|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Looks like the FBI is doing their job and bringing wrongdoers to justice. They have arrested the leader of the militia that has been detaining migrants at the border. Though he wasn't arrested for the actual activities of the militia. Personally I think that militias should be required to be under the control of a state government, as a matter of the constitution.
The F.B.I. on Saturday arrested the leader of a right-wing militia that was detaining migrant families at gunpoint near the border in southern New Mexico, as the group faced a torrent of criticism for its tactics.
Hector Balderas, New Mexico’s attorney general, said federal agents had arrested the leader, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, who had been operating under the alias Johnny Horton Jr. Mr. Balderas said in a statement that Mr. Hopkins was arrested on charges of firearms possession by a felon.
“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families,” Mr. Balderas said. “Today’s arrest by the F.B.I. indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”
www.nytimes.com
|
On April 21 2019 13:33 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like the FBI is doing their job and bringing wrongdoers to justice. Show nested quote +The F.B.I. on Saturday arrested the leader of a right-wing militia that was detaining migrant families at gunpoint near the border in southern New Mexico, as the group faced a torrent of criticism for its tactics.
Hector Balderas, New Mexico’s attorney general, said federal agents had arrested the leader, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, who had been operating under the alias Johnny Horton Jr. Mr. Balderas said in a statement that Mr. Hopkins was arrested on charges of firearms possession by a felon.
“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families,” Mr. Balderas said. “Today’s arrest by the F.B.I. indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.” www.nytimes.com
Meh, that's really local police work but because the nature of the situation it's more practical to have the feds do the arrest.
I mean they arrested him for having a gun and being a felon, that's hardly the FBI cracking the case of white supremacy terrorism in the US.
With Trump I guess we should be happy he hasn't called to give the guy they arrested the medal of honor yet.
|
I am suprised the FBI didn't arrest him for the more serious charges of impersonating an officer of the law, running around threatening with a gun and unlawfully kidnapping large groups of people. Along with the rest of the paramilitary group. What he was arrested for seems kind of tame and targeted solely towards him.
|
On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right
They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it.
|
On April 21 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 13:33 Doodsmack wrote:Looks like the FBI is doing their job and bringing wrongdoers to justice. The F.B.I. on Saturday arrested the leader of a right-wing militia that was detaining migrant families at gunpoint near the border in southern New Mexico, as the group faced a torrent of criticism for its tactics.
Hector Balderas, New Mexico’s attorney general, said federal agents had arrested the leader, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, who had been operating under the alias Johnny Horton Jr. Mr. Balderas said in a statement that Mr. Hopkins was arrested on charges of firearms possession by a felon.
“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families,” Mr. Balderas said. “Today’s arrest by the F.B.I. indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.” www.nytimes.com Meh, that's really local police work but because the nature of the situation it's more practical to have the feds do the arrest. I mean they arrested him for having a gun and being a felon, that's hardly the FBI cracking the case of white supremacy terrorism in the US. With Trump I guess we should be happy he hasn't called to give the guy they arrested the medal of honor yet.
Haha don’t jinx it, maybe he hasn’t seen it happened on Fox News yet.
Didn’t know about those people, but it’s absolutely terrifying.
|
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200.
|
Northern Ireland27000 Posts
On April 22 2019 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200.
Have you checked what the population of Sri Lanka was before the attacks huh smarty-pants?
|
On April 22 2019 00:40 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200. Have you checked what the population of Sri Lanka was before the attacks huh smarty-pants?
Touche. 50 trillion.
Update: Apparently, his error of being off by 99.999855% has been corrected.
|
On April 22 2019 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200.
They must have made him delete it. It's gone already.
Perhaps he thought that Sri Lankans are actually cats, and almost every Sri Lankan lost 7 of their 9 lives, and as such they're all still alive despite there being 7x their population in deaths from a terrorist attack.
His willingness to try and stoke fears by lying about actual bad things going on is never not going to be disgusting to me. 200 people died and he lies about it for political gain rather than being a decent human being. Then again, he and his administration lied the other way about the death toll in Puerto Rico so I guess nothing should be surprising anymore.
edit: yeah, there's now a tweet that just says 138 people. They must have made him remove the million part.
|
Northern Ireland27000 Posts
How does Trump not at least have a person to at least take a brief look at a tweet by now haha?
|
On April 22 2019 00:49 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200. They must have made him delete it. It's gone already. Perhaps he thought that Sri Lankans are actually cats, and almost every Sri Lankan lost 7 of their 9 lives, and as such they're all still alive despite there being 7x their population in deaths from a terrorist attack. His willingness to try and stoke fears by lying about actual bad things going on is never not going to be disgusting to me. 200 people died and he lies about it for political gain rather than being a decent human being. Then again, he and his administration lied the other way about the death toll in Puerto Rico so I guess nothing should be surprising anymore. edit: yeah, there's now a tweet that just says 138 people. They must have made him remove the million part.
Interesting, especially because the death toll is over 200:
https://apnews.com/55d93daed99c4f76baf7deec1bce5c72
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48001720
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/21/715631652/sri-lanka-explosions-target-churches-and-hotels-killing-at-least-129
Eh whatever. He probably got the number 138,000,000 from his inauguration crowd size. Not to poison the well, but it's becoming more and more sensible to literally reject any truth-value statement that Trump makes, because it's more likely to be a lie or falsehood or mistake or inaccuracy than the alternative.
|
On April 22 2019 01:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
How does Trump not at least have a person to at least take a brief look at a tweet by now haha? Because he doesn't want to? Because they stop him from tweeting all the dumb shit?
|
Post presidency trump is going to be entertaining and a view of the descent into dementia.
|
Northern Ireland27000 Posts
On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it.
I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did.
As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’
I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment.
I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip
I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious
|
Northern Ireland27000 Posts
On April 22 2019 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 01:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
How does Trump not at least have a person to at least take a brief look at a tweet by now haha? Because he doesn't want to? Because they stop him from tweeting all the dumb shit?
Well we know Trump doesn’t like being challenged by his subordinates and he’d probably overrule them on like 95% of stuff and pump it out anyway.
Surely even the Donald could handle a ‘em your figures are slightly wrong there?’
|
On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious
I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway."
We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned.
If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward.
If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law).
If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020).
But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk.
Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump.
|
On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump.
Granted your concession about the difference between today and after 2 more years of Trump trashing, I don't think it's a viable strategy still. The "independent" voters both parties covet don't want it.
Before Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was concluded, Independent voters supported impeachment by a 46 to 33 percent margin. Those voters now lean against impeachment by 48 to 34 percent.
klewtv.com
and Trump is also more popular than Pelosi and Schumer.
|
On April 22 2019 01:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 00:49 Ben... wrote:On April 22 2019 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200. They must have made him delete it. It's gone already. Perhaps he thought that Sri Lankans are actually cats, and almost every Sri Lankan lost 7 of their 9 lives, and as such they're all still alive despite there being 7x their population in deaths from a terrorist attack. His willingness to try and stoke fears by lying about actual bad things going on is never not going to be disgusting to me. 200 people died and he lies about it for political gain rather than being a decent human being. Then again, he and his administration lied the other way about the death toll in Puerto Rico so I guess nothing should be surprising anymore. edit: yeah, there's now a tweet that just says 138 people. They must have made him remove the million part. Interesting, especially because the death toll is over 200: https://apnews.com/55d93daed99c4f76baf7deec1bce5c72 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48001720 https://www.npr.org/2019/04/21/715631652/sri-lanka-explosions-target-churches-and-hotels-killing-at-least-129 Eh whatever. He probably got the number 138,000,000 from his inauguration crowd size. Not to poison the well, but it's becoming more and more sensible to literally reject any truth-value statement that Trump makes, because it's more likely to be a lie or falsehood or mistake or inaccuracy than the alternative. Yeah, I was puzzled by that too. Both numbers are wrong, one obviously many many magnitudes more so than the other. He could have corrected it to the actual number but that would be him admitting he was wrong about something.
But yes, for Trump, Giuliani, and the like I now just assume they're lying until proven otherwise.
|
Northern Ireland27000 Posts
On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump.
Well they put their election at risk because they’ll be framed as the establishment vs the anti-establishment wave, or be seen as going against the will of the people re the Presidential election
Trump’s entire strategy, regardless of how planned or sophisticated it is is to grab a base, galvanise them, and frame attacks on Trump no matter how legitimate as some kid of conspiracy against him and by extension that base.
It’s worked in the past, continues to work and trying to impeach him plays right into it.
I mean I’d rather it didn’t but it is what it is, to me anyway.
If I felt it could either actually impeach him, or be politically shrewd to do against the guy then sure, I don’t think either are the case.
|
On April 22 2019 03:07 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Well they put their election at risk because they’ll be framed as the establishment vs the anti-establishment wave, or be seen as going against the will of the people re the Presidential election Trump’s entire strategy, regardless of how planned or sophisticated it is is to grab a base, galvanise them, and frame attacks on Trump no matter how legitimate as some kid of conspiracy against him and by extension that base. It’s worked in the past, continues to work and trying to impeach him plays right into it. I mean I’d rather it didn’t but it is what it is, to me anyway. If I felt it could either actually impeach him, or be politically shrewd to do against the guy then sure, I don’t think either are the case. How does it continue to work in light of the Democrats success in the mid-terms?
Trumps base is not big enough to win a national election and no one else wants to touch him with a 1000 foot pole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
