• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fall US Elections

For those who didn't get the "We have always been at war with Eastasia" reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

At the start, Oceania and Eastasia are allies combatting Eurasia in northern Africa and the Malabar Coast.

That alliance ends and Oceania allied with Eurasia fights Eastasia, a change which occurred during the Hate Week dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party's perpetual war. The public are blind to the change; in mid-sentence an orator changes the name of the enemy from "Eurasia" to "Eastasia" without pause. When the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed they tear them down—thus the origin of the idiom "We've always been at war with Eastasia"; later the Party claims to have captured Africa.
Click to expand...


After years of screaming for Obama's impeachment, the Right suddenly suffered mass amnesia and is claiming the Left invented the idea that the Right has been calling for Obama's impeachment as a means to scare liberals into donating campaign money.

As I said, this is one of the most amazing displays of Orwellian mass mental turnabouts I have ever witnessed, and that is really saying something.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
It's one thing to say that President has committed impeachable acts (the undeclared wars against Libya and Mexico (Fast and Furious), use of the IRS against political opponents, failure to enforce immigration laws, work requirements for welfare, his ACA waivers), and another thing to call for the House to impeach. Republicans would need sixty Senate votes to convict, or it would just waste time.
Click to expand...

The Right has not just been saying the "President has committed impeachable acts". They have been demanding his actual impeachment. It is astonishing you are trying to pretend they have been doing the first thing and not the other. They have plainly been calling for the House to impeach.

Every one of those lists of "impeachable acts" that has been going around is a call for impeachment.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
From your link:..."No Congressional Representative has drawn up a list of articles of impeachment and proposed them to the Judiciary Committee."

It's one thing to say that President has committed impeachable acts (the undeclared wars against Libya and Mexico (Fast and Furious), use of the IRS against political opponents, failure to enforce immigration laws, work requirements for welfare, his ACA waivers), and another thing to call for the House to impeach. Republicans would need sixty Senate votes to convict, or it would just waste time.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3rds majority or 67 votes. Your essential point (nobody's seriously talking about impeachment) is correct, but the likelihood is even lower than you paint it.
 
Remember when the Democrats were going to knock of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in red state Kentucky? Yeah, not going to happen:

After a significant investment in support of Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, the DSCC had not reserved time for the final three weeks of the race and, as of today, is no longer on the air.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Remember when the Democrats were going to knock of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in red state Kentucky? Yeah, not going to happen:
Click to expand...

RCP had it 46-45-9 yesterday, but it's now back to 45-45-10, with NH going back and forth from Leans Dem to Toss-Up. More important, Silver now has the probability factor for GOP taking the majority at 60%.

The key is still that while the "leans and locks" are even, the GOP leads in 8 of those ten, I believe. The money the Dems spent in KY was probably readily offset by Mitch's famously deep war-chest pockets. He didn't need to spend it all on the primary and as far as KY politics goes, he was seen as a conciliator rather than stalwart of the lunatic fringe.

It makes sense for the Dems to spend their money in IA, KS (both slipped recently to GOP leads), CO (where Udall cannot seem to get it together), AK (Bergich recovering from Stupid Season '14), Georgia (Nunn name recognition). That's a whole lot to ask, and they need to hit all of them hard. We'll see in the next three weeks if any of the vaunted organizing-and-targeting skills from Obama's elections carried over. This is just about the same scenario from 2014 with three weeks to go... the Dems needed to sweep their "swing" states and they did. Senatorial elections - and off-year senatorial elections at that - are a different kettle of fish, though.
 
Brainster said:
Your essential point (nobody's seriously talking about impeachment) is correct...
Click to expand...
What does that mean exactly? What's is "seriously"? Republicans talk about it all of the time. Are you saying that the GOP is cynically using the threat of impeachment for political purposes? Are you saying that all of these GOP leaders and talking heads are dissembling?

Thanks to Tommy Christopher for this terrific compilation of moments where Republicans have been using impeachment as a cudgel to block every single thing Democrats try to get done.

Click to expand...
How exactly do you characterize the rhetoric of that video? Cynical? Dishonest?

...but the likelihood is even lower than you paint it.
Click to expand...
You know why the likelihood is so low? The GOP is dishonestly promoting impeachment. The likelihood is so low because Obama has done nothing to warrant impeachment.

Watch the video above and then tell us that no one is "seriously" talking about impeachment or define "seriously". Did you mean to say "honestly"?
 
RandFan said:
What does that mean exactly? What's is "seriously"? Republicans talk about it all of the time. Are you saying that the GOP is cynically using the threat of impeachment for political purposes? Are you saying that all of these GOP leaders and talking heads are dissembling?
Click to expand...
No. Democratic politicians and their media shills are cynically using the (non-existent) threat of impeachment to mobilize partisan nitwits.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
No.
Click to expand...
Says Malcolm as he A.) Refuses to look at the evidence. B.) Refuses to provide evidence, preferring instead to just make bald assertions.

Malcolm, when weighing evidence against bald assertion, which do you think readers are more likely to accept?
 
RandFan said:
Says Malcolm as he A.) Refuses to look at the evidence. B.) Refuses to provide evidence, preferring instead to just make bald assertions.

Malcolm, when weighing evidence against bald assertion, which do you think readers are more likely to accept?
Click to expand...
Actually, I looked. Go to the Mother Jones site and search "Obana, impeach" and you'll get ten articles since July. Search google with "National Review" and you get ONE with Mike Huckabee calling for impeachment, one which noted that Neil Young (not a Republican) called for Obama's impeachment, one which noted that Ralph Nader (not a Republican) called for Obama's impeachment, and many explaining why Republicans would not impeach Obama. You could try comparing, say, the new York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

So, "refuses to look at the evidence" is RandFan's inference from the fact that I had not provided evidence. That's different.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Actually, I looked.
Click to expand...
End of story. If the right didn't push Impeachment then the left would not use it to beat them over their idiotic heads.

The right isn't responding to the left. The right is wagging this dog as is evidenced by the video and the left is using it to great political advantage.

Note to the right, if you don't want to get beaten up for your asinine rhetoric then shut up.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
What does that mean exactly? What's is "seriously"? Republicans talk about it all of the time. Are you saying that the GOP is cynically using the threat of impeachment for political purposes? Are you saying that all of these GOP leaders and talking heads are dissembling?
Click to expand...

These GOP leaders, and then we see Louie Gohmert and some congressman from Utah? Come on, be serious. It's like during the Bush years, when numbnuts like Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucinich would bring up impeachment.

And no, the GOP is not cynically using the threat of impeachment for political purposes; it's the Democrats.
 
Brainster said:
These GOP leaders, and then we see Louie Gohmert and some congressman from Utah? Come on, be serious. It's like during the Bush years, when numbnuts like Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucinich would bring up impeachment.
Click to expand...
I was a big Bush defender at the time. Obama has not tortured anyone nor did he start a process of denying people, including American citizens, of due process. He didn't start a war that caused the death of thousands of Americans on shaky evidence and counter to the UN and many other nations.

If the Republicans were calling for impeachment because of Obama's use of drones to kill people without warrant, his ties with bankers that some argue have kept white collar crooks out of jail and other ethical lapses, then I wouldn't even bother responding. That's not to say that I think that the use of drones is illegal or that Obama has reigned in the justice department to keep his rich donors out of jail, but it is to say that I think we need more attention paid the appearance of impropriety and perhaps some of these things should be litigated.

That's not what the GOP is yelling impeachment about. How many times have GOP leaders and talking heads said "lawlessness of this president"?

The case for Obama’s impeachment: The Constitution’s remedy for a lawless, imperial president

And no, the GOP is not cynically using the threat of impeachment for political purposes; it's the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Of course the dems are using it. That's not the point. The Dems are not the ones getting the likes of Fox news, Hannity, Limbaugh and Levine constantly fanning the flames for impeachment. You are arguing that Republicans are too stupid not to take the bait of the Dems. That's an argument I find plausible. However, I'm arguing that the Democrats are simply using the idiocy of the GOP to fund raise on.

Watch the video again. If it's such a non-issue why are so many on the right, and there are many, calling for impeachment?

Look, let's make this simple, if popular talking heads like Hannity, Levine, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the most watched cable news programs would shut the hell up about Impeachment then the Dems wouldn't have anything to work with.

Rush Limbaugh Calls for the Impeachment of Barack H. Obama

Bill O’Reilly Starts Talking Impeachment Over Obamacare

Mark Levin on Impeachment: 'Sarah Palin Is Right

Ann Coulter: Obama Would Have Been Impeached if He Was White

Laura Ingram: Impeach McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor Today

Megyn Kelly: Obama is Out of Control... "Impeach Him

Michael Savage identifies three reasons to impeach Obama

Then we have the problem of the timeline of Impeachment talk.

Impeachment talk is back. Here’s a timeline of how we got here. Again.

I'm sorry but the call for impeachment from the right has been going on too long and by too many in the GOP. It makes the democrats money. Too god damn bad. It won't be enough money to save the Dems from losing the Senate though. Take comfort in that.
 
RandFan said:
I'm sorry but the call for impeachment from the right has been going on too long and by too many in the GOP. It makes the democrats money. Too god damn bad. It won't be enough money to save the Dems from losing the Senate though. Take comfort in that.
Click to expand...

Yep! There is no Dem surge happening. The Dems look to take 3 or 4 or the remaining 10 undecided. NC and NH look fairly secure. Kansas was looking good for the Independent (who'd caucus with the Dems), but it's now a too close to call. Georgia? As mentioned above, the Dems are pouring in a lot of money and you have the Nepotism Sweepstakes working on election day. A Carter for Governor and a Nunn for Senator.

But even if they take those four, they're not looking good where they should have been - Colorado and Alaska, and aren't going to bust the state trends in Louisiana, Arkansas and Kentucky, apparently. The tenth on the toss-up list is Iowa. I truly expected a stronger Dem showing, but Crazy Joni is consistently on top.
 
RandFan said:
End of story. If the right didn't push Impeachment then the left would not use it to beat them over their idiotic heads.

The right isn't responding to the left. The right is wagging this dog as is evidenced by the video and the left is using it to great political advantage.

Note to the right, if you don't want to get beaten up for then shut up.
Click to expand...
Use of the terms "right" and "left" indicates a one-dimensional view of the political continuum that I do not share. At best, it's sloppy shorthand for an undefined something.

"(Y)our asinine rhetoric" volunteers others into your tribal view.

Just who has to shut up? Can we discuss the legality of the ill-considered and consequentially malign Libya war, conducted without Congressional authorization, and whether this qualifies as an impeachable offense? If that doesn't, what does? Does the assassination of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki qualify as an impeachable offense? Does waiving immigration, welfare, and health care laws by executive fiat constitute an impeachable offense?

The reasons not to impeach President Obama are purely political. Politics rules. Unless Republicans get 67 Senate seats, they cannot convict. Prediction: Congress will not impeach President Obama unless the administration becomes so lawless in its last two years that a majority of Democrat senators support impeachment. That won't happen. Congress will not impeach President Obama.
 
Isn't politics fun!

Anyway, in my area there are many signs up around the city. I have yet to see one where the candidate identifies themselves as either Republican or Democrat.

In the past at least you saw the elephant or donkey on the signs.

Other areas the same?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Use of the terms "right" and "left" indicates a one-dimensional view of the political continuum that I do not share. At best, it's sloppy shorthand for an undefined something.

"(Y)our asinine rhetoric" volunteers others into your tribal view.

Just who has to shut up? Can we discuss the legality of the ill-considered and consequentially malign Libya war, conducted without Congressional authorization, and whether this qualifies as an impeachable offense? If that doesn't, what does? Does the assassination of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki qualify as an impeachable offense? Does waiving immigration, welfare, and health care laws by executive fiat constitute an impeachable offense?

The reasons not to impeach President Obama are purely political. Politics rules. Unless Republicans get 67 Senate seats, they cannot convict. Prediction: Congress will not impeach President Obama unless the administration becomes so lawless in its last two years that a majority of Democrat senators support impeachment. That won't happen. Congress will not impeach President Obama.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I have a tribal view. I suppose it is possible.

No one has to shut up. If the GOP wants the Dems to stop fundraising on the impeachment rhetoric then it's advisable.
 
Well, with a little over a week to go, it's heading into melodrama territory.

The Dems look very solid in races that will get them to 45 and have slight-to-okay margins in three others. In those three, two have been a Dem lead for most of the polling season, even if a small one: NH and NC. The third is the result of a big push in GA and a lackluster campaign by the GOP there. That one could change back, I guess. The GOP were ahead most of the summer.

But assuming the Dems take those 3, and they get IA with the Independent, they will have 49. A week ago, Silver had the GOP at 66% favored to get 51. He's now taken them down to 60.7%, and if you follow Silver and Five Thirty Eight, that's almost a "margin of error" range. I think he's adjusted for the Dem surge in Georgia plus the wild card.

The wild card in all of this, as I mentioned way upthread is that LA will probably not be decided on election night, so election night will be 50 GOP, 49 Dem and Ind supporters and one To Be Determined. Landrieu still has a slight lead in a three-way race, but when polled for a two party race, which the runoff would be on Dec 6, she loses. And that one would be GOP Senate Seat #51 (cue theremin music).

So watch for both sides to pull out all the stops in LA. I think the GOP mainstream is going to start harassing the far right to try to win it on election night. I don't see Mary Landrieu stealing it on election night, but if there's a Dem organization that can do a Dirty Tricks Seminar that would make Scott Walker proud, it's the Pelican State Democratic Party. I can personally think of a few dirty gambits I'd work on, but let's not give 'em ideas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom