US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1961

On December 19 2019 10:56 iamthedave wrote:


As in he's been impeached in both houses of congress? I thought Mitch McConnell all but said it wasn't going to happen in his bit?

On December 19 2019 11:03 Introvert wrote:
And the House of Representatives continues to destroy itself, sliding slowly but surely into irrelevance. Sad to see, because one day it may actually have to do something important once again.

On December 19 2019 11:03 Introvert wrote:
And the House of Representatives continues to destroy itself, sliding slowly but surely into irrelevance. Sad to see, because one day it may actually have to do something important once again.

On December 19 2019 11:03 Nebuchad wrote:
Shoutout to Tulsi Gabbard for the dumbest take.

"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," she added.

"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."

On December 19 2019 11:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
The House did it's job. It's the Senate who has to become relevant and not just a means of doing the presidents bidding. But they won't because Mitch hasn't done his job for years.

It's a big shame for the house that Trump still gets so much support with 162/163 nay votes.

On December 19 2019 10:20 BerserkSword wrote:


What is wrong with monitoring a 30 foot wall? I think we should be monitoring the border area regardless.

Slowing people down is huge. Making things more difficult is huge. Border patrol agents and the Chief of Border patrol pretty much stand with Trump with regards to the wall.

Strengthening the border and increasing surveillance is expensive but I dont see why this matters. It's important.

Regardless of how drugs get in, thousands of criminals have passed through the the border outside of official checkpoints. A wall would make i much harder.

On December 19 2019 06:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Nice to see you again Lord Tolkien

On December 19 2019 14:55 Introvert wrote:
Word seems to be that they are going to try and get it done and over with quickly. No reason to bring in uncertainties, especially when the Democrats have screwed it up so badly. Polling is back firmly on Trump's side. Senate GOP, just like the House, seem more united than I would have thought, but the Dems behavior might have made that easier by giving some of these senators and reps an out.

The moderates who ended up voting for this kinda forced themselves into it, voting no would be terrible to the base and might even cost them a primary. Pelosi, who lets members run as they need to still keeps a relatively tight grip on members in when they are actually in the chamber. They couldn't afford having significantly fewer votes on the articles than they had in their quasi-opening of the inquiry. They figure they've already taken damage so they just have to ride it out and hope that no one remembers by the time November rolls around. They are going to approve the USMCA, which is something the *relative* moderates have been pestering Pelosi about for months, desperate for proof they are actually doing something up there. I don't know if it was planned, but the fact it will be approved by the House at a similar time to this impeachment is good news for them.

Pelosi has said they won't send the articles over right away, saying she wants assurance that the Senate trial will be a fair process. To that idea the Senate will respond by telling them to pound sand. Every possible explanation for this decision is bad, it flies in the face of the claims they have been making, and it makes the whole thing look more partisan but... apparently she thinks she has to do this? Last day or two this idea picked up steam among the left but its value is unclear at best. It seems like it's just another stunt to make some on her left flank happier. They are already in this mess, might as well roll with it. Not sure she'll hold out that long.

On December 19 2019 15:41 Mohdoo wrote:


Keep in mind this whole idea of impeachment being a mess isn't a universally held position. Even if polls are "negatively" impacted by this, it is still a good thing. It is important that abuse of power is punished. Whether that hurts polling or not is besides the point. Trump and republicans have been trying to push the idea that breaking this and that law is fine so long as the reasoning is sound. It is nonsense. Trump being impeached is a giant legal tarnish on his legacy, whether it feels good to admit right now or not. Even without removal, this is a big deal and a much needed reminder that law doesn't just go away when the country is divided. It is important to remember Trump won't always be the identity of your party. Trump can be tarnished and it is ok.

On December 19 2019 10:56 iamthedave wrote:


As in he's been impeached in both houses of congress? I thought Mitch McConnell all but said it wasn't going to happen in his bit?

On December 19 2019 16:06 Belisarius wrote:

It's worth pointing out that this exchange highlights why any polling on impeachment is very suspect. People think it means removing the president from office when it doesn't. If you ask someone "do you support impeaching the president", they can end up answering any of about five different questions in the vicinity.

That said, the fact that support seems to be dropping even with irrefutable evidence of erongdoing makes it clear Trump is winning the next election, and his children are winning the one after that.

Canada it is.

On December 19 2019 15:55 Introvert wrote:


Maybe a nitpick, but I'm not sure why you keep talking about laws being broken. He wasn't impeached over a law violation, the Democrats poll-tested "bribery" charge was abandoned. They settled on a vague "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress," as if Trump going to the courts and the Democrats refusing to go the courts, could be credibly accounted as obstruction. By the way if denying info to Congress is impeachable I have I got news for you about...well almost every single president, including the last one. So as far as I recall no law was alleged to have been broken. Trump hasn't defied a single court order, even the absurd ones.



But this has been a mess. Democrats were in a better spot when this started then they are now after making their case. It's almost a disaster by definition. At best you should be upset your party is so incompetent that they manged to make a"slam-dunk" case into a push at best, hard loss at worst. I won't engage on if it's the "right thing to do" because that is clearly not the motivation of anyone involved. Their behavior proves that. if they felt so duty-bound they would have treated an only thrice-used provision of the Constitution with more seriousness.