Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 244: All Presidents of the Last Century are Criminals

(+) Yeah! (+)

Holllllllly shit

https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/1185367543818735621


---

So question, what's the actual timeline on an impeachment process

Like when does it escalate beyond politicians going "man we should impeach him" into a tangible event/vote in the near future
---

KamikazePotato posted...

So question, what's the actual timeline on an impeachment process

Like when does it escalate beyond politicians going "man we should impeach him" into a tangible event/vote in the near future

Unclear.

The House sets the schedule on this. The GOP is demanding/complaining/whining about wanting a full House vote on the inquiry but Democrats say it's unneeded because votes empowering the committees have already occurred in full House votes. I suspect the GOP wants that vote because the numbers keep getting worse for them so they want to accelerate the process and force a vote before things get worse for them. I don't think they will get it. It could come down to court rulings already in progress on various subpoenas.

Which means we're in the investigation phase and that can take awhile. It didn't in the Clinton impeachment because the GOP just relied on the Starr report and also because the whole thing was incompetently handled. The Nixon one took months however.

A while back I extrapolated based on both the Clinton (fast-track) and Nixon (better fit IMO) impeachment timelines and even on the Clinton track IIRC the impeachment vote fell near the end of the year. Under the Nixon one we were talking like March or June or something IIRC depending on where you started the clock.

That so many things keep being uncovered as this goes along probably lengthens the process as well. And finally, it probably is worth pointing out that I think it's politically wise for the Democrats to take their time on this. Just look at how things have progressed so far.

tl;dr: I'd buckle up for the long haul if you're looking for "big moment" votes. We're probably talking months here based on past impeachment processes.
---

xp1337 posted...

And finally, it probably is worth pointing out that I think it's politically wise for the Democrats to take their time on this. Just look at how things have progressed so far.

Not sure I agree with this. Eventually there will be a lull in new info coming out, and that will hurt the momentum quite a bit. Do not underestimate how little any of the stuff that has come out will matter after...say, two weeks. Republicans and some Independents will normalize/justify it by then, and the moment that happens the GOP will fall back in line.

Thanks for the explanation regardless!
---

Nrrr posted...

Almost all regular people get their opinions from the mainstream media and mainstream news sources

This is true but with a but that you only need to sway a small contingent of the electorate to sway an election. Hence why the spread of misinformation was so critical in 2016. "Fake news" and things like that don't need to sway a majority of even a large minority of the population. Any bit of a swing is significant.
---

So you are, what, afraid Tulsi Gabbard might crawl up to 2%? Again, if Russia is supporting her because of her foreign policy, it isn't working, and it doesn't mean she supports those policies because Russia told her to.

If Hillary Clinton actually thought Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset, she would be calling for her to be arrested and removed from her position in Congress and the US military. She doesn't actually think Tulsi or Jill Stein have anything to do with the Russian government though. She just is trying to get back at the only candidate who endorsed Bernie Sanders who is running.

---

Like, if Hillary Clinton has any evidence whatsoever to support her claims, go for it. Otherwise she is someone who is claiming a veteran who risked their life in wars that Hillary herself voted for, is a traitor for running on a platform of stopping those wars. She put her life on the line and saw what was going on in these wars, and thinks they need to end. Hillary got to sit comfy at home and order the deaths of millions of innocent people, and now she has the gall to accuse Tulsi of being a traitor without evidence? Even if you take it as her saying 'russian asset' only meaning 'unknowingly being boosted as a tool', Hillary Clinton knows exactly what she is doing and how people are going to view her comments, and this is about petty revenge. I am not going to vote for Tulsi, but Hillary is being absolutely vile with these comments.

---

"I only like veterans who don't get caught"
---

I mean.....if Russia wanted to elect Trump they would have tried to make sure Hillary was his opponent. She is the single person with by far the greatest responsibility for Trump's election...
---

Speaking of cool things that Hillary did today
https://twitter.com/c_cauterucci/status/1185321134234976256

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Speaking of cool things that Hillary did today

Tulsi sucks and her reaction was lame as hell, but do you think what Hillary said was good?
---

I don't think anything Hillary actually said was wrong of out of bounds, though it was maybe getting kind of close to the line given her stature. She's absolutely right that Stein is a straight up Russian asset (note: the definition of "asset" does not require someone to actually be actively working with the Russians; that would make them an "agent": https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1185357562465656832 , though colloquially you of course run the risk of people interpreting it as the latter). She didn't say Tulsi was even an asset, just that Russia obviously is pushing her and are grooming her for a third party run, which again doesn't require her deliberate cooperation. And Tulsi definitely leans in to the propaganda they're pushing with all of her conspiracy theory bullshit.

Side note: Hillary's also had a pretty good track record of calling out stuff like this correctly really early with Trump when most people in the media were saying the evidence wasn't there. For example, "no puppet! no puppet! you're the puppet!" or https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/776097265270292480

---

Like if she straight out alleged that Tulsi was deliberately colluding with the Russians Id say she should have concrete evidence to back that up, but its not what she said (though it does seem to be what a lot of people heard!)

---

Damn that Hillary. How dare she say things that are true.
---

She didn't fucking say it to shed the light on how Russian intelligence operates, otherwise she would specifically be blatantly making it very clear that 'asset' can mean that you are unknowingly being boosted and there is no nefarious intent on their parts. She wants you to think that they are colluding with the Russian government, and said it as a smear to damage the campaign of the only person who endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. Just because something is true information does not mean you can responsibly just say it without context - and Hillary Clinton knows this, and the rest of you know it too. She is very clearly and obviously not bringing these claims up in order to further the dialogue on combating Russian intelligence interfering in elections - it is revenge, plain and simple.

---

Im sure Im missing some great cyclo posts here

---

He appears to be fully on board the "This is all a conspiracy against Tulsi go tulsi yas queen" train
---

Hillary knows that Russia pushed Stein last time to try and act as a spoiler, and it's clear that they would love for Tulsi to do the same (we'll see if she ends up doing so). She wants to prevent another Trump win and is pointing out what the Russians are trying to do to make that happen so that people will be prepared for it this time.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

He appears to be fully on board the "This is all a conspiracy against Tulsi go tulsi yas queen" train

dude, what

1) He said what Hillary said could be true, but doesnt make saying it useful.

2) He called her wildly incoherent and a paleoconservative

He said Hillary holds a grudge about losing [Edit so we dont go off on a useless tangent: The grudge is against Russia, and any perceived Russian assets] and is lashing out. Do you deny this? What benefit is there to her attacking Tulsi?

And why do I always have to translate Cyclo to you guys?

Can you try to be better than Corrik and attempt to understand, please?

Reposted to snip the Cyclo quote so no user block fuckery hides the post
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Edited again to snip the Cyclo quote so no user block fuckery hides the post.

I don't think it does that anymore? I saw your previous post and cyclo has me blocked.

---

So you are, what, afraid Tulsi Gabbard might crawl up to 2%? Again, if Russia is supporting her because of her foreign policy, it isn't working, and it doesn't mean she supports those policies because Russia told her to.

If Hillary Clinton actually thought Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset, she would be calling for her to be arrested and removed from her position in Congress and the US military. She doesn't actually think Tulsi or Jill Stein have anything to do with the Russian government though. She just is trying to get back at the only candidate who endorsed Bernie Sanders who is running.

She didn't f***ing say it to shed the light on how Russian intelligence operates, otherwise she would specifically be blatantly making it very clear that 'asset' can mean that you are unknowingly being boosted and there is no nefarious intent on their parts. She wants you to think that they are colluding with the Russian government, and said it as a smear to damage the campaign of the only person who endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. Just because something is true information does not mean you can responsibly just say it without context - and Hillary Clinton knows this, and the rest of you know it too. She is very clearly and obviously not bringing these claims up in order to further the dialogue on combating Russian intelligence interfering in elections - it is revenge, plain and simple.

#votebluenomatterwho #stillwithher #slaykween

Tony, you're telling me this doesn't sound like "*conspiracy theory here*" and "yas queen," which is literally what I said he did?
---

The former secretary of state pushed the theory on Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obamas campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clintons loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states.

"They are also going to do third party again," Clinton, 71, said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think theyve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

This doesn't sound like "Why else would she do it other than for revenge?"

This sounds like the host literally brought up the topic and she just talked about it.
---

Nrrr posted...

Tulsi and her campaign are completely incoherent, but it's certainly believable she would carry a grudge after Tulsi endorsed Bernie last time. If you recall, after losing to Obama in 08, Hillary had a giant list of betrayals sorted by the level of betrayed she felt. That seems a bit vindictive.

And it is wildly stupid to be fear mongering about Jill Stein, who is not even a candidate for the green party this year, it will almost certainly be Howie Hawkins. And if 'American assets' tell us we have to keep doing forever wars and universal healthcare will never ever happen, then the only rational answer is eat all the rich regardless of nation. They are useless and do not have any of our interests in mind.

Nrrr posted...

Tulsi has like 1% support and more people like her who aren't Dems than who are because she is basically a paleoconservative. Her main proponent has been Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore, not Russian bots. You all seem completely deranged. Almost all regular people get their opinions from the mainstream media and mainstream news sources and Russian bots have minimal reach, and there is zero evidence to support that Russia is using bots to support Tulsi Gabbard, and if they are it isn't working. The biggest press she has gotten so far besides Joe Rogan is Hillary Clinton's accusations.

You think Cyclo unironically supports Tulsi while calling her incoherent and a paleoconservative?

Russian bots are a thing, but Tulsi literally has two pretty wide-reaching people publicly in her corner.

When you essentially say her support is entirely Russian, you look foolish, because A) Those two people exist B) She has less than 2% support, so what is Russia even doing?

All Hillary did by saying Tulsi is a Russian asset is make an undetermined amount of news cycles about Tulsi, and with her epic clapback.

And while I think Tulsis response was corny and weak af, I see a lot of people who I know arent Russian bots taking her side because of reason A above.

Again I ask: Wheres the benefit?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

This doesn't sound like "Why else would she do it other than for revenge?"

This sounds like the host literally brought up the topic and she just talked about it.

How was Russia grooming Tulsi?

Wheres the evidence for that? There are verified Russians trollfarms caping for basically every candidate with the intention of stirring shit, so where does this Russian backing of Tulsi come from?

Also youre gonna call Cyclo and myself conspiracy theorists, but Im literally asking you for proof of a conspiracyIm explicitly not saying one exists.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You think Cyclo unironically supports Tulsi while calling her incoherent and a paleoconservative?

I honestly don't know what Cyclo thinks because he only said incoherent and paleoconservative later when it seems like he felt like he had to defend his position, and after he literally used the hashtags #stillwithher and #slaykween

So if your argument is Cyclo is a lunatic then sure

EDIT: I actually don't know the order of those things offhand without looking again but I just know they're pretty contradictory so I'm not even gonna waste time trying to figure out what Cyclo thinks
---

Hillary is not even remotely the only person that has said these things, so trying to turn this into some "It's just Hillary out for revenge" conspiracy is super weird
---

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You think Cyclo unironically supports Tulsi while calling her incoherent and a paleoconservative?

I honestly don't know what Cyclo thinks because he only said incoherent and paleoconservative later when it seems like he felt like he had to defend his position, and after he literally used the hashtags #stillwithher and #slaykween

So if your argument is Cyclo is a lunatic then sure

Bruh how did you not figure out the hashtag #slaykween was sarcastic?

StealThisSheen posted...

Hillary is not even remotely the only person that has said these things, so trying to turn this into some "It's just Hillary out for revenge" conspiracy is super weird

Its not that deep, dude, she said something stupid because shes literally obsessed with Russiaand hell, rightfully so!

But she shouldnt have said it. Theres no benefit.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bruh how did you not figure out the hashtag #slaykween was sarcastic?

Because I don't think it is since Cyclo was the biggest Tulsi defender when I initially called her fake and tried to call her out for changing her positions months ago, and it literally accompanies "#stillwithher"
---

Russia has been pushing Tulsi for years (not just bots; their propaganda outlets too). Why do you think Vlado is such a big fan of hers?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Bruh how did you not figure out the hashtag #slaykween was sarcastic?

Because I don't think it is since Cyclo was the biggest Tulsi defender when I initially called her fake and tried to call her out for changing her positions months ago, and it literally accompanies "#stillwithher"

Just so were clear, the #stillwithher post was AFTER he called Tulsi incoherent, AND it was directed sarcastically at Hillary, so itd be a masterstroke in hacking if he criticized Tulsi to backtrack seriously revealing he was #stillwithher about Tulsi:

Nrrr posted...

Do you guys remember when Hillary Clinton destroyed the country of Libya, a country where healthcare and housing and education were a human right, with a high standard of living, particular for the region, turning it into ruins and a haven for slavers and human trafficking because they literally did not even have a plan to stabilize the country after destroying it?

But at least she doesn't say stuff Russia agrees with

#votebluenomatterwho #stillwithher #slaykween

---

People here like to call basically any time you have an opinion a 'conspiracy theory' in this topic for some reason, but here you have Hillary Clinton completely making up the idea that Tulsi is "being groomed" to run third party, an actual conspiracy theory by the standards of any of the things I ever claim are called, and you guys just uncritically accept that what she says is true. Tulsi has never made any mention of running third party, says she won't run third party, and quite literally does not have ANYWHERE near the support or monetary backing to run as an independent. The Green Party is the only vehicle by which she realistically could ever hope to run third party, but there isn't any reason to support thinking she would do so, or that she would even win their primary. Howie Hawkins, the presumptive nominee, has been endorsed by Jill Stein and her VP and could easily beat Tulsi. There is no reason to believe what Hillary Clinton said is true about her being groomed to run third party, or that her running third party would even be a threat.

Did Russians boost Jill Stein? sure, there is evidence they did that. They also did it to lots of other candidates. So the only things Tulsi and Jill Stein really have in common here is that they dared to go against her. And again, I mentioned there is evidence to back up why I think this: her 08 loss resulted in her creating a list of the people she felt went against her by the level of betrayal she felt, evidence she can be extremely vindictive. That is a lot more evidence for what I am putting forth than Hillary put forth about Tulsi being groomed to run third party.

---

Also just so its CRYSTAL clear, Im 100% off the Tulsi train, and have been for awhile, when she said the Democratic Party was bowing to Left extremists because of Medicare for All, she dropped to the bottom tier of candidate.

Her debate performance and unhinged response to this Hillary shit has just reinforced that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Just so were clear, the #stillwithher post was AFTER he called Tulsi incoherent, AND it was directed sarcastically at Hillary, so itd be a masterstroke in hacking if he criticized Tulsi to backtrack seriously revealing he was #stillwithher about Tulsi:

and since apparently this has to be clarified, my hashtags were very blatantly and obviously being sarcastic about hillary clinton and her supporters in spite of her being an unrepentant war criminal

---

I'm kind of amazed someone took those hashtags as anything but sarcasm

---

Okay I did misread his hashtag post my bad. I thought they were attached to a different post.

He's still deep in the "This is just Hillary out for revenge" crap which seems silly when this isn't even the first time it's been brought up. Hillary talked about it because it was the topic at hand, she didn't bring it up out of nowhere.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Okay I did misread his hashtag post my bad

He's still deep in the "This is just Hillary out for revenge" crap which seems silly when this isn't even the first time it's been brought up. Hillary talked about it because it was the topic at hand, she didn't bring it up out of nowhere.

Dude is there more to the quote you shared? Because the interviewer literally asked her about 3rd party spoilers, and she immediately jumped to Russia is grooming Tulsi to run as 3rd party.

Based on what??

Where are the reports that A) Tulsi was planning on running 3rd party, and B) That Russia was grooming her for it?
---

VintageGin posted...

I'm kind of amazed someone took those hashtags as anything but sarcasm

right, which is why if you don't see my posts - its probably because me engaging with you is utterly pointless. conversations are only worthwhile if the people involved can actually hear each other. with some people it just isn't possible.

---

Jill Stein was brought up, Hillary talked about Russia backing her, and then said she thinks it's happening again, didn't name a name, and even said "I'm not making a prediction"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Jill Stein was brought up, Hillary talked about Russia backing her, and then said she thinks it's happening again, didn't name a name, and even said "I'm not making a prediction"

She said shes not making a prediction, but literally used the phrasing grooming to be a third party candidate, and was clear enough that basically everybody reported that she was referring to Tulsi.

Ok...you really dont see it?
---

And none of that is new, unless you somehow missed Tulsi's mini rant over others thinking it during the debate
---

In good Tulsi news:

A picture was found of her holding her hands in a triangle while standing in front of the Capitol Building, so the Q followers are jumping ship because they see it as her pledging her loyalty to the Illuminati.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Jill Stein was brought up, Hillary talked about Russia backing her, and then said she thinks it's happening again, didn't name a name, and even said "I'm not making a prediction"

She said shes not making a prediction, but literally used the phrasing grooming to be a third party candidate, and was clear enough that basically everybody reported that she was referring to Tulsi.

Ok...you really dont see it?

Tulsi is known for commonly repeating Russia and far right talking points. She's hard pushing the DNC conspiracy theory narrative, which is very much a Russian bot talking point. Tulsi is routinely distancing herself from the other candidates and moving closer to the right and talking about how she's being screwed, which is certainly sending up warning flags that she might be angling for a third party run.

This possibility has already been brought up several times. Hillary just repeated it on a podcast while on the subject of third party spoilers. Where you guys think this is just some weird hate boner out of nowhere is kinda silly

I mean, hell, the reason everybody immediately knew she was talking about Tulsi isn't because Hillary was super clear, but because... People already think those things about Tulsi
---

She said Russia's grooming her, which they are. She doesn't want to predict whether they'll be successful and Tulsi will ultimately run as an independent/third party.

---

Nrrr posted...

And again, I mentioned there is evidence to back up why I think this: her 08 loss resulted in her creating a list of the people she felt went against her by the level of betrayal she felt, evidence she can be extremely vindictive. That is a lot more evidence for what I am putting forth than Hillary put forth about Tulsi being groomed to run third party.

Also I googled this because I hadnt heard of it, and holy shit lmao, it was reported on by everyone, and this is some petty and vindictive shit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/10569576/Clintons-kept-a-political-hit-list-of-friends-and-enemies-after-failed-2008-bid.html
---

Also the more I think about it, the more I think a Tulsi 3rd party steals from Trump
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also the more I think about it, the more I think a Tulsi 3rd party steals from Trump

I do disagree on this pretty strongly.

Red have proved they'll vote red no matter what.

Blue has proved to be the weak side.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also the more I think about it, the more I think a Tulsi 3rd party steals from Trump

it absolutely does.
edit: especially if the nominee is sanders or warren

---

Conspiracy folks going full crazy here.

This topic is exactly why the bots are able to work effectively.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also just so its CRYSTAL clear, Im 100% off the Tulsi train, and have been for awhile, when she said the Democratic Party was bowing to Left extremists because of Medicare for All, she dropped to the bottom tier of candidate.

Her debate performance and unhinged response to this Hillary shit has just reinforced that.

Yeah. Left extreme radicals aren't gonna like her.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Carter's weakness led directly to the rise of neoliberalism and 40 years of Republican rule (yes, the GOP still basically governed America during the Clinton and Obama presidencies).

So you blame Carter for not being a criminal? The hostages could have come home sooner if Reagan didn't plan the Iran-Contra deal, which hinged on Iran not capitulating until he won the election. The day he got elected he got the hostages released AND he set up a guns for money deal with Iran and a third party? Carter wasn't weak, Reagan was one of the biggest crooked politicians ever.
---