| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those three are going after a similar block of Democratic voters, the ones who voted for Bernie the last time.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If an anti-Trump Republican were to run as a 3rd party candidate; who would be 1). most likely to do it and 2). have the best chance of siphoning off Trump votes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
The difference has been enumerated here repeatedly. If you can't see the difference between the routine of proposing bills etc. which occurs consistently throughout the entire course of work versus initiating an extremely rare and volatile political move of impeaching a President then I don't know what to tell you because the difference is obvious.
|
Sure impeachment is literally different then passing a bill in the House. But both have a similar result. The result (no support from Senate) isn't a valid reason to not proceed. I'd argue impeachment actually sticks more. We know every President in history who has been impeached (even without conviction). We don't remember all the bills McConnell has thrown in the trash.
It will be hilarious if Trump is the first President charged with crimes when he leaves the White House (a likely scenario), yet Dems still didn't think it was worth it to impeach.
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
Dems who care are going to turnout either way. An impeachment isn't going to rouse any Dem over who isn't already motivated. |
I believe not impeaching will discourage the voters who were a part of the blue wave in 2018. Voters who want the Dems to hold Trump accountable. By not impeaching, Dems are blurring the line between themselves and the Republicans who help Trump escape the law.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Those three are going after a similar block of Democratic voters, the ones who voted for Bernie the last time. |
Forgot to mention Beto. He supports impeachment as well.
Edit: Beto did support impeachment before declaring. He has backpedaled since.
If Kamala and Klobacher join in on the calls for impeachment. Would that change your mind at all?
They both have stated it warrants consideration.
Committee Chairmans Nadler and Cummings are moving that direction as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/momentum-for-impeachment-picking-up-825182/
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
If Dems take back the White House and Congress. This is an idea they should pursue
| Quote: | | Planting 1.2 Trillion Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions, Scientists Find |
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find
It's far cheaper than providing support for victims of ever-worsening climate change disasters.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is a part time president of some of the people. He does not govern for all...just his base. What makes these people think they are better than me? Why should we listen to them when they don't listen to us?
I see a lot of people asking the Democrats to take action. Why wait if you are a Democrat? It's time to confront these 'people'. It will have to be done sooner or later 
RG says it's ok to let Russia help
trump's attorneys admit he may have broken federal laws in the past
Barr misrepresenting the Mueller report
All top republicans have loans from Russia
the NRA has funneled Putin money into the elections...all repugs benefit without complaint
Everyone of his cabinet and spokesididiots lie to the American public on a daily bases
THEY DENY SCIENCE
....anyone need more talking points for this week?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
A tiny crack in the ranks?
FOX NEWS HOST CHRIS WALLACE ASKS DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI 'WHO MADE YOU GOD?' IN HEATED MUELLER REPORT INTERVIEW
https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-trump-giuliani-mueller-report-1402339
| Quote: | Later in the interview, Wallace brought it back to Clinton and used Guiliani’s own question against him. The host played a clip of Trump describing how Clinton had declined to answer questions by investigations, saying she did not recall. The president, who was still just a candidate at the time, argued that was a “problem.”
Wallace, pointing to Trump’s decision to decline to answer numerous questions from Mueller using the same excuse, asked why it was a “problem” for Clinton but not for the president.
“Because Hillary Clinton was guilty of the underlying crime,” Trump’s lawyer responded. “She did crush the cellphones. She did—”
But Wallace cut him off abruptly, asking: “Well, who made you God, as you said about Mueller? You’re saying who made Mueller God, and now you’re saying whether she was guilty or not.”
Fumbling to respond, Giuliani said: “I’m not saying she’s guilty,” despite having said, only moments earlier, that Clinton “was guilty.” |
probably not  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: |
The difference has been enumerated here repeatedly. If you can't see the difference between the routine of proposing bills etc. which occurs consistently throughout the entire course of work versus initiating an extremely rare and volatile political move of impeaching a President then I don't know what to tell you because the difference is obvious.
|
Sure impeachment is literally different then passing a bill in the House. But both have a similar result. |
No, they literally do not.
| Quote: | | The result (no support from Senate) isn't a valid reason to not proceed. I'd argue impeachment actually sticks more. We know every President in history who has been impeached (even without conviction). We don't remember all the bills McConnell has thrown in the trash. |
And you just demonstrated one the differences.
| Quote: | | It will be hilarious if Trump is the first President charged with crimes when he leaves the White House (a likely scenario), yet Dems still didn't think it was worth it to impeach. |
And again, you ignore the strategy behind such a decision and attempt to pass it off as simnpkly doing nothing because they don't care.
And so at this point we are going around in circles because we have literally already had this exchange.
I don't see any point in engaging your false narrative yet again.
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Quote: |
Dems who care are going to turnout either way. An impeachment isn't going to rouse any Dem over who isn't already motivated. |
I believe not impeaching will discourage the voters who were a part of the blue wave in 2018. Voters who want the Dems to hold Trump accountable. By not impeaching, Dems are blurring the line between themselves and the Republicans who help Trump escape the law. |
They aren't blurring anything. And the idea that people behind the blue wave will suddenly give up and disappear because the Dems don't impeach just isn't logical.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Those three are going after a similar block of Democratic voters, the ones who voted for Bernie the last time. |
Forgot to mention Beto. He supports impeachment as well.
Edit: Beto did support impeachment before declaring. He has backpedaled since.
If Kamala and Klobacher join in on the calls for impeachment. Would that change your mind at all?
They both have stated it warrants consideration.
Committee Chairmans Nadler and Cummings are moving that direction as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/momentum-for-impeachment-picking-up-825182/ |
I'm not changing my opinion based on a presidential candidate calling for it. I'm basing my opinion on what I think is the best strategic decision. If I think impeachment will get Trump out of office before the end of his term, or increase the chances he is not re-elected, then I will be for it. If I think that it runs a much higher chance of diminishing the chances of getting him out than it does of helping (and if i know that all of the information that would be disseminated in a trial can be disseminated in a bunch of congressional hearings), and that there's no chance the GOP controlled senate will convict, then I'm for not making useless gestures.
Doing things you know won't likely advance your cause and might hurt it because they feel principled is a good opportunity to recalibrate your sense of principles IMO. Same thing I said to the Bernie voters who voted against Hillary in 2016, also on the the basis of misplaced principle. When the results of making a gesture are worse than not for the people the principle is supposed to be about, the gesture is not principled.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think having McGhan and Robert Mueller testify at a House committee hearing would do a lot to bolster a case for impeachment. If they can have McGhan state to the public that Trump wanted him to obstruct, then that will be the smoking gun. Because the ONLY reason he did not do it was because he knew it was obstruction. Not just the perception of it, but actual obstruction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddiejonze
Star Player
Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7228
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Those three are going after a similar block of Democratic voters, the ones who voted for Bernie the last time. |
Forgot to mention Beto. He supports impeachment as well.
Edit: Beto did support impeachment before declaring. He has backpedaled since.
If Kamala and Klobacher join in on the calls for impeachment. Would that change your mind at all?
They both have stated it warrants consideration.
Committee Chairmans Nadler and Cummings are moving that direction as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/momentum-for-impeachment-picking-up-825182/ |
I'm not changing my opinion based on a presidential candidate calling for it. I'm basing my opinion on what I think is the best strategic decision. If I think impeachment will get Trump out of office before the end of his term, or increase the chances he is not re-elected, then I will be for it. If I think that it runs a much higher chance of diminishing the chances of getting him out than it does of helping (and if i know that all of the information that would be disseminated in a trial can be disseminated in a bunch of congressional hearings), and that there's no chance the GOP controlled senate will convict, then I'm for not making useless gestures.
Doing things you know won't likely advance your cause and might hurt it because they feel principled is a good opportunity to recalibrate your sense of principles IMO. Same thing I said to the Bernie voters who voted against Hillary in 2016, also on the the basis of misplaced principle. When the results of making a gesture are worse than not for the people the principle is supposed to be about, the gesture is not principled. |
Good post.
I just had an argument with a Bernie supporter standing on a street corner in DTLA last Friday night at 1 AM- He was holding a "bernie for prez" sign and I simply asked him if he voted for Hillary in the General to which he replied that he "wrote in Sanders".
You used a great, recent example of People standing by their "morals" (which I get) but losing in the end anyways. The cliche's of:
"Cutting off your nose, to spite your face"
and not
"Seeing the forest through the trees"
come to mind.
The Senate will not impeach, end of story.
So then, will the ATTEMPT of impeachment from dems win in the long run of the 2020 election?
(If I was Biden's campaign manager, I would get him to announce his candidacy THIS week, with the slogan- "I don't need to impeach, I CAN BEAT HIM")...
Nancy Pelosi is up to something, is smart as hell, and I support her premise that impeachment is "He's just not worth it".
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LegalEagle
@LegalEagleDJ
In other words, Mueller set up an investigation that could not, under any circumstances, find the President committed obstruction of justice. Oddly, it could have exonerated him, though. But it didn't. Weird one-way-street investigation standard.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
8:38 AM - 18 Apr 2019
ax McClelland
@Drfjgjbu
Apr 18
Replying to @LegalEagleDJ
So in oversimplified terms, they were allowed to rule "not guilty" or "not not guilty", and they ruled "not not guilty?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VicXLakers wrote: | LegalEagle
@LegalEagleDJ
In other words, Mueller set up an investigation that could not, under any circumstances, find the President committed obstruction of justice. Oddly, it could have exonerated him, though. But it didn't. Weird one-way-street investigation standard.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
8:38 AM - 18 Apr 2019
ax McClelland
@Drfjgjbu
Apr 18
Replying to @LegalEagleDJ
So in oversimplified terms, they were allowed to rule "not guilty" or "not not guilty", and they ruled "not not guilty?" |
That actually makes sense from a jurisprudence perspective. Since he can't indict, he can't in good faith level a charge with the "accused" having no forum to defend himself.
Basically, anything other than not guilty is a de facto charge in this situation. What he's essentially saying is if this guy wasn't the president, I'd charge him.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Ipsos Reuters Poll, taken on April 18-19, the day of and after the [Mueller] report’s release, shows an 8 point swing toward impeachment — from 49-39 against on March 25-26 — to just 42-40 against now. The same poll shows Trump approval/disapproval dropping from 40/54 to 37/56 from March to April. And that’s before the continuing disclosure of the report’s damning contents. It could be an outlier, but let’s see. |
This is only one poll, but this might be an indication (of the many) on how to proceed.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | I think having McGhan and Robert Mueller testify at a House committee hearing would do a lot to bolster a case for impeachment. If they can have McGhan state to the public that Trump wanted him to obstruct, then that will be the smoking gun. Because the ONLY reason he did not do it was because he knew it was obstruction. Not just the perception of it, but actual obstruction. |
And it's begun.
| Quote: | | House Judiciary chairman subpoenas former White House counsel Don McGahn in wake of Mueller findings |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There you go. There's a whole lot of wonderful hearings to have before you settle in on impeachment or not.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | | Don't impeach because Republicans won't convict is kinda like saying. Don't combat climate change because China is (and probably will be for the forseeable future) a far worse offender. |
Horrible analogy. The strategic move to not impeach is not just throwing your hands in the air and giving up, as that analogy insinuates. |
The entire post makes the analogy pertinent taken in context. It's mind boggling Trump is getting away with his shenanigans. People told to lie and proved to be told to lie by Trump just to name one thing.
| Quote: | If we don't impeach the most corrupt President in modern history. Someone who has attacked our own institutions. Made our allies weaker. And to put it plainly, exhibited treasonous behavior. Are Dems a party worth voting fo?
A lack of pragmatism hasn't been the Dems problem for a long time. Turning out the base was our 2016 problem.
Don't impeach because Republicans won't convict is kinda like saying. Don't combat climate change because China is (and probably will be for the forseeable future) a far worse offender. |
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13727
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | There you go. There's a whole lot of wonderful hearings to have before you settle in on impeachment or not. |
In the case of Mueller, some have said that the Democrats should be careful because he might not cooperate beyond what's written in his report, and they cite examples during the Bush administration when he testified and didn't give Democrats what they wanted on the Ashcroft/hospital stay scandal. So the Democrats should be 100% sure that it's a political success before they bring him to testify.
As for McGahn, who knows. He might just confirm what is said in the report. Politically speaking, his testimony probably won't move things since he's not a big personality.
But if Mueller, even implicitly, suggests impeachment or prosecution after the presidency, it could be a big political winner. We'll have to see.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11265
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, if the "roadmap" interpretation is correct, one would have to wonder why he would include it in the report on one hand, but not cooperate beyond what's written in the report on the other hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's sad that the republicans sit back and laugh at all the television coverage and many Democrats that are calling on the Democrats to do something but not one soul is asking the republicans to do something...anything
They are laughing all the way to the Russian banks  free from consequences
Who runs the risk of doing nothing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31912
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think Kamala is helping herself with this CNN Town Hall. At least 3 times, instead of directly answering a question, she used the phrase "I think we should have that conversation" and talked about the issue, but without answering the question at any point. I'm guessing that voters don't appreciate that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31912
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw some of her Town Hall and thought she did better than Harris did. I liked Buttigieg, too. When asked about Bernie Sanders' ridiculous idea that people in prison should be allowed to vote (not talking about ex-cons who are out of prison, but people who are actually IN prison), Harris gave one of her "I think we should have that conversation" answers, while Buttigieg simply answered no, you give up your freedom when you are paying your debt to society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: |
I saw some of her Town Hall and thought she did better than Harris did. I liked Buttigieg, too. When asked about Bernie Sanders' ridiculous idea that people in prison should be allowed to vote (not talking about ex-cons who are out of prison, but people who are actually IN prison), Harris gave one of her "I think we should have that conversation" answers, while Buttigieg simply answered no, you give up your freedom when you are paying your debt to society. |
Freedom yes, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
