Donald Trump 2019

[DDD Dad 14335]

Less polls, more guillotines. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Damnit. 

[elfenix 34233]

 Nor did I say they were behind our current foreign policy.  Not all, not even most, but an incredibly influential portion of the original 1960's/1970's/first term Reagan NeoCon movement were Democrats.  Even left-of-moderate Democrats.  I know you like dropping the term "NeoCons" at parties to sound smarter than just those spouting off about "Conservatives"...but you would do well to know how the Democrats that colored the initial movement still affect it today.  Nobody is saying our current international quagmires are the fault exclusively of Democrats but you brought up the NeoCon movement, not me.  Know who helped start it and how they still influence what is going on today, however indirectly.  Otherwise, stick to vague terms you can get away with at your coffee shop.  

Is this where we pretend they didn't leave the Democratic party for the Republican party? I know I know, Moynihan didn't.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

What is lost in this is Pelosi has done everything possible to keep those polls in the anti-impeachment territory.  Leaders move the polls not the other way around.

Her messaging since before the Mueller report has been to throw cold water on the idea of impeachment.  She said Trump’s not worth it.  She said Trump is trying to bait us into impeachment.  She said Trump is self impeaching, whatever the fuck that means.  She said impeachment needs to be bipartisan.  She then moved the goalposts and said the Senate needs to be bipartisan too.  

This woman has preemptively come up with every excuse in the book not to lead or do her job when the facts and evidence demand it.  She might as well be Susan Collins.  She should resign and never hold public office again.  The people of the United States deserve so much better.

[Guest Lobo]

Who's pretending?  I was merely attempting to encourage a few folks to read a little more history on neoconservatism to see how it started and how it still colors our policies today.  

We're quite familiar with the fact that many of them changed parties as a result of the movement.  

It's almost as if you're onto an original idea.  You should coin the term for those that switched, maybe call 'em...I dunno:  "Reagan-Democrats"

Or wait, is that already taken  ? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What is lost in this is Pelosi has done everything possible to keep those polls in the anti-impeachment territory.  Leaders move the polls not the other way around.

Her messaging since before the Mueller report has been to throw cold water on the idea of impeachment.  She said Trump’s not worth it.  She said Trump is trying to bait us into impeachment.  She said Trump is self impeaching, whatever the fuck that means.  She said impeachment needs to be bipartisan.  She then moved the goalposts and said the Senate needs to be bipartisan too.  

This woman has preemptively come up with every excuse in the book not to lead or do her job when the facts and evidence demand it.  She might as well be Susan Collins.  She should resign and never hold public office again.  The people of the United States deserve so much better.

And for the record, I was wrong to think Pelosi was the right person to be speaker in the Trump era.  The people need a wartime speaker, not another spineless hack.

[BradInATX 9208]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What is lost in this is Pelosi has done everything possible to keep those polls in the anti-impeachment territory.  Leaders move the polls not the other way around.

Her messaging since before the Mueller report has been to throw cold water on the idea of impeachment.  She said Trump’s not worth it.  She said Trump is trying to bait us into impeachment.  She said Trump is self impeaching, whatever the fuck that means.  She said impeachment needs to be bipartisan.  She then moved the goalposts and said the Senate needs to be bipartisan too.  

This woman has preemptively come up with every excuse in the book not to lead or do her job when the facts and evidence demand it.  She might as well be Susan Collins.  She should resign and never hold public office again.  The people of the United States deserve so much better.

I mean, or they have internals that show that impeachment in the states that matter is highly unpopular (as this poll gives a small glimpse into) and she doesn't want to step in a pile of shit just so some folks  can feel vindicated and have an emotional void filled.

Edited June 2, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean, or they have internals that show that impeachment in the states that matter is highly unpopular (as this poll gives a small glimpse into) and she doesn't want to step in a pile of shit just so some folks  can feel vindicated and have an emotional void filled.

Well, that would just be more evidence she’s a hack and incapable of leading.  Yeah, sometimes doing the right thing is uncomfortable and hard.  That’s why people elect you to office, to ACT on behalf of their interests and uphold the constitution in the face of tyranny.  She’s failing on an epic level. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[elfenix 34233]

Who's pretending?  I was merely attempting to encourage a few folks to read a little more history on neoconservatism to see how it started and how it still colors our policies today.  
We're quite familiar with the fact that many of them changed parties as a result of the movement.  
It's almost as if you're onto an original idea.  You should coin the term for those that switched, maybe call 'em...I dunno:  "Reagan-Democrats"
Or wait, is that already taken  ? 

That's already taken and refers to people who generally vote Democratic but defected for Reagan. Not really a permanent switch and while neocon thought certainly influenced the politicians who triggered the switch I think you'd be hard pressed to apply that term to the broad swath of people who can be described as Reagan Democrats.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The polls on impeachment are weak because Dems are weak on impeachment.  Their job is to create and press the narrative, not throw up their hands because it isn't materializing out of thin air.   And unlike a dozen narratives successful manufactured by Republicans to thwart Obama at every turn, and then defeat Hillary, this one has the advantage of being both true and worthy of prosecution.

This is why Dems almost always fail, even when they win elections.   This is why Dems lost everything because of Obamacare, when less than a decade later it was popular enough to sweep Rs out of the house.  This is why Biden is the front-runner even though he represents a huge chunk of the problems that lead to the rise of Trumpism, and Warren is facing internal headwinds because of a "scandal" that wouldn't make the top 100 problems Trump overcame.   Dems are cowards.

[BradInATX 9208]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Well, that would just be more evidence she’s a hack and incapable of leading.  Yeah, sometimes doing the right thing is uncomfortable and hard.  That’s why people elect you to office, to ACT on behalf of their interests and uphold the constitution in the face of tyranny.  She’s failing on an epic level. 

So your contention is that the right thing to do is to give Trump four more years?

[Junior Miller 1502]

24 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean, or they have internals that show that impeachment in the states that matter is highly unpopular (as this poll gives a small glimpse into) and she doesn't want to step in a pile of shit just so some folks  can feel vindicated and have an emotional void filled.

When the population becomes too stupid/corrupt to maintain a functioning representative democracy. That's where we are. All that's left is to watch it crumble knowing individually there's nothing any if us can do to stop it. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Junior Miller said:

When the population becomes too stupid/corrupt to maintain a functioning representative democracy. That's where we are. All that's left is to watch it crumble knowing individually there's nothing any if us can do to stop it. 

The main problem is that right now the states that swing the election are some of the stupidest in our nation. 

[Ten Bears 2481]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lmao, how did that workout when he shutdown the government? 

The replies to that tweet are fantastic.  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

So your contention is that the right thing to do is to give Trump four more years?

The right thing to do is stand up and check his ass Charlie Murphy style.

[BradInATX 9208]

The right thing to do is stand up and check his ass Charlie Murphy style.

The right thing to do is to get him out of office

[kopp0e 1135]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

The polls on impeachment are weak because Dems are weak on impeachment.  Their job is to create and press the narrative, not throw up their hands because it isn't materializing out of thin air.   And unlike a dozen narratives successful manufactured by Republicans to thwart Obama at every turn, and then defeat Hillary, this one has the advantage of being both true and worthy of prosecution.

This is why Dems almost always fail, even when they win elections.   This is why Dems lost everything because of Obamacare, when less than a decade later it was popular enough to sweep Rs out of the house.  This is why Biden is the front-runner even though he represents a huge chunk of the problems that lead to the rise of Trumpism, and Warren is facing internal headwinds because of a "scandal" that wouldn't make the top 100 problems Trump overcame.   Dems are cowards.

imgur

Donkey has to find a better way to attack the narrative of Elephant, while gaining the "trust" of the voter, something is needed to "slam" Trump in perception...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The right thing to do is stand up and check his ass Charlie Murphy style.

The right thing to do is to get him out of office

And exposing his crimes through an impeachment proceeding with public hearings and witness testimony is the best way to do that. 

[BradInATX 9208]

And exposing his crimes through an impeachment proceeding with public hearings and witness testimony is the best way to do that. 

I think you're wrong. The people with access to data we don't have think you're wrong. But you could be right. Not being flippant, certainly a possibility that leadership is being stupid. It's what Democrats do.

Impeachment has a zero percent chance of succeeding, and a nonzero chance of alienating voters. That makes it an easy decision for me.

You can expose him without impeachment. I think they will. They're just playing a slow long game.

I hope.

[4th&Five 41526]

He’a been exposed for 40 years. The people that still don’t care will never care no matter what comes out. He should be impeached regardless of removal. 

[Message Board User 12395]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I think you're wrong. The people with access to data we don't have think you're wrong. But you could be right. Not being flippant, certainly a possibility that leadership is being stupid. It's what Democrats do.

Impeachment has a zero percent chance of succeeding, and a nonzero chance of alienating voters. That makes it an easy decision for me.

You can expose him without impeachment. I think they will. They're just playing a slow long game.

I hope.

Right - and we know with 100% certainty that the Senate will acquit, which would give the Trump campaign momentum going into the general that will be difficult to overcome.

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

23 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I think you're wrong. The people with access to data we don't have think you're wrong. But you could be right. Not being flippant, certainly a possibility that leadership is being stupid. It's what Democrats do.

Impeachment has a zero percent chance of succeeding, and a nonzero chance of alienating voters. That makes it an easy decision for me.

You can expose him without impeachment. I think they will. They're just playing a slow long game.

I hope.

Impeachment has a 100% of succeeding, regardless of whether Trump is removed.   It will be a permanent stain on his presidency.   It will uphold an appropriate standard and precedent for what is worthy of impeachment.    It will limit Trump's ability to use the pardon power to further obstruct justice.   And it will assist the Dems' efforts in the courts to get documents from the White House.  All of those things would be successes. 

[4th&Five 41526]

I know that’s the idea but why do we think that? Why would anybody be more willing to vote for him because he’s acquitted in the senate?

He got his ass kicked in ‘18 even after all the Kavanaugh “momentum.”

The House needs to show that they will do their job. That means impeachment. 

[Anastasis 23469]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

less poll, more guillotine. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol So he tweets out this morning he never called Meghan Markle “nasty”.

British media - “Lordy, here’s the tape!”

Take notes American journalists, I have a feeling your Brit counterparts are going to show you up this week.

[DDD Dad 14335]

less poll, more guillotine. 

[Red Five 40854]

Wtf. Calling her nasty isn’t in the top 10,000 shitty things he’s done. What does he stand to gain by this obvious lie?

[BradInATX 9208]

Impeachment has a 100% of succeeding, regardless of whether Trump is removed.   It will be a permanent stain on his presidency.   It will uphold an appropriate standard and precedent for what is worthy of impeachment.    It will limit Trump's ability to use the pardon power to further obstruct justice.   And it will assist the Dems' efforts in the courts to get documents from the White House.  All of those things would be successes. 

It won't do any of those things. But you'll feel better I guess

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Wtf. Calling her nasty isn’t in the top 10,000 shitty things he’s done. What does he stand to gain by this obvious lie?

Distraction.  Suck up oxygen in the media 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, BradInATX said:

 

 

It won't do any of those things. But you'll feel better I guess

 

Maybe we made a mistake by invading the beaches at Normandy because everyone was saying it would never succeed.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, BradInATX said:

 

 

It won't do any of those things. But you'll feel better I guess

 

It absolutely will, and the last two things as a matter of law.   But keep hiding in fear from the mean 'ol Republicans.  I'm sure that'll show them in the end. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

20 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Wtf. Calling her nasty isn’t in the top 10,000 shitty things he’s done. What does he stand to gain by this obvious lie?

He doesn't lie because there is something specific to gain.   He lies because he is a compulsive liar.   He simply says whatever he feels like saying in the moment without any regard for whether it is true or false. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Maybe we made a mistake by invading the beaches at Normandy because everyone was saying it would never succeed.

Lol. Come on man.

[BradInATX 9208]

It absolutely will, and the last two things as a matter of law.   But keep hiding in fear from the mean 'ol Republicans.  I'm sure that'll show them in the end. 

How do you figure? He's going to suddenly comply because he's under impeachment? You been asleep the last few years?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, BradInATX said:

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It absolutely will, and the last two things as a matter of law.   But keep hiding in fear from the mean 'ol Republicans.  I'm sure that'll show them in the end. 

How do you figure? He's going to suddenly comply because he's under impeachment? You been asleep the last few years?

If impeached — arguably, even if impeachment proceedings merely begin — he will have no ability to control the loss of his pardon power related to the impeachment.   Separately, even if the DOJ were to defy court orders upheld in the Supreme Court — which I highly doubt —Trump will have no power to stop Deutsche Bank, the State of New York, and various other entities in possession of sensitive Trump documents from complying with court orders.  

[BradInATX 9208]

If impeached — arguably, even if impeachment proceedings merely begin — he will have no ability to control the loss of his pardon power related to the impeachment.   Separately, even if the DOJ were to defy court orders upheld in the Supreme Court — which I highly doubt —Trump will have no power to stop Deutsche Bank, the State of New York, and various other entities in possession of sensitive Trump documents from complying with court orders.  

Obviously the DOJ will ignore law. They already are.

The rest are things that are already happening.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe we made a mistake by invading the beaches at Normandy because everyone was saying it would never succeed.

Lol. Come on man.

The point is the stakes will get that high if abuses of power and corruption of the public’s trust go unchecked by elected officials who have the RESPONSIBILITY of checking that power.  

Trump will cross every line, all the way up to treason, until someone draws the line for him.  The voters don’t have nearly the power Pelosi has to hold him accountable.  Most people didn’t vote for him in a election he cheated and broke the law to win.  This is how democracy dies. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

 

Obviously the DOJ will ignore law. They already are.

The rest are things that are already happening.

 

No, the first point on the pardon power is not already happening.   It won't come into play unless the Dems initiate impeachment proceedings.  If you continue to argue otherwise, explain your basis for disputing this. 

The second point is being litigated, and the defense is that there is insufficient justification for the document demands.   Needing the documents as part of the investigations incident to impeachment would strengthen the claims to the documents.   It may or may not be dispositive, but it is unquestionably a stronger argument in the context of impeachment than in the context of congressional fishing expeditions. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[4th&Five 41526]

One day!

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

No, the first point on the pardon power is not already happening.   It won't come into play unless the Dems initiate impeachment proceedings.  If you continue to argue otherwise, explain your basis for disputing this. 

The second point is being litigated, and the defense is that there is insufficient justification for the document demands.   Needing the documents as part of the investigations incident to impeachment would strengthen the claims to the documents.   It may or may not be dispositive, but it is unquestionably a stronger argument in the context of impeachment than in the context of congressional fishing expeditions. 

 

What does impeachment do to pardon power? I don't know much in that arena.

 

To the rest of your points, the only stick to compel the Trump admin to comply is impeachment and removal which will never happen. So all you're looking for is legal wrangling that won't matter end of day.

 

And in terms of rule of law, what happens if they impeach, Senate obviously acquits, and he wins again? The takeaway is that impeaching a sitting president will galvanize people to their side, and it gets even harder down the road in a true "smoking gun" situation. When president Ivanka shoots someone on 5th Avenue on video, and the political calculus is "well the last two failed impeachments just made people rally around the incumbent, so we can't do it", then what? I know I'm hyperbolizing and being a bit ridiculous, but you get the drift.

 

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

 

 

 

 

What does impeachment do to pardon power? I don't know much in that arena.

 

 

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

 

And in terms of rule of law, what happens if they impeach, Senate obviously acquits, and he wins again? The takeaway is that impeaching a sitting president will galvanize people to their side, and it gets even harder down the road in a true "smoking gun" situation. When president Ivanka shoots someone on 5th Avenue on video, and the political calculus is "well the last two failed impeachments just made people rally around the incumbent, so we can't do it", then what? I know I'm hyperbolizing and being a bit ridiculous, but you get the drift.

 

 

The point is (1) to stop trump from increasing his trashing of the federal government and at least become vaguely concerned about consequences, (2) more structured hearings that the American people hopefully pay some amount of attention to, as opposed to the overly broad and all over the place subpoenas that are at best being ignored by the executive and most of the country is tuning out--stop letting trump drive the narrative, and (3) get the GOP Senators on record after those hearings as being okay with what trump is doing.  Get campaign ads of Graham's hypocrisy and Collins' wishy washyness.   

[BradInATX 9208]

 
The point is (1) to stop trump from increasing his trashing of the federal government and at least become vaguely concerned about consequences, (2) more structured hearings that the American people hopefully pay some amount of attention to, as opposed to the overly broad and all over the place subpoenas that are at best being ignored by the executive and most of the country is tuning out--stop letting trump drive the narrative, and (3) get the GOP Senators on record after those hearings as being okay with what trump is doing.  Get campaign ads of Graham's hypocrisy and Collins' wishy washyness.   

Interesting. Is there language or precedent around when "cases of impeachment" begin and end? Does the inquiry (might be using the wrong word, I'm drinking in the pool, but the pregame to impeachment) start the clock? Or only once he's formally impeached by the house?

[BradInATX 9208]

To the back half of the discussion, lemonlime (sorry, terrible at multi quoting)

 

1. That ship has sailed

2. Anyone who will pay attention to that already has their mind made up.

3. Eh

 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

 

Interesting. Is there language or precedent around when "cases of impeachment" begin and end? Does the inquiry (might be using the wrong word, I'm drinking in the pool, but the pregame to impeachment) start the clock? Or only once he's formally impeached by the house?

 

I have no idea.  I doubt there's law on that--it's not like there have been many impeachments in history.  I could be wrong though--the extent of my knowledge on that is a vague recollection of that phrase in the Constitution. But I would think at the least, if trump were to be impeached, he couldn't, say, pardon Manafort or Flynn, or Mnuchin for ignoring congressional requests for the tax returns.  

 

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

To the back half of the discussion, lemonlime (sorry, terrible at multi quoting)

 

1. That ship has sailed

2. Anyone who will pay attention to that already has their mind made up.

3. Eh

 

 

1.  Probably.

2.  Probably.  But prior to the Watergate hearings Nixon had similar support to trump.  Once there were hearings, that changed.  If there is a way out of the death spiral, the only possibility is clear, public hearings that we're all seeing and paying attention to.

3.  I'm fully on Brisket's ledge at this point.  If we're going down, we need a historical records of the GOP traitors and enablers.  Get them on record for the history books.

[BradInATX 9208]

1.  Probably.
2.  Probably.  But prior to the Watergate hearings Nixon had similar support to trump.  Once there were hearings, that changed.  If there is a way out of the death spiral, the only possibility is clear, public hearings that we're all seeing and paying attention to.
3.  I'm fully on Brisket's ledge at this point.  If we're going down, we need a historical records of the GOP traitors and enablers.  Get them on record for the history books.

To the precedent thing, if we assume that "under impeachment" means the period between house impeachment and Senate acquittal, what does that mean? A week between votes? I know its cynical but that's where we're at.

I'm with you on point 3. Even if just to shame all of the complicit pieces of shit who have us where we are. But in reality what does it do? Maybe we get Collins out. Is that worth the risk of impeachment backfiring? Her approval is already tanking.

Good discussion btw. Appreciate the rare actual back and forth beyond talking points. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm not on the ledge with brisket yet because I have faith in our youth. But I've got lots of bourbon and bullets in case I'm wrong.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

38 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

One day!

So he’s not going to fix illegal immigration and bring back the jobs, huh?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It would suck for democrats if they turned up the heat so much on Trump that he resigned and then blamed the democrats for forcing him to resign. 

Because that’s exactly what he would do. 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

To the precedent thing, if we assume that "under impeachment" means the period between house impeachment and Senate acquittal, what does that mean? A week between votes? I know its cynical but that's where we're at.

I'm with you on point 3. Even if just to shame all of the complicit pieces of shit who have us where we are. But in reality what does it do? Maybe we get Collins out. Is that worth the risk of impeachment backfiring? Her approval is already tanking.

Good discussion btw. Appreciate the rare actual back and forth beyond talking points. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm not on the ledge with brisket yet because I have faith in our youth. But I've got lots of bourbon and bullets in case I'm wrong.

Thanks.  and yeah.  I agree with some of what you're saying.  But re the bolded portion, I think there's at least as big a risk of not impeaching backfiring.  Currently, there's one party taking a shit on the Constitution, and another party too scared to make an attempt to clean up the shit.  There's little inspiring anyone to go and vote Democratic.   They've got a (rightfully) angry base, that they're ignoring. 

 

And I think once hearings start, and make clear the level of corruption, it's not going to turn off many voters, except for those who were already going to vote for trump anyway.

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

Thanks.  and yeah.  I agree with some of what you're saying.  But re the bolded portion, I think there's at least as big a risk of not impeaching backfiring.  Currently, there's one party taking a shit on the Constitution, and another party too scared to make an attempt to clean up the shit.  There's little inspiring anyone to go and vote Democratic.   They've got a (rightfully) angry base, that they're ignoring. 

 

And I think once hearings start, and make clear the level of corruption, it's not going to turn off many voters, except for those who were already going to vote for trump anyway.

 

I guess where we diverge is:

 

1) I don't think anyone's scared. They're just trying to play the game by the shitty new rules that the GOP has set. I think they know that they'll beat Trump in 2020 barring a major mistake. If you're up 4 touchdowns in the 4th quarter, playing run run run punt isn't being scared. It's the right thing to do, even if terribly unfulfilling.

 

2) I don't think there's much the hearings will bring out that will change the game. If you're not convinced that Trump is a corrupt POS yet based on his entire body of work, your bar is so high that it'll never be reachable.

 

End of day though we're all on the same side. And we are right. I am sure of that, as are you, hugo, and even b_t. Even the people "winning" right now know they're on the wrong side. Fuck them.

 

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

If the hearings wouldn’t do anything, why is Trump working so hard to prevent them?

If nothing matters, why doesn’t Trump release his taxes? 

If no one cares if Trump committed crimes, why did he obstruct justice constantly?

NPD you say?  Well, that means he thinks those things you say don’t matter actually do matter, at least to Trump. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz