Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:02 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Obviously this is now moot, but I'm gonna reply anyway:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
How will this work, exactly?

At the moment, only 79 Dems and 1 Republican have come out in favor of impeachment in the House.

What if Pelosi doesn't even yet have enough votes in her own caucus to open an impeachment inquiry? Do you think she does?
I agree that she probably doesn't. The "problem solvers caucus" (haha), which includes 30 Dems, will probably be almost unanimously against it.

The point is, get them on record against it.

This is one of the frustrating things about politics: the damn shadowboxing that happens when you know a bill (or whatever) is being blocked by intraparty opposition, but you don't know where the resistance is coming from because there's never a vote.

Have a vote, then we can light up the phones of the Congresscritters voting the wrong way. This isn't rocket science.
Quote:
Why do you think she, Nadler, Schiff and all the rest are working so feverishly to carry out these proceedings to bring the narrative to the American people
Narrative? What narrative?

They think the public's following their every move, but practically nobody hears a goddamn thing about what they're doing. They've completely lost sight of what the news looks like to Americans who don't have Fox or CNN running all day in their offices.
Quote:
No one else can pressure their representatives to vote for impeachment except their constituents.
See above. When you don't even know if you need to call, you probably don't bother.
Quote:
No one is more in favor of impeachment/removal than me, but a failed effort at the wrong time will be worse by far than no effort at all.
I keep hearing this. I've yet to understand it.
Quote:
If impeachment fails in the House, who will you blame? Republicans? Or Democrats?
Well first of all, what do you mean? Fails at what point in the process?

The first vote should be to refer to the Judiciary Committee the question of whether disregarding a Supreme Court ruling is an impeachable offense. If that fails, we take names and light up the phones of the Dems who voted against it.

If they get deluged with calls, but Pelosi never calls another vote, then I will blame Pelosi.

If there's a second vote, and it fails, I blame it on the Dems who voted against it. Why? See the "Was the Democratic Party always such a spineless shitshow?" thread. You know the bad guys are going to be the bad guys, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it in between elections. But I expect the people who are supposedly on my team to act like it, instead of being a spineless shitshow.

And I and like-minded people may be able to DO something about them; we aren't going to move any Congressional Republicans. Might as well just regard them as a force of nature until election time rolls around again.
  #52  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:36 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,674
Looks like it was option 3 after all. My guess is that it wasn’t Trump’s idea to back down. I think it’s likely that someone, possibly McConnell, told him not to continue on his planned course of action.
  #53  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:36 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Obviously this is now moot, but I'm gonna reply anyway:
Not entirely moot. I'm glad you responded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I agree that she probably doesn't. The "problem solvers caucus" (haha), which includes 30 Dems, will probably be almost unanimously against it.
But do you know why? You've continually made the assumption that all Dems should think as we do: That the need to impeach Trump is obvious. As you've pointed out further on in your own post, it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The point is, get them on record against it.
And do you understand that's exactly what their constituents want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This is one of the frustrating things about politics: the damn shadowboxing that happens when you know a bill (or whatever) is being blocked by intraparty opposition, but you don't know where the resistance is coming from because there's never a vote.
I can tell you exactly where the resistance is. It's from those red districts that sent new Dems to DC. They wanted a change -- but not necessarily impeachment. Here (NPR) is the most recent information I can find on how Americans are split on how to proceed. What it makes clear is that Pelosi's strategy is working. Just not as fast as any of us would like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Have a vote, then we can light up the phones of the Congresscritters voting the wrong way. This isn't rocket science.
Wrong way... according to you and me. Not necessarily to the constituents of those who are presently against moving forward with impeachment. And for obvious reasons, those "Congresscritters" won't care what you and I are telling them. They will only care what their own constituents are telling them. You know; the ones that sent them to Washington.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Narrative? What narrative?
I believe Pelosi's strategy is working. As you go on to say below, it is taking a painful amount of time because it is hard to break through in the news cycle, and people don't live in the news all day. They're having to work too hard and long just to keep their heads above water, and that keeps them from paying attention. I'd submit that's part of the Republican strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
They think the public's following their every move, but practically nobody hears a goddamn thing about what they're doing. They've completely lost sight of what the news looks like to Americans who don't have Fox or CNN running all day in their offices. See above. When you don't even know if you need to call, you probably don't bother. I keep hearing this. I've yet to understand it.Well first of all, what do you mean? Fails at what point in the process?
They know the public is not following their every move. Turning public opinion is like changing the direction of a rudderless cruise ship. Takes a lot of effort and time. And they're also doing battle daily against the Fox "News" machine. Pretty choppy waters. Nevertheless, the ship is turning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The first vote should be to refer to the Judiciary Committee the question of whether disregarding a Supreme Court ruling is an impeachable offense. If that fails, we take names and light up the phones of the Dems who voted against it.
What basis should they use now, since Trump has backed off his position to disregard a SCOTUS ruling? As for "lighting up the phones," I'd refer you back to what I said earlier: Those Congressional Dems don't care what you or I think. They care what the constituents who voted them into office think. It's those folks who must be persuaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If they get deluged with calls, but Pelosi never calls another vote, then I will blame Pelosi.

If there's a second vote, and it fails, I blame it on the Dems who voted against it. Why? See the "Was the Democratic Party always such a spineless shitshow?" thread. You know the bad guys are going to be the bad guys, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it in between elections. But I expect the people who are supposedly on my team to act like it, instead of being a spineless shitshow.
The Democratic "team" is widely diverse. Like you, I can hardly understand anyone who regards themselves as a progressive or a Democrat who isn't in favor of impeachment. But according to the vote counts I keep citing, we're in the minority for the time being. If you're saying the only people who can be on "your team" are people who think like you, then I'm afraid you're destined to remain in the minority for quite awhile. It's not a matter of spine. It's a matter of reality.

I will ask again: How should Pelosi overcome a 79-156 minority in favor of impeachment, other than to continue to do what she's already been doing -- a strategy that appears to be working?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And I and like-minded people may be able to DO something about them; we aren't going to move any Congressional Republicans. Might as well just regard them as a force of nature until election time rolls around again.
Right now, I'd settle for being able to move Congressional Democrats.
  #54  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:40 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Looks like it was option 3 after all. My guess is that it wasnít Trumpís idea to back down. I think itís likely that someone, possibly McConnell, told him not to continue on his planned course of action.
And probably only because McConnell had an intervention from some Senate Republicans who told him in no uncertain terms "I did not blow serious political capital to get Kavanaugh on the bench only to have your buddy nullify the Supreme Court! Tell him to back off or when we get the paperwork from Nancy, we vote to convict!"

__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #55  
Old 07-11-2019, 03:49 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
And probably only because McConnell had an intervention from some Senate Republicans who told him in no uncertain terms "I did not blow serious political capital to get Kavanaugh on the bench only to have your buddy nullify the Supreme Court! Tell him to back off or when we get the paperwork from Nancy, we vote to convict!"

I suspect this is horrifyingly close to the truth.
  #56  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:01 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,654
Trump speaking about census soon - White House live feed.
  #57  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
And probably only because McConnell had an intervention from some Senate Republicans who told him in no uncertain terms "I did not blow serious political capital to get Kavanaugh on the bench only to have your buddy nullify the Supreme Court! Tell him to back off or when we get the paperwork from Nancy, we vote to convict!"

You guys have such vivid imaginations
  #58  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:12 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Trump speaking about census soon - White House live feed.
Well, it was supposed to be 5pm ET. Maybe Donald doesn't like "backing down"...
  #59  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:17 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Well, it was supposed to be 5pm ET. Maybe Donald doesn't like "backing down"...
It was probably time for his 2 o'clock feeding and he threw a tantrum when they tried to give him the bottle.
  #60  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:17 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,427
Awaiting instructions from Vlad, but it’s 3 AM in Moscow.
  #61  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:50 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,427
I just missed it. What happened?
  #62  
Old 07-11-2019, 04:58 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,654
He's giving up the census question idea, and instead says he will use data from existing government files. He's executive ordering all government agencies and department to hand over all requested records they have about citizens and non-citizens.

"We will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non-citizen population."
  #63  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:00 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,427
thanks
  #64  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
He's giving up the census question idea, and instead says he will use data from existing government files. He's executive ordering all government agencies and department to hand over all requested records they have about citizens and non-citizens.

"We will utilize these vast federal databases to gain a full, complete, and accurate count of the non-citizen population."
This was meant to help the Republicans gerrymander better. This new plan does nothing to further this goal, and thus is just a very obvious attempt to pretend that this isn't a massive, pathetic loss for Trump.
  #65  
Old 07-11-2019, 05:54 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This was meant to help the Republicans gerrymander better. This new plan does nothing to further this goal, and thus is just a very obvious attempt to pretend that this isn't a massive, pathetic loss for Trump.
It seems to me a huge waste of time and governmental resources and money to fight this as long as he has fought it just to say that he could have utilized existing means to "get the count" of these people, if thats what he really wanted.

Pretty lame.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #66  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:49 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,339
I wish I could hear what Judge Hazel said when he heard that the administration was now dropping it's challenge. Trump just wasted his and the court's time for over a week.
  #67  
Old 07-11-2019, 06:56 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You guys have such vivid imaginations
I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some confessional blowback, but I would think it would have been along the lines that census is Vongress's ban, and the Prez can't intrude on Congress's responsibility by EO.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #68  
Old 07-11-2019, 07:58 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some confessional blowback, but I would think it would have been along the lines that census is Vongress's ban, and the Prez can't intrude on Congress's responsibility by EO.
Haven't you ever heard So let it be written, So let it be done?

(While I was watching this clip a new term popped into my head: Trumpankhamen. Though I can't imagine I'm the first/only person to come up with it.)
  #69  
Old 07-11-2019, 08:41 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Have a vote, then we can light up the phones of the Congresscritters voting the wrong way. This isn't rocket science.
What "we" are you envisioning?

Those reps generally won in districts that skew Republican and which Trump won in 2016. Those reps have to represent the electorate they actually have if they want to win. Voting against impeachment may sound like it's wrong in terms of the national party composition. That has limited impact on the pressures they face. They need to keep both the Democrats that support impeachment vehemently AND the Republican leaning to independents that pushed them into office. It's a tricky coalition of their more right leaning electorate that they need to keep together. That's challenging enough without listening to people that don't vote in their district.

If they don't keep it together in Jan. 2021 a Republican will have the job. Which is a good reason for the Speaker not to hold divisive votes simply to put people on record. Put them on record on an issue that splits the fragile coalition and they stand a good chance of losing in 2020. You are effectively calling for significantly increasing the chance of the GOP taking back the House majority. Is that what you really want?
  #70  
Old 07-11-2019, 09:22 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 57
Given that we were just on the brink of Trump illegally meddling in our electoral process - how far do you extend this logic?

What if Trump actually did defy a court order to affect the election. If you still think it's more or less fair and Trump only tipped the scales a little bit that we should still be in "business as usual" mode of focusing on what a good political move would be in a democracy? What if he illegally affected something slightly more direct concerning the elections - let's say a new election security bill was passed through congress with a veto-proof majority, Trump fought it in court and was ordered to comply, but he didn't. At that point is it still a bad political move so we shouldn't start an impeachment process?
  #71  
Old 07-11-2019, 10:59 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
asahi, if you're going to continue to respond to posts I've made that weren't directed to you -- and that's fine -- please at least do me the courtesy of reading my posts more carefully. I did not say or even imply the vote to impeach and send to the Senate should take place tomorrow. I asked if we know whether Pelosi has the votes to even open an impeachment inquiry.
Please do me a favor and don't take every thing I say like 100 percent literally. I knew you didn't mean that the vote had to occur, like, tomorrow; I'm saying that the Democrats would deliberate, build their case, and then vote on impeachment at a later time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
On this point, we disagree. And again, I despise the rat bastard currently occupying the Oval, advocated for his impeachment from Day 1. I understand the sense of helplessness and frustration as well as anyone in this thread. I just think that whatever is done must be effective -- or we'll have 4 more years of it.
I don't necessarily disagree, but there does become a point when boundaries really are crossed and when we should toss political considerations out the window. If a president is seriously going to assert - and I don't think he's done asserting - that there are no boundaries to the Executive, then it doesn't matter whether it's "the right time" to do battle; you just do battle.
  #72  
Old 07-11-2019, 11:08 PM
DWMarch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
Haven't you ever heard So let it be written, So let it be done?

(While I was watching this clip a new term popped into my head: Trumpankhamen. Though I can't imagine I'm the first/only person to come up with it.)
Pronounced Trump-punk-common I hope?
  #73  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:26 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think abandoning the lawsuit is an "implicit admission" at all. It could be as simple as: we don't have enough time to see this case through before we have to print census forms and mail them out, so the whole exercise would be wasted, even if we eventually triumphed in court.
I do think abandoning the lawsuit is an "implicit admission" totally. It was most likely as simple as: we don't have enough time to see this case through before we have to print census forms and mail them out, so the whole exercise would be wasted, particularly since we will eventually lose in court.

I'm not sure if it was Ivanka/Jared, McConnell, Miss Graham or DJT's new boyfriend Tucker Carlson or someone else who sat him down and explained very slowly, with one syllable words that this endeavor was doomed and trying an end run around SCOTUS was a very very bad idea. And I really don't care.

I must admit I find it extremely comical every time DJT falls flat on his face in failure and declares VICTORY. It is equally amusing to see the same folks fall for his nonsense hook, line and sinker EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I'm starting to think some of them may be at risk of serious injury every time they leave the house without wearing a helmet.
  #74  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:32 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,076
Do not take comfort in the fact that Trump pulled his punches this time. He simply came to the conclusion that he couldn't go any further - this time. Let's not forget that his "Muslim bans" were initially nixed by the courts, but he came back and got another version of it that passed court muster. He initially "lost" on Obamacare, but now he's poised to win. Authoritarians frequently lose their first skirmishes but they figure it out later.

Authoritarians are often incompetent and ignorant of existing constitutional and legal boundaries. They will find ways to weaken and penetrate through those boundaries. The machinations of the courts, the constitution, the law won't stop Trump. You have to view him through the prism of raw human power. At first, he doesn't understand the limitations on his power, so he ends up looking stupid...until he prepares for the next fight and comes prepared.
  #75  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:33 AM
Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 40,861
It has ended in failure and humiliation for the Orange Cheese Doodle. He may want to get used to that.
__________________
The two most interesting things in the world: Other people's sex lives and your own money.
  #76  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:24 AM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This was meant to help the Republicans gerrymander better. This new plan does nothing to further this goal, and thus is just a very obvious attempt to pretend that this isn't a massive, pathetic loss for Trump.
The snake to keep an eye on here is Barr. From TPM:

"But Attorney General Bill Barr went even farther. After Trump said that the data the Commerce Department would produce would include the number of ďillegal aliensĒ in the United States (something the proposed citizenship question would not have asked), Barr said data on undocumented immigrants could be useful for the purpose of deciding how many U.S. congressional seats each state gets, in the process known as apportionment.

Currently, like redistricting, apportionment is done using total population. In fact the Constitution mandates that apportionment be done based on all people.

However, Barr described there being a ďdisputeĒ over counting undocumented immigrants in apportionment, and said the data the administration is now collecting could be useful once that so-called dispute is resolved."

Barr and minions are pushing states to use only "citizen" data in setting their state districts and also implying that setting Congressional districts this way could also be done, because apportionment this way is in "dispute" and hasn't been settled by the courts.

Like chaperoning children at a pool party, you just cannot allow your vigilance to drop.
  #77  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:30 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,076
Authoritarians like Trump and Barr (and the entire GOP) will find ways to rig the system. They won't stop. They can't. They're outnumbered and they know it, which is why they have to find ways to marginalize "others". This is what the America-first GOP did from about 1910 - 1930, so it's not the first time. Democrats in the South also rigged the political system but did so using white terrorism. In 2019, it's almost as if the America first Republicans have teamed up with White South Democrats to produce a kind of racist, oppressive political super-organism.
  #78  
Old 07-14-2019, 06:36 AM
Capn Carl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Authoritarians like Trump and Barr (and the entire GOP) will find ways to rig the system. They won't stop. They can't. They're outnumbered and they know it, which is why they have to find ways to marginalize "others". This is what the America-first GOP did from about 1910 - 1930, so it's not the first time. Democrats in the South also rigged the political system but did so using white terrorism. In 2019, it's almost as if the America first Republicans have teamed up with White South Democrats to produce a kind of racist, oppressive political super-organism.
No Ďteaming upí necessary. Those early 20th century Republicans and the southern Democrats were the most conservative sectors of the population. They just identified with different parties. Now they identify with the Republican Party.
  #79  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:08 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
But do you know why? You've continually made the assumption that all Dems should think as we do: That the need to impeach Trump is obvious. As you've pointed out further on in your own post, it isn't.
Gimme a break. If it was obvious in the case of Nixon, it's about 100x as obvious for Trump. Dem inaction has allowed the normalization of everything from repeated obstruction of justice to babies in cages, to almost starting a war, then changing his mind, on little more than a Presidential whim,
Quote:
And do you understand that's exactly what their constituents want?
Not until I know for sure who they are.
Quote:
I can tell you exactly where the resistance is. It's from those red districts that sent new Dems to DC. They wanted a change -- but not necessarily impeachment.
I've seen little evidence of this. And I've compared the membership of the Problem Solvers Caucus to the list of freshman House Dems, and there's some overlap but not much.
And about half those Problem Solvers are from safe districts - D+6 or better.

Look, if they're doing a good job of representing their constituents' wishes, that's great, but if the vast majority of the caucus isn't on the record, it's tough to know whether they are or aren't. Too often, it seems like they're playing defense against their own voters.
Quote:
Here (NPR) is the most recent information I can find on how Americans are split on how to proceed. What it makes clear is that Pelosi's strategy is working. Just not as fast as any of us would like.
So her strategy is what - twiddle her thumbs until the American public comes around on its own to being pro-impeachment? Fearlessly leading from behind.

The House could have hearings on topics that could turn into grounds for impeachment. They're not doing it. There is no strategy: Pelosi doesn't want to impeach, end of story.
Quote:
Wrong way... according to you and me. Not necessarily to the constituents of those who are presently against moving forward with impeachment. And for obvious reasons, those "Congresscritters" won't care what you and I are telling them. They will only care what their own constituents are telling them. You know; the ones that sent them to Washington.
So give them a chance to know what side their Congresscritters are on.

Last time I checked, something like 79 House members had come out for impeachment. Even if they're all from safe districts (they're not), the vast majority of Dem House members who haven't come out for impeachment are from safe districts.
Quote:
I believe Pelosi's strategy is working. As you go on to say below, it is taking a painful amount of time because it is hard to break through in the news cycle, and people don't live in the news all day.
They aren't doing anything to try to break through. No hearings on babies in cages, or on the dozens of times Trump's been accused of sexual assault, or on nearly bombing Iran, or on the mystery of the Kushner family's 666 Fifth Avenue bailout...they're not trying.
Quote:
They know the public is not following their every move.
Are you sure about that? It seems they've only just figured out that nobody's noticed all those bills they've passed that the Senate has ignored.
Quote:
What basis should they use now, since Trump has backed off his position to disregard a SCOTUS ruling? As for "lighting up the phones," I'd refer you back to what I said earlier: Those Congressional Dems don't care what you or I think.
I don't expect them to care about anyone but their own constituents. But I'm including those who are pro-impeachment in the 'we' here.
Quote:
The Democratic "team" is widely diverse. Like you, I can hardly understand anyone who regards themselves as a progressive or a Democrat who isn't in favor of impeachment. But according to the vote counts I keep citing, we're in the minority for the time being. If you're saying the only people who can be on "your team" are people who think like you, then I'm afraid you're destined to remain in the minority for quite awhile. It's not a matter of spine. It's a matter of reality.
The Dems have done nothing to suggest that Trump should be impeached. They dropped the ball on the Mueller Report - GOP said it exonerated Trump, and the Dems didn't say much of anything. So the public believed that it didn't make much of a case against Trump.

And they haven't had hearings on any other potential grounds for impeachment (even without calling it an impeachment inquiry, this would be useful in selling the public on it) so again, it's a frickin' miracle that the public is evenly divided on impeachment.

Quote:
I will ask again: How should Pelosi overcome a 79-156 minority in favor of impeachment, other than to continue to do what she's already been doing -- a strategy that appears to be working?
Have an inquiry into whether Trump should be impeached. Or don't call it that, but have hearings into the various potential grounds for impeachment. This isn't rocket surgery.

Last fall, Pelosi promised that if we gave her back her gavel, the Dems would hold Trump accountable. Surely the House Dems can agree on some ways to go after Trump, even if they're not ready for impeachment, and even acknowledging that Trump can obstruct many avenues of inquiry. There is still much they can do that they're not doing. They can pick and choose the fights they want to fight, but AFAICT the only ones they're choosing are the ones where Trump can tie them up in court, which was fine back in March when they were just figuring this out, but makes no sense in July. They need to pick the three or four issues where they think hearings would get the most attention and do the most damage to Trump and his party, and do them.

:sigh:
  #80  
Old 07-14-2019, 03:10 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,729
I am the independent voter that the democrats are so desperate to win over. They arenít blowing my hair back by worrying if the public is going to be on their side or not with the whole impeach business. If they feel they should, now is not the time to play politics. Take a damn stand already. If they donít, then it just seems like whining.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #81  
Old 07-14-2019, 03:17 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,729
Too late to edit. I don’t understand why they aren’t going for it. It would seem to me that the Democrats are going to vote for any person with a D next to their name. The republican voter will always go the other way. The independent voter is in play. But most wont vote for someone spineless.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #82  
Old 07-14-2019, 03:55 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
But most wont vote for someone spineless.
This is basic human nature. We admire people who stand for something, who have the courage of their convictions. We don't tend to admire people who are always waffling about what they're for and what they're against.

Not to mention, if you have a clear message or set of values that you stand for, you've got a chance to win people over to your message. It's hard to do that if you don't have one, and people aren't going to listen to you anyway.

Even centrist Dems have to stand for something, amirite?
  #83  
Old 07-16-2019, 08:51 AM
Doctor Jackson's Avatar
Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Jawja
Posts: 10,404
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. Anonymous
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 09:08 PM.

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