Jump to content

Time to impeach?


Yes or No?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Congress of the US begin formal Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Putting the screws to someone only matters if they have shame. It is an effort to use their shame. Do you think Mitch Mcconnell has any shame? Our system will be forever corrupted by the precedent of

Impeachment inquiry might be one of the few things Trump has actually earned in his lifetime.

What I first typed just now: That's cool.  I can agree to disagree on whether it's a racist term.  But after researching it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching I think I'm goin

Posted Images

As phillysailor says, timing.  Got to time it so that it does not give the appearance of a sleazy election ploy.  But it needs to be close enough to the election so that it is fresh in voters’ minds and has the desired impact.  This of course presumes that the Dems will have a mountain of credible, empirically supported evidence.  Trumpaloos will ignore any and all evidence against their messiah but they are not the target audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Slow burn. Gotta get the money laundering details ready for prime time. Plus, the timing for the election campaign matters. This is a steadily increasing drumbeat forcing a Republican self immolation. Jeffy's wet dream.

I love it when a plan comes together.  I frankly didn't think it would be this easy.

And I voted YES BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

As phillysailor says, timing.  Got to time it so that it does not give the appearance of a sleazy election ploy.  But it needs to be close enough to the election so that it is fresh in voters’ minds and has the desired impact.  This of course presumes that the Dems will have a mountain of credible, empirically supported evidence.  Trumpaloos will ignore any and all evidence against their messiah but they are not the target audience.

But by carefully timing it so that it is fresh in voters’ minds and has the desired impact, isn't that the very definition of a "sleazy election ploy"??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But by carefully timing it so that it is fresh in voters’ minds and has the desired impact, isn't that the very definition of a "sleazy election ploy"??

 

Of course it is but it can't LOOK that way. This is a struggle that can never be won by playing nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what we think matters.  If you're not a major donor, chances of your elected official even noticing you exist is close to zero. 

But between now and the next election, the Don will show the world just how much the American people will let you get away with if you're POTUS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like everyone wants impeachment

Non-Republicans as the Prez is a crook

Republicans, as they know Moscow Mitch will acquit and they think it will help them, politically, to possibly have Trump in office for 4 more years. Winning!

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Shit or get off the pot. 

Patience grasshopper. 

I suspect Pelosi knows what she’s doing. And she knows a lot more than we do I would think  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The timing is key, which is why it hasn't been started yet. Expect impeachment to ramp up soon.

For the Dems, they don't want congressional impeachment to conclude much before the election. This is because they know it will never get past the current senate. However, if they hand over papers for impeachment right around the election, then impeachment becomes an election issue. If Trumpy happens to win a 2nd term, but the Dems take the senate, then impeachment can continue after the election in the senate. If Trumpy doesn't get a 2nd term, then it won't matter either way.

If it had been started a while back, say, around the time Mueller released his report outlining numerous obstruction offences, then the proceedings would get to the senate too early, and Moscow Mitch would simply disallow the impeachment vote. This would only serve to help Trumpy win reelection.

The only thing that saves Trumpy from jail time is reelection *and* a republican senate after 2020. And if that does happen, expect him to advocate for extending the two term limit for Presidents. That or finally succumb to too many hamburders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sean said:

Patience grasshopper. 

I suspect Pelosi knows what she’s doing. And she knows a lot more than we do I would think  

I tend to agree. Putin's Mitch and his merry elk aren't going to convict. PM probably won't even convene a trial. He'll say some malarkey like not in an election year and our elk will dutifully swallow.

My guess is that Pelosi will push impeachment when it is least rather than most convenient for Митч.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

yeah she know the whole impeachment thing is a massive liability for the ticket. 

That remains to be seen. If she prematurely ejaculates, yeah maybe. Fact is, there’s more than enough to warrant impeachment proceedings now, and it’s only going to get stronger. I’d be looking for some news later this week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Sean, I vote for waiting. Trumpists know there is ample ammo. We know it could be done. Seems like later might be as good as now. I am no fan of Pelosi’s milquetoast political ideology, but confident of her longer term strategic wisdom. Seems like she would be happy working either side of the aisle herding cats and chasing dogs. She will know when 12 R senators grow a spine. Like a brilliant but unlikeable attorney: glad she is on my side.

So voted No, for now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

yeah she know the whole impeachment thing is a massive liability for the ticket. 

On this occasion @Shootist Jeff is right.  Perhaps the military teaches its officers to consider duty and honor.   The House has a duty to proceed down the impeachment road.  They took an oath to support the constitution.   That oath means they cannot wait for the most expedient time, or make calculations based on risk to the party if they fail.   Likewise the Senate has a duty to vote on the evidence, not party.   It is probable some Republicans are not oath breakers.   It is even more likely some will not want to publicly act in a corrupt manner.   If the evidence leads to misdemeanors more serious then lying about a blowjob, they must vote to impeach.   That is their duty.  

If the evidence is that Trump has been falsely maligned, has never sought to work with foreign powers to gain or maintain power, has never profited from his business property being sold or rented in an attempt to gain political influence, has never attempted to defraud the US government, has never attempted to impede an investigation, has never lied under oath, and is not in violation of campaign finance law then the exercise has served its purpose.  I can call him my President, even though I will still disagree with most (but not all) of his actions.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lark said:

On this occasion @Shootist Jeff is right.  Perhaps the military teaches its officers to consider duty and honor.   The House has a duty to proceed down the impeachment road.  They took an oath to support the constitution.   That oath means they cannot wait for the most expedient time, or make calculations based on risk to the party if they fail.   Likewise the Senate has a duty to vote on the evidence, not party.   It is probable some Republicans are not oath breakers.   It is even more likely some will not want to publicly act in a corrupt manner.   If the evidence leads to misdemeanors more serious then lying about a blowjob, they must vote to impeach.   That is their duty.  

If the evidence is that Trump has been falsely maligned, has never sought to work with foreign powers to gain or maintain power, has never profited from his business property being sold or rented in an attempt to gain political influence, has never attempted to defraud the US government, has never attempted to impede an investigation, has never lied under oath, and is not in violation of campaign finance law then the exercise has served its purpose.  I can call him my President, even though I will still disagree with most (but not all) of his actions.  

Well said.

You don't always get to pick the fights you want but you do get the pick the morals you fight for.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But by carefully timing it so that it is fresh in voters’ minds and has the desired impact, isn't that the very definition of a "sleazy election ploy"??

 

Yeah, almost like inviting foreign interference, cooperating with foreign government(s) interfering, and refusing to take steps agains further foreign interference.

I know that you don't live here and you hate America but why not give it an actual break? There are plenty of militaristic dictatorships you can go live in, and be happy.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say " Rah rah ree! kickem in the knee! Rah rah ruts! Kickem' in the other knee!" :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait just a second. Folks here are questioning Pelosi's morals? 

35% of America loves the Gröpenfuhrer, 90% the GOP likes him despite having the Mueller report in the open, as well as the steady drumbeat of lies he and his administration tells while robbing the poor and middle class of their birthright claim to democracy and a fiscally viable country and SHE's the one we have to hold up to puritan scrutiny?

Bullshit.

The prosecutor takes his time to prepare a case before pulling the trigger so that justice is served. This is no different. Going off half cocked will have disastrous repercussions. The best result would be a GOP Senate begging for Articles, so they can unload their noxious oval offal. A bunch have already left Washington, or are planning too. They see the writing on the wall. 

2020 is gonna be a political humdinger of a year.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Boracho said:

Like Sean, I vote for waiting. Trumpists know there is ample ammo. We know it could be done. Seems like later might be as good as now. I am no fan of Pelosi’s milquetoast political ideology, but confident of her longer term strategic wisdom. Seems like she would be happy working either side of the aisle herding cats and chasing dogs. She will know when 12 R senators grow a spine. Like a brilliant but unlikeable attorney: glad she is on my side.

So voted No, for now.

You can be sure a couple of Republicans will tell her they've had a change of heart, then vote note to impeach at the last minute.  They'll need an overwhelming majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morals is completely the wrong word.

Impeachment is a political matter. Other than removal from office, it carries no penalty whatsoever, even for treason. Hamilton adopted the British model, indictment by the lower house, trial by the upper house. Quoting his Federalist 65:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

POLITICAL. That's Hamilton leaning on the caps key. The Critters don't wear robes to this vote. It doesn't surprise me that Republicans aren't clamoring for Shitstain's removal. He is theirs. It doesn't surprise me that Pelosi is being cautious. She is wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

If Trump is forced to not run next election, who would take his place? Would that person be more competitive than Trump?

There's a lot to be said for "the devil you know".

If Shitstain is impeached and convicted, the Republicans will get crushed in the 2020 election, up and down the ballot by their own voters staying home.

Remember, Shitstain has about a 90% approval rating amongst Republicans AND in order for conviction in the Senate a large faction of Republicans would have to vote to convict. Consequently, Republican Senators would have to spit in the face of Republican voters. Republican voters, especially SoCons and FauxCons, would then stay home and the result would be a rout. If you're thinking that after the Bitch Is Burned To The Ground that suddenly Republicans burst out singing Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead, it just ain't happening. The elk is a bitter creature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the picture of Trump giving the SOTU while under impeachment.  His fucking head would explode, fuck the union, this speech is all about me.  His ADD would not allow him to stay on the teleprompter for more than 30 seconds.  

Who knows the answer as I believe it has to be yes.  If the House impeaches and cites a, b, and c as the reasons, can they later add d, e, and f?

Another one.  Is the House able to control the schedule?  Once they impeach, I assume they have some period of time before the Senate holds their hearings?  My understanding is that the House acts as prosecutors, so I guess they could prolong this as desired.  

What a circus this will be!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

If Shitstain is impeached and convicted, the Republicans will get crushed in the 2020 election, up and down the ballot by their own voters staying home.

Remember, Shitstain has about a 90% approval rating amongst Republicans AND in order for conviction in the Senate a large faction of Republicans would have to vote to convict. Consequently, Republican Senators would have to spit in the face of Republican voters. Republican voters, especially SoCons and FauxCons, would then stay home and the result would be a rout. If you're thinking that after the Bitch Is Burned To The Ground that suddenly Republicans burst out singing Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead, it just ain't happening. The elk is a bitter creature.

Which is why impeachment ain't happening.

 

Attacking Trump with facts is a no-win situation with voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

Which is why impeachment ain't happening.

I could say we're at a crisis but then when haven't we been with this piece of shit? He was elected to entertain the elk. He has kept that promise.

I lived in Pelosi's district and I've voted for her many times. I've been watching her her entire House career. I've seen her several times. She's very smart. Her father was a Critter and Mayor in Baltimore and she's been watching the House her entire life. The Speaker is the hardest office to attain in DC. Let's just say she knows more about the House, her majority and their electorate than anyone. I'm a huge AOC fan but on this, Nancy has my vote. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next summer. Her choice.

Why? To a degree, I'm thinking of Roosevelt:

I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.

The will has to come from the electorate. Jeff wants to blame this impasse on Nancy but then you'll notice he isn't exactly arguing with his confederelk, is he. The will has to come from indies and moderate Republicans getting fed up. One of my aunts came from a conservative family but she flat despises Republicans at this point. She and her whole family have been hammering on the in laws. I'm thinking that has to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I could say we're at a crisis but then when haven't we been with this piece of shit? He was elected to entertain the elk. He has kept that promise.

I lived in Pelosi's district and I've voted for her many times. I've been watching her her entire House career. I've seen her several times. She's very smart. Her father was a Critter and Mayor in Baltimore and she's been watching the House her entire life. The Speaker is the hardest office to attain in DC. Let's just say she knows more about the House, her majority and their electorate than anyone. I'm a huge AOC fan but on this, Nancy has my vote. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next summer. Her choice.

Why? To a degree, I'm thinking of Roosevelt:

I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.

The will has to come from the electorate. Jeff wants to blame this impasse on Nancy but then you'll notice he isn't exactly arguing with his confederelk, is he. The will has to come from indies and moderate Republicans getting fed up. One of my aunts came from a conservative family but she flat despises Republicans at this point. She and her whole family have been hammering on the in laws. I'm thinking that has to happen.

I don't think that "will" will be of the right strength and in the right places.

Ridding Trump is the priority. And I believe an election has more chance of success than impeachment.

Of course, Nancy might be taking a leaf out of an older prime minister.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

says the dickbag who didn't think impeachment was warranted until just now. you are so fucking predictable. when they give you what you want, you shit on them, every time.

not much different than the rest of the conservative assholes crowing for impeachment as a political stunt

That would be interesting if it were true.  I've been calling for impeachment well before this latest tidbit came out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yeah, almost like inviting foreign interference, cooperating with foreign government(s) interfering, and refusing to take steps agains further foreign interference.

I know that you don't live here and you hate America but why not give it an actual break? There are plenty of militaristic dictatorships you can go live in, and be happy.

- DSK

Wow, that's some strong Imagination you go going there, skippy.  I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in the bolded statement above.  

I'm sorry if also pointing out that the House has a moral duty makes you uncomfortable and exposes you for the party before country hack that you are.  So your slinging a "whataboutism" to deflect from that surprises exactly no one. 

As with our debate on the nazi issue, my loyalty is and has always been to the Constitution and its principles.  Not to the GOP, certainly not to trump.  Unlike you and your elk, my morals are not relative when it comes to the Connie.  You OTOH, are more than happy to suborn the Connie and ignore it whenever it politically suits you.  

And yes.... I know.... the other elk do it too.  So I'll save you having to type out another whataboutism.  Which is why I want this bitch to burn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Trump is a symptom not the disease. The elk have shown no signs of wishing to cure their disease.

I've been saying from the beginning that trump is only the symptom.  But what pray tell, Dr Fucklet, is the disease?  Its a serious question.  And to save time having to ask you to explain it over and over, try not to just blurt out "the GOP!!"  Please try to be specific about your diagnosis and the root causes of said disease.  TIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've been saying from the beginning that trump is only the symptom.  But what pray tell, Dr Fucklet, is the disease?  Its a serious question.  And to save time having to ask you to explain it over and over, try not to just blurt out "the GOP!!"  Please try to be specific about your diagnosis and the root causes of said disease.  TIA.

I think it is hatred and bigotry directed at our countrymen, because they have different political views, gender, sexual preference, worship, bathrooms, etc.

The masses hate each other. That is by design. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sean said:

I suspect Pelosi knows what she’s doing.

Yes, protecting the corporation and keeping the campaign donations rolling in. 

The findings in the Mueller Report were sufficient for beginning impeachment proceedings.  If Pelosi and the other Democrat holdouts cared about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, Trump would already be impeached.  She's a corporate CEO, not a public servant. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

Trump would already be impeached

But not convicted. Imagine the where we would be today if a failed impeachment effort was done and dusted. The R’s would be all over it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

Put me down for "shit or get off the pot".  If the Dems have the votes they should do it now, the senate be damned.

All the talk about timing it for political effect is perverse.

Isn't "if they have the votes" basing the decision on political effect?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was orginally against Impeachment, as I don't think it is good for the country.

But I don't want to live under a dictatorship, which is what trump wants, on the other hand he will have some kinda of break down on 04/23/20

DUMP TRUMP!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean said:

But not convicted. Imagine the where we would be today if a failed impeachment effort was done and dusted. The R’s would be all over it. 

We are, or at least used to be, a country where rule of law prevails.  Just because the Republicans are lawless does not free the Democrats from following through on their obligation to uphold the Constitution.  

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying, a joke compared to what Trump has done so far.  They knew Clinton wouldn't be convicted.  Didn't matter.  Seek out and destroy the Democrats was their mantra.  And look where they are now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

We are, or at least used to be, a country where rule of law prevails.  Just because the Republicans are lawless does not free the Democrats from following through on their obligation to uphold the Constitution.  

The Republicans impeached Clinton for lying, a joke compared to what Trump has done so far.  They knew Clinton wouldn't be convicted.  Didn't matter.  Seek out and destroy the Democrats was their mantra.  And look where they are now.

We agree on what needs to be done, just a slight difference on process. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sean said:

We agree on what needs to be done, just a slight difference on process. 

Aside from defending the Constitution and rule of law, it would provide the chance to see Lindsay Graham revise his principled defense of the rule of law vis a vis what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.  We might even find a quote of two from Dog defending the Clinton impeachment.  That would be a nice added bonus. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sean said:

We agree on what needs to be done, just a slight difference on process. 

We are watching the erosion of our Constitution and the Rule of Law.  We can't afford to sit and wait for what's best for the Democratic Party.  Every line that is crossed and left unchallenged by our lawless president and his enablers is a deep cut that will take a long time to heal and will leave an indelible scar.   Pelosi doesn't give a shit about the damage this is doing.  She only cares about the Democratic Corporation she runs.

IF the unchallenged lines our country is crossing don't take us past the point of no return, and they well may, history books will talk of this as the time we almost killed Democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jules said:

... We can;t afford to sit and wait for what's best for the Democratic Party. ...

Hamilton called impeachment a POLITICAL process in Federalist 65. So don't act surprised when Nancy lines up her political ducks. She has to summon the will of her majority and the will of the people knowing full well Putin's Mitch and Republicans in the Senate will reject this regardless of facts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jules said:

We are watching the erosion of our Constitution and the Rule of Law.  We can;t afford to sit and wait for what's best for the Democratic Party.  Every line that is crossed and left unchallenged by our lawless president and his enablers is a deep cut that will take a long time to heal and will leave an indelible scar.   Pelosi doesn't give a shit about the damage this is doing.  She only cares about the Democratic Corporation she runs.

IF the unchallenged lines our country is crossing don't take us past the point of no return, and they well may, history books will talk of this as the time we almost killed Democracy.

We’re talking days, not months me thinks. 

A lesson from history -

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-24/trump-is-probably-going-to-be-impeached-over-ukraine-scandal

“But O’Neill was patient. The House didn’t move after the cover-up collapsed in spring 1973, or after dramatic Senate hearings that summer revealed that Nixon was personally involved. Only after the Saturday Night Massacre in October, when Nixon ordered Justice Department officials to fire the special prosecutor overseeing the probe, did they start moving toward impeachment. And then for months, the judiciary committee slowly gathered evidence to make its case. This strategy eventually worked, as the story gradually came out and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats began defecting from Nixon – followed by the rest of the Republican Party in August 1974.

Has Pelosi been emulating O’Neill? She’s been taking plenty of heat from pro-impeachment Democrats. She’s certainly been unwilling to get ahead of her caucus. Perhaps that’s because she thinks impeachment could be avoided. Or perhaps she’s been betting that Trump’s past and current lawlessness would keep supplying new evidence pushing ambivalent Democrats toward action – and that a measured, patient process would be far stronger than a rushed one.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sean said:

We’re talking days, not months me thinks. 

A lesson from history -

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-24/trump-is-probably-going-to-be-impeached-over-ukraine-scandal

“But O’Neill was patient. The House didn’t move after the cover-up collapsed in spring 1973, or after dramatic Senate hearings that summer revealed that Nixon was personally involved. Only after the Saturday Night Massacre in October, when Nixon ordered Justice Department officials to fire the special prosecutor overseeing the probe, did they start moving toward impeachment. And then for months, the judiciary committee slowly gathered evidence to make its case. This strategy eventually worked, as the story gradually came out and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats began defecting from Nixon – followed by the rest of the Republican Party in August 1974.

Has Pelosi been emulating O’Neill? She’s been taking plenty of heat from pro-impeachment Democrats. She’s certainly been unwilling to get ahead of her caucus. Perhaps that’s because she thinks impeachment could be avoided. Or perhaps she’s been betting that Trump’s past and current lawlessness would keep supplying new evidence pushing ambivalent Democrats toward action – and that a measured, patient process would be far stronger than a rushed one.”

But now she has reached the time (assuming that the administration continues to stonewall any attempt at oversight by an equal branch of government) to convene a select committee on impeachment, with full power to subpoena and investigate this stuff.  Once the news coming out is more damaging than the tweets from the Pride of The Party, more brave Patriots will discover their love of country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sean said:

We’re talking days, not months me thinks. 

A lesson from history -

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-24/trump-is-probably-going-to-be-impeached-over-ukraine-scandal

“But O’Neill was patient. The House didn’t move after the cover-up collapsed in spring 1973, or after dramatic Senate hearings that summer revealed that Nixon was personally involved. Only after the Saturday Night Massacre in October, when Nixon ordered Justice Department officials to fire the special prosecutor overseeing the probe, did they start moving toward impeachment. And then for months, the judiciary committee slowly gathered evidence to make its case. This strategy eventually worked, as the story gradually came out and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats began defecting from Nixon – followed by the rest of the Republican Party in August 1974.

Has Pelosi been emulating O’Neill? She’s been taking plenty of heat from pro-impeachment Democrats. She’s certainly been unwilling to get ahead of her caucus. Perhaps that’s because she thinks impeachment could be avoided. Or perhaps she’s been betting that Trump’s past and current lawlessness would keep supplying new evidence pushing ambivalent Democrats toward action – and that a measured, patient process would be far stronger than a rushed one.”

IIRR, the first few votes on Nixon’s impeachment didn’t go anywhere because the R’s weren’t into it (much as now), then the tapes came out, and it occurred to the R’s that this might harm their re election chances, and then the panic started.  I loved it when Goldwater went to the White House and told Nixon it was the last time he (Nixon) would lie to him (Goldwater).  The last time! :lol: 

And then most of the R senate lost their seats anyway.  Nature of the beast, IMO.  Cultural inertia before and after.  

Surprise sneaks up on cats feet!  Easy that, when you’re arrogant and scared shitless at the same time.  

Priest of the Golden Bough shit....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they lost 8 Senate seats, 80 House seats. Republicans in the House have preempted that by quitting en masse.

The electorate might have been smarter then than it is now

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they lost 8 Senate seats, 80 House seats. Republicans in the House have preempted that by quitting en masse.

Are you actually saying that Republicans can read?  

Are you sure they will easily endure this disclosure?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they lost 8 Senate seats, 80 House seats. Republicans in the House have preempted that by quitting en masse.

<Sigh> I was going by memory, having lived through it, and it sure seemed like more than that, going through to Carter- concentrating on erosion I was....

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't think so.  There was no Foxy News or other alternative reality sites like InfoWars to teach Americans that their real enemy is their countrymen. 

Ignorance is bliss?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't think so.  There was no Foxy News or other alternative reality sites like InfoWars to teach Americans that their real enemy is their countrymen. 

There was the John Birch Society.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:
31 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't think so.  There was no Foxy News or other alternative reality sites like InfoWars to teach Americans that their real enemy is their countrymen. 

Ignorance is bliss?

He's very good at playing pretend..:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

True, but they didn't reach millions of households every night, with opinions sounding like fact. 

Yup, but the power of word of mouth and the official rag had usually strange efficiencies- I knew people who would read the New American (I think that was the name of it back then) over and over and over, memorizing the arguments, and then spreading the word.  It was more underground, but a lot was back then.....

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've been saying from the beginning that trump is only the symptom.  But what pray tell, Dr Fucklet, is the disease?  Its a serious question.  And to save time having to ask you to explain it over and over, try not to just blurt out "the GOP!!"  Please try to be specific about your diagnosis and the root causes of said disease.  TIA.

Really great interview with a political scientist type last night on PBS. 

No, not paid for by the feds you cretins. They subsidize Red state local stations to buy content. 

Anyway- his diagnosis, paraphrased and applied to the pressure on democratic institutions worldwide:
 

A working and middle class get used to a certain level of income security, it doesn't matter the level, but if it's grown, they get used to it. If that income security is challenged; by tech change (automation), international competition, etc then it creates a wave of fear.

Fear can be used by the unscrupulous to grab power - as it's damn hard to explain the real issues and address them over generations, but much simpler to say "the mexicans, or the syrians, or the chinese" . etc.

So you've got this fear wave passing through Europe (he blames Merkel for the idealistic response to the Syrian crises, which has now led to the rise of neo-nazi parties across germany, even getting to majority status in some former E German states) and the Iraq war, leading to a distrust of American leadership globally, causing America to turn inwards.  In the US, you've got Tech Change and low cost goods from China destroying the working class / middle class income streams. but it's easier to blame the mexicans.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Faux News may be slowly peeling itself away from Trump. https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-and-friends-host-steve-doocy-off-the-rails-wrong-if-trump-sought-quid-pro-quo-from-ukraine-on-biden?source=articles&amp;via=rss&amp;utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles)

Quote

Fox News’ Steve Doocy has now drawn a line in the sand when it comes to President Donald Trump seeking assistance from a foreign leader in the upcoming election. We’ll see how long it will stand.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of Trump’s favorite morning talk show Fox & Friends, Doocy declared that it would be “really off-the-rails wrong” if the president offered a quid pro quo in exchange for the Ukrainian government opening an investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Looks like some of them can read the writing on the wall. Some of them, of course, are as stupid as Shubrook.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sean said:

But not convicted. Imagine the where we would be today if a failed impeachment effort was done and dusted. The R’s would be all over it. 

Depends.   If it is public and the evidence is compelling, then the partisanship of Moscow Mitch will be obvious.   If President Trump has flagrantly acted improperly (I think so) and it is  non technical enough to be understood it will be harder for partisan Senators to vote it as business as usual (though there is no lack of hypocrisy in DC).  Its not clear to me how much power the Senate has in an impeachment, besides the verdict.  If they act like a judge, determine what evidence can be heard and what evidence must be heard behind closed door to avoid embarrassing the important people, an impeachment will be a fiasco and should be avoided.   If they are a jury, the entire proceeding is open to reporters, transcripts are public, and only occasional small details redacted regarding active intelligence operations or agents in the field the result will depend entirely on the quality of the evidence and the prosecution.   The only historical model was President Johnson against the radical Republicans.   I haven't read any good accounts of that impeachment yet. I'm sure Senate rules have changed.   The government didn't live behind a wall of security clearances back then, so dirty laundry was also harder to hide.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've been saying from the beginning that trump is only the symptom.  But what pray tell, Dr Fucklet, is the disease?  Its a serious question.  And to save time having to ask you to explain it over and over, try not to just blurt out "the GOP!!"  Please try to be specific about your diagnosis and the root causes of said disease.  TIA.

Corporate money in politics, resulting in the disenfranchisement of the middle class. Fix that and you fix everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Put me down for "shit or get off the pot".  If the Dems have the votes they should do it now, the senate be damned.

All the talk about timing it for political effect is perverse.

Impeachment is a political process. Timing it for political effect is always going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Really great interview with a political scientist type last night on PBS. 

No, not paid for by the feds you cretins. They subsidize Red state local stations to buy content. 

Anyway- his diagnosis, paraphrased and applied to the pressure on democratic institutions worldwide:
 

A working and middle class get used to a certain level of income security, it doesn't matter the level, but if it's grown, they get used to it. If that income security is challenged; by tech change (automation), international competition, etc then it creates a wave of fear.

Fear can be used by the unscrupulous to grab power - as it's damn hard to explain the real issues and address them over generations, but much simpler to say "the mexicans, or the syrians, or the chinese" . etc.

So you've got this fear wave passing through Europe (he blames Merkel for the idealistic response to the Syrian crises, which has now led to the rise of neo-nazi parties across germany, even getting to majority status in some former E German states) and the Iraq war, leading to a distrust of American leadership globally, causing America to turn inwards.  In the US, you've got Tech Change and low cost goods from China destroying the working class / middle class income streams. but it's easier to blame the mexicans.

 

Every demagogue needs an easily identifiable target to blame.  We've had several over the course of our history as a nation.  tRump picked the Mexicans and found 60,000,000 people ready to take up his banner.  Which regrettably says a great deal about this nation and our character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading unconfirmed reports that Senate Intel has opened their own probe of the Ukraine issue, and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower on Friday. This is yuge. This is a sign the GOP is a large step closer to turning on Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I'm reading unconfirmed reports that Senate Intel has opened their own probe of the Ukraine issue, and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower on Friday. This is yuge. This is a sign the GOP is a large step closer to turning on Trump.

I don't think so. Burr was a self-serving crook before Trump came along, IMHO he'll be quite happy to accept lies and moonbeams

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I'm reading unconfirmed reports that Senate Intel has opened their own probe of the Ukraine issue, and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower on Friday. This is yuge. This is a sign the GOP is a large step closer to turning on Trump.

you post a lot of unconfirmed reports... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I'm reading unconfirmed reports that Senate Intel has opened their own probe of the Ukraine issue, and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower on Friday. This is yuge. This is a sign the GOP is a large step closer to turning on Trump.

They are looking for an excuse. 

Will Hannity fall, as well? If Mitch takes Hannity on, then we know Trumpster is not long for the dumpster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

you post a lot of unconfirmed reports... 

Well now it's confirmed.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/republican-lawmakers-scramble-to-contain-ukraine-whistleblower-fallout/ar-AAHMi81?ocid=spartanntp

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Monday afternoon that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is trying to bring the Trump-appointed intelligence community's inspector general who received a complaint from a whistleblower before his panel to investigate the matter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

I'm reading unconfirmed reports that Senate Intel has opened their own probe of the Ukraine issue, and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower on Friday. This is yuge. This is a sign the GOP is a large step closer to turning on Trump.

Weird. An interview? WTF! Cannot Nunes simply sneak over to the Whitehouse to fetch all the needed evidence? Any pessimism regarding the Senate majority investigating their own boy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

I'm reading unconfirmed reports that Senate Intel has opened their own probe of the Ukraine issue, and is seeking an interview with the whistleblower on Friday. This is yuge. This is a sign the GOP is a large step closer to turning on Trump.

I doubt that anyone in The Party will turn on their Most Stable Genius, but I am glad to see that there are people who respect the rule of law.  If there were to be any, it would be in the Senate Intel Committee, where members still tend to see countrymen across the aisle from them.  That makes it easier to talk to each other.  

That's still a long way away from turning on Trump. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Looks like we'll know more tomorrow.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites