Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I honestly don't know if inevitably failing an unwinnable impeachment proceeding is worse than never impeaching at all. When the A-Plan was "Don't impeach, but investigate thoroughly", I was onboard.
But now that we're refusing to hold Trump cronies accountable for blatant obstruction, I just can't defend this course anymore. I understand that going after Trump and not going after Trump are both very complicated issues with a lot of pros and cons to weigh.
But there's no excuse for not going after Barr. Barr stood up, thumped his chest, and said Like You Would Really Do It. And House Democrats backed down and admitted they wouldn't really do it.
At this point, the investigation's pretty much over. Trump's declared an unprecedented amount of obstruction and Democrats are too intimidated by the scope of it to push back. Until our legislators find the nerve to actually step up to the plate and fight, the Russia Probe is dead.
What was even the point of the last two years of investigating if nobody's willing to do anything with the collected evidence? Trump owned Washington for the last two years for lack of Democrats in power. Now he owns Washington despite them.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 14th 2019 at 2:24:32 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That's what they're saying, yeah. More delays. More stalling. More playing for time in hopes that Trump doesn't actually make them do it.
They're also downgrading the "it" in question. The plan is now to just charge a couple fines instead of making any arrests.
Barr placed his bets on the fact that Congress wouldn't have the nerve to actually place him under arrest, and it's looking more and more like he's absolutely right.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 14th 2019 at 2:28:43 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I don’t think any Dem politicians ever talked about arresting Barr, it was always either just a telling off or fines, the arresting thing I think came purely from online groups who want to see someone arrested for the coverup.
I’m not even aware of the more leftist firebrands like Warren or AOC calling for Barr to be arrested.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranA telling off. Ugh.
Am I missing something here? Because right now, it's looking like the chain of events is
- Barr obstructs justice.
- Congress gives him a minor slap on the wrist that doesn't actually carry an ability to remove his obstruction.
- Justice remains obstructed in perpetuity. Trump wins. The end.
That's what it looks like, because a fine is not coercive. An arrest is coercive. A fine is a business transaction for breaking the law. It's the cost of purchasing a violation.
FUN FACT: You're actually free to drive 90 mph in a 35 mph zone so long as you can afford the fines.
If all we do is fine Barr, then that's just the cost of purchasing an obstruction. Trump and his people will gladly pay fines for law-breaking all damn day if it lets them buy some sweet violations.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 14th 2019 at 2:51:14 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.In fairness, the "stalling" could also be to get more Democrats on-board internally, so they don't wind up bringing it to the floor and have members of their own party vote against it because they fear the political backlash.
Alternatively, it could be in the hopes that the public will get more on-board with it as they see what Trump does in response to the threat of it.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
What, severe spending violations don't stack up enough strikes that eventually get your license taken away?
I remember an article (on 538 IIRC) taking about how voters (from 2018, and going into 2020) as a whole don't give a damn about the investigation into Trump. It is one of their lowest priorities; people care about almost every other major national issue more.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.To elaborate on the fines thing: Picture a game of Tic-Tac-Toe. Imagine these are the rules.
- On each player's turn, they can play their symbol in any space on the board.
- A player may only play their symbol once per turn.
- If a player plays their symbol twice, they are penalized. The penalty is that the other player may play their symbol three times on their turn.
So, the rules say that you can't play your symbol twice, then. Right?
Wrong. You can if you're willing to take a penalty. Now, we're all clever people here, So I think the flaw in this simple system is immediately obvious. If you play two symbols and win the game, then the penalty for violating the second rule is a meaningless token gesture.
This makes violating the second rule a legitimate way to play. In fact, it's the optimal way to play. So long as you can get away with it, there's no motivation to actually follow the second rule. Every high-level player will end their game on a double-play.
That's how fines work. If you can afford to pay them, you can incur the penalty to your heart's content. It's not that it doesn't mean anything; it's that paying it is a legitimate strategic choice. Trump's built his whole career as a con artist "businessman" by breaking rules, incurring penalties, and then just paying them off - often for less than the cost of following the rules.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 14th 2019 at 3:02:19 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of it. (I'm not a fan of the "only one motive" thing, since most people do in fact have multiple reasons for doing any particular thing.)
The longer you drag something like this out, the more you see people get on board with one side or the other. Repeated negative press coverage does have an effect on public opinion.
You have the right to disagree with their decision but to call it legislative cowardice just demonstrates willful ignorance on the nature of impeachment.
Repeat it with me, impeachment is a political act. Going in half-cocked is worse than not going in at all, and there is no world in which launching impeachment proceedings before we have the full report is possibly a good idea.
If you think impeachment is worth it? Fine, I don't find those arguments convincing but I can at least respect them. But if you seriously think it's a good idea to attempt impeachment before we have the report then you are putting emotions over necessary strategy.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 14th 2019 at 2:05:00 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangI'm going to repeat that unless we somehow get rid of Mitch Mc Connell (or somehow miraculously change his mind) in the next year and a half impeachment plain just won't happen. The House can indict, but he's the one that decide if impeachment proceedings... proceed. So like... with one of the most successful obstructionists in power right now what good do you think it would do? This wouldn't even be a failed attempt, it'd be a stillborn before it got out of the House. Are we going to just ignore that reality? If you can't figure out how to maneuver around the guy who decides what comes to a vote in the Senate, you're kind of fucked.
Edited by AceofSpades on May 14th 2019 at 4:14:03 AM
Can he be indicted on charges of mass murder, conspiracy to commit mass murder, and corruption?
Note that this ultimately did not mean he won the game:
Tax figures show Trump business losses of $1.17 billion over 10 years, report says
.
Except, no, you're totally right; The logic here is as convoluted as you’d expect for a 30-year-old tax hack—just read the piece—but the point is that Trump didn’t really lose a billion dollars. He lost a lot of other people’s money, then claimed that loss as his own to avoid paying taxes.
What a piece of shit human being.
Edited by Oruka on May 14th 2019 at 2:36:12 AM
Tax figures show Trump business losses of $1.17 billion over 10 years, report says.
Except, no, you're totally right; The logic here is as convoluted as you’d expect for a 30-year-old tax hack—just read the piece—but the point is that Trump didn’t really lose a billion dollars. He lost a lot of other people’s money, then claimed that loss as his own to avoid paying taxes.
What a piece of shit human being.
Exactly.
And now he's President of the United States. I'd say he's won the game about as hard as it is humanly possible to win it. All by finding the right cheats where he could just purchase rule violations and walk away holding the prize.
That is how Trump operates.
Repeat it with me, impeachment is a political act. Going in half-cocked is worse than not going in at all, and there is no world in which launching impeachment proceedings before we have the full report is possibly a good idea.
If you think impeachment is worth it? Fine, I don't find those arguments convincing but I can at least respect them. But if you seriously think it's a good idea to attempt impeachment before we have the report then you are putting emotions over necessary strategy.
I actually agree with you on this. I fully agree with the logic that impeachment is a guaranteed failure.
What I don't agree with is our legislators' unwillingness to admit that the reason we're not pushing for impeachment is because Mitch McConnell will never let it stand. They shouldn't be saying, "We want to get our ducks in a row." They should be saying, "The Republicans have so thoroughly usurped the checks and balances in our country that impeachment has been eliminated as a course of action. Not by us, but by them."
That is the message they need to be sending Americans. Not this wishy-washy, "MAAAAAYBE if we investigate just right, but not right now, I don't think. Now's not a good season for it!" junk.
The narrative coming out of Washington is that Democrats are choosing not to impeach Trump. It should be that Democrats cannot impeach Trump on account of Republican obstruction.
And they should be tangibly pushing back by arresting obstructionists such as William Barr and Steve Mnuchin for contempt of Congress. If we want people to feel inspired to vote in 2020 then those people need to see action. Letting Trump win everything just makes our party look ineffectual.
Trump is a bully. His first, last, and only recourse is to walk into the room, slap his dick on the table, and then give everyone a fierce stare. Daring them to tell him no. Asking them, "What are you going to do about it? Huh?"
If we can't answer that, if we can't make him take his dick off the table, then we've lost.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 14th 2019 at 4:05:10 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I actually agree with you on this. I fully agree with the logic that impeachment is a guaranteed failure.
What I don't agree with is our legislators' unwillingness to admit that the reason we're not pushing for impeachment is because Mitch Mc Connell will never let it stand. They shouldn't be saying, "We want to get our ducks in a row." They should be saying, "The Republicans have so thoroughly usurped the checks and balances in our country that impeachment has been eliminated as a course of action. Not by us, but by them."
That is the message they need to be sending Americans. Not this wishy-washy, "MAAAAAYBE if we investigate just right, but not right now, I don't think. Now's not a good season for it!" junk.
The narrative coming out of Washington is that Democrats are choosing not to impeach Trump. It should be that Democrats cannot impeach Trump on account of Republican obstruction.
And they should be tangibly pushing back by arresting obstructionists such as William Barr and Steve Mnuchin for contempt of Congress.
Right, that's not an unreasonable position.
But the thing is, the reason they're being unclear about it is that they're intentionally not ruling out impeachment. Rather than immediately going for it (which could backfire) they're waiting to see what comes up and then deciding whether impeachment is worth it.
It may not allow them to pin it on Republicans but it allows impeachment to remain on the table and makes it seem more reasonable to the apathetic/ignorant portions of the public by acting as if they're waiting for sufficient evidence. Thus potentially supporting future impeachment.
So I really don't think their refusal to hold a strong position on it is being wishy-washy, it's a strategy that allows them to choose which direction they can go in the future.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 14th 2019 at 3:06:42 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThat's just kicking a can down the road. There's going to have to come a time when they come forward and go, "Hey. Impeachment ain't gonna happen." The longer they keep people on the hook, the more angry and disappointed those people will be when they have to own up to the fact that they've been bullshitting the American public.
You can't keep kicking that can down the road forever. Better to rip that band-aid off now than to wait for people to come to their own conclusions. "Hey, it's August 2020 and they're STILL saying MAYBE IMPEACHMENT? Democrats are full of shit! Why do I vote for these ineffectual liars?"
Let's not turn the illusion of resistance into a November Surprise against ourselves. Democrats need to spend these two years being tough and taking real actions against Trump. Take impeachment off the table, stop talking about it in interviews, but keep pushing the investigations and f*cking arrest Barr and Mnuchin.
Edited by TobiasDrake on May 14th 2019 at 4:10:07 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Fine, impeachment is off the table.
What about everyone else?
Barr is a criminal and so are so many others.
Arrest them.
It's not like they aren't breaking the law. What do we need to do to get people actually held accountable?
Again, this is not grade school.
A scolding is not what you to do to criminals!
(And I'm done with the continued defense this is all some sort of master plan—is there any evidence of that?)
NOT IMPEACHING is a political act.
You realize that, right?
It's not a defense as refusing to report a crime is accessory after the fact. The fact people say that it's political like its some sort of defense is ridiculous as it's a criminal matter and it's always going to be political because they're all politicians and it's a government issue. Everything they do and NOT DO is political.
But this isn't about Trump, it's about Barr and Trump's cronies.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on May 14th 2019 at 3:15:48 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.But they aren't bulshitting the American public, Pelosi has been clear that she doesn't consider impeachment worth it at this juncture. If some information comes up that changes things then she can honestly say that while she was opposed to it before it's become clear that impeachment is necessary.
Are there risks to it? Sure, but every strategy has risks. I don't see any reason to believe that this one is excessively risky.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 14th 2019 at 3:16:05 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAre there risks to it? Sure, but every strategy has risks. I don't see any reason to believe that this one is excessively risky.
And because of it, she is now complicit in all of Trump's crimes.
Nadler is complicit in all of Barr's future crimes if he doesn't prosecute.
How would we feel if someone refused to prosecute the KKK because they were afraid of losing Southern votes?
Edited by CharlesPhipps on May 14th 2019 at 3:17:09 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Republicans were all about impeaching Obama over a tan suit. It seemed to have worked out pretty well for them.
Perhaps, even if the end result won't be a complete victory, it would be nice to see your preferred political party actively standing up for the right thing and doing what they can do get the laws that are in place enforced. It would, at the very least, energise the base. This is important, since the democratic base often has a hard time going to the voting booth, so some extra motivation goes a long way.
Oh, there's a plan. I have a strong hunch about that.
I'm about 80% convinced that the plan is to stall for time until 2020. Make noise but don't make waves. Create the illusion of resistance without actually pushing back hard enough to actually turn into a fight.
Just buy time until the primaries begin in earnest. Then they can finally drop the Trump-Russia thing and say to the American public, "Sorry, but it's an election year. It'd be a waste of time trying to investigate this now. At this point, the only meaningful action we can take is to vote Democrat!"
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.And this was idiotic nonsense the first time it was said too.
Pelosi is investigating Trump, she alongside the other Democrats have opposed him strongly. Most dramatically in the shutdown which everyone has forgotten.
Just because she isn't doing exactly what you want does not mean that she's complicit. And especially not because she isn't taking an action that has zero chance of actually stopping Trump from doing anything.
They didn't actually try to impeach him, this is a disingenuous comparison.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 14th 2019 at 3:21:08 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

So the question is are they getting what they wanted?
Also, from last page, yesterday and today's What the Fuck Just Happened Today? feeds
Edited by sgamer82 on May 14th 2019 at 2:17:02 AM