You know how I know lots of progressives swallowed the anti-HRC pills? I post here and have read and argued with lots of progressives. You know how I know lots of Democrats didn’t vote for HRC in 2016? President of the United States Donald J. Trump, thanks to wins in critical states full of eligible Democrats who stayed home instead of voting. Because they weren’t inspired by that corporatist, war mongering, careless with security and probably really shady Shillary, who rigged the primaries and bashed all the hippies.
It’s interesting that you respond as if I said “all progressives” or even just “progressives” as a class were suckers for the anti Clinton crap. I typed “so many self-labeled ‘progressives’” were, and I believe history (along with at least half of the posts on this message board from left of center posters referencing Mrs. Clinton) bears this out. It’s also interesting that you missed the point that it wasn’t only the anti-HRC vote that was bought by the misinformation campaign, it was even more importantly the no-vote ‘pox on both their houses’ contingent that was convinced Clinton was just as unpalatable as her opponent.
Congrats, though on your employment of the ‘no true Scotsman’ gambit when talking about the disaffected bros dumping Clinton instead of being “rational” like us real-by-Og-progressives so unfailingly are. Pretty easy to refute an assertion about some apples by redefining the relevant apples as turnips.
Here’s a test of your rationality and resistance to simpleminded narratives: Do you use the terms ‘corporatist’ or ‘bankster’, or phrases like ‘too cozy with Wall Street’ during discussions about likely Democratic candidates for 2020, as if dealings or positions favorable to banks and corporations were disqualifying? (Do you believe we could have a working economy without banks and corporations?) Have you cited particular committee or floor votes on bills and amendments as definitive evidence of a specific Democrat’s being ‘bought out’ or ‘beholden to’ lobbies and special interests? Have you berated a minority Democratic party for failing to “push back” or “stand up” against majority party misbehavior? (Do you know how legislatures work? Do you even politic, bro?)
I’d love a political landscape where a large percentage of committed progressives were pragmatic and knowledgeable, and not severely underinformed or misinformed about government and easily influenced by pat stories or superficial punditry or their own impatience with the status quo. But that’s a fantasy landscape.
And we’re pretty far now from the ramifications of the USAG realignment everyone else is discussing. I’ll bow out of the 2016 hurt feelings argument now.
It’s a two step process. The House brings the Articles of Impeachment. They make the accusation, lay out all their evidence for & against, and then vote. If the vote is Nay - it stops then and there. If the Vote is Yay, then the Accused has been Impeached.
Then, if an Accused is Impeached, the Senate tries the Accused in the Senate with the Chief Justice acting as the Judge. If 2/3rds of the Senate vote to convict, then the Impeached individual is removed from office. Impeachement doesn’t preclude normal criminal charges.
So, yes, the actual impeachment phase happens in the House before the adjudication phase starts in the Senate. I’m not sure if, strictly speaking, the impeachment phase is a formal trial, but testimony and evidence is certainly presented, and really - what else would you call it?
Since the Impeachment judgement calls for only a simple majority vote, the Democrats already have enough votes to impeach Donald. They don’t have the Senate votes to remove him from office. There might be an argument to go ahead and impeach the bastard anyway, but I’m not sure I’d recommend it - like I said previous, I think lots and lots of investigation is the way to go. But it would put every single one of Donald’s protectors on the spot.
If anyone needs proof that Clintonistas are every bit as immune to logic and support their sainted one as religiously as Trump supporters do here it is. Assertions without evidence, ignoring facts given to them, just making shit up…it’s got it all.
Since when is the SDMB considered a stand-in for the world at large? You debated a few people here so you know how “lots” of progressives are? Even if the SDMB progressives were a microcosm of the larger group you cannot draw the conclusions you did. I’m a progressive, I hate HRC and I voted for her. Most progressives did, as I already showed you.
And “no true Scotsman” indeed. I provided a citation for you. They know who these people are who left to vote for Trump after Sanders lost. They were never democrats. They temporarily switched sides to vote for Sanders. When he was no longer in the race they left. Clinton never would have had them. The aren’t progressives…never were progressives.
And as for low voter turnout you again assume it is all progressives staying home in a huff. No evidence for it in the best tradition of Trump supporters who just “know” things like all Mexicans are rapists. Except you are wrong and provably so. Low voter turnout is not really considered to be why Clinton lost. The main group that did not show up to vote for Clinton were black voters and even then it was only a small dip. Black voters preferred Clinton to Sanders by a huge margin so these were not your progressives staying home.
In none of that will you find a smoking gun pointed at progressives. The difference was Trump flipping white working-class Obama supporters to his side. Another group not known for being progressive.
But hey, keep railing at the people who are at least somewhat on your side in opposing Trump so you can maintain the fiction that Saint Hillary could have done no wrong and it just had to be those stinky, evil progressives. :rolleyes:
I would suspect he was offered a gold parachute of some sort (a donor will see to it he gets hired with a sweet salary and a corner office somewhere) and continued invitations to high-brow soirees as long as he keeps his mouth shut.
Whack-a-Mole, I have no intention of fighting out the 2016 election. Nor am I blaming progressives for that election loss. I am saying only that even without a basis in reality, relentless and coordinated attacks on a political entity are effective. IMO, with actual verifiable bases in fact, that should be true when practiced by a Democratic caucus as well, even though Democrats as a general group are less able to work in lockstep with each other due to lack of an authoritarian foundation.
My first post in this thread was intended to say that impeachment, while unlikely to happen and even more unlikely to be fruitful in the Senate, would not necessarily be political malpractice.
ETA: also, you should get off your high horse and stop accusing other liberal, left wing PROGRESSIVE people of being anti-progressive dupes because we recognize the biases that exist. In all of us, dammit. Thanks very much.
I’m not even sure I want an impeachment anymore, because it would never lead to removal (and even if it did, President Pence, ugh). And nothing that gets turned up will ever sway the 35% who have made Trump their hero.
But look what all the bullshit investigations did to Hillary, and imagine what inquiries into genuine malfeasance might do to the party that’s supported Trump.
Yup. It’s not about impeachment anymore. Now, like many folks, my goal is to see him ruined. I want to see his assets seized, his kids jailed, and for him to know that his legacy is failure and loss. I want him to die alone in a gray hole.
That’s my fantasy, too. And on his way down, he torches McConnell, Pence and the rest, and Fox News flails itself into oblivion defending him to the bitter end.
I’d just like to point out that everyone who voted for Trump owns Matt Whitaker. It was obvious from the get go that he values sycophancy over competence and honor. If you voted for Trump, you do too.
Hey, now, that whole so-called “patent scam” needs to be reconsidered! I speak from experience! Some time ago, I thought of a neat idea, put rollers in luggage to make suitcases easy to move! Great, huh? Well, some patent guys agreed, enthusiastically! Fucking brilliant, they said.
Guys, I’m gonna be fucking rich! Just a few thousand dollars more for the filings and paperwork, and I’ll be rolling in quatloos! Turns out, some luggage companies have stolen my patent already, and I can sue them for millions, just as soon as I get all the filings and paperwork done!
Not gonna forget you guys! Blicker, Vincent Turnipseed, John Space. In fact, you guys want to get in on the ground floor, make an investment, I’m willing to share. Little short just now, you know, filings. Paperwork. Brother in law, said no, and I’m totally going to rub it in when I’m rich…
I’ve been mulling (Muellering?) your comments. I respect your posts and generally agree with you, but as someone who may be occasionally mistaken for a person who views Mueller as a “liberal superhero,” I feel obliged to respond and clarify.
I don’t have that view of Mueller. I don’t think many do. He is, as you point out, a Republican – one of the few for which I still have a high regard. I do view him as incredibly principled and a very strong supporter of the rule of law.
I also view him as a person who badly would want to save DOJ/FBI from political taint as is presently occurring. He is brilliant, experienced – and not commonly recognized, political.
I don’t mean political in the sense that he is biased for or against any side. I mean political in the sense that he understands the current fight in which he is engaged is being waged via political tactics and has strong political ramifications. He also understands that his “defendant” has more tools, many political in nature, at his disposal to fend off criminal investigation.
He will have planned for this and taken steps. I disagree with you that he won’t make copies and safeguard them in places where a record of his work can be preserved. The Watergate team did this, and I see no reason why Mueller wouldn’t take a page from their playbook and do exactly the same. That doesn’t make him a man on a white horse. It makes him a realist in understanding the nature of his adversary. And again, I don’t mean adversary in the political sense. It is Republicans who are trying their damndest to couch Mueller’s investigation in terms of Us (Republicans, conservatives) v. Them (Democrats, liberals). Not Mueller.
It has been said again and again by those who know him, if you are innocent, Mueller will be the first to speak up and defend your good name. But if you are guilty, gawd help you. He will find a way. And he will do it within the letter of the law. He doesn’t have to be a “liberal superhero” to accomplish that. And in the end, I think he and his findings are going to matter a lot.
CNN tells us about Matt Whittaker. I won’t even try to summarize this 10-minute video. One contemptible horror after another. Just exactly the guy you’d expect Trump to appoint.
His entire carer has been dedicated to opposing Democrats via lies, etc. During 2005-2007 he mounted a huge investigation against one Democrat, Matt McCoy whose main crime was being gay and who is still paying off his legal bills from this travesty. After this 2-year investigation, the jury acquitted McCoy in 20 minutes.
And of course, Trump can’t decide whether he knows Whittaker very well, or doesn’t know him at all. :eek:
Indeed, it would seem for the Opposition that you should in fact prefer to have this Trump, as he is clearly not very competent in the management, and if you are disciplined, this is a strong advantage for the next Presidential. Provoked, it seems he is almost certain to have the recourse to the same discourse that seems to have agaced the suburbs and given you a strong opposition result even in the face of a well performing economy.
If you chance the attempt to remove him, you risk the result like what was had with Clinton and in effect undermine your own effort.