Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 252: Voiding Our Special Relationship

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1204491541743644674?s=21

@Forceful_Dragon

Yessssss

This gon' be the best debate yet. Maybe they'll even give Yang an average amount of speaking time!

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I may be wrong on this, but I dont think we deal with Ukraine at all because they have no responsibility to us unlike Trump.

Its like if the US was a McDonalds and Trump is a McDonalds employee selling McNuggets under the table to some dude (Ukraine) for his own benefit. If they find out, McDonalds can punish the employee, but they have no power over the random dude and the random dude didnt really do anything wrong anyway. He was just buying McNuggets, which is fine. The problem is the employee was selling the McNuggets for himself instead of for McDonalds.

We have power over Ukraine. It is exactly why Trump supposedly was able to use leverage to strongarm Ukraine in the first place.

---

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888

Trump Campaign campres him to Thanos... and refers to the scene where (Endgame Spoilers) Thanos loses

---

Dancedreamer posted...

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888

Trump Campaign campres him to Thanos... and refers to the scene where (Endgame Spoilers) Thanos loses

Oh god, I love that if you scroll through the comments, you can find the one guy on Trump's team that actually watched the movie.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yes! Precisely! A day may come when Trump goes over the line, when his acts go so far that there is enough support with the public and in Congress to remove him. When and if that day comes, you want to make sure you have the tools remaining to impeach and remove him. As long as you have those tools, it also acts as a check on any president - who will restrain their actions knowing that they could be removed from office for going too far.

If you impeach now you will firmly establish that everything Trump has done to date is 100% okay. Trump or any future president will have to go far beyond what he has done so far before there is even any more discussion about impeaching and removing him. That is definitely bad for the country. And if Democrats could think 2 steps ahead, they would see that.

Or! And I know this is crazy, but the Republicans could choose not to set dangerous precedents by blindly dismissing charges purely for political reasons. They could do an actual legit look at if what the president has done should be considered okay, and if they dont believe it would be ok for future Democrat presidents to do then they could actually convict.

---

Late to this, but I'll note that I'm not the biggest fan of the draft articles as they currently are. "Obstruction of Congress" sounds goofy, not entirely sure why they didn't just go with contempt there.

All that said, small history sidebar here on some of the stuff that has been discussed, because in practice these articles clearly take a page out of Nixon.

Article II of Impeachment against Nixon was abuse of power though not explicitly stated in those three words. The theme is there throughout, but comes closest with "In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering..."

As for the "Obstruction of Congress" article here it's almost quite literally Article III of Impeachment of Nixon which charges Nixon with failing to produce "papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives [on various dates] and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas." and today's draft uses the same wording and logic that article did in stating that such actions had Nixon substituting his judgment of what was necessary to the inquiry over the House and thus assuming the functions and judgments necessary to the sole power of impeachment vested to the House.

For the record, Article I of Impeachment against Nixon was basically focused on Obstruction of Justice and includes charges that could easily apply here too honestly such as

Article I of Impeachment adopted against Nixon

making or causing to be made false or misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favorable treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony

The break there is because they were part of a numbered list but GameFAQs new post system refuses to let me use the actual numbers and hijacks it to start at 1. >_>

Basically, these articles hew pretty damn closely to the Nixon ones in all honesty. Though I do believe the Nixon ones were written better hopefully the draft articles here are improved because tbqh I was not very impressed with how they were written but that is 95% political nerding on my part.

And if you want to go back to Johnson's impeachment, you have articles of impeachments adopted there that could be applied here to truly comical levels. One article was over making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States" and a another article for "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency"

As for concrete suggestions on my part. The House could easily tie, say, Trump violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 into this whole scheme. (said act was passed by Congress in response to their feelings that Nixon was abusing his power by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The act says the President my request Congress to rescind any appropriated funds, but if the House and Senate do not both approve such a rescission proposal by passing legislation within 45 days any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on any such request and indeed has typically ignored such requests.) I want to say Schiff raised this point recently, perhaps in the Intel report or maybe just as a public comment.

tbqh have Schiff write them

---

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1204530018824654848?s=19

Great example of how compromise is nearly impossible in our current system. Even if Pelosi and company do think the USCMA is good policy, Trump just spins it into an L. And of course if they don't pass it, it gets spun as "do-nothing Dems" again. Bipartisan attempts at mediocre policy are frequently lose-lose.

(also nighttime helicopter press conference is goofy as hell)

---

if theyre embarrassed by it, they could just...not do it?

This theory is like how people say the Deep State controls all but yet still somehow they couldnt stop Donald Trump

---

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1204503645607333888

wat lol

---

Oh yeah it's also a ridiculous spin but unfortunately the things Trump saying being ridiculous doesn't matter to his base.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1204530018824654848?s=19

Great example of how compromise is nearly impossible in our current system. Even if Pelosi and company do think the USCMA is good policy, Trump just spins it into an L. And of course if they don't pass it, it gets spun as "do-nothing Dems" again. Bipartisan attempts at mediocre policy are frequently lose-lose.

(also nighttime helicopter press conference is goofy as hell)

He really isn't wrong tho. The reason they are pushing to push that right now is to distract from the impeachment.

---

in no world does passing the usmca displace literal impeachment from the headlines lol

The whole USMCA thing sounds like the blue dogs are pushing for it and either Pelosi realizes that without them she lacks the majority on USMCA and thus has to go along with it and try to improve it (in her eyes) as best she can rather than suffer a potentially embarrassing defeat if the original (worse, in her eyes) Trump negotiated deal passes with Rs + Blue Dogs, or she simply agrees with the idea in general and so is going along with it, again, pushing for improvements as much as she can.

This whole narrative that they can't multitask is ridiculous. Ways and Means is the primary subcommittee dealing with USMCA. Intel and Judiciary are handling impeachment.

and the idea that pelosi is letting usmca move forward is because she "doesn't have the votes" on impeachment is ludicrous and anyone who thinks it is even remotely true is in for a shock in the near future

Really, the only extent to which I could buy that they're related at all is maybe there's a few holdouts in the caucus from deep red seats that voted for Trump by like 20+ who have struck a deal with Pelosi that they'll vote for impeachment if she gives them USMCA so they can try to use it as a shield to their constituency. But that is entirely different from Pelosi not having the votes for impeachment. It would be her trying to run up the score and minimize potential defectors.

---

Corrik7 posted...

He really isn't wrong tho. The reason they are pushing to push that right now is to distract from the impeachment.

No, they're doing it because they want to show they can both work on policy and impeach the president. That's not a distraction. This is why Dems always talk about "walking and chewing gum." This is why Trump smears them with "do-nothing Dems." Democrats don't have a ton of policy victories, but the reason for that is most of their bills are stonewalled in the Senate. They do actually want to legislate AND impeach the president and so are jumping at the chance to pass something. But Trump just takes the credit anyways.

---

Corrik7 posted...

He really isn't wrong tho. The reason they are pushing to push that right now is to distract from the impeachment.

in what universe does a trade agreement distract from IMPEACHMENT

---

Conservative Logic:

-Democrats pass the Trade Agreement: "It's only to distract from impeachment!"
-Democrats don't pass the trade agreemnt: "Democrats are ONLY focusing on impeachment and not the business of the country at hand."

Whatever Democrats do, they lose. THat's their mindset, and that's why they're not really worth engaging anymore.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

in what universe does a trade agreement distract from IMPEACHMENT

That's the reason moderate Democrats are pushing for it. To get the attention off of impeachment and so that they can point to the trade agreement for working with Trump instead. I posted an article from politico about it earlier.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

No, they're doing it because they want to show they can both work on policy and impeach the president. That's not a distraction. This is why Dems always talk about "walking and chewing gum." This is why Trump smears them with "do-nothing Dems." Democrats don't have a ton of policy victories, but the reason for that is most of their bills are stonewalled in the Senate. They do actually want to legislate AND impeach the president and so are jumping at the chance to pass something. But Trump just takes the credit anyways.

They are doing it because moderate Democrats are giving issues with the impeachment vote if they don't do it to get heat off them in their district.

---

that's not "distracting from impeachment" that's giving members in tough districts the ability to go to their constituents and say that they know the populist concerns that motivated those voters who went for Trump then them from 2018 and say, "Just because I have come to the belief that Trump has committed impeachable offenses and have voted accordingly doesn't mean I'm rejecting the populist ideas that drew you to him in the first place, see, I have also been addressing those too, you're not forgotten" they don't want to be left out there alone to be annihilated in unfriendly territory and Pelosi (and the party as a whole) has an interest in trying to protect the majority as best as they are able within reason.

It's disarming (to what level of success I question) the incoming attack that impeachment is Democrats ignoring/forgetting/rejecting the populist economic concerns that many voters in these districts had.

and/or they genuinely believe in the policy given there is a bit of spectrum of thought on free/fair trade on the democratic side. See: Sherrod Brown, some of Warren's trade rhetoric, etc.

---

Corrik7 posted...

They are doing it because moderate Democrats are giving issues with the impeachment vote if they don't do it to get heat off them in their district.

I mean, that is what I said except this isn't what a distraction is. It won't distract anyone. It will just help the case that they also passed policies.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I mean, that is what I said except this isn't what a distraction is. It won't distract anyone. It will just help the case that they also passed policies.

To be quite honest, while I think it puts us on the same line of thought and same end result, I kind of feel like if the concern genuinely motivating democratic leadership is fear of the "do nothing democrats" narrative then they're making a mistake.

I think that's a bogus narrative and one they can easily fend off regardless of the USMCA and if that's their motivation here it's a mistaken one IMO.

I think the more legitimate one is to provide cover for the at-risk members of the caucus by giving them something tangible to show their constituents in showing they're working on the populist economics that helped fuel Trump's 2016 bid. It's a similar thought pattern but the difference is significant in how they're thinking strategically IMO. It is also something I am uncertain is really effective to be honest, seeing as how credit/blame for these things always goes to the President so I don't know how much this helps downballot in these places as split-ticket voting seems to become more rare. And also, of course, because I think the data has shown that the populist economic argument/"economic anxiety" is mostly a mirage here for racial resentment but that's not an argument the party can really make because the country clearly isn't ready to have that discussion.

---

By this logic, anything anyone does that their constituents like is a distraction

---

I love how Corrik is always crying about never giving Trump credit when he does something right.

---

It would be pretty hilarious if now Trump and the GOP argued that the USMCA should be voted down in the Senate because Democrats approved it

---

Watching a Trump rally is an amazing thing.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

It would be pretty hilarious if now Trump and the GOP argued that the USMCA should be voted down in the Senate because Democrats approved it

It would be kinda funny.

---

Text of the articles of impeachment:
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1204432070367469576?s=21

Basically as narrow as they possibly could be. They allude to previous obstruction with Mueller in saying that his obstruction is consistent with his previous conduct.

---

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1204533600537972736

WHAT
the
FUCK
---

Do something about this, groypers
---

I want Trump to call Bernie the Anti-Jewish candidate.

plz

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I want Trump to call Bernie the Anti-Jewish candidate.

plz

The Federalist already did!

https://twitter.com/fdrlst/status/1204415477352673280
---

Yess

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1204533600537972736

WHAT
the
FUCK

Kinda weird.

---

Kinda weird that they want to censor criticism of Israeli apartheid? Yeah, it is.

Also this has bipartisan support! Its not just a conservative thing
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Kinda weird that they want to censor criticism of Israeli apartheid? Yeah, it is.

Also this has bipartisan support! Its not just a conservative thing

of course it's bipartisan, the democratic party are total bootlickers for the Israeli government

I'm annoyed that I have to specify "the Israeli government" like someone's gonna assume I hate jews but that's how this bad faith shit goes now I guess

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1204533600537972736

WHAT
the
FUCK

so nationalist that he's just inventing new nationalities

---

Re Corbyn's tolerance of antisemitism:
tabletmag.com/scroll/236063/why-just-13-percent-of-british-jews-say-they- will-vote-for-labour-in-the-general-election

(remove space)

---

Speaking of propaganda campaigns:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll

1. Who would you rather see fix our Nations shattered immigration policies?
President Trump
A MS-13 Loving Democrat
2. Who do you trust more to protect America from foreign and domestic threats?
President Trump
A Corrupt Democrat
3. Who would you rather handle our Nations economy?
President Trump
A Radical Socialist Democrat
4. Who do you believe is more transparent with the American People?
President Trump
A Lying Democrat
5. Who do you trust to NOT raise your taxes?
President Trump
A High Tax Democrat
6. Who do you believe will ALWAYS put America FIRST?
President Trump
A Sleazy Democrat
7. Who do you believe will keep their promises?
President Trump
A Lyin Democrat
8. Who do you believe will fight for you every day?
President Trump
A Low Energy Democrat
9. Who do you believe is better for America?
President Trump
A Low IQ Democrat
10. Who will you vote for in 2020?
President Trump
A Radical Socialist Democrat

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Re Corbyn's tolerance of antisemitism:
tabletmag.com/scroll/236063/why-just-13-percent-of-british-jews-say-they- will-vote-for-labour-in-the-general-election

(remove space)

Thank you, I admit I don't know much about UK politics only that people I find to be good on politics I do know seem to not be very impressed with Corbyn's negative profile.

I do enjoy that poll though.

---

A lot of Dems/libs seem further and further antj-Jewish so I am not surprised to see you all in an uproar over this. I find it odd he wants to make a religion a nationality because I mean... You can convert into being a Jewish person. Which is what seems odd to me. It would be like making a Christian a nationality. I mean, I get the point to make anti-Semitism a racist crime, which har har Trump is a Nazi Har har, and it is an admirable goal. I just, think that's an odd way to go about it.

---

If criticizing Israel makes one anti-semitic, pretty sure Trump's criticism of almost every country that isn't Russia makes him anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist, etc.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

If criticizing Israel makes one anti-semitic, pretty sure Trump's criticism of almost every country that isn't Russia makes him anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist, etc.

Anti-Jewish sentiment among liberals has been rising while pro-Islam sentiments have been as well.

Israel is already a nation and Israelites are already a nationality so why converting Judaism itself into one (though I am sure almost all of you already talk about it as one as I believe me and others have pointed out to you repeatedly being Jewish is your religion not nationality) is a bit odd.

However, stamping out hate is a good thing I suppose.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Anti-Jewish sentiment among liberals has been rising while pro-Islam sentiments have been as well.

Anti-Israel =/= anti-semitic.

I know conservatives are desperate to conflate the two but Jewish people voted 79% with Democrats in 2018, which was up from the 2016 and 2014 elections.

There is no rise in anti-semitism in the Democrat party. Meanwhile Trump is referring to Nazis as "very fine people."

---

A lot of Dems/libs seem further and further antj-Jewish so I am not surprised to see you all in an uproar over this

lol fuck off corrik

Anti-Jewish sentiment among liberals has been rising w

show me any actual evidence of this that isnt conflating Judaism with Israel
---

Meanwhile Trump's appeal to Jewish voters literally a few days:

A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. Youre brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for meyou have no choice. Youre not gonna vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that. Youre not gonna vote for the wealth tax. Yeah, lets take 100% of your wealth away! Some of you dont like me. Some of you I dont like at all, actually. And youre going to be my biggest supporters because youre going to be out of business in about 15 minutes if they get it. So I dont have to spend a lot of time on that.

Yes, "you greedy Jews need to vote for me because all you care about is money" is not an anti-semitic pitch at all.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Meanwhile Trump's appeal to Jewish voters literally a few days:

A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. Youre brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for meyou have no choice. Youre not gonna vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that. Youre not gonna vote for the wealth tax. Yeah, lets take 100% of your wealth away! Some of you dont like me. Some of you I dont like at all, actually. And youre going to be my biggest supporters because youre going to be out of business in about 15 minutes if they get it. So I dont have to spend a lot of time on that.

Yes, "you greedy Jews need to vote for me because all you care about is money" is not an anti-semitic pitch at all.

I mean, he is talking about the Jewish people that specifically he says he knows from the real estate business as being "brutal killers" and caring about their "wealth". Maybe he is right. I don't really deem to act like I know about the people he says he knows personally.

---

Do Democrats know how bad it is politically to say that they are open to impeaching Trump again once he is exonerated?

---

He was speaking to the Israeli American Council, it had nothing to do with Jewish real estate business but he felt like bringing it up for no reason other than his assumption that Jews love money.

It's like going to a CAIR program and going "you muslims like to blow yourselves up, don't you?"

---

Corrik7 posted...

Do Democrats know how bad it is politically to say that they are open to impeaching Trump again once he is exonerated?

So basically they should say "Trump only gets one impeachment and then anything he does afterwards he gets away with Scot-free"?

---

TheRock1525 posted...

So basically they should say "Trump only gets one impeachment and then anything he does afterwards he gets away with Scot-free"?

It means they are straight up telling America that he is going to be exonerated, and it was a waste of time.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

He was speaking to the Israeli American Council, it had nothing to do with Jewish real estate business but he felt like bringing it up for no reason other than his assumption that Jews love money.

It's like going to a CAIR program and going "you muslims like to blow yourselves up, don't you?"

I am sure that is how you see it, unsurprisingly.

---