Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:45 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:28 am I'm confused, I thought that planning around winning in 2020 was doing nothing and hoping for the best.

Lol, doing nothing and hoping is not planning.

No offense meant, Goo, but I really wish you would stop mischaracterizing the arguments of those like me who disagree with you. No one has said "do nothing and hope". As I have stated previously, I fully support further hearings and investigations into Trump, his conduct before and after becoming president. Lay it all out for the public - you don't need impeachment to do that. Provide all the evidence and arguments for the fact that Trump is corrupt and unfit to be president. But actual process of impeachment is all consuming - it will suck the air out of debate about anything else and will distract from what the Democratic campaign agenda really needs to be.

This article captures some of my thoughts on the issue:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/591652/

Frank echoed that thought. “What Pelosi starts with,” he said, “is, We’re not getting rid of Donald Trump, so what is the effect of a very partisan impeachment? The outcome would be as partisan as it was in the Clinton case, and I think that motivates Nancy … I think Pelosi realizes there are better issues that can dominate” Democrats’ offensive against Trump, such as the economy and health care. She also likely realizes, Frank told me, “that impeachment will be a problem for Democratic candidates—not everywhere, but in districts that are in the middle.”

This is my fear:

1) Impeachment will distract from other better policy oriented arguments that the Democrats can make
2) Impeachment will be seen as partisan and will come to characterize the Democrats in the next election
3) Impeachment will encourage Trump supporters, who already have a big chip on their shoulder, to come out and vote for him - they love feeling persecuted, remember Hillary's "deplorables' remark?
4) Trump won't be convicted, he'll claim vindication, and significant numbers of the low information public will largely accept it

Disagree with the above - fine. Just don't attribute false arguments to those that disagree with you.

If Trump were impeached by the House and then tried and acquitted in the Senate, could he subsequently be prosecuted for the same crimes in the courts after he leaves office? Or would that constitute double jeopardy? Because if a Senate acquittal gets him off scot-free, then that settles the question for me.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:26 pm If Trump were impeached by the House and then tried and acquitted in the Senate, could he subsequently be prosecuted for the same crimes in the courts after he leaves office? Or would that constitute double jeopardy? Because if a Senate acquittal gets him off scot-free, then that settles the question for me.

It's the same outcome even if he is impeached and removed, since Pence will pardon him in this case.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:26 pm If Trump were impeached by the House and then tried and acquitted in the Senate, could he subsequently be prosecuted for the same crimes in the courts after he leaves office? Or would that constitute double jeopardy? Because if a Senate acquittal gets him off scot-free, then that settles the question for me.

I would not be double jeopardy.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:26 pm If Trump were impeached by the House and then tried and acquitted in the Senate, could he subsequently be prosecuted for the same crimes in the courts after he leaves office? Or would that constitute double jeopardy? Because if a Senate acquittal gets him off scot-free, then that settles the question for me.

Impeachment is a political process, and so far as I know neither acquittal nor conviction by the Senate would preclude criminal prosecution.
(Citation: Randomly selected internet article.)

Pelosi told Jimmy Kimmel that Trump “knows it’s not a good idea to be impeached, but the silver lining for him is, then he believes that he would be exonerated by the United States Senate, and there’s a school of thought that says, if the Senate acquits you, why bring up charges against him in the private sector when he’s no longer president?”

“So when we go through with our case, it’s got to be ironclad,” she said.

Attorney Ross Garber, a legal analyst for CNN and an impeachment expert, told Law&Crime that, if Pelosi meant what was implied, she’s wrong:

“Speaker Pelosi seemed to imply that if the House were to impeach a President and the Senate were to fail to convict, it could impair a future criminal prosecution. One has nothing to do with the other. The impeachment process is within the Legislative Branch,” Garber said. “The criminal process is handled by the Executive and Judicial branches. A person can be impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate and still be prosecuted criminally.”

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:42 pm

Remus West wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:09 pm You'll have to remind me because I' sure I'll forget.

Me too. We'll have to rely on Isgrim, probably.

Bet's off if he wins. God help my couch because Remus is moving in.

FTFY

Oh good, we're back to "flag burning should be a crime" now.





Forced patriotism is best patriotism!

Yes, Donnie, those two consequences are roughly comparable.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:26 pm If Trump were impeached by the House and then tried and acquitted in the Senate, could he subsequently be prosecuted for the same crimes in the courts after he leaves office? Or would that constitute double jeopardy? Because if a Senate acquittal gets him off scot-free, then that settles the question for me.

Impeachment is not a criminal process so there is no double jeopardy.

Grifman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:18 pmImpeachment is not a criminal process so there is no double jeopardy.

It's also apparently illegal. Who knew?

President Truck Nutz wrote:Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “I think we have a very real risk of losing the Presidency to Donald Trump.” I agree, and that is the only reason they play the impeach card, which cannot be legally used!

Also, Trump is dripping hints on Twitter again that if he wins in 2020, he might not leave after the 2024 election...

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:18 pm Trump is now having a tantrum about the NY Times story calling it treason...and untrue. Fucking clown.

"It's treason! Also, it never happened!"

pr0ner wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:38 pm Also, Trump is dripping hints on Twitter again that if he wins in 2020, he might not leave after the 2024 election...

What is he talking "at the end of 6 years?" Halfway through a second term he's going to shut those papers down? Or is he talking about 6 years from now? I guess 6 years from now since he talks about staying longer.


Also "enemies of the people" is a term Nazis used to describe Jews and Soviet used to describe just about everyone they didn't like. The Ibsen play was about a whistle blower. The French revolutionaries used it for those they would execute. I'm getting dog whistle here.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:24 am Also "enemies of the people" is a term Nazis used to describe Jews and Soviet used to describe just about everyone they didn't like. The Ibsen play was about a whistle blower. The French revolutionaries used it for those they would execute. I'm getting dog whistle here.

The mouthpiece for republican voters constantly saying "enemy of the people" which has always been conservative slam on commies has been bone chilling from the day POtuS became an elected office for King George. Conservative obsession to control the conversation through controlling the language is pretty terrifying with the way he throws that phrase around.

Again, it's the sort of thing that needs to be pointed on repeat, even more often than he says it, which is also on repeat as it his compliment to the declaration of fake news.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:12 am

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:18 pm Trump is now having a tantrum about the NY Times story calling it treason...and untrue. Fucking clown.

"It's treason! Also, it never happened!"

Well, if people are in the loop regarding classified operations against Russia, and they're talking about it to NYT reporters, it does smell a little treasonous. Using the press to disclose these operations to the Russians and Trump (if we charitably presume that they aren't one and the same) does not seem to be in the nation's best interests.

(Note to self: Treason. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.)

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:54 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:12 am

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2019 9:18 pm Trump is now having a tantrum about the NY Times story calling it treason...and untrue. Fucking clown.

"It's treason! Also, it never happened!"

Well, if people are in the loop regarding classified operations against Russia, and they're talking about it to NYT reporters, it does smell a little treasonous. Using the press to disclose these operations to the Russians and Trump (if we charitably presume that they aren't one and the same) does not seem to be in the nation's best interests.

It is very difficult to the determine the ultimate source of a hacking operation. If the US wanted to get the word out to the Russians that, yes, we were hacking them as a warning, a leak to the press that can be officially denied if a way to do it. There' are things such as deliberate strategic leaks. I suspect this was one of them, hence no "treason" here.

This is pretty common, right?

Trump on demoting Fed Chair Jerome Powell, day before rate decision: ‘Let’s see what he does’

President Donald Trump, asked if he still wants to demote Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, told reporters Tuesday, “Let’s see what he does.”

Bloomberg News reported Tuesday morning that the White House had looked into demoting Powell in February. Top White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters that the Trump administration was not currently considering such a move.

Trump’s remark came a day before the Fed was set to announce its next decision on interest rates.

Trump pulled out his "both sides" remark again today when asked if he'll ever apologize about the Central Park 5.

MAGA is totally sane and reasonable and Democrats should be working extra hard to win them over to our candidates.

3 years later and I cant decide if Trump is a dictator or a cult leader.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:30 pm

MAGA is totally sane and reasonable and Democrats should be working extra hard to win them over to our candidates.

We're never going to win insane people over, for sure. I keep leaning toward voting for primary candidates that can excite the base and pick up a few independents. Warren is looking pretty good on that score right now. Biden just doesn't have that fighting spirit, I don't think.

gbasden wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:49 am We're never going to win insane people over, for sure. I keep leaning toward voting for primary candidates that can excite the base and pick up a few independents. Warren is looking pretty good on that score right now. Biden just doesn't have that fighting spirit, I don't think.

I think it's just the opposite.

I'm not a great fan of Biden's 2020 run, but he is THE most palatable and popular Democrat with most of the party, and he's the one most likely to pull a portion of white working-class voters away from Trump. Warren is a smart and sharp and wonky intellectual woman, and (sad as it is to admit it) that's a risky position in American politics.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:00 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:49 am We're never going to win insane people over, for sure. I keep leaning toward voting for primary candidates that can excite the base and pick up a few independents. Warren is looking pretty good on that score right now. Biden just doesn't have that fighting spirit, I don't think.

I think it's just the opposite.

I'm not a great fan of Biden's 2020 run, but he is THE most palatable and popular Democrat with most of the party, and he's the one most likely to pull a portion of white working-class voters away from Trump. Warren is a smart and sharp and wonky intellectual woman, and (sad as it is to admit it) that's a risky position in American politics.

Yeah, hate to say it but running a woman against a man in the Presidential race starts you out at a big disadvantage. It sucks but I don't think Trump is the hill to make that stand on.

I also don't think Biden is a great candidate. I'd say I don't think he'd make a great president either but in this timeline "not great" is totally acceptable. He'll, I'd take sub-par.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:00 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:49 am We're never going to win insane people over, for sure. I keep leaning toward voting for primary candidates that can excite the base and pick up a few independents. Warren is looking pretty good on that score right now. Biden just doesn't have that fighting spirit, I don't think.

I think it's just the opposite.

I'm not a great fan of Biden's 2020 run, but he is THE most palatable and popular Democrat with most of the party, and he's the one most likely to pull a portion of white working-class voters away from Trump. Warren is a smart and sharp and wonky intellectual woman, and (sad as it is to admit it) that's a risky position in American politics.

Yeah, I mean for as much mockery as Clinton got over her "basket of deplorables" comment, she was basically right, in that her point was that Trump supporters include a portion of hardcore irredeemable "deplorables" who they're never going to win over. But at the same time there's a non-trivial group who are more passive supporters because they heard he'll help restore factory jobs or whatnot. Doesn't mean you change the whole Democratic platform to win them over, it just means you factor them into your campaigning.

You'd think that those who voted for him because they were promised something would more easily be turned if reminded they did not get that something as promised. But they can't promise to re-open the old shoe factory, they need to promote engaging and practical alternatives to Trumps proposed pipe dreams.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:52 pm You'd think that those who voted for him because they were promised something would more easily be turned if reminded they did not get that something as promised.

It doesn't work that way. That's an argument based on rationality. Trump's remaining followers function on emotion and wishful thinking. They actively reject rationality as a way of understanding.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:00 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:00 am

gbasden wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:49 am We're never going to win insane people over, for sure. I keep leaning toward voting for primary candidates that can excite the base and pick up a few independents. Warren is looking pretty good on that score right now. Biden just doesn't have that fighting spirit, I don't think.

I think it's just the opposite.

I'm not a great fan of Biden's 2020 run, but he is THE most palatable and popular Democrat with most of the party, and he's the one most likely to pull a portion of white working-class voters away from Trump. Warren is a smart and sharp and wonky intellectual woman, and (sad as it is to admit it) that's a risky position in American politics.

Yeah, hate to say it but running a woman against a man in the Presidential race starts you out at a big disadvantage. It sucks but I don't think Trump is the hill to make that stand on.

I also don't think Biden is a great candidate. I'd say I don't think he'd make a great president either but in this timeline "not great" is totally acceptable. He'll, I'd take sub-par.

If we must back a white male centrist, I'll take Mayor Pete, please.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:46 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:52 pm You'd think that those who voted for him because they were promised something would more easily be turned if reminded they did not get that something as promised.

It doesn't work that way. That's an argument based on rationality. Trump's remaining followers function on emotion and wishful thinking. They actively reject rationality as a way of understanding.

In this case, we aren't talking about the typical blockhead, we're talking fence-sitters who bought into one of his many failed promises. Many of those have already consciously jumped ship.

The Democrats also should target groups that would normally be part of the elephant base but got fucked over big time, such as farmers.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:52 pm You'd think that those who voted for him because they were promised something would more easily be turned if reminded they did not get that something as promised. But they can't promise to re-open the old shoe factory, they need to promote engaging and practical alternatives to Trumps proposed pipe dreams.

Dont bet on it. Saw one of those huge farm farmers who were hit hard by Trumps actions and was about to lose everything and he said he voted right and would vote for him again. Some people just wont change.

People don't like to admit they're wrong. And voting for a guy who fucked you over is the ultimate admittance that you screwed up.

I'm torn on the Biden/Warren thing. I desperately want a woman in office, but I feel that Trump is going to eat her alive. He's already proven he can out play her with the whole Pocahontas debacle. He'd have a much tougher time against Biden who can probably match him tit for tat with zingy one-liners.

Daehawk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:02 pm Some people just wont change.

Didn't say all, but some are pretty pissed and feel betrayed. Beto was interviewing a number of them in a column he wrote a few weeks ago.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:34 pm

I'm torn on the Biden/Warren thing. I desperately want a woman in office, but I feel that Trump is going to eat her alive. He's already proven he can out play her with the whole Pocahontas debacle. He'd have a much tougher time against Biden who can probably match him tit for tat with zingy one-liners.

You're right but the fact that this how America picks our candidates is so depressing.

t's not just admitting they were wrong about a candidate. The people here weren't just wrong about an idea or opinion, they've built their entire identities around Trump for the past four years. They *are* his Presidency. In their minds, if Trump is wrong, then their whole identity is a lie. Then who are they?

People don't just get stubborn in that situation, they dig in an won't budge.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:34 pm People don't like to admit they're wrong. And voting for a guy who fucked you over is the ultimate admittance that you screwed up.

I'm torn on the Biden/Warren thing. I desperately want a woman in office, but I feel that Trump is going to eat her alive. He's already proven he can out play her with the whole Pocahontas debacle. He'd have a much tougher time against Biden who can probably match him tit for tat with zingy one-liners.

Given that the #1 complaint about Trump among his supporters and sympathizers is his personality, drawing out his worst tendencies could work in Warren's favor. She's proven to be a very good campaigner over the past few months and "Warren's got a plan for that" is getting good traction, as the latest polls show. I doubt that she'll blunder into the Pocahontas trap again.

Nobody on the D side has a rockstar, cult-leader personality that can rival Trump, so they would be foolish to sink to his level. (Beto briefly looked like he might have that juice, but it faded quickly.) Dems must run on policy, integrity, decency, authenticity, diplomacy, competence, and all of the many other virtues that Trump lacks. Warren checks all of those boxes while simultaneously acknowledging that being the Antitrump isn't enough. There's no doubt in my mind that she is the best-qualified candidate...not that that necessarily wins elections, in itself, but if she can win over the Bernie Bros -- watch out.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:05 pm I doubt that she'll blunder into the Pocahontas trap again.

I'm still not convinced that wasn't a fatal mistake. When the opponent is someone who only knows the ad hominem debate strategy, one does not make themselves an easy target for ridicule.

Nobody on the D side has a rockstar, cult-leader personality that can rival Trump, so they would be foolish to sink to his level. (Beto briefly looked like he might have that juice, but it faded quickly.)

I think they have some that could be. Bill Clinton was pretty unknown at this point during his first presidential campaign -- it really is quite early and candidates will be busy creating campaign infrastructure and building their platforms. While I'm not sure it's meaningful, there are advertisements for at least 4 different candidates appearing on my FB news feed requesting feedback on issues I find important. I have no way of knowing if these requests are legitimate, and by default I assume not. But if it is, it seems they are still fishing to round out their platforms.

Its a little sad that I keep forgetting Trump has a Vice President.

Daehawk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:12 pm Its a little sad that I keep forgetting Trump has a Vice President.

Well, to be fair, he probably has more more vices than every Vice Presidents combined.

Pence won't be around for 2020. Trump/Graham. Trump/McConnell.

Pence has been a fawning sycophant, and (AFAIK) evangelicals still love him. Why would Trump pluck one of his Senators instead? McConnell in particular is exactly where Trump needs him to be, and one of the two most powerful men in America.

But I still think Pence is going to be the nominee after Trump drops dead.