The days of a politician of any kind getting 60% or higher are gone for the foreseeable future because neither the far right nor the far left want a moderate. They want crusaders and warriors for their cause. A moderate would be considered compromising on virtue. We saw this on the political right wing in the years leading up to Trump, and we're beginning to see the reaction among progressives. This is how radicalization and polarization can be a successful tactic if political candidates and parties can capitalize on it.

I say it works to the republicans advantage simply because they have a demographic majority that they can exploit. It's easier to break the progressive left because they can be divided in different ways. They can be divided and conquered over differences on race, gender, and other forms of identity. Once conservatives become more fully aware of these vulnerabilities, I suspect that they will exploit them with behavior that we thought was a part of our past. They'll do it because it'll give them power, and that's all the justification they would need in the end - in their minds anyway.
  #476  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:48 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... They want crusaders and warriors for their cause. A moderate would be considered compromising on virtue. We saw this on the political right wing in the years leading up to Trump...
What do you mean? The 2012 Republican nominee was Mitt Romney, and in 2008 it was John McCain, both moderates.
  #477  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you mean? The 2012 Republican nominee was Mitt Romney, and in 2008 it was John McCain, both moderates.
Yes, but by 2010, the tea party had become a strong political force and was no longer just a fringe. That the GOP nominated Mitt Romney in 2012 isn't what's important to consider; what's important is how Mitt Romney in 2012 was quite different than Mitt Romney in 1994, and he had become more of a hardliner between 2008 and 2012. Take his position on abortion, for example, or his position on healthcare. Obamacare was really Romneycare in a different form.

By 2016, it didn't matter how much the standard bearers of the GOP changed their positions - the conservatives were done with them. The two top candidates were Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who was an arch conservative and had positions that were just as hard-line as Trump's. But this was something that occurred over a period that began in the early 1990s and really got going from 2009 onward.

The position that Democrats are in now is that Biden, a moderate, is currently a favor to win not only the Democratic party's nomination but also to beat Trump. And I suppose that could still happen, but Trump is going to continue to radicalize the Republican party because it is what he needs to do to survive: he needs to throw meat to his pet lions and wolves. But a byproduct is that this will, in turn, fuel outrage and a desire on the left to radicalize in return, which will put extreme pressure on people like Biden who want to try to remain above the fray and try to unite the different factions on the left. This will put people like Biden and Pelosi - and even Sanders - in the position of trying to fend off calls for impeachment. This might make the candidates behave in unexpected ways, and it would work to Trump's advantage.

Last edited by asahi; 05-07-2019 at 10:59 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017