Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 260: Now Endorsing Every Candidate

(+) Yeah! (+)

KamikazePotato posted...

Yeah we're kind of in a said state of affairs where having NPD is an asset. I actually think it was a mistake (politically) for Bernie to apologize for the Biden corruption op-ed. Apologizing is always seen as a form of weakness, even by most of the left. Doubling down and gaslighting is how you win the day.

trump apologized for the "grab 'em by the pussy" comments!

---

This is really fucked up:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-staggering-and-uncovered-legal-bills-facing-impeachment-witnesses

The witnesses to Trump's impeachable conduct will probably end up facing more consequences than Trump himself

---

lmao the clip of this is even worse:

https://twitter.com/HayesBrown/status/1219858466686324742

---

If I ever ghostwrite Mitch's autobiography, I'm calling it McConnell Rules

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

lmao the clip of this is even worse:

https://twitter.com/HayesBrown/status/1219858466686324742

i like how he pauses for a long while after saying "president trump" as if he's trying really hard not to burst out laughing

---

Get the man an acting gig

---

xp1337 posted...

well that part never happened lol

Except it did. You overestimate current polls to defining the winner. This doesn't mean it's likely by any means but 6% in November before Iowa is within the range of potential success. The majority of primary leaders don't hold their leads the entire way through: Newt, Hillary, Rudy, and Dean all ranged from bitter defeat to absolutely crushed. Bill was in single digits, around 8% in December. Carter is the most extreme example since he was at 4% in January. It's not an unheard of number so it'd be wrong to say she wasn't potentially viable then.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/22/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russian-asset-defamation-lawsuit

It's happening! Tulsi Gabbard has sued Hillary Clinton for defamation, seeking $50 million. Go Tulsi!

---

https://twitter.com/abdullahawez/status/1219974904898039809?s=21

Also Trump is very excited to steal the oil here
---

New report out of the UK is that Trump sold nuclear tech to the Saudis without telling Congress.
Very cool and very legal!!

---

Judge Jeanine on Fox News has been repeatedly hammering Clinton/Obama for months/years for secretly selling uranium to Russia. So maybe Trump got some ideas there.

---

2024 Democratic Primary:

Ronald Reagan Jr.
Megan McCain
Michelle Obama
Hillary Clinton
Lindsey Graham
John Kasich
Elizabeth Warren
Mike Bloomberg
Tom Steyer
Mitt Romney

The list of 2024 Dem contenders after the Republicans poach their best talent.

---

...the most likeable person on that list is... Steyer?

---

I'm hoping that by 2032, the Democratic Party will fade into irrelevancy, and the Republican Party can split into 2 new parties to represent the left and the right while the toxic centrists go down with the ship of the Democratic Party into political defeat for a generation.

---

red sox 777 posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/22/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russian-asset-defamation-lawsuit

It's happening! Tulsi Gabbard has sued Hillary Clinton for defamation, seeking $50 million. Go Tulsi!

wait... when does the statute of limitations run out on birtherism?

---

banananor posted...

wait... when does the statute of limitations run out on birtherism?

Based on a google search, it looks like the various states vary between 6 months to 3 years. So I think we are already past that point.

---

red sox 777 posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/22/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russian-asset-defamation-lawsuit

It's happening! Tulsi Gabbard has sued Hillary Clinton for defamation, seeking $50 million. Go Tulsi!

...beyond the suit being ridiculous in the first place, didnt it end up being the case that Clinton actually said Republican asset, not Russian asset?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

...beyond the suit being ridiculous in the first place, didnt it end up being the case that Clinton actually said Republican asset, not Russian asset?

Isn't that still considered defamation?

---

I thought she said "Russian asset." It's going to be tough because Tulsi is a public figure so she has to prove Hillary acted with actual malice. But I do believe that Hillary acted knowingly and maliciously so hopefully that truth will come out. The case does have a problem with damages - it seems like Hillary's comment boosted Tulsi in the polls so it doesn't seem to have damaged her.

If I could as a juror, I would award Tulsi $1 in nominal damages and $49,999,999 in punitive damages. I don't think 50 million x punitive damages are allowed anymore though.

---

Iirc whichever outlet broke the story transcribed the audio incorrectly. She said that Tulsi was a favorite of Russia but only a Republican asset.

And from Davos, Trump admitting to obstruction:

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103?s=21

---

red sox 777 posted...

I thought she said "Russian asset." It's going to be tough because Tulsi is a public figure so she has to prove Hillary acted with actual malice. But I do believe that Hillary acted knowingly and maliciously so hopefully that truth will come out. The case does have a problem with damages - it seems like Hillary's comment boosted Tulsi in the polls so it doesn't seem to have damaged her.

If I could as a juror, I would award Tulsi $1 in nominal damages and $49,999,999 in punitive damages. I don't think 50 million x punitive damages are allowed anymore though.

Sanders should sue her also.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Iirc whichever outlet broke the story transcribed the audio incorrectly. She said that Tulsi was a favorite of Russia but only a Republican asset.

And from Davos, Trump admitting to obstruction:

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/1219981403120644103?s=21

Since when is the defense in a criminal case required to produce evidence against themselves? Never. We fought a revolution to guarantee to ourselves this right.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Since when is the defense in a criminal case required to produce evidence against themselves? Never. We fought a revolution to guarantee to ourselves this right.

Hes not being ordered to produce evidence against himself. Various members of the executive branch are being ordered to produce evidence against him. Trump is not the executive branch. And in an extremely relevant precedent, Richard Nixon was forced to hand over the White House tapes.

---

Ok, so I've heard a really bad argument that's been making the rounds lately which I want to address, which is the idea that because the Constitution does not specify what is an impeachable offense, the Senate cannot dismiss the articles of impeachment for failure to charge an impeachable offense.

The Constitution gives the House the sole power to charge impeachments and the Senate the sole power to try them. That means that they both have a role in deciding what is an impeachable offense. Both of them have to agree than an act is impeachable for anyone to be convicted for that act. If the House doesn't think an act is impeachable it won't impeach. If the Senate doesn't it won't convict. This mirrors the usual relationship between a grand jury and a court of law - if the grand jury doesn't believe there was a crime, it won't indict, and if the court believes that the grand jury indicted for an act that is not a crime, it will dismiss the case.

The Senate absolutely has the power and obligation to determine the meaning of "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." The House determination of the meaning of this phrase is not binding on the Senate and never could be. So all the articles I've seen in the media arguing that the Senate cannot interpret the Constitution are ridiculous, and their attempts to attack Trump's lawyers for making bad arguments are even worse. The media people make a contention about the state of the law (an opinion) as if it were a fact, then attack others for disagreeing with them.

And yes, that means that the Senate can decide that engaging in a quid pro quo with a foreign government is not impeachable, but lying about an affair is. They could, but in fact they did decide 20 years ago that lying about an affair was not impeachable.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Hes not being ordered to produce evidence against himself. Various members of the executive branch are being ordered to produce evidence against him. Trump is not the executive branch. And in an extremely relevant precedent, Richard Nixon was forced to hand over the White House tapes.

If the House wanted that evidence and believed the Nixon precedent applied they could have gone to court and asked for an order compelling production. Now, you can argue that they are going to court now, in that they are asking the Senate to compel the production of the evidence in its capacity as a court of impeachment. Well, they can ask and the court can say no!

I think that the House would have much better chances of getting that production compelled in a regular court and not a partisan one like the Senate. But they chose to do this in the Senate, no one forced them to, and now they will reap the consequences of their strategy.

---

This should be a criminal trial with a real jury not a bunch of Trumps buddies who already said theyre gonna throw it. What an obvious farce our government is.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

This should be a criminal trial with a real jury not a bunch of Trumps buddies who already said theyre gonna throw it. What an obvious farce our government is.

Both sides are polarized. Can't have a fair trial no matter how you slice it. Dems are auto guilty. Repubs are auto innocent. Hell his impeachment numbers basically spell out the popularity vote. Lol

---

Yeah so maybe it would be a good idea to let all the evidence come out for the undecided public, and operate by the same rules as previous impeachments?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Both sides are polarized. Can't have a fair trial no matter how you slice it. Dems are auto guilty. Repubs are auto innocent. Hell his impeachment numbers basically spell out the popularity vote. Lol

So whats the solution
---

Jakyl25 posted...

So whats the solution

Is there one? Politics has become too polarized. Not having 2 partys would help... Some....

---

Fortunately there is something called an election which is scheduled for November!

---

"Everyone is the problem, not just my team" is a hell of a stance

---

Peace___Frog posted...

"Everyone is the problem, not just my team" is a hell of a stance

"The other team is the problem, not my team" is a hell of a stance.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Is there one? Politics has become too polarized. Not having 2 partys would help... Some....

Finally youre understanding that the system doesnt work

Lets take the next step and realize that laws created by such a polarized system are not inherently just.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Finally youre understanding that the system doesnt work

Lets take the next step and realize that laws created by such a polarized system are not inherently just.

Where have you been. I have said the 2 party system hasn't worked forever.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Both sides are polarized. Can't have a fair trial no matter how you slice it. Dems are auto guilty. Repubs are auto innocent. Hell his impeachment numbers basically spell out the popularity vote. Lol

On one hand, all of the facts show that Trump clearly did withhold Congressionally appropriated military aid to an ally at war with Russia in order to pressure them into announcing a sham investigation into his most likely reelection opponent and his son. On the other hand, we have no actual dispute of the underlying facts, but "get over it." Guess each side is equally valid!

---

Corrik7 posted...

Where have you been. I have said the 2 party system hasn't worked forever.

Thats so incongruous with your utmost respect for our systems of government though
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Finally youre understanding that the system doesnt work

Lets take the next step and realize that laws created by such a polarized system are not inherently just.

It's a different issue. Laws are to be obeyed not because they are just, but to maintain order. The sovereign (the king traditionally, but in the USA the people) are responsible before God for making their laws just, but as between a person and the sovereign, they simply have to obey.

---

You can say that but they have to weed out people for bias in every trial and either way no matter who they got it would still be better than notoriously corrupt folks who have already said theyre gonna throw it in his favor.

LordoftheMorons posted...

On one hand, all of the facts show that Trump clearly did withhold Congressionally appropriated military aid to an ally at war with Russia in order to pressure them into announcing a sham investigation into his most likely reelection opponent and his son. On the other hand, we have no actual dispute of the underlying facts, but "get over it." Guess each side is equally valid!

The Democrats clearly have no case. They're not equally valid.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

On one hand, all of the facts show that Trump clearly did withhold Congressionally appropriated military aid to an ally at war with Russia in order to pressure them into announcing a sham investigation into his most likely reelection opponent and his son. On the other hand, we have no actual dispute of the underlying facts, but "get over it." Guess each side is equally valid!

Spoken like a person on one side! Very polarized and without any gray area. Problem is that every side has their own non-gray area stance and the gray area is like missing.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

You can say that but they have to weed out people for bias in every trial and either way no matter who they got it would still be better than notoriously corrupt folks who have already said theyre gonna throw it in his favor.

The other half is politicians who have indicated they are going to vote guilty regardless of what is shown also. What do you expect?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats so incongruous with your utmost respect for our systems of government though

No. The government and law always should be upheld to the highest standard and respected because it provides you the lifestyle and comfort your lives have. The government is serviant to the American citizen in it's goal and aim. But, that doesn't mean the system cannot be bettered from the inside.

The problem sort of is that neither side has any incentive to get better. The public is too busy polarizing and wanting to be the "right" side. Instead of wondering if there isn't other sides than just the 2. The 2 party system doesn't work. But neither party will ever split when it means the other side might win because of it. I mean, the Democrats themselves are two clearly different parties playing nice together just to retain their democrat majority. AOC ain't saying the stuff she is saying because she is wrong. She is right. And you saw that play out with Hillary and Sanders last cycle.

They weren't all "Let's see who can win to be the best for our party going forward!". They were all like "Do whatever we can to stop Sanders from winning because he is too far left!". That's not a cohesive party.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Spoken like a person on one side! Very polarized and without any gray area. Problem is that every side has their own non-gray area stance and the gray area is like missing.

What do you think is the middle ground stance
---

Corrik7 posted...

The other half is politicians who have indicated they are going to vote guilty regardless of what is shown also. What do you expect?

This is false. If Trump actually presented evidence which disproved the seemingly inescapable conclusion painted by all of the evidence currently publicly available they would vote to acquit. But Trump hasn't done that; hell, he freely provided one of the most damning pieces of evidence (the "Perfect Phone Call") himself!

You're basically saying that a jury that's seen a tape of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue shouldn't even be entertaining the idea of convicting him until the trial's over.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. The government and law always should be upheld to the highest standard and respected because it provides you the lifestyle and comfort your lives have. The government is serviant to the American citizen in it's goal and aim. But, that doesn't mean the system cannot be bettered from the inside.

So in your opinion right now, the government could be better but its still functioning well
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What do you think is the middle ground stance

Does it really matter what it is? Anyone in that slim area is drowned out by the two polarized ends screaming at each other that the other side is evil or corrupt.

And both sides are frankly. They are playing a competitive team game and not each individually serving their people. Political parties should frankly just be abolished totally lol.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

So in your opinion right now, the government could be better but its still functioning well

Yes.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

This is false. If Trump actually presented evidence which disproved the seemingly inescapable conclusion painted by all of the evidence currently publicly available they would vote to acquit. But Trump hasn't done that; hell, he freely provided one of the most damning pieces of evidence (the "Perfect Phone Call") himself!

You're basically saying that a jury that's seen a tape of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue shouldn't even be entertaining the idea of convicting him until the trial's over.

The phone call released shows nothing of interest. It was a complete nothing-burger. The issues here is things surrounding the phone call and what may have been omitted from what was released from the phone call. If you are arguing the greatest piece of evidence is the phone call log he released, then you shouldn't even think anything wrong happened.

The "greatest piece of evidence" was the phone log he released??? Lol.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Does it really matter what it is? Anyone in that slim area is drowned out by the two polarized ends screaming at each other that the other side is evil or corrupt.

Im asking you just out of curiosity honestly

What do you think the proper course of action is in handling the impeachment trial
---