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

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

The Moon (the nipple of Mars)

many people say the moon is actually a part of mars. not a lot of people know that but it's a big concern i hear .. next question

such a jokester, this president

i mean im not even good at that and it to easy

i wonder if he'll be hit by a meteorite

It's heartening that we're so mired in his swill that video of our septuagenarian POTUS reciting the alphabet incorrectly wouldn't elicit more than a resigned shrug.

'Of Course He's Stupid, No One Cares' b/w 'Way to Give that Snooty Fuckin' Alphabet Wit Fer!'

Fact Check: What is the moon? https://t.co/qmavnR0Y54

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 7, 2019

surely he was implying that moon would form a part of a mission to Mars? but in that case... why tweet

Why surely?

He might think the moon orbits mars.

Achieve Mind-Blowing Orgasms By Having Your Partner Read Direct Quotes of Democrats Calling for Impeachment: https://t.co/QMrIBi0pYG pic.twitter.com/ApkcS9nMkb

— Reductress (@Reductress) June 7, 2019

i still wanna see ~actually disruptive~ marches with *CLANG CLANG* HIGH CRIMES! *CLANG CLANG* MISDEMEANORS!*CLANG CLANG* HIGH CRIMES! *CLANG CLANG* MISDEMEANORS! *CLANG CLANG* but i don't think the ppl are with me.

by ~actually disruptive~ i mean, like, rudely delaying brunch or a bike ride or a mind-blowing orgasm.

given what trump's doing to kids on the mexican border alone he and his entire administration of enabling lackeys needs to be physically, publicly shamed. chari vari. tar, feathers, the stocks. if it's televised that's just a bonus. they need to pay. everyone who now says they support him should be afraid to admit it. there is no excuse. i don't give a shit about his taxes. but yemenis who are still dying from bombs he continues to sell the saudis, children actually dying on the border through neglect, people treated like dogs and worse - if he's going to treat the public like it's the 1600s let's return the goddamn favor

guys

Andrew Sullivan wrote a column

Shall I link to it

^rhetorical question

this was an actual tweet today from Trump:

"If we are able to make the deal with Mexico, & there is a good chance that we will, they will begin purchasing Farm & Agricultural products at very high levels, starting immediately. If we are unable to make the deal, Mexico will begin paying Tariffs at the 5% level on Monday!"

he said something similar about tariffs on China, like he is actively trying to misinform the portion of the US public that doesn't understand what they are. why doesn't some reporter ask him to explain this?