Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 225: Pardon Me For My War Crimes Against Good Titles

(+) Yeah! (+)

At least Sargon didnt win
---

htaeD posted...

Its weird hearing the party I vote for being called a liberal party.

Yes the EU groupings can be a bit funny, I live in Ireland (but vote in the UK where I'm originally from) and Fianna Fail, the second biggest party, are also in ALDE despite being arguably socially conservative and economically near-identical to the governing centre-right party. And the Lib Dems who I voted for (thrilled they won in London) have half the party being social democrats. Out of curiosity who do you vote for?
---

UKIP was also around dragging down the Brexit Party. I guess it remains to be seen what the rump of the Tories and Labour favor, but I'm guessing it's going to be mostly leave voters who don't want to vote for a far right/single issue party.
---

red sox 777 posted...

UKIP was also around dragging down the Brexit Party. I guess it remains to be seen what the rump of the Tories and Labour favor, but I'm guessing it's going to be mostly leave voters who don't want to vote for a far right/single issue party.

Mate:

1. UKIP got 3% of the vote, they were a non-issue, like the BNP in 2014.
2. The remain v. leave statistics include UKIP anyway.
3. We know exactly what the breakdown for the Tories and Labour is: Tories are 75% leave, Labour are 75% remain.
4. Brexit are not far-right, they split from UKIP to escape the far-right.

Pay attention.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

red sox 777 posted...

UKIP was also around dragging down the Brexit Party. I guess it remains to be seen what the rump of the Tories and Labour favor, but I'm guessing it's going to be mostly leave voters who don't want to vote for a far right/single issue party.

Mate:

1. UKIP got 3% of the vote, they were a non-issue, like the BNP in 2014.
2. The remain v. leave statistics include UKIP anyway.
3. We know exactly what the breakdown for the Tories and Labour is: Tories are 75% leave, Labour are 75% remain.
4. Brexit are not far-right, they split from UKIP to escape the far-right.

Pay attention.

I brought up UKIP because you brought up Change UK. They got about the same percentage. My "/" meant "or," not "and," I guess this could have been clearer.

Do you have any data to validate the remaining Labour voters, the ones who didn't switch to a remain party, favoring remain?
---

Also, fairly sure that if you run an FPTP election with the exact same votes we just got, Brexit Party gets a big absolute majority in Parliament. That's the landslide that matters.
---

The Tories are dumb.....they should never have allowed popular vote referenda at a national level under any circumstances. Allowing it creates the impression that the popular vote in a binary choice has significance. Should have run the Brexit referendum based on the Parliamentary districts, which would have given Leave a LANDSLIDE victory.
---

There shouldnt have been a brexit referendum at all because letting people vote directly on complicated policy is dumb
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

There shouldnt have been a brexit referendum at all because letting people vote directly on complicated policy is dumb

That's why we have an Electoral College. So liberal votes from big cities will suffer from overconcentration and the will of the people (who don't live in big cities) will shine through.
---

No, we have an electoral college because of slavery. Almost everything about our political system was to prevent the civil war from happening. None of it has any reason to still be this way.

Ugh. I unblocked Red Sox because I was tired of these topics having like, half a dozen new posts that I can't even read because it's just him posting over and over and over, and he's already doing his troll bullshit with "the sparse minority who live in rural areas matter more than the densely-populated majority" arguments.
---

Nrrr posted...

No, we have an electoral college because of slavery. Almost everything about our political system was to prevent the civil war from happening. None of it has any reason to still be this way.

If not for the Electoral College we might have Hillary Clinton as president right now. Or worse. We desperately need the EC.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If not for the Electoral College we might have Hillary Clinton as president right now. Or worse.

Yeah, we might have Donald Trump as Presiden--------------OH FUCK
---

As you can see, only the left believes in democracy. Dems and GOP are both united in disdain for it.

red sox 777 posted...

Also, fairly sure that if you run an FPTP election with the exact same votes we just got, Brexit Party gets a big absolute majority in Parliament. That's the landslide that matters.

You are wrong again though! They did this analysis. It would result in a hung parliament with Brexit as the largest party but a Lib Dem/Labour/Green government, which would be anti-brexit. And we know how people will transfer their votes as well, Brexit Party are behind Labour, tie the Tories, only 1% ahead of the Lib Dems.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1133018525705166855

It's a good sign that the rabid leavers are getting their spin on though - it's because they are losing.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Also, fairly sure that if you run an FPTP election with the exact same votes we just got, Brexit Party gets a big absolute majority in Parliament. That's the landslide that matters.

You are wrong again though! They did this analysis. It would result in a hung parliament with Brexit as the largest party but a Lib Dem/Labour/Green government, which would be anti-brexit. And we know how people will transfer their votes as well, Brexit Party are behind Labour, tie the Tories, only 1% ahead of the Lib Dems.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1133018525705166855

It's a good sign that the rabid leavers are getting their spin on though - it's because they are losing.

I'm not seeing the Parliamentary analysis you reference at that link. Do you have a different link? Assuming the analysis is right, why do you assume Labour would join a Lib Dem/Green remain government?
---

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1132055697368072192

Boomercide when?

Jakyl25 posted...

At least Sargon didnt win

Proof that being internet famous where people inflate your ego massively is no place to start an political career. Maybe he will realize he operate in an bubble.....nah.
---

https://twitter.com/kevbeirne/status/1132929319599259648?s=21

Here is a video of Tommy Robinson admitting that no-platforming works and banning fascists from social media cuts off their primary recruiting tool.

---

https://twitter.com/feliciasonmez/status/1133505331416453121?s=21

In a somewhat odd moment at tonight's AFT town hall, Biden tells a 10-year-old girl, Ill bet youre as bright as you are good-looking." He takes her over to the assembled reporters, then stands behind her and puts his hands on her shoulders while he's talking.

Someone please stop Biden
---

We're all trying.

It isn't working.

I'm having flashbacks to the end of Soylent Green.
---

Theory: Biden is intentionally doubling down on being sort-of creepy because turning younger voters against him will make older voters like him more.
---

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020/index.html

Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky, McConnell was asked by an attendee, "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, "Oh, we'd fill it," triggering loud laughter from the audience.

Has there ever been a cooler politician? I'm hard pressed to think of any. Cocaine fucking Mitch.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/28/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-2020/index.html

Speaking at a Paducah Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Kentucky, McConnell was asked by an attendee, "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

The leader took a long sip of what appeared to be iced tea before announcing with a smile, "Oh, we'd fill it," triggering loud laughter from the audience.

Has there ever been a cooler politician? I'm hard pressed to think of any. Cocaine fucking Mitch.

The best. I say we appoint the first Supreme Court justice under 30 - so hopefully they can legislate conservatism from the bench for 60 years.
---

Probably good news:
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1133674140790153217

1% was always too low of a threshold
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Probably good news:
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1133674140790153217

1% was always too low of a threshold

Lol literally just doing this to keep Mike Gravel off the stage. Incredible.

I highly doubt Mike Gravel is a factor in their decision making

Only like 8 candidates have hit the 2% threshold right iirc. Theyre trying to prevent a shitshow like the 2016 GOP debates (and its pretty hard to argue that youre being hugely wronged by being excluded when you cant even hit 2%)
---

I don't see why you would give them the benefit of the doubt. They changed the debate qualifications in 2008 from top 4 to top 3 after Bill Richardson dropped out specifically to stop Dennis Kucinich from being on the debate stage.

For one thing Mike Gravel probably isnt even going to hit the 1% threshold
---

He has been at 1% in several polls

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Has there ever been a cooler politician? I'm hard pressed to think of any. Cocaine fucking Mitch.

You should look into Stalin, he's right up your alley.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The best. I say we appoint the first Supreme Court justice under 30 - so hopefully they can legislate conservatism from the bench for 60 years.

Until Hillary Clinton has them all murdered when we win the Presidency in 2020.
---

Didn't literally everyone (except Gillibrand lol) hit the original 1% and/or donor threshold? As in, they were already over their hard cap of 20 candidates and around 22 qualified? Raising the threshold is the right thing to do because it was clearly going to be a ****show where it was.

The idea that it's specifically Gravel is laughable as opposed to them trying to keep out say Williamson or Bullock or deBlasio (not that I think he's reached the original goals since his candidacy is so new but it was literally so easy to hit those thresholds I wouldn't be shocked if he could get there somehow.)
---

Also, Mueller gonna make a statement in 10 minutes.

...Not sure what it is. My first thought was it was going to be a denial about the new Wolff book claims but reporting has come out that it's not that and will be "substantial." Don't have my hopes up though because he's still a DoJ employee so I think this has to go through Barr?

Unless it's substantial in the sense that he says his work is done, which is literally true, but will be spun by this administration as "TOTAL EXONERATION" even though said work is being obstructed from being released to Congress.

comedy option it's part of the death stranding marketing
---

xp1337 posted...

comedy option it's part of the death stranding marketing

I mean, that would push me over the edge and preorder it
---

Read yesterday a report claiming that Mueller came to the conclusion that the special counsel rules were unconstitutional to the extent they purport to limit the president's authority to manage the investigation, including by firing the special counsel directly. And probably the president cannot obstruct justice at a federal level as a matter of law.
---

There you go. No collusion. No obstruction because the president cannot obstruct his own investigation. Complete and total exoneration.
---

"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
---

Holy fuck this press conference is utterly ruinous for the Democrats. It's basically impeachment or bust for them (not a great position to be in).
---

man now i know what mueller sounds like. end of an era.

Highlights IMO:

-He basically just quoted the report so if you've read it/the key parts, you mostly heard what he said here.
-Stated that there was a systematic effort by Russia to damage Clinton's campaign through hacking, leaking, and disinformation campaigns.
-Specifically he reiterated the point that the SCO, as part of DoJ, is bound by the regulations (OLC) and that it was literally not an option for him to charge a sitting president of a crime, even if under seal, and that requires the existing framework for charging a sitting president (i. e. impeachment)
-Also specifically noted he made no determination one way or the other if the President committed a crime (so much for TOTAL EXONERATION)
-Also specifically re-quoted that if they found that the President had clearly not committed a crime, he'd have said so - but he could not.

Arguably the only "new" thing here since the previous stuff was all in the report

-Basically said "the report is my testimony" and if called before Congress he wouldn't say anything beyond what was publicly revealed in the report.

also he's resigning from doj i guess
---

His position implies that if Trump tweeted that he committed obstruction he still couldn't be charged. If you can't be charged you can't be convicted. Much like the defendant who is acquitted by a jury and then announces that he did it. Complete and total exoneration.
---

Or the defendant who confesses to the crime a day after the statute of limitations has run. That is also a complete and total exoneration.
---

xp1337 posted...

-Also specifically noted he made no determination one way or the other if the President committed a crime (so much for TOTAL EXONERATION)

However, they did make a determination that there was no collusion, which is really the impeachable offense. "Obstructing" one's own investigation is such a legal rabbit hole that it doesn't even matter.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Or the defendant who confesses to the crime a day after the statute of limitations has run. That is also a complete and total exoneration.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/010/692/19789999.jpg
---

On the one hand, I respect his honor and integrity in standing by the rule of law and adhering to strict manners of principle and order and it is something we should probably aspire towards.

On the other, what's that trope about the evils that men do when good men do nothing? Or how strictness means nothing when chaos runs rampant? Broken paladin?

I just don't get it.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

xp1337 posted...

-Also specifically noted he made no determination one way or the other if the President committed a crime (so much for TOTAL EXONERATION)

However, they did make a determination that there was no collusion, which is really the impeachable offense. "Obstructing" one's own investigation is such a legal rabbit hole that it doesn't even matter.

They effectively concluded that obstruction is impossible for the president to commit. If they could have found that no obstruction happened on factual grounds, they would have. But they couldn't, so they had to consider the legal question. Whereupon they concluded that there is no legal crime here and the only remedy available is political - impeachment.
---

Anyway, not that they were lacking before, but I think that's enough from Mueller to open impeachment proceedings.

He was basically screaming internally "I'm literally not allowed to say he's guilty so let me stress that if I thought him innocent I would have said so" and referencing impeachment as the proper remedy for the impossible scenario he was in.

Like he literally says "all defendants are innocent until proven guilty" then later goes "btw i lack the confidence to state the president is innocent because i would have said so if i had that confidence"

I'd like to believe Pelosi is knowingly playing the game and knows she has to be the last person on the impeachment train and that's the reason behind her reticence - waiting for the calls from the public and the rest of the caucus to reach a point where she goes "well, I wanted to avoid this but there's just no choice now" because politics is a ****ing theater but argh I'm not sure I believe that.
---

xp1337 posted...

Anyway, not that they were lacking before, but I think that's enough from Mueller to open impeachment proceedings.

He was basically screaming internally "I'm literally not allowed to say he's guilty so let me stress that if I thought him innocent I would have said so" and referencing impeachment as the proper remedy for the impossible scenario he was in.

Like he literally says "all defendants are innocent until proven guilty" then later goes "btw i lack the confidence to state the president is innocent because i would have said so if i had that confidence"

I'd like to believe Pelosi is knowingly playing the game and knows she has to be the last person on the impeachment train and that's the reason behind her reticence - waiting for the calls from the public and the rest of the caucus to reach a point where she goes "well, I wanted to avoid this but there's just no choice now" because politics is a ****ing theater but argh I'm not sure I believe that.

You realize what will happen if he is impeached? There will be a trial. And he will be a acquitted with an outright majority voting to acquit. It will be a complete and total exoneration, and will firmly establish the precedent that it is impossible for the president to obstruct justice if he commands the support of a third of senators or half the House.
---

Pelosi is avoiding it because she knows that's how a trial will go and she's not stupid or beholden to ideology.
---

Posting a follow-up:

Maybe I'm not the right audience. I read the report, read the words he said, and knew that the words he used were deliberate. There was nothing new to me since the report ws publicly released.

However, as it seems I and others are the few to read the report, including members of the house, this was a necessary soundbite to EMPHASIZE what he spelled out as best he could given the limitations of his office (that he is now resigned from):

'Every man is innocent until proven guilty. If Trump were innocent, we would have said so. We did not.'

'Under Department of Justice guidelines, even if we had more than sufficient evidence, we COULD NOT bring charges against a sitting president. That is not for the Department of Justice to decide by law.'

So basically he's saying that with his report as his complete testimony and with Congress needing to handle charges, impeach the ************! Everything's right there in the report!
---