Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:01 PM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,505
The number of Democrats calling for impeachment just hit 200 on politico
  #52  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:09 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You're so absurdly partisan that you're incapable of having an informed opinion on this issue.

The Republicans were desperate to run powerful investigations into minor stuff, and the democrats are loathe to do anything despite massive scandals on the part of the Trump administration. What you think is exactly the opposite of true.
Keep in mind he didn't say he believed that; he just described it as "a common view." Which is fortunate for me, because if he actually did hold that view, I'd probably get warned for describing it as dumb as shit.

But if he's unwilling to take responsibility for the view, I can hardly be blamed for describing it accurately .

That sort of "some people say" nonsense should be reviled and mocked, and has no place in a reasonable discussion.
  #53  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I'm curious as to what you see those rules as being....?
My understanding--and I can dig up a cite if necessary--is that congressional oversight in an impeachment proceeding is near-absolute and stems from the heart of a constitutional duty. It'd be extraordinarily unlikely for a court, even one as partisan as the current Supreme Court, to rule against congress's oversight requests made as part of impeachment proceedings.
  #54  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:15 PM
Locrian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,394
I'm just afraid the whistleblower could turn out to be an idiot. Like, what if it's Kato Kaelin?
  #55  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:17 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,399
If the WH is now releasing the whistleblower complaint, it means he and the Republicans have agreed to go the "there's not enough evidence" route. Trump will be up 5pts next month.
  #56  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:19 PM
Locrian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
If the WH is now releasing the whistleblower complaint, it means he and the Republicans have agreed to go the "there's not enough evidence" route. Trump will be up 5pts next month.
The WB is supposed to give a statement to congress this week. I think I'll take their word over some piece of paper. (Unless it's actually Kato, like I joked.)
  #57  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:19 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
If the WH is now releasing the whistleblower complaint, it means he and the Republicans have agreed to go the "there's not enough evidence" route. Trump will be up 5pts next month.
Is there an update that I'm missing? Last I heard, he was just releasing the call transcript, still keeping the complaint secret. WaPo says that's not enough:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Bump
In late July, Trump spoke on the phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During that call, the world has since learned, Trump pressed Zelensky to launch a probe into former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden related to the latter’s past work for a Ukrainian energy company. Trump sees in that work a line of attack against Joe Biden, the leading contender to face Trump in next year’s presidential election.

That alone, though, wasn’t what was worrying the person who is believed to be an administration staffer. The staffer wasn’t privy to Trump’s call with Zelensky directly, according to a CNN report from last week. But Trump’s conversation with Zelensky fit with other actions that the staffer had observed. It was part of a pattern, in other words, prompting the staffer to file a whistleblower complaint with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. When the DNI’s office declined to provide the whistleblower’s complaint to congressional committees, the entire incident exploded into public view.

What were the other actions that raised questions? It’s not clear. The whistleblower complaint remains under wraps, apparently part of a concerted effort by the administration to keep details of what is alleged out of sight. We’ve gotten possible glimpses, though. The Post reported on Monday that Trump’s team withheld aid to Ukraine shortly before that call with Zelensky, raising questions about that aid being used as leverage — and about whether that decision from the White House was part of the pattern observed by the whistleblower.
  #58  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:20 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You mean 'minority', right? I'm pretty sure a solid majority of the public is against impeaching Trump:
38.5% is over twice the percentage that were in favor of impeaching Nixon a year before he left office.
  #59  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:21 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
My understanding--and I can dig up a cite if necessary--is that congressional oversight in an impeachment proceeding is near-absolute and stems from the heart of a constitutional duty. It'd be extraordinarily unlikely for a court, even one as partisan as the current Supreme Court, to rule against congress's oversight requests made as part of impeachment proceedings.
And what would stop the subjects of court rulings---even Supreme Court rulings---from simply ignoring the provisions of those rulings?

You're picturing William Barr using the resources of the Justice Department to force reluctant Trumpite witnesses to cooperate with the House impeachment-investigation?
  #60  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
If the WH is now releasing the whistleblower complaint, it means he and the Republicans have agreed to go the "there's not enough evidence" route. Trump will be up 5pts next month.
Doesn't it just mean Trump has decided to go the "there's not enough evidence" route? I mean, there's likely multiple taped conversations and "the Republicans" probably haven't heard them all. All they can be working with is "Trump doesn't think he did anything wrong and Rudy agrees!"
  #61  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:32 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I'm just afraid the whistleblower could turn out to be an idiot. Like, what if it's Kato Kaelin?
Yeah me too. If I were Pelosi I would have waited until after the whistleblower testified, or was prevented from doing so before formally making a declaration, just to make sure I didn't stake the entire process on a pig in a poke. But then she's got about 100 times more political experience in her little finger than I do in my whole body, and may know some details about the complaint that aren't public knowledge, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
  #62  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:36 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
If the WH is now releasing the whistleblower complaint, it means he and the Republicans have agreed to go the "there's not enough evidence" route. Trump will be up 5pts next month.
They will release a redacted and edited transcript that makes it not that bad. Then they will release a redacted report that makes it worse, but they've already set the stage. Then when the full report comes out and is damning, it will seem to be not all that terrible.

We already saw this with the Mueller report. It worked then, and this is their plan now.
  #63  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:40 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
. . . or proceedings are stopped before that (in fact, Mitch could refuse to hold it), . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
No he can't. This canard has been repeatedly disproven in another impeachment thread.
From today's NYT:
". . . there is no obvious enforcement mechanism if Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, were to simply refuse to convene one — just as he refused to permit a confirmation hearing and vote on Mr. Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2016."
  #64  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:45 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
They will release a redacted and edited transcript that makes it not that bad. Then they will release a redacted report that makes it worse, but they've already set the stage. Then when the full report comes out and is damning, it will seem to be not all that terrible.

We already saw this with the Mueller report. It worked then, and this is their plan now.
In other words...

1. "I didn't do it"
2. "I didn't do it but Democrats do it all the time"
3. " OK so I did do it but it's not a crime"
4. "Yeah I did it but you can't prosecute a sitting president"
5. "I didn't do it"

Repeat every time he does pretty much anything.
  #65  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:11 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,607
Lawfare has an excellent timeline of events surrounding the Ukraine.

The Washington Post has one as well.
  #66  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:18 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,672
I don't know if it is just the Dems on this board or the Dems in Congress too that fail to realize you don't want to remove Trump. If you could nominate someone the least bit electable (which you failed to do in 2016 and seem well on your way to fail again in 2020) you would win the White House in a landslide. If Pence becomes the incumbent you'll have a harder time of winning. I suspect Pelosi knows this so all of this talk is the hollow noise of politics "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #67  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:20 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You're so absurdly partisan that you're incapable of having an informed opinion on this issue.
I had to see who you were quoting because you just described 96% of this board (and yes that includes most of the Dems here).
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #68  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:20 PM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I don't know if it is just the Dems on this board or the Dems in Congress too that fail to realize you don't want to remove Trump. If you could nominate someone the least bit electable (which you failed to do in 2016 and seem well on your way to fail again in 2020) you would win the White House in a landslide. If Pence becomes the incumbent you'll have a harder time of winning. I suspect Pelosi knows this so all of this talk is the hollow noise of politics "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Thank you for your concern.
  #69  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:27 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
From today's NYT:
". . . there is no obvious enforcement mechanism if Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, were to simply refuse to convene one — just as he refused to permit a confirmation hearing and vote on Mr. Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2016."
Which goes to show that the New York Times did no research on the topic. Comparing an impeachment trial to a confirmation hearing (different rules and all) should have been your first clue it was written by an idiot. But go ahead and show me in the Senate Rules where the SML can force the CJOTUS to not hold a trial.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
  #70  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,914
A fair chunk of Americans are not willing to say "impeach" until they see what the actual evidence is to this charge. Let's assume it is real and damning and that fair chunk comes over to "impeach."

You are still left with his hard base that won't flip no matter what.

He won twenty two states by more than 14 points and more than a third by a more than 19 point margin. Senators from those states will vote Trump no matter what even if other Republicans flip. In their states a majority will support Trump.

Conviction is pretty unlikely.

If the point is to remove him from office before the election it is pretty improbable.

The argument can be made that IF the full facts are as damning as the are alleged to be then he might be left with ONLY that hard base and lose everyone else. Stay in office but be destroyed. But yeah alternatively assuming they are true but are seen by the public as just what politicians do then the risk of a backlash is significant.

And even if the political calculus adds up negative to the Democratic side this needs to be done. To live in history as having not impeached for what really is true high crimes and abuse of power because of perceived self-interest is not something that Democrats can have happen.
  #71  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:40 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Pence becomes the incumbent you'll have a harder time of winning.
This part cracks me up. By 2016, Pence's approval ratings in Indiana were in the toilet. In reliably conservative Indiana.

Suppose Trump is removed by the Senate, or resigns to keep that from happening. If Pence is allowed to be the default nominee, he's gonna suck as a candidate. But chances are his fellow GOPers are aware of that, and there'll be a dogfight for the GOP nomination.

Of course, it's extremely unlikely that Trump will be removed from office, so it's hardly worth worrying about in the first place. But I think we've got that covered.
  #72  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:40 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
I'm just afraid the whistleblower could turn out to be an idiot. Like, what if it's Kato Kaelin?
Or just a guy blowing an actual whistle. That would get old fast.
  #73  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:42 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Which goes to show that the New York Times did no research on the topic. Comparing an impeachment trial to a confirmation hearing (different rules and all) should have been your first clue it was written by an idiot. But go ahead and show me in the Senate Rules where the SML can force the CJOTUS to not hold a trial.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Senate business is what the Majority Leader says it is. The claim by the NYT is that there is no obvious means to enforce that said leader to bring it to the senate. How does it get there without that? By what mechanism? The NYT suggests that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may actually wield that authority ... but it is not clear.

You have some text to quote that shows how business can get to the Senate without the Majority Leader bringing it there? Go ahead, show us. We'll wait.
  #74  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:45 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Which goes to show that the New York Times did no research on the topic. Comparing an impeachment trial to a confirmation hearing (different rules and all) should have been your first clue it was written by an idiot. But go ahead and show me in the Senate Rules where the SML can force the CJOTUS to not hold a trial.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
By not accepting the charge? What is to stop him from simply saying, "I will take the House's charges under advisement" and then sitting on them? Is that unconstitutional? Well, then it would go to SCOTUS to decide, no? Does the constitution have any more to say about such a situation than it does about an Executive who defies Congressional subpoenas?
  #75  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:52 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
The complete absence of accountability in a political system that was set up as a modern democracy with supposed safeguards is just stunning. The Founders thought they had set up a system of checks and balances but they never counted on having the Senate dominated by a gang of unprincipled Republicans and an equally unprincipled and mendacious administration led by an orange moron. As someone else said somewhere, the problem is much bigger than just Trump, who is just a symptom of a serious political dysfunction.
  #76  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:54 PM
steatopygia's Avatar
steatopygia is offline
Experimental FOC Test Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: North Idaho mostly
Posts: 1,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This part cracks me up. By 2016, Pence's approval ratings in Indiana were in the toilet. In reliably conservative Indiana.

Suppose Trump is removed by the Senate, or resigns to keep that from happening. If Pence is allowed to be the default nominee, he's gonna suck as a candidate. But chances are his fellow GOPers are aware of that, and there'll be a dogfight for the GOP nomination.

Of course, it's extremely unlikely that Trump will be removed from office, so it's hardly worth worrying about in the first place. But I think we've got that covered.
Bolding mine

Didn't I hear something about some of the states doing away with this elections Republican primaries?
  #77  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:56 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,564
duplicate

Last edited by KarlGauss; 09-24-2019 at 09:57 PM.
  #78  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:05 PM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,505
If the house does successfully impeach, I can see Moscow Mitch holding a trial in the senate.

It will take 15 - 20 minutes. Vote held, all Republicans against, off they go for lunch. That's it.

Then Trump will crow and crow about how he was "proven innocent". And all we will hear from then on is "WITCH HUNT", and EVIL DEMOCRATS" and "POOR INNOCENT TRUMP"
  #79  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:12 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,872
As I said elsewhere:

"Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated"
https://nyti.ms/2mLAdAD
Quote:
...
He lashed out at the opposition Democrats, denouncing them for “crazy” partisanship. He denounced the allegations against him as “more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage.” And he proclaimed that even if the impeachment battle to come will be bad for the country, it will be “a positive for me” by bolstering his chances to win a second term in next year’s election.
....
He loves a fight. Ya can't be a winner unless you're in a fight. Lord, what a weak, pathetic loser he is.

Maybe I'm blowing sunshine up my own skirt, but I feel the tide is turning against him.
__________________
“Master, I’ve discovered the answer! Knock and the door will be opened to you.” The master replied, “Who said the door was closed?”
  #80  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:27 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Is there an update that I'm missing? Last I heard, he was just releasing the call transcript, still keeping the complaint secret. WaPo says that's not enough:

Quote:
The White House is making its own moves, making public a key telephone transcript and preparing to release to Congress a whistleblower's report as early as Wednesday, according to two sources familiar. Politico first reported the White House's intention. One source told CNN the whistleblower report is under review and going through declassification and could be released within hours of the transcript release.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/polit...ine/index.html

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 09-24-2019 at 10:31 PM.
  #81  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:31 PM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
As I said elsewhere:

"Trump Makes Clear He’s Ready for a Fight He Has Long Anticipated"
https://nyti.ms/2mLAdAD


He loves a fight. Ya can't be a winner unless you're in a fight. Lord, what a weak, pathetic loser he is.

Maybe I'm blowing sunshine up my own skirt, but I feel the tide is turning against him.
What gets Trump excited is "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME! EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT ME! ME!!

That's about it.

Trump does not even matter at this point. He's just the character in the show.

I am more concerned about what Moscow Mitch has up his sleeve. Moscow Mitch wants to own the country.
  #82  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:36 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Doesn't it just mean Trump has decided to go the "there's not enough evidence" route? I mean, there's likely multiple taped conversations and "the Republicans" probably haven't heard them all. All they can be working with is "Trump doesn't think he did anything wrong and Rudy agrees!"
Well the whistleblower's attorney has already reached out to Congress to testify. If the WB report doesn't match what the White House releases, then Trump is gonna be fucked. If McConnell is asking for the report it means he knows it's manageable. If Trump was stonewalling and McConnell was asking for the repoirt, I'd say there was a chance of a rebellion, but right now it looks like they think it can be downplayed.
  #83  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:46 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Just to put it in a historical context, many of the Senators that voted to acquit Clinton also voted to convict Judge Walter Nixon on pretty much the same thing less than a decade earlier (perjury to a grand jury).
This is bullshit that does nothing to put things in historical context.

Walter Nixon was convicted of perjury, sentenced to five years, and refused to resign even though he was incarcerated. So he was removed from the bench using impeachment.

This is not remotely parallel to Clinton's impeachment.
  #84  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You're so absurdly partisan that you're incapable of having an informed opinion on this issue.

The Republicans were desperate to run powerful investigations into minor stuff, and the democrats are loathe to do anything despite massive scandals on the part of the Trump administration. What you think is exactly the opposite of true.

Your thought goes as deep as "okay, so the Republicans were hostile to thinks that Clinton did, and democrats are hostile to the things Trump does, so it's all the same" and ignoring the fact that the Republicans launched every extremely partisan investigation into Clinton's minor corruptions as they could find, whereas the democrats are reluctant to launch any investigations into huge, gaping corruptions. Do you think the Benghazi hearings and the Mueller report were equally partisan?

Trump has committed at least 100 acts that if Obama had done them instead, there would be the loudest screeching you've ever heard out of any political party in addition to right wing violence and calls for violent revolution. In comparison, the cowardly democrats are massively under-responding to everything Trump does, pretending that it's just politics as usual. No one with a shred of objectivity could honestly think that these situations are equivalent - they are, in fact, almost exactly as opposite as you can get in politics.
I think your use of "minor" "massive" and "huge, gaping" in this post demonstrate your own lack of "a shred of objectivity" quite clearly.
  #85  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
38.5% is over twice the percentage that were in favor of impeaching Nixon a year before he left office.
It's also a 'minority', not a 'majority'. Is this really so difficult for you guys to grasp?
  #86  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:23 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,538
The polling on this is really weird. If you read the 538 article linked in post 2, it's true that impeachment is pretty unpopular. But it's clearly NOT because people outside his base are buying Trump's bullshit.

If the polling is to be believed, there's about 20% of the country who DON'T identify as Trump supporters, who DO believe that he colluded with Russia and subsequently obstructed the investigation into the said collusion...but who still don't want him impeached because...reasons?

Who are these people?! Are they just partisan Democrats who think impeachment is a bad political move? If so, I would expect those numbers to move pretty quickly as that group adopts the new party line. If not, I honestly can't imagine what their thought process might be.
  #87  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:26 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's also a 'minority', not a 'majority'. Is this really so difficult for you guys to grasp?
Unless I missed it, I don’t think that anyone said that the majority of the population supported impeachment.
  #88  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
How does this generate more Trump voters? Were there Trump voters who were planning on staying home, but now they're going to come out and vote? I don't buy it.
1. The voters dont like the idea.

2. Trump will be able to point to his inevitable "Not Guilty" verdict from the senate as proof he is Not Guilty.

But this isnt Impeachment proceedings, this is a Impeachment inquiry.

As long as the House doesnt vote to indict, we're good.
  #89  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I know this may be a foreign concept to Republicans, but sometimes doing what's right for the country is more important than maneuvering for the next election. When the president allegedly leverages the power of his office to strongarm a foreign nation into digging up dirt on his political opponent, this is one of those times.
How is a meaningless and impotent indictment "doing what's right for the country"? You are talking as if there is the slightest change trump will be removed- hint- he wont be.

4 more years of trump would be horrible.
  #90  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
....


When done for valid reasons, impeachment can tarnish a presidents reputation and reduce their popularity. If this impeachment inquiry opens up the floodgates on all Trump's crimes, it could make him less popular with independent voters.
Really? It didnt for Johnson or Clinton, and those are our only two examples.

It could, if there was a chance they would listen to the proceedings on CNN- but there's no chance, so it wont.
  #91  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
The number of Democrats calling for impeachment just hit 200 on politico
Let me know when we get 16 Republican senators. bring pie.
  #92  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:40 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
Unless I missed it, I don’t think that anyone said that the majority of the population supported impeachment.
YOU said it. Here's the exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
... It's not enough to just get rid of Trump. And in fact, getting rid of Trump alone might be the most dangerous of all options. There has to be a reckoning, a purge. We have to acknowledge that what has gone on in recent years is way outside the norm, and way outside of what can be acceptable from an American political party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This seems like counting your chickens before they've hatched. You haven't even gotten "rid of Trump" yet (and you're very unlikely to do so) and yet you've already moved on to 'we also need to get rid of these other guys'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
The majority can dream, can't it?
It seems pretty clear to me that we were discussing impeachment of President Trump and various and sundry other Republicans, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What was it you posted "the majority can dream" about? "a reckoning, a purge"?
  #93  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:42 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Who are these people?! Are they just partisan Democrats who think impeachment is a bad political move? If so, I would expect those numbers to move pretty quickly as that group adopts the new party line. If not, I honestly can't imagine what their thought process might be.
I remember when Nixon resigned there were people literally crying in the streets. I don't think they were necessarily Nixon supporters; I think they were more likely just people who loved their country and hated to see it destabilized by such a national crisis.

What I hope people would realize is that though they may love their country, the Orange Peril and his henchmen do not. They care only about themselves, and are willing to defy the Constitution and all the traditional norms of governance to consolidate their power and enrich themselves. They are exactly the abusers of power that the Founders provided for Congress to be able to remove.
  #94  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:43 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
So there’s gonna be an impeachment “inquiry”, this fact has already been announced, due to a call that nobody knows the contents of, and a whistle blower who nobody yet knows anything about, or the contents of his complaint.

During prime time political campaigning, a year before the next presidential election.

And the left expects the electorate to believe this a completely non-partisan and objective investigation.

And the left is gonna do it anyway, knowing that impeachment is an unpopular position.

And the left wants the electorate to believe that they are not using the congress as a political tool to fuck the opposition.

Bold plan, Democrats. Bold plan.

I predict that the Dems will shield and block the whistleblower from scrutiny and hide any political bias apparent in the character of the whistleblower.

It’s like they’re handing 2020 to trump on a silver platter.
  #95  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:45 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's also a 'minority', not a 'majority'. Is this really so difficult for you guys to grasp?


Has zero to do with my point.
  #96  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:45 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
YOU said it. Here's the exchange:







It seems pretty clear to me that we were discussing impeachment of President Trump and various and sundry other Republicans, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What was it you posted "the majority can dream" about? "a reckoning, a purge"?
As I mentioned, when I said “The Majority,” I was referring to the majority of voters who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. I’m sure that those people would be happy to be rid of his pox upon the country.

But, that’s not the same as saying that the majority of voters want him impeached. I’m not sure *I* do, unless unimpeachable (heh) evidence is uncovered to make conviction a slam-dunk. But, I would still like to be rid of him.

Last edited by beowulff; 09-24-2019 at 11:46 PM.
  #97  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A fair chunk of Americans are not willing to say "impeach" until they see what the actual evidence is to this charge. Let's assume it is real and damning and that fair chunk comes over to "impeach."
....
The argument can be made that IF the full facts are as damning as the are alleged to be then he might be left with ONLY that hard base and lose everyone else. Stay in office but be destroyed. But yeah alternatively assuming they are true but are seen by the public as just what politicians do then the risk of a backlash is significant.
.....
If they even bother to turn on CNN to hear them.

If the public ever even bothers to be informed of the full facts.
  #98  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:57 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
No, I mean the majority of the country that didn't vote for him and hate his orange guts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If they even bother to turn on CNN to hear them.

If the public ever even bothers to be informed of the full facts.
Fox news is popular. So apparently not.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #99  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:13 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The complete absence of accountability in a political system that was set up as a modern democracy with supposed safeguards is just stunning. The Founders thought they had set up a system of checks and balances but they never counted on having the Senate dominated by a gang of unprincipled Republicans and an equally unprincipled and mendacious administration led by an orange moron.
As I've said before, if our governmental system survives this episode, one consequence is going to be the development of a lot more explicit legislative checks on the executive, and probably judiciary checks on the legislature as well. We'll have actual laws, rather than just time-honored "protocols", requiring the POTUS to release his tax returns and blind-trust his assets and conform to a schedule for filling administrative positions and so forth.

And if so, then I guess Trump's dishonest pledges of "draining the swamp" will in some sense have been fulfilled after all. "I made the swamp so incredibly bigly and stinky, the most massive stink ever, believe me, that the Loser Dems had no choice but to drain it! MAGA!!"
  #100  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:25 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,258
Trump will not only survive this but win re-election unless the economy goes south; it's about that and nothing more.

He could fuck a goat on live TV, and if unemployment's at 3 percent, Americans will demand that congress give him more goats to shag.

That's what "democracy" has been reduced to here. That's all our little amoebic brains can handle.

Last edited by asahi; 09-25-2019 at 12:27 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 08:04 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017