Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 239: Saudi You Think You Can Dance?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I still don't get why the left is celebrating this. The man is still going to be president, will still appoint judges (and maybe even a SCOTUS justice), and if anything will just abandon any bipartisan legislation like gun control. There is no practical reason to be happy until November 2020 (if Trump is defeated).

Low as the bar is, literally anything being done more than lip service is a win.
---

Whether or not he gets removed, I will be glad to see that at least some of our politicians are capable of looking at Trump's behavior and saying "This man is not fit to hold office."
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Low as the bar is, literally anything being done more than lip service is a win.

But if the output is that he remains in office, this is really just lip service no? I feel the same thing about the Clinton impeachment. It's wasteful grandstanding if there's no chance of removal.

---

put the bitches on record, and the fact that if impeachment ISN'T called for then it's a submission that the tool just does not exist and a president can just do whatever they want until the next election

the consequence of doing absolutely nothing is more significant necessary than achieving the explicit end-goal of removal
---

You guys wanna see a bad tweet?

https://twitter.com/aubreyhirsch/status/1176610506255171584?s=21

Mark my words: So many babies are gonna be born on June 30, 2020.

And Nancy will be a top ten baby name.

YAS KWEEN
---

if only the Enter key just instantly submit the post as a tweet it could've been saved
---

God I'd love if Trump's base really rose up against the government because of this like they keep saying now and have been saying. Cull those ****s. Have the government shoot someone that deserves it for a change.

---

wait the implication is that TODAY is the day that everyone's gonna get their fuck on? like, it's just a push for an impeachment hearing, they haven't even reached the number they need, chill out

Yes, the primary benefit of the impeachment proceedings to me is about sending a message that Trump's behavior is not okay. It highlights to the general public that we feel this is an important issue and why we feel it is important. It also serves as a deterrent to Trump and Trump-like leaders by showing them that concrete action will be taken against them if they go too far--that their actions will not go unchallenged. Those are real things that are worth celebrating.
---

I don't think Pelosi would make such an announcement if she didn't know she had the votes at the end of it, even if the publicly declared support is still about 35 members short. Though as I pointed out, yeah, this is still going to be a long process.

If we look at the Clinton Impeachment timeline - which as I discussed in a historical aside many topics ago should not be viewed as an appropriate analog here for numerous reasons, then impeachment proceedings were initiated on October 8th but the actual impeachment vote wasn't until December 19th. The trial in the Senate began in January and the acquittal was on February 12th.

So if we take Pelosi's statement here as the initiation of proceedings (which Republicans are arguing it isn't!) then you wouldn't be seeing an actual impeachment vote until 12/7 and the trial ending in late January (we're literally two weeks removed from the day in this timeline if you just want to plot it out with dates)

However, this is a bad comparison that I'm only using to show what should probably be considered the most expedited version. In the Clinton impeachment, the House Republicans conducted no investigation into Clinton (instead using the Starr Report which they received in September.) The Democrats here are obviously investigating because they're going to want at minimum the whistleblower report and a hearing, closed or otherwise, with the whistleblower. Things they'll get unless things swerve again, but still. Plus, Pelosi instructed 6 committee heads to consolidate what they have and submit it to Judiciary so it's very possible that the substance of these hypothetical articles of impeachment aren't just limited to Ukraine but include, for example, the emoluments stuff and more.

If you use the Nixon impeachment timeline, which I personally feel is the better fit, then House Judiciary had set-up impeachment inquiry staff on October 30th, the full House vote further empowering Judiciary was February 6th, and obviously Nixon resigned before the House ever got to its impeachment vote but Judiciary approved 3 articles for submission to the full House in late July and Nixon resigned on August 9th.

On this timeline, buckle up, depending on where you put today placing us (Oct 30 or Feb 6) then we might not see the actual impeachment vote in the full House until late March 2020 or even July 2020 (Republican National Convention is end of August!)
---

Wait, Politico has the number of Democrats supporting impeachment or an impeachment inquiry at 202. jesus i thought the number was like 179 as of about noon. If they're already over 200 publicly, Pelosi could 100% whip the rest for an inquiry if she doesn't already have them off the record lol.
---

208 is the number at the moment actually.
---

Dont wanna be the last one on the impeachment train Id guess

(...unless youre Tulsi??)
---

as the number grows it's gonna be sweeter and sweeter to watch tulsi get blasted on it in the next debate
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

wait the implication is that TODAY is the day that everyone's gonna get their fuck on? like, it's just a push for an impeachment hearing, they haven't even reached the number they need, chill out

https://twitter.com/thefaksweetmacs/status/1176663170741612545?s=21

doing it raw tonight 4 pelosi

---

Pretty damning WaPo:

https://twitter.com/fahrenthold/status/1176663959321153536?s=21
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Pretty damning WaPo:

https://twitter.com/fahrenthold/status/1176663959321153536?s=21

time person of the year 2001 picture goes here
---

Rich network executives are framing Bernie and Warren rich tax as effecting "x number of families".

Those poor multi millionaire and billionaire families might have to be 1% poorer at the end of every year oh no.

Wealth taxes are almost certainly unconstitutional and also dead on arrival in the Senate.
---

Tulsi is setting this up very nicely for a 2024 run. After the Dems impeach and go down in a smoking ruin, Tulsi will be able to say "I told you so."
---

Bernies apparently going up to 8%...

Anyway, the dumb thing about wealth taxes is that they tax the same money every year and wealth is hard to assess. Much simpler and fairer to just have a large (~50%) inheritance tax, which iirc would raise a similar amount of money.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Bernies apparently going up to 8%...

92% of any number in the billions is plenty to live comfortably with for a long time.

Leafeon13N posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Bernies apparently going up to 8%...

92% of any number in the billions is plenty to live comfortably with for a long time.

Its not 92% though, because its every year on the same money.

I dont have a problem with taxing rich people a ton, I just think it should be a fixed amount.
---

obviously we should just appeal to republicans who miss the "good old days" of the fictionalized, idealized 50s and return the highest marginal tax rate to 92% as it was back then
---

red sox (or anyone) what is your basis for the claim that attempting impeachment will be politically disastrous for the Democrats?
---

I'm not them - and I don't think red sox would make this argument necessarily given the statements he was making in response to my post yesterday about laying out the devil's advocate argument against impeachment - but I think much of it, particularly among politicians themselves is because the Clinton impeachment backfired politically and somehow they just assume that must mean any impeachment attempt is bad politically. It was a formative/major moment for many of them, especially in leadership positions since the age of Congress skews quite high.

Which ignores the comedy of incompetence that was the Clinton impeachment and the unique scenario around it which is totally not in play here. I've always stated that Nixon is the comparison point you want. I mean, the outcome is unlikely to be the same and I genuinely feel that if Nixon and Watergate happened in this era of Fox that Nixon may well have been able to survive it but in terms of political effects I still think that's the best comparison point we've got here.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its not 92% though, because its every year on the same money.

... and? yes that's the entire point, every year on the same money being hoarded and not making any returns

just having that money allows them to make even more money that people without wealth cannot, hence the problem of cyclically stockpiling wealth
---

I disagree that there's an inherent problem with there existing people with huge amounts of wealth. I think the point of taxes is to get money to fund stuff and that rich people could easily afford to pay more. But if you're starting with the notion that taking away money from rich people is an end of its own, we're not on the same page.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its not 92% though, because its every year on the same money.

I dont have a problem with taxing rich people a ton, I just think it should be a fixed amount.

Nothing is stopping them from making more money.

And if they dont make money it is a smaller amount of money every year.

That "same money" is also earning interest every damn year.
---

I'll never understand how someone can grasp the concept of ultra-millionaire wealth and think it's no big deal to have that much money

it's not that "taking money away from rich people is an end on its own", it's that they have exorbitant amounts of wealth that's continually and cyclically skyrocketing for themselves while the rest of the population stays fucked where they are because they don't have those means and they have to use up everything they got just to survive

Leafeon13N posted...

Nothing is stopping them from making more money.

And if they dont make money it is a smaller amount of money every year.

not to mention if they wanna sit on their ass with that money for a number of years, it'll be a smaller amount of money by a smaller amount of money every year

it's depressing that I feel the need to explain an asymptote
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I still don't get why the left is celebrating this. The man is still going to be president, will still appoint judges (and maybe even a SCOTUS justice), and if anything will just abandon any bipartisan legislation like gun control. There is no practical reason to be happy until November 2020 (if Trump is defeated).

all of those things you listed were going to happen regardless and this way we get even more of the fat fuck's twitter tantrums. might as well go with it for the entertainment value alone

xp1337 posted...

if Nixon and Watergate happened in this era of Fox that Nixon may well have been able to survive it

100% agree. But i also think that for some old conservative voters, they feel that Nixon got ripped off and they love trump even more than they loved Nixon
---

Reminder that Fox News was literally founded for the purpose of letting the Republican Party's (then-)future treasonous, criminal scumbags survive what Nixon could not.

Shit company run by legitimately evil scumbags that barely qualify as human beings, and should be hard shut down.

Peace___Frog posted...

100% agree. But i also think that for some old conservative voters, they feel that Nixon got ripped off and they love trump even more than they loved Nixon

It's really a cult at this point. Whatever Trump says, is truth. They worship the man. It's really unhealthy.
---

If the transcript and the whistleblower report are as tame as Trump is making them appear to be (not that I believe him), this will be an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If the transcript and the whistleblower report are as tame as Trump is making them appear to be (not that I believe him), this will be an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General literally called the whistleblower threat credible and urgent.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If the transcript and the whistleblower report are as tame as Trump is making them appear to be (not that I believe him), this will be an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats.

What if they launch the inquiry, find no transgression, and just leave it there?

Surely the inquiry is at least warranted
---

Reg posted...

Reminder that Fox News was literally founded for the purpose of letting the Republican Party's (then-)future treasonous, criminal scumbags survive what Nixon could not.

it's so insane that this sounds like a joke despite being 100% literally true history
---

LMFAO another nothingburger haha

---

Uhhh it seems like it confirms exactly what everyone was claiming
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uhhh it seems like it confirms exactly what everyone was claiming

He asks them if they could find out what happened regarding a corruption issue. He doesn't pressure them. Doesn't tell them he will withhold aid, doesn't pressure them, or anything. He literally says hey can you find out what happened regarding this.

I am sure a president has never in their terms ever asked a foreign leader what happened with something regarding possible corruption ever.

Lmfao. It's totally nothing.

---

Corrik7 posted...

He asks them if they could find out what happened regarding a corruption issue. He doesn't pressure them. Doesn't tell them he will withhold aid, doesn't pressure them, or anything. He literally says hey can you find out what happened regarding this.

If you keep saying that, maybe youll believe it.
---

Ugh. I actually agree with Corrik. That transcript is not damning whatsoever.

Jakyl25 posted...

If you keep saying that, maybe youll believe it.

Sorry. Stick to your Biden did nothing wrong with his bragging about pressuring the Ukraine government to fire a prosecutor trying to investigate his son with threats to withhold aid, while saying a President asking them to clear up what happened in that situation with zero pressure as being a crime.

Hypocrite.

---

colliding posted...

Ugh. I actually agree with Corrik. That transcript is not damning whatsoever.

Well first of all its not even a transcript, the very 1st page says its a memorandum of the transcript and not verbatim. Literally says notes and recollections of officers on duty??

The fuck?
---

pyresword posted...

I do want to emphasize that just the call transcript is not sufficient if the public or Congress never ends up learning the contents of the original whistleblower complaint.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Well first of all its not even a transcript, the very 1st page says its a memorandum of the transcript and not verbatim. Literally says notes and recollections of officers on duty??

The fuck?

Says Full and Unredacted. Fake News then?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ukraine-unredacted-call-transcript-read-ukraine-president-released-by-white-house-today-2019-09-25-live-updates/

---

Next Democrats will try to obtain the transcript from Ukraine, or Wikileaks. The hypocrisy will be complete.
---