no, i didn't know that the June 2019 US Politics thread was nasty

This "want him to go to prison" thing is inane on multiple fronts. First, as an impeachment delay tactic it's lazy and transparent. Second, it undermines her argument for taking things slowly, i.e. that she's an institutionalist who values due process, thoroughness, surety, etc. Instead she's echoing and legitinizing Trump's own "lock her up!" discourse. It's just not serious. It's stupid.

But most obviously WTF she is actually saying that in the meantime it's okay for a guy who merits imprisonment—a criminal!—to remain in the highest office. Like it's more important to the country that he is "punished" sometime down the road than e.g. have the nuclear codes taken away ASAP

boomin'

Since the Senate will never convict impeachment amounts to a motion of strong moral disapproval. A weak-looking move.

Hadrian OTM

the weakest looking move of all is worrying about how something looks. if trump has committed crimes in office he should be impeached.

Maybe, but in politics, "how things look" very often has material consequences (I agree that trump should be impeached though).

You've got to break these people. Constant drumbeat of witnesses, bad news etc. It creates its own reality. Yes the Democrats are in control of the House, yes they're trying to bring down the Republicans by any means necessary, why because Republican ideas are bad, they're bad people, and oh their president is a criminal. Whatever it takes. Not fair? Too bad, shut up, we have the power now, don't like it then vote us out. Hate Trump? Come with us.

Trump has stumbled into a kind of timeless political truth which is that being hated by the right people is an asset. The Democrats keep thinking everybody can like them. Fuck Trump supporters forever

true. there is no virtue in being soft on republicans. i would turn the guns on the officeholders and the corrupt interests they represent though, not the average voter. (sanders and warren both do this well).

well I mean as the presumed collateral damage from any Trump investigation, or indeed any flavor of the termination with extreme prejudice of the entire Republican project. If they want to go down with the ship, good riddance

yeah, sure. i think the democrats are confused because they think going hard on the republican party will alienate certain voters. but those voters can make a decision. and it's not like the republican project has helped them far from it.

at this point, given the circunstances and the stakes, the opposition isn't even Trump — it's Pelosi Stoyer et al vs. decades of self-sabotage syndrome

i mean, the republican party is not a reasonable conservative opposition that you can make deals with to further shared goals. they aren't looking for market based solutions to climate change and healthcare--they are represented the interests of like carpetbagging elites and selling it by stoking paranoia and hysteria, often demonizing pelosi herself. the democrats just need to get hip to the situation.

calling these people what they are is painful--it shatters the cherished idea that we live in a functional republic--but you have to live in the real world not the fake one

You've got to break these people. Constant drumbeat of witnesses, bad news etc. It creates its own reality. Yes the Democrats are in control of the House, yes they're trying to bring down the Republicans by any means necessary, why because Republican ideas are bad, they're bad people, and oh their president is a criminal. Whatever it takes. Not fair? Too bad, shut up, we have the power now, don't like it then vote us out. Hate Trump? Come with us.

OTMFM! There are no rules anymore and defeating Trump won’t bring back a world where there are rules (if such a world ever existed). Dems are still playing by the rules instead of breaking shit.

Gonna repost:

The political world has changed significantly since 1998. Key among those changes is the consolidation of a conservative-media infrastructure that dominates communication to the GOP rank and file. That dynamic means Trump is even less likely than Clinton to suffer major erosion of support from his base, and thus also from his party’s representatives in Congress. And Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, with the help of the conservative-media ecosystem, that he can energize his supporters by portraying attacks on him as efforts from disdainful “elites” to suppress their influence. That could allow him to wave impeachment as a bloody shirt to spur turnout from his base in 2020. Even swing voters uneasy about Trump might also recoil from the sheer level of political conflict that impeachment would inevitably ignite in today’s combustible media environment.

All of that suggests it’s not a guaranteed political winner for House Democrats to impeach Trump when there’s virtually no chance the Senate will vote to remove him. But the full ledger on Clinton’s impeachment invalidates the common assumption that impeachment without removal is a guaranteed political loser. Considering both the 1998 and 2000 elections, there’s considerable evidence that the struggle actually helped the GOP; at worst, its political impact was equivocal. Which means that, on impeachment, House Democrats may have more leeway than they believe to do what they think is legally and morally right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/did-clintons-impeachment-actually-hurt-republicans/591175/

Instead she's echoing and legitinizing Trump's own "lock her up!" discourse

come on, "legitimizing"?

we all want this man who deserves to go to prison to go to prison

alfred's repost otm

i agree

btw the Embed podcast is doing a series about Mitch right now. The episode that dropped this week has a speech where Mitch calls out John McCain on the Senate floor challenging him to name names of Senators he thinks are corrupt. McCain tries to brush him off multiple times before basically saying, "You are, Mitch."

it is true that Bill Clinton was not re-elected in 2000 that’s a good pt

he can energize his supporters by portraying attacks on him as efforts from disdainful “elites” to suppress their influence. That could allow him to wave impeachment as a bloody shirt to spur turnout from his base in 2020. Even swing voters uneasy about Trump might also recoil from the sheer level of political conflict that impeachment would inevitably ignite in today’s combustible media environment.

This is dense with false premises. First, it presumes that Trump's base will not already be maximally inflamed. This is Donald Trump we're talking about. *Not* impeaching him is going to somehow pacify his base? His base will be demagogued into a frenzy no matter what, on immigration and on "socialism" not to mention the investigation his DOJ will open on his opponent. Second, this "swing voter" business. Who exactly are we talking about? The guy is polling at 40%!

"political conflict would inevitably ignite"

LOL the house is right now on the verge of holding the attorney general in contempt but god forbid "conflict"

His base will be demagogued into a frenzy no matter what

yes, exactly

otm

"This is one of the true, in terms of war, in terms of, probably you can also say, in terms of peace, because this led to something very special."

froooom seeea tooooo shiiining seeeaaaa

You need to read the whole article. The point is that there's enough facile comparisons to 1998 for House Dems to say fuck it, let's impeach.

Instead she's echoing and legitinizing Trump's own "lock her up!" discourse

come on, "legitimizing"?

― american bradass (BradNelson), Friday, June 7, 2019 10:18 AM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok yeah that is an overstatement...I mean "legitimizing" in the eyes of his supporters. Better put, maybe: abetting a false equivalency

Because of the 'LOCK HER UP!!!' chants on the other side, it may be preferable for one of the most powerful and high-profile democratic elected officials to say something more like 'I want Donald Trump to face these charges in a court of law once he's no longer protected by his office' rather than 'I want Donald Trump to go to jail' no matter how keenly we all recognize the benefit that would be conferred upon humanity by caging him like a sick ape.

yes

yep

btw the Embed podcast is doing a series about Mitch right now. The episode that dropped this week has a speech where Mitch calls out John McCain on the Senate floor challenging him to name names of Senators he thinks are corrupt. McCain tries to brush him off multiple times before basically saying, "You are, Mitch."

lol

McCain was often terrible but I am down for zings like this

btw how close are we to an election where both of the main campaign platforms explicitly include sending their opponent to prison if they win?

awesomely close!

Could happen this year

oh yeah -- good morning!

xxxp Alfred I see that now, you posted his caveat

it seems a simple political safeaguard (to the extent it's even necessary) would be driving home the message that they are impeaching on moral grounds and per constitutional duty *with no expectation the Senate has the moral courage or political fortitude to follow through*

iow make it clear the senate vote is meaningless because it's a foregone conclusion, put McConell on the defensive

there are obviously high level conflicts of interest, financial crimes, and tax schemes that could be uncovered through subpoenas. its not like obstruction of justice is the only thing trump did wrong.

yes and strictly in terms of dividing/diverting Trump attention during a campaign it's a no-brainer.

He will be in Pittsburgh or wherever next summer ready tout the stock market but totally derailed mocking some former employee who testified that afternoon to cooking his books or silencing an abortion payment or w/e

every single day

Reuters/Ipsos 2020 head-to-head (polling May 29- June 5, 2019):

Biden 47% (+13)
Trump 34

Sanders 44 (+9)
Trump 35

Warren 40 (+4)
Trump 36

Harris 39 (+3)
Trump 36

Buttigieg 37 (+2)
Trump 35

Every one of those margins is still too close for comfort. And also a reminder that we need to double our efforts in finding a barge big enough for 1/3 of the American population.

A barge or a rocket. A zeppelin, perhaps? Whatever gets them off this particular landmass is cool with me.

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2019

lol of which the moon is a part

🤔

he probably meant "of which the moon is part cheese' but he ran out of characters

It's moments like this that I just want a reporter to ask him a very simple, straightforward question and get his response on record, a simple question like 'where is the moon?' Because there's a very good chance that he thinks it's near Mars. So many missed opportunities along these lines. 'When was the United States founded?' 'How many years are in a century?' 'Briefly summarize a single book that you've read.'

the responses would be the same incoherent flailing he does around all other topics and the effect would be nil

i would gin up an impression but it's all been done before