EPTand we've already hashed through everything else; no new ground to tread. so I assert we simply repeat the same arguments we previously did and reach the same conclusions.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 145
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
and we've already hashed through everything else; no new ground to tread. so I assert we simply repeat the same arguments we previously did and reach the same conclusions. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 28 2018 06:47 zlefin wrote: I fail to see in that Reid article any good reason to NOT impeach. he doesn't really make much of a case for not impeaching. maybe there's something in the interview, but it's not in the text. and we've already hashed through everything else; no new ground to tread. He is telling the Democrats to stop talking about it, rather than making a case against it. You either do it or you don't. Impeachment is something the House does reluctantly and with the support of both parties. Not something one party promises to do. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On April 28 2018 06:59 Plansix wrote: Wulfey may have misread Reid was talking about. It all sort of comes down to the same thing, the 2018 elections are not about impeachment and Democrats would be silly to make try and make it about impeachment. I don't know if he made the point in the article, but the reason they don't want Dem's running on it is that impeachment talk helps Republicans more than Democrats in polling. If it was polling better they would totally run on it. Since democrats are banking on depressed Republican turnout and not increased Dem turnout the worst thing they could do is campaign on something that energizes Republican voters, not Democrats or especially independents. It has very little to do with any concept of process or tradition. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On April 28 2018 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote: Impeachment was never going to happen before 2018 and it's not likely to happen after. Turns out the big "trump's an evil asshole" strategy wasn't very effective since everyone knew that when he won in the first place. They pretty much squandered the entire off year on Trump (who is still more favored than Hillary) and virtually nothing on their vision. All the focus on Russia and Mueller has been a total waste politically. If they somehow manage to take the house it will be because 50%+ of the wins will be seats opened up by retirement/death/disgrace and virtually all of them will be depressed turnout for Republicans rather than more Dem votes. As we covered yesterday the DCCC and the Democratic leaders think primaries being frauds is totally cool, and so they learned nothing from 2016. Democrats are trying really hard to throw 2018 and 2020 and if more neolibs don't pull a P6 and turn on bad leadership they'll end up following them to a Kamala nomination and 4 more years of Republican control. Voters don't want vision. They want opposition and intolerance. Bernie and Trump did very well because they yelled about being mad about things a lot of people are mad about. Inspiring people through hopes of betterment bring in a lot less votes than people looking to destroy a bad thing. Opposition and tribalism will always overwhelm inspiration. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 28 2018 06:59 Plansix wrote: Wulfey may have misread Reid was talking about. It all sort of comes down to the same thing, the 2018 elections are not about impeachment and Democrats would be silly to make try and make it about impeachment. I don't think that comes down to the same thing at all; it's two very very different things. they may lead to a similar conclusion, but they're still very different. voters pretty clearly don't want leadership; since that's not what they elected. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35144 Posts
On April 27 2018 21:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Don't worry, it wouldn't take too much money, since UK doesn't actually have a football team. As for England team, it wouldn't take that much money either, the way they play. It could be one of the very many things he'd be angry about while not knowing anything about it. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/385015-pelosi-impeachment-push-a-gift-to-gop Either way, talking about impeachment now is a dumb idea. Green pushed the issue again in January, in a vote that won 66 Democrats. The rise in support was largely attributed to an episode in between, when Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as “shithole countries.” Pelosi on Thursday made clear that she’s hoping impeachment gets no more floor time ahead of the midterms, amplified all the reasons she thinks it’s a bad move both practically and politically. “This election is not about what’s going on in the White House and the rest of that. It’s about our addressing the needs of the American people, and we cannot take our eye off that ball,” Pelosi said. “They criticized me before when I was Speaker for not impeaching President [George W.] Bush. Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens, it has to be a bipartisan initiative. I don’t think we have the information to go to that place, and I would discourage any discussion of impeachment.” | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
and we did go over the susstein stuff last time; I don't remember what his exact claim was, so I can't say he was wrong; but it's definitely the case that from a legal perspective, there's more than enough to justifiably impeach trump, both legally, and from a good policy standpoint. which is why I said we both reassert our positions; to not rehash an argument with no new claims. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 28 2018 07:07 Mohdoo wrote: Voters don't want vision. They want opposition and intolerance. Bernie and Trump did very well because they yelled about being mad about things a lot of people are mad about. Inspiring people through hopes of betterment bring in a lot less votes than people looking to destroy a bad thing. Opposition and tribalism will always overwhelm inspiration. Didn't Obama win mostly on inspiration? | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On April 28 2018 06:17 IyMoon wrote: Another fun part of that poll is that a lower % of people today want the dems to start impeachment preceding if they win the house than 3 months ago. That is good news for Trump I believe the opposite. If people are unwilling to view fact based news sources as reality and insist on fake bullshit like breitbart and faux news, then they don't deserve to be a part of the conversation until they can grow up. While people are entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to have their opinion taken seriously or even considered, especially when they show time and again that their opinions don't coincide with reality. Who knows, maybe it will be a good thing if everyone refuses to speak to those types of people and simply tells them something along the lines of "I'll talk to you if you can come back with some actual facts." Of course I suppose given how many of the republicans are now, they will accuse such people of "coastal elitism" and move on to their echo chambers of bullshit. But I personally am far beyond entertaining silly conspiracy theories and other such nonsense not rooted in reality and facts, both from the right, and from the radical far left. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On April 28 2018 08:12 zlefin wrote: pelosi is saying the same thing read is; about politics, not policy or standards on impeachment. she's just saying it's not a winnin gmove, not so much that it'd be improper. and we did go over the susstein stuff last time; I don't remember what his exact claim was, so I can't say he was wrong; but it's definitely the case that from a legal perspective, there's more than enough to justifiably impeach trump, both legally, and from a good policy standpoint. What's happening is that a lot of people who spent the last year+ on pushing the idea Trump was going to be impeached are realizing it's actually not going to win them any seats (or going to happen) and they are trying to completely shift their entire message (to what, it isn't clear) just before midterms. @Mohdoo Bernie wasn't popular because he was railing against the establishment, Bernie would never have been as popular as Trump (more so actually) if he had the same honesty/integrity (or lack thereof) of Trump. Bernie was popular because he was pointing out what a lot of people on the left already noticed and have been waiting for a politician to articulate on a national stage and to the faces of the people doing it. Sure people's rightous anger at such circumstances played a role, but what Bernie was doing and what Trump was doing were radically different with very different intentions. That's one reason Bernie is the most popular politician in the country and Trump/Democrats aren't. EDIT: Also why Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to have anyone but Bernie (or his pick) be the nominee in 2020 despite clearly being more popular than any Dem leader or potential candidate. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On April 28 2018 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote: What's happening is that a lot of people who spent the last year+ on pushing the idea Trump was going to be impeached are realizing it's actually not going to win them any seats (or going to happen) and they are trying to completely shift their entire message (to what, it isn't clear) just before midterms. @Mohdoo Bernie wasn't popular because he was railing against the establishment, Bernie would never have been as popular as Trump (more so actually) if he had the same honesty/integrity (or lack thereof) of Trump. Bernie was popular because he was pointing out what a lot of people on the left already noticed and have been waiting for a politician to articulate on a national stage and to the faces of the people doing it. Sure people's rightous anger at such circumstances played a role, but what Bernie was doing and what Trump was doing were radically different with very different intentions. That's one reason Bernie is the most popular politician in the country and Trump/Democrats aren't. EDIT: Also why Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to have anyone but Bernie (or his pick) be the nominee in 2020 despite clearly being more popular than any Dem leader or potential candidate. Are you saying that Dems should lean on various Bernie challengers and try to pressure them out of the race? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On April 28 2018 08:32 Wulfey_LA wrote: Are you saying that Dems should lean on various Bernie challengers and try to pressure them out of the race? No. How in the world would you get that from what I said? On April 28 2018 08:35 zlefin wrote: i'm not sure why you quoted me there gh; but your comment is noted. I assume the rest of your post wasn't directed to me, and hence no response needed. The first part was for you, the rest was in response to Mohdoo but applies to anyone thinking the same stuff. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
At the end of the day some of the candidates that the run from the Progressive left are going to suck and lose to neoliberal candidates in a primary. Just like some neoliberal candidates will suck and lose. But after all the elections are over, whoever is left standing has to go to congress and work together to govern. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On April 28 2018 08:37 Plansix wrote: It is tough to talk about Bernie and the Democrats because of all the bad blood, perceived slights and very real attempts to push out progressive candidates. I have little love for the leadership in general, especially in the House. But I do share the worry some Democrats express, that folks will continue to stoke those fires, because grievance gets people motivated. At the end of the day some of the candidates that the run from the Progressive left are going to suck and lose to neoliberal candidates in a primary. Just like some neoliberal candidates will suck and lose. But after all the elections are over, whoever is left standing has to go to congress and work together to govern. That we can agree on, of course as we both know, it's not a situation of neoliberals and progressives duking it out in fair primaries, it the DNC DCCC and all of Dem leadership trying desperately to keep the primaries rigged. So long as neolibs are worried about the people legally exposing them by recording their treachery, or worse yet, calling it "good" it's going to continue. On April 28 2018 08:38 zlefin wrote: gh -> well, there's no need to rehash those other parts, since you're only making points you've made before that've been discussed to death and that others disagree with. no new ground to tread; just old arguments with known results. (at least I assume everyone here has heard them all and doesn't need them gone over again) It's getting harder and harder to disagree with as P6 is demonstrating. Dem leadership is outright failing and it's inextricably connected to the 2016 campaign and the obsession with Trump/impeachment/Russia which they are now discovering was a terribly ineffective political strategy. | ||
| ||
