Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[JoeMorgue]

I would like you to explain to me just a few things so we're clear.

No. I've laid out my opinions dozens of times across as many discussions. I'm not trotting them out again just to be the hatesink so I can endure more "LOL don't get your blood pressure up" jokes.

We've got half the Democrats on this board pretending they're preparing for a full on Red Dawn Scenario against Trump and the few Conservative who haven't devolved into outright trolling can't get beyond nihilsim and whataboutism and... Bob.

I'm not some crazy, bushy haired, yelling at squirrels in the park old man hijacking this discussion with my insane ramblings that needs to be called out everytime I say something.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is a profound failure of imagination.

Correct

 

[varwoche]

I must say I'm rather lost as to what exactly I'm being accused or what exactly need to say to defend myself here.

Trump is not going to be convicted. Is there anyone really not agreeing with this?

Why does me saying it sound so different?

Full immersion spittle blurs the message perhaps?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

GOP voted down:

...

• CJ Roberts witness approval power.

Seems unconstitutional on its face, limiting Roberts' power to "preside", as specified in the Constitution.

No?

 

[dmaker]

I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the lock step obedience to Trump during this impeachment. To date the argument has been fear of Trump rebuttal to any disloyalty and how it could hurt any GOP candidate in a primary, etc. OK, fine. Being under Trump's thumb removes the spine from GOP congress members. But here is a golden opportunity to get out from under. But they won't. Why not? Don't they want to be free of him? Just vote to remove him and you're free. If removed from office he would be a feckless windbag with no ability to harm anyone.

Trump's base would not like it, but what can they do? Vote democrat? Not likely. Why not do the right thing and get out form under at the same time? Could it be that it's more about the judges, and a rubber stamp for conservative policies than it is about fear of reprisal?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the lock step obedience to Trump during this impeachment. To date the argument has been fear of Trump rebuttal to any disloyalty and how it could hurt any GOP candidate in a primary, etc. OK, fine. Being under Trump's thumb removes the spine from GOP congress members. But here is a golden opportunity to get out from under. But they won't. Why not? Don't they want to be free of him? Just vote to remove him and you're free. If removed from office he would be a feckless windbag with no ability to harm anyone.

I don't think they know, or at least don't trust that they are right if they think they do know, how big Trump's core, cult of personality base really is.

In 2016 who voted for "Trump," who voted for "Not Hillary," who voted for "The Republican Candidate," and a couple of other "Other" categories?

It's hard to tell what those numbers actually are for many reasons, not the least of which is that most people who voted for Trump probably couldn't actually tell you with full honesty.

 

[plague311]

No. I've laid out my opinions dozens of times across as many discussions. I'm not trotting them out again just to be the hatesink so I can endure more "LOL don't get your blood pressure up" jokes.

We've got half the Democrats on this board pretending they're preparing for a full on Red Dawn Scenario against Trump and the few Conservative who haven't devolved into outright trolling can't get beyond nihilsim and whataboutism and... Bob.

I'm not some crazy, bushy haired, yelling at squirrels in the park old man hijacking this discussion with my insane ramblings that needs to be called out everytime I say something.

I don't see what you're doing as being a realist. It looks to me like you're just not happy things aren't working the way you want them to.

In my opinion, the Democrats have been the realists. They knew he wasn't going to get booted, but they knew they had to do something. They wanted to get it done quickly, and move on with governing. The neat thing is they've been able to do both and the stack of bills on McConnell's desk just proves it.

 

[theprestige]

They wanted to get it done quickly, and move on with governing. The neat thing is they've been able to do both and the stack of bills on McConnell's desk just proves it.

I'm not sure a stack of unpassed, unsigned bills counts as "governing". It's not like policies are being enacted or agendas advanced by that stack of bills.

It's one of the key features of the US system, that the House of Representatives can't govern on its own. It requires both chambers of the legislature and the office of the president, working together, to actually do any governing.

 

[carlitos]

No bad idea. The Republicans already want to turn this into the Hunter Biden Impeachment. .......

I just thought it was interesting, the guy did go to Yale Law or whatever.

But right on cue, he's on Page Six of the NY Post today, something about having to go back to the court owing an ex-stripper child support.

 

[Meadmaker]

I heard Adam Shiff during yesterday's evening drive time. In the 10 minutes I listened, he appealed to the people watching on TV twice.

I commend him for honestly acknowledging the audience for the trial.

 

[plague311]

I'm not sure a stack of unpassed, unsigned bills counts as "governing". It's not like policies are being enacted or agendas advanced by that stack of bills.

The House has passed them. They are governing. The Senate refuses to hold them up for a vote, that is purposefully avoiding governing.

It's one of the key features of the US system, that the House of Representatives can't govern on its own. It requires both chambers of the legislature and the office of the president, working together, to actually do any governing.

Jesus Christ.

Fine theprestige. If this semantic, ******** win is what you need to keep going, you can have it. It's pretty ******* obvious that I meant that the House has been creating legislation and passing bills while handling the impeachment inquiry as well. It's seriously getting ******* pathetic this has to be stated on such a granular level.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I have to say that I'm a bit puzzled by the lock step obedience to Trump during this impeachment. To date the argument has been fear of Trump rebuttal to any disloyalty and how it could hurt any GOP candidate in a primary, etc. OK, fine. Being under Trump's thumb removes the spine from GOP congress members. But here is a golden opportunity to get out from under. But they won't. Why not? Don't they want to be free of him? Just vote to remove him and you're free. If removed from office he would be a feckless windbag with no ability to harm anyone.

Trump's base would not like it, but what can they do? Vote democrat? Not likely. Why not do the right thing and get out form under at the same time? Could it be that it's more about the judges, and a rubber stamp for conservative policies than it is about fear of reprisal?

One thing I imagine plays a part is a not insignificant amount of death threats against senators and representatives. Sure, a certain number is likely a constant in the life of a public servant, but imagine the increase not to mention intensity, to you and your family, if you betray your “side.” Especially with the 100% assured expectation that Trump will go after you and not let up.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Again, why does Moscow Mitch have so much power if Republicans disagree with him? Or are they just paying lip service to the idea of a fair process?

Thread continued from here.

Posted By: kmortis

He controls a lot of money that goes to re-election campaigns and primaries. If they cross Mitch, they know they will lose campaign finance and/or be primaried by someone Mitch finances.

 

[theprestige]

The House has passed them. They are governing. The Senate refuses to hold them up for a vote, that is purposefully avoiding governing.



Jesus Christ.

Fine theprestige. If this semantic, ******** win is what you need to keep going, you can have it. It's pretty ******* obvious that I meant that the House has been creating legislation and passing bills while handling the impeachment inquiry as well. It's seriously getting ******* pathetic this has to be stated on such a granular level.

That's fair. You're totally correct. I apologize.

 

[Belz...]

He controls a lot of money that goes to re-election campaigns and primaries. If they cross Mitch, they know they will lose campaign finance and/or be primaried by someone Mitch finances.

Why does he control any money? Aren't their campaigns independant from one another? Excuse my ignorance here.

 

[plague311]

Why does he control any money? Aren't their campaigns independant from one another? Excuse my ignorance here.

The way I understand it is the RNC controls money that is disbursed among other candidates that they support in other districts.

 

[cullennz]

Tbf would imagine the whole thing has got a bit tediously boring as, for the majority of the US.

Both sides are just saying the same things over and over again.

 

[theprestige]

Why does he control any money? Aren't their campaigns independant from one another? Excuse my ignorance here.

The national party organization raises campaign funds which they allocate strategically around the country in different races. Whether a candidate gets some of the party funds, or has to rely entirely on their own fundraising, depends on a variety of factors. I guess Mitch McConnell's recommendation is one of those factors.

It makes sense. Some candidates have no problem raising enough money on their own, for their particular race. Some candidates just aren't going to win anyway, so it doesn't make sense for the party to send money their way. Some candidates are primarying other candidates; obviously both of them aren't going to get party funds.

In that last scenario, deciding whether the incumbent or the challenger should get the funds is going to be informed in part by how well the incumbent has been going along to get along with the party line.

You see a similar dynamic with AOC using the funds she's raised to support candidates who are challenging incumbents she thinks need to go.

ETA: There's probably a shadow influence as well: Major donors who can afford to donate large amounts to multiple candidates may be influenced by McConnell's recommendation. Step wrong, and not only do you lose the national party funding, but now the Kochs won't return your calls either.

 

[plague311]

The national party organization raises campaign funds which they allocate strategically around the country in different races. Whether a candidate gets some of the party funds, or has to rely entirely on their own fundraising, depends on a variety of factors. I guess Mitch McConnell's recommendation is one of those factors.

This plays into the issue with Bernie as well. Several people have claimed that he doesn't help fundraise for other candidates and that plays into why he doesn't get the nod. If he doesn't help others he doesn't get the backing of the DNC.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, and I find that terribly disappointing. Not one Democratic Amendment was approved. But I think they're looking better onstage than the Republicans.

Only to people who fell for Moscow Mitch's fake move: pretend they are only delaying the witnesses.

A lot of people saw right through that.

And idiot Trump who can't help himself, today announced, "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material."