Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 246: Butt His Voicemails

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

Sure. But this seems more like a political stunt.

Shouldn't you want your Congress working on things that can show actual results instead of focusing it's entire time on something that can go nowhere and provide no benefit to it's constituents?

Heres the thing, it shouldnt just be a political stunt. If the Republican Party had ethics, theyd be contributing to the criticism of Trump.


---

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html

I like how almost every revision for prior months adds even more jobs to the prior.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Heres the thing, it shouldnt just be a political stunt. If the Republican Party had ethics, theyd be contributing to the criticism of Trump.

You could say the same about Bill Clinton. Stop the charade my man.

---

When the President breaks the law, and we let them get away with it, it opens the door for future Presidents to break the law. And Republicans are fine with it now, but as soon as a Democrat gets in the white house and they control the Senate... then said Democrat has absolutely no reason to obey the law because his party doesn't have to hold him accountable.

But hey, when we come for your guns don't say we didn't warn you!
---

I've said this before but taking a stand against Trump and displaying a willingness to fight has value even if he currently has the support to weather the storm.

If you don't take such an action then there is nothing stopping him from further consolidating his power and eroding our Democracy.
---

Corrik7 posted...

Sure. But this seems more like a political stunt.

Shouldn't you want your Congress working on things that can show actual results instead of focusing it's entire time on something that can go nowhere and provide no benefit to it's constituents?

Sure I do, but they can do both.

Or, they could do both, but our system is hopelessly broken and partisan. The House has passed plenty of great bills (and are continuting to introduce legislation during the impeachment investigation as a matter of fact) that the Senate doesnt engage with. Only the most minor of things have been getting done. There really is no better time to impeach than now, because Congress was already unable to do its main job.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You could say the same about Bill Clinton. Stop the charade my man.

ok fine, but I was 11 when Clinton was impeached, so Im not sure what you want me to do about that

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Sure I do, but they can do both.

Or, they could do both, but our system is hopelessly broken and partisan. The House has passed plenty of great bills (and are continuting to introduce legislation during the impeachment investigation as a matter of fact) that the Senate doesnt engage with. Only the most minor of things have been getting done. There really is no better time to impeach than now, because Congress was already unable to do its main job.

Do you think this promotes bipartisanship or furthers the divide?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

ok fine, but I was 11 when Clinton was impeached, so Im not sure what you want me to do about that

Learn from history.

---

pyresword posted...

I've said this before but taking a stand against Trump and displaying a willingness to fight has value even if he currently has the support to weather the storm.

If you don't take such an action then there is nothing stopping him from further consolidating his power and eroding our Democracy.

Doesn't doing this with no hope of success do exactly what you are saying you are taking a stand against? Why should we consider impeachment in the future when it becomes a simple partisan split.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Learn from history.

Im literally saying criticism of the President should be bi-partisan, and youre telling me to learn from history...and not criticize the President?

---

Corrik Chamberlain was completely reasonable in Munich 7
---

Corrik7 posted...

Do you think this promotes bipartisanship or furthers the divide?

It furthers the divide in the government, which is unfortunate. The polls have showed some movement towards bipartisan support of impeachment for voters, however. Approval of the impeachment process is creeping up for independents and republicans as more facts come out. The goal is to unite the people around denouncing Trump's corruption. If anyone in the government also comes around that's a bonus.

---

Corrik7 posted...

pyresword posted...

I've said this before but taking a stand against Trump and displaying a willingness to fight has value even if he currently has the support to weather the storm.

If you don't take such an action then there is nothing stopping him from further consolidating his power and eroding our Democracy.

Doesn't doing this with no hope of success do exactly what you are saying you are taking a stand against? Why should we consider impeachment in the future when it becomes a simple partisan split.

I...don't think so?

I don't think the fundamental problem with Trump as a leader is that he is encouraging fiercely tribal partisanship. (That is also bad, to be clear, and his one of the major tools he uses in achieving the latter goal) The fundamental problem I see with Trump is that he is engaging in systematic efforts to dismantle the functions of are government that are holding him back from furthering his own power. That is what I am taking a stand against.
---

Corrik7 posted...

I like how almost every revision for prior months adds even more jobs to the prior.

easy to do when they come back later and wipe it out en mass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/business/economy/jobs-growth-revision.html

"oh btw guys we reported half a million more jobs than actually occurred last year. whoops."
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Negative. I have told yinz you were idiots from day 1 cuz it wasn't possible with a Republican controlled Senate when you need 2/3 vote. Nice try though!

No one in here supporting impeachment thought Trump would actually be removed. Everyone agrees with you on that. The disagreement is on the process still being worthwhile.

If a crime is committed, but you know the criminal has really good lawyers who will win in court, should you not even bother collecting evidence of wrongdoing and presenting the case?

Also, what would you rather people talk about?

Would you do it if you knew the defendant would be able to handpick a jury consisting of his family members only?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Would you do it if you knew the defendant would be able to handpick a jury consisting of his family members only?

Sure, if the system is that corrupt then it's fine to fight it in public for transparency's sake.

---

Corrik: You should automatically assume people in power have the best interests of America in mind because thats their job

Also Corrik: You shouldnt pursue impeachment against the President when he commits impeachable crimes because the Republicans dont care about the rule of law over their party
---

Corrik7 posted...

Shouldn't you want your Congress working on things that can show actual results instead of focusing it's entire time on something that can go nowhere and provide no benefit to it's constituents?

You mean like a dozen Benghazi hearings?
---

Dancedreamer posted...

You mean like a dozen Benghazi hearings?

Republicans are so dumb.
Let's be like Republicans we complained about!

Your arguments are so circular. Republicans are wrong, but we should do it every opportunity we get to also!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It furthers the divide in the government, which is unfortunate. The polls have showed some movement towards bipartisan support of impeachment for voters, however. Approval of the impeachment process is creeping up for independents and republicans as more facts come out. The goal is to unite the people around denouncing Trump's corruption. If anyone in the government also comes around that's a bonus.

Isn't the latest like 87% Dems for. 47% Indies for. And 17% Republicans for?

It's about as split as you can imagine.

---

another wasted page huh
---

Corrik7 posted...

Shouldn't you want your Congress working on things that can show actual results instead of focusing it's entire time on something that can go nowhere and provide no benefit to it's constituents?

The House has passed like a hundred bills or something that Mitch McConnell has refused to bring up for a vote. Impeachment isn't stopping anything worthwhile from getting done.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

You mean like a dozen Benghazi hearings?

Republicans are so dumb.
Let's be like Republicans we complained about!

Your arguments are so circular. Republicans are wrong, but we should do it every opportunity we get to also!

This is only the same thing if we have a dozen Ukraine impeachment inquiries when each previous one fails
---

Corrik7 posted...

Your arguments are so circular. Republicans are wrong, but we should do it every opportunity we get to also!

The President of the United States has tried to get a foreign country to interfere with our elections, and at the expense of our national security. Either open, fair and honest elections are something worth fighting for, or they are not. And if they are not, then I'm not sure how we can continue to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Because at that point it's not. Maybe it's a losing battle. This is something that will test the conscience of the nation. Do we let the President get away with it? Maybe we do. But if we don't at least try -- just because Republicans are so partisan that they cannot and will not put country above party -- then we're letting the conscience of our nation die without even fighting for it.

That's a bit different than holding a DOZEN trials, all going absolutely nowhere -- and let's keep in mind these Benghazi trials were held and run by Republicans who were unable to find wrongdoing, members of the party that opposed Hillary Clinton, not the party that supported her.
---

Every page is a wasted page.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Isn't the latest like 87% Dems for. 47% Indies for. And 17% Republicans for?

It's about as split as you can imagine

Yes, and all those numbers were lower before the investigation officially started. It turns out news matters and what public leaders do matters.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Either open, fair and honest elections are something worth fighting for, or they are not. And if they are not, then I'm not sure how we can continue to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

lmao get off of this website with that hackneyed bloviating
---

Here for your periodic "Watergate parallel" check-in.

Public support of removal for Trump (let's ballpark it at around 49%. I've seen it in the low 50s. WaPo has a poll out today that has it at 49% though so let's roll with that for now) is over 15% higher than it was for Nixon after the Saturday Night Massacre.

Hell, you only see support for Nixon's removal reach/exceed 49% in a single poll four days before his resignation (57%). It was hovering around 46-48% when House Judiciary impeachment hearings began. You know... right where it is now. (Keep in mind the timeline of Watergate is a bit different here because it was initially spearheaded by the Senate. The Senate was holding nationally televised hearings for months until finally the Saturday Night Massacre occurred and only then did the House begin its inquiry)

Trump fares slightly better in job approval. 538 puts him at 40.9% approval. Nixon was around that area (44-39%) when you had Senate hearings, Cox appointed as Special Prosecutor, and WaPo reporting that Dean admitted the cover-up. Saturday Night Massacre dropped Nixon's job approval into the 30s but in this hyper-partisan era with Fox I don't think we're gonna see the numbers drop into the 20s like they did for Nixon at the end.

~~~

As for "dividing the country" and partisanship vs. Watergate.

Remember that one poll days before Nixon resigned where I noted it was the one and only poll Gallup had where public support for removal exceeded where Trump is today? Only 31% of Republicans supported removal there. WaPo has that at 18% right now for Trump.

~~~

tl;dr: Impeachment of Nixon was far less popular than it is from Trump if you put them up on timelines. Support for impeachment and removal of Trump is today where it was for Nixon in the days before his resignation after weeks and months of public hearings, the tapes, the Saturday Night Massacre, etc. And even then most Republicans stood by Nixon in polling. The only difference is that with Nixon the Congressional Republicans finally turned when the tapes came out and the line from party leadership to maintain unity broke down completely. If your opposition to a Trump impeachment/inquiry today is partisan divide then by that logic you would have been opposing the Nixon impeachment because the support was much, much lower at the time then than it is here and now. Nixon only got to where Trump currently is after months of public congressional hearings - a stage we haven't even gotten to yet here, Pelosi says she expects it to start this month.
---

Yeah but we are about a thousand times more tribal than we were in the 1970s, which is different from just traditional partisanship.
---

xp1337 posted...

Here for your periodic "Watergate parallel" check-in.

Public support of removal for Trump (let's ballpark it at around 49%. I've seen it in the low 50s. WaPo has a poll out today that has it at 49% though so let's roll with that for now) is over 15% higher than it was for Nixon after the Saturday Night Massacre.

Hell, you only see support for Nixon's removal reach/exceed 49% in a single poll four days before his resignation (57%). It was hovering around 46-48% when House Judiciary impeachment hearings began. You know... right where it is now. (Keep in mind the timeline of Watergate is a bit different here because it was initially spearheaded by the Senate. The Senate was holding nationally televised hearings for months until finally the Saturday Night Massacre occurred and only then did the House begin its inquiry)

Trump fares slightly better in job approval. 538 puts him at 40.9% approval. Nixon was around that area (44-39%) when you had Senate hearings, Cox appointed as Special Prosecutor, and WaPo reporting that Dean admitted the cover-up. Saturday Night Massacre dropped Nixon's job approval into the 30s but in this hyper-partisan era with Fox I don't think we're gonna see the numbers drop into the 20s like they did for Nixon at the end.

~~~

As for "dividing the country" and partisanship vs. Watergate.

Remember that one poll days before Nixon resigned where I noted it was the one and only poll Gallup had where public support for removal exceeded where Trump is today? Only 31% of Republicans supported removal there. WaPo has that at 18% right now for Trump.

~~~

tl;dr: Impeachment of Nixon was far less popular than it is from Trump if you put them up on timelines. Support for impeachment and removal of Trump is today where it was for Nixon in the days before his resignation after weeks and months of public hearings, the tapes, the Saturday Night Massacre, etc. And even then most Republicans stood by Nixon in polling. The only difference is that with Nixon the Congressional Republicans finally turned when the tapes came out and the line from party leadership to maintain unity broke down completely. If your opposition to a Trump impeachment/inquiry today is partisan divide then by that logic you would have been opposing the Nixon impeachment because the support was much, much lower at the time then than it is here and now.

That 31/18 Republican figure is the real story here. Support for removing Nixon was almost twice as high among the people who matter.
---

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/31/opinions/democrats-are-wasting-americas-time-on-impeachment-jennings/index.html

Yep. Pretty much.

---

Corrik would you support impeachment if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue

---

This election is very up in the air

An absolute Tory majority like 2015 isn't out of the question but is... unlikely.
They can't form a coalition with the DUP with the current deal which the DUP are against (unless the Cons pay them another fuckload of money then they might abandon their principles but I doubt they would).
They can't ally with the Lib Dems this time because LD's policy is strictly revoke A50 and remain which flies in the face of everything they're trying to do
The Brexit Party might get a couple of seats, but probably not enough combined to give them a majority.

I don't see what their options are. Conservatives are likely to win the most seats but I'm not sure what the makeup would be of the government if they don't win a majority.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik would you support impeachment if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue

Yes. I would support impeachment if he was doing what he was accused of here tbqh. It's a waste of time tho. It's gonna be just wrestling over intentions and word usage and be an aquittal so it's a waste of time.

The reason Nixon was gonna be removed was because it was clear cut. Not open to interpretation.

Clinton was clear cut also but the ultimate decision was did it merit removal from office.

---

Part of me wishes I could follow British politics better but I just don't have the room in my head to handle another dumpster fire when the one in US politics is neverending and all-consuming.

I've just assumed Brexit will be indefinitely extended until the sun expands and swallows the Earth, upon which Leave will declare victory and state that as the gravitational forces ripped the planet apart, it took them separate from the rest of the EU.
---

Tulsi will be heartbroken:
https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1190258768560435200?s=21

---

How many elections has the UK had since the Brexit vote? Parliamentary systems confound me.
---

Man, if Nixon was clear-cut I wonder what those 69% of Republicans who opposed impeachment at the end were thinking. And that was at the end of the process. When the Senate began televised Watergate hearings overall support for removal was only 19%. I can only imagine what Republican support was at that time. Like 8%? 5%?

man what a waste of time it must have been for congress to investigate.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

This election is very up in the air

An absolute Tory majority like 2015 isn't out of the question but is... unlikely.
They can't form a coalition with the DUP with the current deal which the DUP are against (unless the Cons pay them another fuckload of money then they might abandon their principles but I doubt they would).
They can't ally with the Lib Dems this time because LD's policy is strictly revoke A50 and remain which flies in the face of everything they're trying to do
The Brexit Party might get a couple of seats, but probably not enough combined to give them a majority.

I don't see what their options are. Conservatives are likely to win the most seats but I'm not sure what the makeup would be of the government if they don't win a majority.

You might end up with a Labour/Liberal/SNP coalition. But the beauty of FPTP is that you can get to a majority with way below a majority of the popular vote, which is presumably why the Conservatives are pushing so hard for an FPTP general election instead of a national referendum.

Left field deal: How about a Tory/SNP alliance where the Tories agree that Scotland can leave the UK, and the Tories end up with an absolute majority of the seats in the rest of the UK?
---

xp1337 posted...

Man, if Nixon was clear-cut I wonder what those 69% of Republicans who opposed impeachment at the end were thinking. And that was at the end of the process. When the Senate began televised Watergate hearings overall support for removal was only 19%. I can only imagine what Republican support was at that time. Like 8%? 5%?

man what a waste of time it must have been for congress to investigate.

Nixon didn't do anything impeachable fwiw

It was a politically savvy move though because his resignation spared the GOP from having to combat the media and the leftist historians on this issue for all eternity
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

xp1337 posted...

Man, if Nixon was clear-cut I wonder what those 69% of Republicans who opposed impeachment at the end were thinking. And that was at the end of the process. When the Senate began televised Watergate hearings overall support for removal was only 19%. I can only imagine what Republican support was at that time. Like 8%? 5%?

man what a waste of time it must have been for congress to investigate.

Nixon didn't do anything impeachable fwiw

It was a politically savvy move though because his resignation spared the GOP from having to combat the media and the leftist historians on this issue for all eternity

In retrospect, it was a mistake for the GOP to allow Nixon to resign. Appeasing liberals doesn't work, they just get louder.
---

I was waiting for the "actually, Watergate impeachment was bad" take

Presidents should basically be unassailable god-kings

---

xp1337 posted...

Man, if Nixon was clear-cut I wonder what those 69% of Republicans who opposed impeachment at the end were thinking. And that was at the end of the process. When the Senate began televised Watergate hearings overall support for removal was only 19%. I can only imagine what Republican support was at that time. Like 8%? 5%?

man what a waste of time it must have been for congress to investigate.

Nixon had previously told the American people that he was not a crook. Donald Trump has steadfastly maintained through his campaign and presidency and through decades of public life that he is a crook. Hence, everyone already knew that when they voted for him.

They still voted for him, because a crook is better than an existential threat to the nation, which is what Hillary represented. She literally called a quarter of the country deplorable and irredeemable, and she openly plotted to take away the livelihoods of coal miners and steelworkers.
---

Assad's got a point (which feels gross to say)

Trump said this about the Khashoggi murder and I actually appreciated it.

We dont like it, he continued, we dont like it even a bit. But whether we should stop $110 billion from being spent in this country knowing they have four or five alternative two very good alternatives that would not be acceptable to me.

To so transparently and starkly put that "choice" out there, the choice you make when you deal with Saudi, is something I want more of. It's gross to me that he sides with the money, but at least he's honest - where UK leaders, for instance, skirt the question.

He should do more of this. Don't dress anything up. Nakedly expose the choices you make when you support invading middle eastern countries and when you support the Saudi regime. You are not involved in the middle east as pure-hearted freedom fighters; you are there for oil. You are not backing MBS and his involvement in Yemen because you want to wait and see how the proceedings play out and you're waiting for "due process" or something; you are backing him because he pays you.

Strip away the pretense that it is anything other than a morals vs. money (or power, or whatever) issue. And if people, when fully informed, choose the money then at least we know where we stand.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I was waiting for the "actually, Watergate impeachment was bad" take

Presidents should basically be unassailable god-kings

Only Republican Presidents.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

How many elections has the UK had since the Brexit vote? Parliamentary systems confound me.

1, that failed to produce a majority government.
---

Meanwhile former Bush ethics lawyer says that Democrats MUST impeach Trump. I'll take his word over a hyper-partisan former bush official like Scott Jennings.
---

red sox 777 posted...

In retrospect, it was a mistake for the GOP to allow Nixon to resign. Appeasing liberals doesn't work, they just get louder.

I'm saying it paved the way for Reagan and conservative dominance for 40 years
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

In retrospect, it was a mistake for the GOP to allow Nixon to resign. Appeasing liberals doesn't work, they just get louder.

I'm saying it paved the way for Reagan and conservative dominance for 40 years

I'm not sure that was a good thing. Those 40 years helped the affluent a lot but no one else. And on the social issues, virtually none of the goals were accomplished. Those 40 years also created the monster that is the modern centrist Democrats.
---