Straight Dope Message Board

[Sunny Daze]

More signs of the coming End of the World^TM.

May I present Governor Beavis (D) of Kentucky and, his friends at the Democratic-controlled VA senate.

Mwahahahahaha! 101

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Sure, I can think of a lot of reasons. Another one might be that they don't consider anything he's done to amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" that merit removal from office.

Which begs the question, what is?

For a Republican Senator, investigating the person who might be a threat to "your man" in the Oval Office is not a crime, it's behavior to be encouraged. Executive privilege means the President can break laws when necessary, right?

If Trump shot Biden on 5th avenue, is that really High Crimes? I mean, really? Biden was probably guilty of something.

If Trump took some money from Putin and also took Putin's side in an international dispute around the same time, is that really a misdemeanor? C'mon, who wouldn't take money from the Russians? Besides, he's a billionaire. It's not like he needed the money. He just grabbed it to see if he could and would have sided with the Russians anyway. 102

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

And stronger and ideologically harder-core.
People tend to badly discount the resiliency of parties and movements.

Nixon was a flaming liberal compared to the Rs that followed him – at least, he did things like creating the EPA, which subsequent Republicans have tried to throttle. Perhaps in his heart, Nixon might have done truly vile things such as Reagan, the Bushes and Individual-ONE have but his mom raised him better than that. Or the spectacle of Tailgunner was somehow a sobering lesson. 103

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Which begs the question, what is?

That's easy. Benghazi!


I have gotten to the point with the Trump defenders that I've boiled everything down to one response.

"So you wouldn't care if Obama had done it, too, right?" 104

[Rushgeekgirl]

I like them all. I would vote for any of them. I don't see why the hell people are so picky given what we have in office right now. I know "anyone but Trump blah blah lesser of two evils blah blah" but none are evil and I'm not about to hold someone's age against them. I like Biden. I like Warren. Even though they're pushing stuff that's quite a bit more liberal than the other guy I liked. It will all be balanced out in congress anyway so it doesn't make that big of a difference which Democrat as far as the ones in the running right now go. Mostly because I realize it's all about teams. Politics is gonna be about the party. Republicans know this. Why is it so hard for Democrats to understand? 105

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Sure, I can think of a lot of reasons. Another one might be that they don't consider anything he's done to amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" that merit removal from office.

Yeah, that might have worked, before they Impeached Clinton for far less. I said that was gonna bite them in the ass, and I am right. 106

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Yeah, that might have worked, before they Impeached Clinton for far less. I said that was gonna bite them in the ass, and I am right.

At least Clinton committed an actual crime. And why would that "bite them in the ass"? Clinton wasn't removed from office and neither will President Trump be removed from office. 107

[China Guy]

Lessee, lying about a blowjob is an impeachable crime. Especially if you pretend to be a puritan **cough cough** Newt** cough cough.

Actually attempting to blackmail a country that desperately needs money and weapons to fend off our Russian enemies from further annexing their land in return for investigating your opposition Presidential front runner is A-OK. Sad 108

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

At least Clinton committed an actual crime. And why would that "bite them in the ass"? Clinton wasn't removed from office and neither will President Trump be removed from office.

Actually no. He did lie, but lying isnt always perjury. Clinton didnt commit perjury.

It is going to bite them in the ass as they picked a very minor crime- perjury- as a "high crime". Now collusion, etc all can be "high crimes". 109

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Actually no. He did lie, but lying isnt always perjury.

Clinton's crime was that he failed to tell them “Fuck Off! This has nothing to do with anything, you desperate worms.” I lost a bit of respect for him, letting those twits play him like that. 110

[Banquet Bear]

...from today:

Originally Posted by The Morning Call

“ES&S has assured the county and the Pennsylvania Department of State that it is assessing and diagnosing what caused the issues with the machines,” the news release stated.

Red flags with the results were apparent as even the earliest returns rolled in. Democrat Abe Kassis initially had zero recorded votes with multiple precincts reporting.

...

With 105 of 155 precincts reporting, Democratic candidate Abe Kassis had received just 164 votes. Democrat John Morganelli had 28,582 and Republican Victor Scomillio had 17,185.

...

County Executive Lamont McClure said he believed the issues with the machines were limited to the judicial race, but poll workers across Northampton County flagged questionable results in at least six other municipal races.

...

John Simpson, a judge of elections for Lower Nazareth 2, said he was sure the results printed off the machines in his precinct were incorrect because they recorded zero votes for Kassis. Simpson said he personally cast at least one vote.

https://www.mcall.com/news/elections...ai4-story.html

There are numerous ongoing emergencies going on right now and there will be continuing to be emergencies leading right up to next elections. Those emergencies revolve around voting machines, the integrity of the next elections, voter suppression, unfettered propaganda and the weaponization of social media. I believe all of these things are going to have a bigger impact on the next election than who the Democrats actually choose to run. There really are more important battles to be won. Its why people like Stacey Abrams, who received a lot of pressure to stand as a candidate this year, declined the opportunity to continue the fight against voter suppression.

If you are worried about the next elections (and you have very reason to worry about what will happen in 2020) then I think there are things you can do that aren't "hoping for a miracle." 111

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by eschereal

Clinton's crime was that he failed to tell them “Fuck Off! This has nothing to do with anything, you desperate worms.” I lost a bit of respect for him, letting those twits play him like that.

...Clinton deserved to be impeached. His treatment of Lewinsky back then and even his treatment of Lewinsky now was nothing short of disgusting. If Clinton had told them to "fuck off" then he would have been every bit as bad as Trump & co's behaviour now. I can at least give him a bit of credit for that. 112

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...Clinton deserved to be impeached. His treatment of Lewinsky back then and even his treatment of Lewinsky now was nothing short of disgusting. If Clinton had told them to "fuck off" then he would have been every bit as bad as Trump & co's behaviour now. I can at least give him a bit of credit for that.

Wait, what?

So, uh, what about Trump now? Does he deserve to be impeached now? Or does the laundry list of his sexual transgressions - I'm talking about the ones he admitted to and/or paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for - not matter? I guess technically right now he rants on twitter all night instead of fucking another porn star. 113

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Wait, what?

So, uh, what about Trump now? Does he deserve to be impeached now?

...ummm, yes? I've been calling for Trump's impeachment since well before it got trendy on these boards.

Or does the laundry list of his sexual transgressions - I'm talking about the ones he admitted to and/or paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for - not matter?

Of course they fucking matter.

I guess technically right now he rants on twitter all night instead of fucking another porn star.

What the fuck are you talking about? 114

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

What the fuck are you talking about?

Trump, as President (and a 73 year old man), apparently isn't getting it in with porn stars right now. Or if he is, the press haven't spotted the parade of adult video stars trooping in and out of his white house bedroom. And you would expect for them to be waiting in ambush with telephoto lenses hoping to catch a glimpse of this.

So he's not committing High Crimes and Misdemeanors of this particular kind while President. The Harvard Law Review article quoted by wikipedia states:

Most people, including a majority of the House of Representatives, interpreted the phrase to refer not to literal crimes or misdemeanors but to any serious abuses of presidential power.

By this definition, if Trump pays a porn star to have sex with him from his personal funds, that probably wouldn't count. Even if he explicitly makes the payment in a way that makes it clear it is prostitution, it's not using the power of his office. He could do this as a private citizen any day of the week.

Lewinsky, however, by using his authority as her boss to sexually harass her, this is a grey area. However, Lewinsky didn't claim harassment and in the civilian world their relationship was perfectly legal though many corporations today would terminate managers who engage in it. 115

[Monocracy]

Originally Posted by eschereal

In the mid 1970s, a Republican President left office in disgrace. The VP who took over for him lost a rather close election, and the Rs were back in the WH only 4 years later. This seems different, but even so, parasites rarely go easily.

There is a big difference. Trump has a fanatical following. He is a cult leader. He had about 30% of Republicans at the start of the primaries. Most of the rest jumped on the train when he clearly had the nomination. Republicans are followers.

Does anyone think he will go quietly into the night if he is forced from office? Yes, most conservatives will jump ship and latch back onto the establishment Republicans. But how many won't? How many will be mad at Republicans for ditching their boy Trump? Will it be 10%? 20%? more? Republicans are already a slight minority compared to the Democrats. They can't afford to lose any more voters.

This is why Republicans can't dump Trump. No matter how bad it gets, no matter how much evidence piles against him, no matter how many people he shoots on 5th Avenue, they have to back Trump to the end. This was seen in the impeachment inquiry vote, it will be seen in the formal impeachment vote and it will be seen in the Senate. Republican politicians have no choice. 116

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Trump, as President (and a 73 year old man), apparently isn't getting it in with porn stars right now. Or if he is, the press haven't spotted the parade of adult video stars trooping in and out of his white house bedroom. And you would expect for them to be waiting in ambush with telephoto lenses hoping to catch a glimpse of this.

So he's not committing High Crimes and Misdemeanors of this particular kind while President. The Harvard Law Review article quoted by wikipedia states:

Most people, including a majority of the House of Representatives, interpreted the phrase to refer not to literal crimes or misdemeanors but to any serious abuses of presidential power.

By this definition, if Trump pays a porn star to have sex with him from his personal funds, that probably wouldn't count. Even if he explicitly makes the payment in a way that makes it clear it is prostitution, it's not using the power of his office. He could do this as a private citizen any day of the week.

Lewinsky, however, by using his authority as her boss to sexually harass her, this is a grey area. However, Lewinsky didn't claim harassment and in the civilian world their relationship was perfectly legal though many corporations today would terminate managers who engage in it.

...I'm sorry,but with all due respect, but what the fuck are you talking about? 117

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

At least Clinton committed an actual crime.

Ah. I wasn't aware that the criminal codes had been updated to remove extortion from the books.

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Sure, I can think of a lot of reasons. Another one might be that they don't consider anything he's done to amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" that merit removal from office.

So even though bribery is specifically mentioned as grounds for impeachment, its next-door neighbor, extortion, would have been A-OK with the Founders? 118

[RTFirefly]

Getting back to the thread topic: after last night, I'm not exactly feeling the emergency here. 119

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

Lewinsky, however, by using his authority as her boss to sexually harass her, this is a grey area.

If you're going to go there, this reminds me that we know who Monica Lewinsky is only because Ken Starr's henchmen threatened her with a long prison term if she didn't cooperate with them.

Lock them up!!! 120

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Getting back to the thread topic: after last night, I'm not exactly feeling the emergency here.

I’m happy, too, but you might want to reconsider. Hillary won Virginia — no gain implied there (for the 2020 Dem prez nominee). And do you really think Kentucky could flip to blue for that Dem nominee?

Signs of hope, yes, but they need to translate into facts along the shores of the Great Lakes, not the foothills of the the Appalachians. 121

[bobot]

Eh, you say 'not", I say "or". "And" even. If it happens, I'll take it. 122

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

I’m happy, too, but you might want to reconsider. Hillary won Virginia — no gain implied there (for the 2020 Dem prez nominee). And do you really think Kentucky could flip to blue for that Dem nominee?

Signs of hope, yes, but they need to translate into facts along the shores of the Great Lakes, not the foothills of the the Appalachians.

One word: turnout.

Why would potential Democratic voters be more likely to turn out in massively high numbers in Virginia in 2019 than potential Democratic voters in Michigan or Wisconsin would in 2020? I can't think of one.

In a polarized political environment, getting your prospective voters to be actual voters is the name of the game. That's what happened in Virginia in 2017 and 2018 and 2019, and in most of the rest of the country in 2018. Looks awfully likely to happen again in 2020. 123

[JKellyMap]

I hear you, and hope you’re right.
One thing that concerns me is that the heart of the impeachment complaint is a foreign matter, and many of the key voters Dems need just don’t care what happens beyond our borders. The Watergate break-in was nice and local, and easy to picture in one’s mind (or portray in a dramatic reenactment). 124

[septimus]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

.... Lewinsky, however, by using his authority as her boss to sexually harass her, this is a grey area. However, Lewinsky didn't claim harassment and in the civilian world their relationship was perfectly legal though many corporations today would terminate managers who engage in it.

The first sentence makes no sense grammatically, but assuming it tries to show Lewinsky as Clinton's victim, it is also nonsensical factually. However wrong Clinton's behavior was (and it was wrong), Lewinsky, a 22-year old adult, actively sought out a relationship with Potus and achieved her wish.

Lewinsky was a victim of course; she was victimized by the hypocritical hack Starr who threatened her with prison if she didn't rat-fink on her lover. In a righteous world, Starr would have gone to jail. 125

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...Clinton deserved to be impeached. His treatment of Lewinsky back then and even his treatment of Lewinsky now was nothing short of disgusting. If Clinton had told them to "fuck off" then he would have been every bit as bad as Trump & co's behaviour now. I can at least give him a bit of credit for that.

Those werent crimes. 126

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

I hear you, and hope you’re right.
One thing that concerns me is that the heart of the impeachment complaint is a foreign matter, and many of the key voters Dems need just don’t care what happens beyond our borders. The Watergate break-in was nice and local, and easy to picture in one’s mind (or portray in a dramatic reenactment).

Do you think there are at least 110,000 of these "key voters" who care? Because that's how razor thin the margin of electoral victory was for Trump. 127

[JKellyMap]

Exactly. No one knows. It may be a mystery until exactly a year from now. 128

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If you're going to go there, this reminds me that we know who Monica Lewinsky is only because Ken Starr's henchmen threatened her with a long prison term if she didn't cooperate with them.

This is the central point. I have not heard any complaint from Lewinski regarding what happened in the oval, and while there may be some component of something like Stockholm Syndrome in that, given two decades of distance from the original events, one might expect that she has had enough time to examine her own feelings and register her objections. Her biggest complaint, that I am aware of, relates to the publicity, so it is reasonable to say that Tripp and Starr exacted far more harm upon her than the President ever did. 129

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by eschereal

Her biggest complaint, that I am aware of, relates to the publicity, so it is reasonable to say that Tripp and Starr exacted far more harm upon her than the President ever did.

...you aren't in any position to judge what harm Clinton did to her. In her most recent interview with Vanity Fair she said "Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot." I agree that the behaviour of Tripp and Starr was despicable, disgusting, contemptible, and inhumane. But you can condemn their behaviour without having to defend what it was that Clinton did. 130

[Akaj]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

I hear you, and hope you’re right.
One thing that concerns me is that the heart of the impeachment complaint is a foreign matter, and many of the key voters Dems need just don’t care what happens beyond our borders. The Watergate break-in was nice and local, and easy to picture in one’s mind (or portray in a dramatic reenactment).

It's only a foreign matter until you explain that Trump was using our money, approved by our congressional representatives, for an illegal and purely political purpose*. It's really no different than if Congress had authorized a $400 million infrastructure project, but Trump unilaterally withheld that money until all the contractors involved made donations to his re-election campaign.

*Yes, the GOP will debate the "illegal and purely political" part, but we're talking about framing the issue as a non-foreign matter, not the validity of it as a whole. 131

[MortSahlFan]

Bernie isn't radical. Hell, he got a lot of support on Fox, because many people do agree with him. He's also very popular here in the mid-west. Hillary only lost because Trump won so many blue states. Also, Bernie has so many young supporters, usually those who don't vote. I don't support anyone else, and won't vote for anyone else. People need someone who inspires them, not a repeat of 2016.

Forget the polls. Polls don't vote. Also, you will always get an extreme right-wing bias, because of the demographics of those who still have land line phones. 132

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...you aren't in any position to judge what harm Clinton did to her. ....

Ok, this is turning into a hijack, maybe start yet another thread on this? 133

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Akaj

It's only a foreign matter until you explain that Trump was using our money, approved by our congressional representatives, for an illegal and purely political purpose...

All true, but you needn’t convince me. No matter what we say, some folks will just feel it isn’t that important, because it didn’t “happen” here. 134

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ok, this is turning into a hijack, maybe start yet another thread on this?

...I'm "hijacking" the thread every bit as much as your "Those werent crimes" post and SamuelA's "apparently isn't getting it in with porn stars right now" post and eschereal's "Clinton wasn't so bad" post and your "Ok, this is turning into a hijack" post. If you want to start another thread on this go ahead. 135

[Chronos]

"No crimes"? Heck, that bit with the magic marker and the hurricane map was a federal felony.

Plus, of course, all of the sexual assaults, and tax evasion, and fraud, and emoluments, and so on. 136

[Aspenglow]

Well, Bloomberg just joined the fray. Lucky us. Another billionaire. 137

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by asahi

The only time that you can really and truly afford to make enemies of big business in this country is when the economy is absolutely, positively in the shitter, to the point where there's revolutionary sentiment brewing. Basically, like what we had in 2008 or 1932. Short of that, forget it. A socialist of any stripe hasn't a chance.

Oh, you think things are going well, then?

At this point he only things likely to stop Bernie from winning are his health & massive election fraud. 138

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

More signs of the coming End of the World^TM.

May I present Governor Beavis (D) of Kentucky and, his friends at the Democratic-controlled VA senate.

Mwahahahahaha!

Got anything useful to say?

I mean, "I don't like Democrats" may accurately describe where you're coming from, but it really isn't much of a contribution to the discussion. 139

[pjacks]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Got anything useful to say?

I mean, "I don't like Democrats" may accurately describe where you're coming from, but it really isn't much of a contribution to the discussion.

I think he is being sarcastic, and implying that those completely winnable races prove that it's nothing but smooth sailing for democrats from here to Election Day. Yeah, Democrats controlling the senate of the state with the largest ratio of federal government employees, all of who uniquely despise Trump, and a Democrat winning a governor's race against the most unpopular incumbent governor in the US by half a percentage point, are somehow indicative of everything going peachy for Dems.

Meanwhile, look at Trump's numbers in Midwest states for a dose of reality. This country is going to make history by re-electing an impeached president soon. 140

[FlikTheBlue]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

One word: turnout.

Why would potential Democratic voters be more likely to turn out in massively high numbers in Virginia in 2019 than potential Democratic voters in Michigan or Wisconsin would in 2020? I can't think of one.

In a polarized political environment, getting your prospective voters to be actual voters is the name of the game. That's what happened in Virginia in 2017 and 2018 and 2019, and in most of the rest of the country in 2018. Looks awfully likely to happen again in 2020.

It’s more a matter of demographics than energizing the electorate. My guess is the reason some states are becoming more blue and others more red is due to changes in demographics rather than individual voters changing their minds. It’s not that Republicans in Virginia are becoming more liberal, or that Democrats in Wisconsin are becoming more conservative. It’s more likely that liberal people are moving out of states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota (D’s need to pay close attention there) and moving into places like Virginia (and Texas and Georgia but not yet in enough numbers to flip them). Either that or conservatives moving in the opposite direction or a combination of the two. Dealing with the issue of having a smaller slice of the electorate (Wisconsin problems) is different than energizing a larger base (Virginia problems). The latter seems to be an easier problem to solve. 141

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Got anything useful to say?

I mean, "I don't like Democrats" may accurately describe where you're coming from, but it really isn't much of a contribution to the discussion.

It's possible I might be mistaken here, but I don't think that's where Sunny Daze is coming from. 142

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

It's possible I might be mistaken here, but I don't think that's where Sunny Daze is coming from.

Heh, I agree with you. First time for everything, I guess. 143