Impeach Trump Y/N

But I think him losing would be a shortsighted victory. As much as Obama winning, twice, turned out to be a shortsighted victory as well.

There is no symmetry to be had here.

so what's going on in the hearing ? i haven't been able to follow it today. Mitch is making concessions ?

xpost The symmetry as I see it is that Obama winning twice perhaps convinced people to let their guard down, enabling Trump to win. I'd worry (I worry a lot) that Trump losing could do the same. I want more than anything the GOP getting their ass handed to them in dramatic fashion, convincingly, for years to come, but apparently that's not going to be in the cards for at least several local and national elections.

xp

at the very last minute, the rules that mcconnell is putting up for a vote had some major revisions:

each side would get 3 days to present their argument, instead of 2.
the house evidence would be admitted without a vote, instead of requiring a vote.

apparently susan fucking collins played a role in getting him to relent on these

If Trump is defeated there will at least be the sense that governing as he did will lead to defeat. If he is re-elected his presidency will be the model of success that will be followed by the GOP until long after we're all dead.

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:46 PM (twelve minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

if for no other reason, this^

one of the many things i don't like about trump is that he never really does anything unexpected. it's just variations on narcissistic cruelty or pure dumbassery.

It would leaven my faith in the potential of humanity if, just once, he showed up unannounced at a tribute to Toni Morrison, spoke briefly and eloquently about how Sula taught him the true meaning of friendship and then left quietly.

a shortsighted victory

perhaps you meant short-lived? there was nothing shortsighted about it that I can see.

some major revisions

not major in real terms

However long-lived the victory is will depend on everyone staying awake and engaged past November, and not being all, "OK, time to ignore politics for another 4 years." It's a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to repair the damage.

Out of curiosity, has any president with a first-term approval rating consistently in the low 40s ever been reelected?

clinton and obama come closest

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

obama's was in mid-high 40s for years 3 and 4 before his re-election
clinton's hovered around 50 for much of his first term, dipping into the 40s frequently

He's broken so many norms and countered so many predictions I'm not sure (American) history necessarily provides a useful model.

His presence as president has caused untold millions unfathomable fear, harm and anxiety. As long as he is lurking out there, that anxiety will persist. I wish I was confident him losing reelection would lessen that, but I don't know. It would be a relief on many fronts, for sure, if only to establish that there is some limit to what voters will tolerate.

is the senate trial so boring that you must keep this going

Irony Y/N

lol actually I forgot it was on, but Schiff seems to be doing well!

In terms of politics, the fact that McConnell has consistently and loudly telegraphed the outcome for months gives the nation the clear message that they can ignore Trump's impeachment entirely. Trump, much like Reagan, is a television-driven president and making the trial as boring as possible plays into Trump's strengths. His tweets will be far more compelling drama than the facts McConnell plans to bury under a dump truck load of drawn-out nonsense. And the media will reciprocate by reporting the empty drama, not the boring facts.

beginning to think there's nothing that doesn't "play into Trump's strengths"

his greatest strength being that he's a in a country full of assholes and dipshits

Committing flagrant crimes and getting caught is his only weakness.

xpost Does give him a leg up, that's fore sure.

lol @ McConnell fucking up his vote count

CNBC:

Senate Democrats won two key changes to the rules of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial as proceedings kicked off Tuesday afternoon.

The changes will permit each sides’ opening arguments to span three days, instead of two, and will also admit materials into evidence from the House investigation into Trump last fall.

You're welcome

xp did he fuck it up? the key vote he's talking about is the one, after opening arguments, to admit additional new evidence/witnesses. last i heard (a few hours ago) he said he had 53 votes against, which would protect his evil plan

It is critical at this time of national crisis that we do our utmost to maintain the fiction that the Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Incitatus

zoe lofgren is a very good reader, she should do voiceovers for tedious educational films about how government works

at this time of national crisis

border caravan? Iran imminent threat? shortage of chicken sandwiches?

the legislative branch forfeiting its power of oversight over the chief executive

Was the length of time given to previous impeachments precisely limited to the time it's registered as having taken or would it have been more open ended if it had taken longer? I'd just be thinking that things take as long as they take so this is an artificial deadline.
& just totally the anathema of justice anyway. I half listened to the Trump defense team lie with every breath a couple oof hours ago.
& seems like taht is a standard that the GOP are determined to keep up.
What is a trial without the relevant evidence? A complete sham which is presumably what McConnell wants anyway.
I think your senate may be a bit broken and need this to go right as a first step towards repair.
Wasn't going to watch any of that debate cos I knew it was just going to be utterly shat on. Then did catch Schiff and the lady following.
BUt what use is coherent dialogue if it's just something to poop on from one side of the aisle.

If/when Trump loses the election, he's not going anywhere, and his supporters are not going anywhere.

His supporters will largely dissipate as they are dedicated to him, not to the separate ideological aims of the Republican Party. It would take another colossal, famous asshole & huckster to fill that void, and there is no famous asshole as colossal as him alive.

He can keep holding rallies, but the media will have less impetus to cover them, and his brain is melting too fast for him to keep the con up once the authority of the office is gone. A fat old man sweating and shouting about how very unfair everyone has been to him, while being unable to stand or walk unsupported, has less inherent entertainment value or worth as an avatar for the audience's own aspirations, once that man is not ostensibly powerful. (Being out of office might reveal his bankruptcy too, as his lendors have no further advantage to be gained from their leverage.)


As much as Obama winning, twice, turned out to be a shortsighted victory as well.

Obama had the near-unprecedented chance to effect material change to benefit the American people in his first year, and chose to bail out the banks instead. It was clear not much was going to happen in the following seven.

He had the near-unprecedented chance to transform ponies into unicorns when he had a filibuster-proof Senate from July-August 2009 and again from September to, I think, January.

meanwhile lol:

Flake says argument that president ‘did no wrong’ pains him

xp Perfectly accurate, until you recall that his filibuster-proof Senate was filled with US Senators.

yes that's true

every non-Republican Senator stood ready to do the President's bidding, especially Joe Lieberman

Dems needed an ideological purge like the de facto one the Repugs have had

but now is a good time too

to the Blue Dog constituents: "We don't want your votes, hillbillies"

July-August 2009 and again from September to, I think, January

The perfect time!

(My thesis incorporates the idea that the populace would have been exceptionally receptive to being sold transformative policy [possibly quickly, possibly over months and years] at that point. The opportunity existed for leadership to pitch and campaign on long-term changes, but instead they rushed to slap one rubber cement patch on a leaking dinghy, and assure the people that they ought to go back to not thinking about anything, especially not how much their boat had sunk already.)

I think Hakeem Jefferies is speaking now? not bad as these things go

Is there a reason why this isn’t blanketing every network?

NBC is showing something called “Ellen’s Game of Games”

The networks don't have to show this and they are afraid of both bad ratings and politically-motivated reprisals from the FCC.

Dems needed an ideological purge like the de facto one the Repugs have had

Exactly. I told my Mom, who is mostly liberal/left, but keeps asking who is going to pay for everything, that I want the left version of Steve King. Like mandatory abortions for everyone. Then maybe we can talk about compromise.

Had this on for a good part of the day while puttering around the house, running errands, napping, cooking, etc. I only paid attention for maybe an hour. So I was encouraged a little while ago to hear Carl Bernstein call it a "devastating" day for Trump, but, at the same time, keep waiting for one of those old-guard media guys to start down that road and stop himself cold: "It was a deva--ah, fuck, what difference does it make?"

Does the NYT stylebook just have an entire chapter on synonyms for both-sidesing now? pic.twitter.com/VQTog1ZBNF

— Jonathan Myerson Katz (@KatzOnEarth) January 22, 2020

oh the acrimony

I humbly submit that the honorable gentleman from the great state of Kentucky is, and ever has been, both a scoundrel and a popinjay. Nay, a scallywag!

a pettifogger!

why would any value be assigned to Carl Bernstein in 2020?