Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Crysta said:

as this impeachment trial unfolds exactly as you think it will, keep in mind the real jury shows up in 2022

Meh. The republicans are going to gerrymander their way into ~6 house seats, and flip the house. That's even without factoring in the ruling party usually losing seats in the midterms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

The republicans are going to gerrymander their way into ~6 house seats, and flip the house.

Is this taking in to account the reports of tens of thousands of voters switching their voter registrations away from the Republican Party, because of how toxic Trump is?

Edited by NinjaMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Is this taking in to account the reports of tens of thousands of voters switching their voter registrations away from the Republican Party, because of how toxic Trump is?

It's doing their best to ensure those votes don't keep the district blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Is this taking in to account the reports of tens of thousands of voters switching their voter registrations away from the Republican Party, because of how toxic Trump is?

When was this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Trump’s defense team is artificially lengthening their argument with this hour long compilation of Democratic politicians using the word fight. Without actually making a point. Don’t give me false hope for a conviction, guys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sooks said:

....Trump’s defense team is artificially lengthening their argument with this hour long compilation of Democratic politicians using the word fight. Without actually making a point. Don’t give me false hope for a conviction, guys...

And they already stated they wouldn't use their full 16 hours.

At this point, this is more to have it on record, to avoid/stablish precedent, to still reach out to whoever might still be willing to listen. Any real hope is gonna come from the state charges, if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Sooks said:

....Trump’s defense team is artificially lengthening their argument with this hour long compilation of Democratic politicians using the word fight. Without actually making a point. Don’t give me false hope for a conviction, guys...

Conviction? Don't even think of it happening, although it would be a delightful miracle if it did. What you should expect is the Trumpist Senators like Cruz and Graham to scheme with Trump's lawyers to make Trump seem like a Martyr being taken down by the Satanic worshipping Democrats. Republicans can grandstand and pretend that they will be "impartial" jurors but at the end of the day, you'll be hard pressed to find enough Republicans to vote to convict as it is political suicide with their base. I would only consider the possibility of a conviction happening in this case if a few Republican Senators had actually died as a result of January 6's events.

If any of them are starting to feel horrified at what folks in their base are doing, they SHOULD feel the horror and reap what they've sowed with the Southern Strategy. The substance of the arguments is irrelevant as far as the votes is concerned, what they're really trying to do is mitigate the speed of their party's decline, hold on to power and save their asses from the cultists they have no control over.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Conviction? Don't even think of it happening, although it would be a delightful miracle if it did.

Unfortunately I agree.

I would love for the impeachment managers’ argument to get through to seventeen of them, but I think it’s highly unlikely.

Sometimes, however, an argument is so bad that you can’t help but feel a little hopeful... that faded away though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not political buff which why I never really post here but is there no consequences for knowingly telling easily disprovable lies? Actually, why is Michael Van Der Veen even there if he has no interest of even answering any questions?

Edited by NegativeExponents-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there isn't.

Impeachment will never again be considered a meaningful check on the president.

For funsies and since everyone I know is doing it on Twitter, my predictions re: Republican votes to convict: Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still another day before the vote, but I am filled with the empty feeling that the violence of that day will be endorsed by the republican party via acquittal. I hope I am wrong, and a message will be sent that violence is not a part of American politics, but I have little hope. Stay safe everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crysta said:

Impeachment will never again be considered a meaningful check on the president.

Certainly true. So... what are the chances to invoke the 14th Amendment then...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, the Founding Fathers specifically specified that violence is a part of American politics. The right to bear arms is so that citizens have the ability to rebel against the government if/when it becomes too corrupt to fufill the contract between the government and the governed. I have a suspicion that they knew it's suicide for unorganized citizens to fight a even semi-functional government with a military, though, so the right to bear arms---the ability to rebel violently---is closer to the right to die. It'll only work if the military of a corrupt government is composed of decent enough people not to slaughter the people who used this last resort.

 

Mind, I don't have strong feelings about either party, mostly because both of them more or less align with my views. I'm basically a capitalist, in that I believe money should determine how much influence a person should have, and both parties more or less act this way. Someone like Bernie Sanders would be one of the rare exceptions, but there's basically no chance someone like him ever gets major influence in America. (It's easier and faster to move to, say, Scandinavia if you didn't want to live in a capitalist political system like America, in my view.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DehNutCase said:

Someone like Bernie Sanders would be one of the rare exceptions, but there's basically no chance someone like him ever gets major influence in America.

Bernie is Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, how is that not "major influence"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

There is still another day before the vote, but I am filled with the empty feeling that the violence of that day will be endorsed by the republican party via acquittal. I hope I am wrong, and a message will be sent that violence is not a part of American politics, but I have little hope. Stay safe everyone.

I don’t think it’s really about the violence, at least to some Republican senators. Trump has, as many put it, a cult like following, even among politicians, so when he says his behavior was appropriate and said the word peaceful like once lol they might think that’s that. But then again I’m not Ted Cruz. Although I doubt I need to be to know how much he cares about the violence... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-breast-milk-impeachment-b1800885.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Bernie is Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, how is that not "major influence"?

He's also one of the most popular senators in terms of approval rating, but I think the very thing that makes him popular is the thing holding him back. My view on U.S. politics is that, of the parts you can influence (that is, ignoring the party based votes that would definitely go one way or the other regardless of all other factors), it's basically about money*, and his integrity means that he doesn't use things like super PACs to raise money for his campaigns.

*For lobbying and ads and stuff.

 

That's mostly about his presidential campaign, though, and as a senator it's more about getting other senators to agree, and I frankly don't see him getting other people on board with his egalitarian policies.

 

I agree he's more influential than an average senator, but if politics is a jar of marbles then a 2x bigger white marble doesn't matter if it's the only white marble in a jar with 100 marbles, 99 of which is black. That is, it's not so much that he's less influential than other senators as the fact that other senators would need less influence to get their policies implemented.

 

Maybe saying he doesn't have major influence was bad phrasing on my part, but I'm not sure how else to put "influential individual hampered by the fact that he's isolated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie has undoubtedly made his "egalitarian policies" more popular and has shifted the conversation surrounding those policies in ways your standard PAC-funded retail politician hasn't and can't. Unlike many of his most fervent followers, he is capable of acknowledging reality and working with the people he's got in his corner even if they may not be as "radical" as he is, because he's aware of what's at stake.

He's fine, and he will influence things.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when was math racist?

 

Because a schools district in Oregon is changing their curriculum to be more inclusive and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. I mean, they expect kids to come with at least two answers because "finding the right one" is offensive or something; where the average math problem is essentially hit or miss.

Edited by Armchair General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Because a schools district in Oregon is changing their curriculum to be more inclusive and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. I mean, they expect kids to come with at least two answers because "finding the right one" is offensive or something; where the average math problem is essentially hit or miss.

Well the article says right there, the district is alleging that being encouraged to find the one and only right answer is linked to white supremacy. A study or something would be nice, but okay. I don’t think they need both answers, just to know that there other answers that would work.

.....they must have just abolished English as a subject from those schools, huh?

19 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Since when was math racist?

Careful with the Tucker Carlson-esque remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to drive the knife further:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html

I keep seeing that witnesses may not be called... again; but this is the sort of stuff that totally needs to be in the official record. Not that it doesn't do enough already just existing.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Just to drive the knife further:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html

I keep seeing that witnesses may not be called... again; but this is the sort of stuff that totally needs to be in the official record. Not that it doesn't do enough already just existing.

Did the media just start reporting on that today? Was it in the trial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sooks said:

Did the media just start reporting on that today? Was it in the trial?

It was revealed after the Senate adjourned for the day.

And I was right, it seems it did at least caused something. The senate voted for witnesses to be called in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html

Welp, there really is no chance now...

I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t the first vote mean that they already settled whether or not the Senate has jurisdiction to hear the case? I feel like that’s just an excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...