• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hedge

Member
Oct 26, 2017
407
The Dems have to move forward with impeachment, they have no choice. There has to be consequences to these actions and the legislative branch needs to start exerting some power. Even though it's unlikely that the Senate will convict, make everyone vote on it. Get everyone on the record with their votes.

The Dems can't be afraid of Trumps base being riled up and voting en masse in 2020. We beat them in 2018 when they were riled up by caravans and other nonsense. However not going through with this is going to severely depress the mood of the democratic base.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,595
But you're ignoring all the other possible positive outcomes and my tool/baseball bat analogy that I was particularly proud of. Impeachment can be used for other things than removal from office, and those other things can result in bringing down some of the dumbasses working to suppress voting rights and representation from the white house to state legislatures.

What? Impeachment doesn't do anything on this front. Impeachment is aimed at the president and people who commit crimes on his behalf, not Republican state legislators and interest groups. It'd be nice to think that impeachment would have a cascading effect on bringing down everyone from the Heritage Foundation to the Wisconsin state Republican party but it doesn't actually do that.

Use this process as a tool to get all these people on record for what they stand for. Use it as a tool to show what the Democrats stand for, and that they have a spine and will fight for what they stand for. Republicans voting against when the evidence is laid bare could be much more devastating to them than you think.

It's 2019. Republicans have long since made their calculation on sticking to Trump. The ones who have been punished for that have been punished. The ones who haven't were re-elected. Sorry, I just don't buy this "put the Republicans on record defending Trump" line of thinking at all. It doesn't mean anything and thinking that the specter of supporting Trump in a trial in the Senate would somehow pressure Republicans to turn on him just strikes me as really naive. That goes for any process that banks on pressuring or shaming Republicans into turning on Trump. They won't do it, certainly not in any meaningful numbers.
 

Hours Left

Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,389
Dump still hasn't finished his inane morning rant on Twitter. Four hours later and it's still "..."

Maybe his shriveled up heart finally burst. One can hope.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
I'm just thinking of the electoral calculus next year.

All of our senators can vote to convict. Shaheen and Peters won't lose because of their votes. Jones would've lost anyway.

Vulnerable Republicans, however, can't win. If they acquit him, which they will, they piss off everybody but the MAGA base. On the off chance they vote to convict, they lose their primaries and hand us open seats.
 

Deleted member 25712

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,803
What? Impeachment doesn't do anything on this front. Impeachment is aimed at the president and people who commit crimes on his behalf, not Republican state legislators and interest groups. It'd be nice to think that impeachment would have a cascading effect on bringing down everyone from the Heritage Foundation to the Wisconsin state Republican party but it doesn't actually do that.

Congresspeople/Senators showing complicity post-Mueller report and post hearings could really be damaged by that. Statewide elections (i.e. for senators) affect down ballot candidates. Wound senators, you can suppress their down ballot party support, or activate the opposition's. I'm not saying that it's a for sure thing, but we're still in the middle of this and the more we find out, the more likely it is..

It's 2019. Republicans have long since made their calculation on sticking to Trump. The ones who have been punished for that have been punished. The ones who haven't were re-elected. Sorry, I just don't buy this "put the Republicans on record defending Trump" line of thinking at all. It doesn't mean anything and thinking that the specter of supporting Trump in a trial in the Senate would somehow pressure Republicans to turn on him just strikes me as really naive. That goes for any process that banks on pressuring or shaming Republicans into turning on Trump. They won't do it, certainly not in any meaningful numbers.

There are vulnerable Republicans Senators coming up for reelection in 2020 that weren't in 16 or 18. Besides the tax cut and healthcare votes, make them vote on another thing that makes them look like partisan garbage.

And besides all that, just use a flow chart. Is it the right thing to do and constitutionally the duty of congress? Yes - it's exactly the moment this process was meant for. Is it politically expedient, neutral, or harmful? Probably more so one of the first two than harmful. Is it going to work? It's irrelevant if you're reasonably sure it's the right thing to do and the political expediency isn't terribly in question.

Vulnerable Republicans, however, can't win. If they acquit him, which they will, they piss off everybody but the MAGA base. On the off chance they vote to convict, they lose their primaries and hand us open seats.

Right- it's one more vote to their shit votes on Kavanaugh, health care, the tax cuts, etc. that can be used to drag them.
 

Arm Van Dam

self-requested ban
Banned
Mar 30, 2019
5,951
Illinois


Shockingly Marchant's name did not come up considering he's pretty vulnerable also pretty funny considering McCaul said two weeks ago that his district wasn't in play
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
Strongly disagree with this assessment. If there's one thing republicans are good at, it's unifying behind their president. This goes well beyond MAGA in terms of support.
I actually make no functional distinction between the two; I should've been clearer.

They piss off everybody but Republicans. Collins can't win with Republican votes alone.
 

divination

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,002


Shockingly Marchant's name did not come up considering he's pretty vulnerable also pretty funny considering McCaul said two weeks ago that his district wasn't in play


Really wish someone decent would step up to run in NE-02. Right now it's looking like an Eastman v Ashford (albeit a different Ashford) rematch and neither of them inspire confidence. Also, their fundraising for Q1 was terrible.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
I guess they're not worried about Ann Wagner in MO-02 even though she won by less than 4% and McCaskill carried it.

I have Upton on retirement watch.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,883
There would be resignation pressure leading up to and into an impeachment trial, too.

I don't know how much or whether it would be particularly effective, but even with too many Republicans in the Senate for guaranteed conviction, there would be some feelers sent out to maybe avoid having to vote at all. Depends how bad it all looks and how the public is taking it, probably. Deals discussed perhaps, etc.

The math isn't there in the abstract, but the process itself changes the calculus, to a degree.
 

DrForester

Mod of the Year 2006
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,627
There would be resignation pressure leading up to and into an impeachment trial, too.

I don't know how much or whether it would be particularly effective, but even with too many Republicans in the Senate for guaranteed conviction, there would be some feelers sent out to maybe avoid having to vote at all. Depends how bad it all looks and how the public is taking it, probably. Deals discussed perhaps, etc.

The math isn't there in the abstract, but the process itself changes the calculus, to a degree.

Trump will never resign. He knows the office is the only thing shielding him from indictments right now.
 

Deleted member 17092

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
20,360
Trump will never resign. He knows the office is the only thing shielding him from indictments right now.

If the deal is immunity/a pardon in exchange for stepping down he might take it.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.
 

BoboBrazil

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,765
There really is 0 downside to start impeachment proceedings against Trump for Dems.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,595
There would be resignation pressure leading up to and into an impeachment trial, too.

I don't know how much or whether it would be particularly effective, but even with too many Republicans in the Senate for guaranteed conviction, there would be some feelers sent out to maybe avoid having to vote at all. Depends how bad it all looks and how the public is taking it, probably. Deals discussed perhaps, etc.

The math isn't there in the abstract, but the process itself changes the calculus, to a degree.
Not only will Trump absolutely not resign (putting aside the criminal exposure he faces the minute he leaves office, he is constitutionally incapable of doing anything that looks like giving in) but I don't think McConnell will try to duck having that vote at all. Actually, I'm not sure if McConnell can even decide whether or not a trial would take place anyway; it might not be up to him.

If the deal is immunity/a pardon in exchange for stepping down he might take it.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.
Who would be offering that deal: his bodyman AG who just nuked his own reputation to cravenly protect Trump or Chuck Schumer who does not have the numbers to convict Trump anyway?
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,883
Trump will never resign. He knows the office is the only thing shielding him from indictments right now.

Again, in the abstract, I agree. I don't really see many scenarios where he resigns. Perhaps some deal like Zoonami mentioned. But the possibility even coming up affects the whole picture—maybe it makes the situation look worse, maybe it makes more Senate Republicans nervous about their vote, maybe the resignation discussions get stronger, etc etc. All these things affect each other in ways that can't happen until they start to happen.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.

There's no mechanism for this and nothing he can directly do. If you're worried about him *saying* destructive things, yeah, and that wouldn't be healthy, for sure. But who's going to "invalidate the election"? The House? Similarly he can't just refuse to leave. He's automatically not-President on Jan. 20 if he loses. That's it.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,067
Arkansas, USA
It just occured to me that conceivably Republicans would be more willing to remove Trump from office if he loses the election next year. That's a long time from now, and it would make his removal from office mostly symbolic. But on the plus side it would avoid the potential for a disputed election and/or a crisis in the exchange of power come early 2021.

All that said a hypothetical lame duck impeachment doesn't provide any guidance or answers for what to do about the Mueller report from now until then.
 

Bronlonius

Member
Oct 29, 2017
438
I don't want Biden to run. Ugh.

Same here man, he needs to go away. He should have run in 2016, but as of now, with all the changes in the party and public at large (Trump supporters don't count, they're a lost cause) moving toward progressive policies, he represents the old party, and will only be a stick in the gears, gumming everything up, splitting the party.

Here's hoping Buttigeig, Bernie, Kamala and Yang show him the door in the first debate or two.
 

Arm Van Dam

self-requested ban
Banned
Mar 30, 2019
5,951
Illinois
Let's check up on Scott Pruitt and see what's he doing



Scott Pruitt, the embattled former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, registered Thursday as a lobbyist with state regulators.

Pruitt's filings with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission identify him as a self-employed consultant and list RailPoint Solutions LLC as his sole client. His lobbying topics include "energy" and "natural resources."

It's unclear what, exactly, Pruitt is working on or who he is meeting with at the Statehouse, but he has ties to the Indiana coal industry. IndyStar's attempts to reach him Thursday afternoon were unsuccessful.

RailPoint Solutions does not appear to have a web address, nor is a company by that name registered to do business in Indiana. A search of Delaware business records, however, shows an incorporation date of Jan. 22.

The lobbying registration lists Heather Tryon as a responsible party. Heather Tryon is also the name of the chief financial officer of Sunrise Coal, Indiana's second largest coal producer, according to the company's website.

Pruitt is not unfamiliar with Indiana coal interests. While working at the EPA, he met with Steven Chancellor, CEO of White Stallion Energy, which owns coal mines in the state, according to emails released through a Freedom of Information Act filed by the Sierra Club.

Pruitt's appearance in Indiana affairs comes at a time when the state's energy future is in question.

Two of the state's utilities — NIPSCO and Vectren — have released plans to retire all or nearly all of their coal generating plants over the next several years.

The Indiana Coal Council, Peabody Energy and Alliance Coal all have filed challenges to those plans with state regulators. The cases are pending.

The utilities' plans were further imperiled by a now-defeated measure that would have prohibited state regulators from approving new electric generation, like NIPSCO's wind projects and Vectren's natural gas plant.

That moratorium, introduced as an amendment onto a Senate bill by Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, received heavy criticism by utility companies as well as environmental groups, who said it was a way to keep coal power plants running in Indiana. Currently, Indiana generates about 65 percent of its electricity from coal.
 

konka

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,856
If they do move to impeachment it is going to take a while, they're going to go through a Mueller testimony and other steps before they get there. It isn't going to happen at the speed of twitter.
 

I Don't Like

Member
Dec 11, 2017
14,882
I hate Sarah Sanders in a deep and profound way. She is a propagandist, shameless liar, arrogant, ignorant, pathetic excuse for a human being and she deserves nothing but bad luck in life. I can't wait for the day when she is gone from public discussion forever and I hope she never finds work again.
 

androvsky

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,498
Damn this report is really robbing Greenwald of what remained of his sanity.
XtW6iBC.png


Any bets that the name that harms an ongoing matter is Hannity, Sean?

Ya know whose name fits the redaction even better than Hannity, Sean? Because I looked around and it looks like the name redactions are sized according to the size of the name. Greenwald, Glenn actually fits. Not saying it's him (I don't see how it would be him), but if he's paranoid enough I could see it adding to his freakout.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,067
Arkansas, USA
Don't worry, Corey! I'm sure that if we just love hard enough, these people will come around!

I wonder if Booker has any people in his orbit that have explained to him how embarrassing stuff like that should be? Despite you being as milquetoast and inoffensive as possible people still want you dead Corey because you're black. They aren't going to reciprocate your love.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
I wonder if Booker has any people in his orbit that have explained to him how embarrassing stuff like that should be? Despite you being as milquetoast and inoffensive as possible people still want you dead Corey because you're black. They aren't going to reciprocate your love.

And further, from a political standpoint, no one in his voting demographic wants to hear this shit because we all know that what Corey's saying is nonsense, too. It's entirely unconvincing and from the standpoint of being POTUS, Booker seems like he's unable to adapt very well to changing conditions based on this example of his using 2008 rhetoric in 2019.

I would guess that he has enough sense to know better than to believe what he's saying, and that this is just a total miscalculation of political positioning on his part, but I've been shocked to be wrong before.
 

Pwnz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,279
Places
If the deal is immunity/a pardon in exchange for stepping down he might take it.

For the same reasoning I am actually pretty worried he will do everything he can to not leave the office if he loses in 2020. Like he is fucking insane. He will go the invalidate the election martial law route.

The Republicans can't offer immunity. Mueller already delegated a bunch of ongoing items to state courts that are pardon immune.

And even if they could, fuck letting Trump off like that. Trump must go to prison for there to be any hope of integrity of the US government. We'll get more Trumps otherwise. Trump businesses should be ransacked and dissolved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.