Impeachment 2, the reckoning revenge redemption.

[Worgen]

Time frame for impeachment.

Ok, so we have a good timeframe and methodology laid out for the democratic plan for this coming week.

Apparently on Monday democrats will introduce a legislative act requesting Mike Pence to invoke the 25th amendment. If house republicans balk then Democrats will hold a formal vote on Tuesday which will make it through since democrats control the house. If Pence refuses, which seems likely, then we move onto impeachment. The problem with impeachment is that you need all 50 democrats and 17 republicans to back it for removal, and the Senate is in recess till the 19th. Senators having to debate this would impact Biden being able to set appointments and impact his early legislation and priority legislation such as dealing with Covid. Democrats could hold onto the impeachment for 100 days though. Either way, going to be weird.

Factbox: What to expect when Congress moves to force Trump from office this week

Democrats in the U.S. Congress will try to remove President Donald Trump from office this week, either by pressuring Vice President Mike Pence or in a historic second impeachment attempt, after Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol building.

www.reuters.com

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm no a constitutional scholar, but I don't think any former president has ever been in jail, so I assume new law would be made, including time spent in a brand new facility, and SS details as available. But the idea of a presidential prison really strikes ill for tax payers, so most likely in house arrest

The response I was hoping for was that secret service agents would have to go to prison with Trump, or that Trump would have to start making friends with the Aryan Brotherhood.

 

[Worgen]

60 minutes interview with Pelosi.

 

[Revnak]

Yes and your source clearly states the quote, but it contradicts your second point about it being just to take the black vote and it working. Not to mention that if LBJ was as narcissistic as trump, then he wouldn't have decided not to run again. This wasn't he couldn't run or lost the nomination, this was him deciding he couldn't be president and also do what needed to be done in Vietnam to resolve it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/03/31/a-pearl-harbor-in-politics-lbjs-stunning-decision-not-to-seek-reelection/

I was gonna bring up that race not being close as an argument for why LBJ’s dropping out was more just him being unwilling to be the one to take that bullet, but in terms of actual vote count it was much closer than I thought. With how chaotic 1968 was he could’ve won it with some slightly different variables. Kinda weird tbh.

 

[Silvanus]

The response I was hoping for was that secret service agents would have to go to prison with Trump, or that Trump would have to start making friends with the Aryan Brotherhood.

"Start"?

 

[Thaluikhain]

While we are on the Secret Service, the actor who played Secret Service 2, guarding the President in Escape from New York would have had a certain amount of insider knowledge, as he was Steven Ford, son of Gerald Ford. If, for some reason, he was playing a Secret Service person before he turned 16, he'd have had a real Secret Service person/s watching him.

"Start"?

Eh, they'd be worried he'd fall short of their high moral standards and betray them at the first opportunity.

 

[Agema]

You're not acknowledging the part about the Kerner Report. The report that told Johnson the key issues causing racial disparities, that he condemned because he thought it made him look bad. Then, instead of working of getting people jobs and stopping the police from beating them, he built the projects. I'm sure you're aware that the projects are not a standing legacy of doing good for minority communities. Where's lil devils to back me up, sticking communities in cheap holes isn't a step towards racial equality.

I can't help but feel here again you are just painting this in the worst possible light. From what I can read, he did not condemn the report, he ignored it. By the time of the commission, there was already a major white backlash to what he had already done, and with Vietnam woes added Johnson had little political capital left for further radical action - he left the presidency in 1968 because he knew he was done for.

He did finally get the bill against housing discrimination he had long wanted. As for the projects, per se they were replacement of older slums with modern housing and in that they were successful. No, they did not resolve issues of racial ghettoisation, but it was surely better for inner city Americans to live in cheap modern housing than slums because let's not pretend the subsequent economic stresses and urban decay of the 1970s would have been any kinder to them.

 

[Agema]

It's not even that. Goldwater was certainly for federal involvement in civil rights, he voted for every civil rights act before the one in 1964. His position was not that issues of race shouldn't be acknowledge, it was that bills were being proposed that were entering spaces the federal government had no precedent being in. That these bills were inspired by racial issues wasn't the problem he saw.

And we have every right to damn him for thinking that "states rights" should allow the racists who controlled state governments to deny fundamental rights of citizens to their own people.

Had he won, how much longer might it have taken?

 

[tstorm823]

Yes and your source clearly states the quote, but it contradicts your second point about it being just to take the black vote and it working.

I never made this point. The Democratic Party already had the black vote. LBJ dd what he did for the gratification he got from people like you thinking he was great.

Not to mention that if LBJ was as narcissistic as trump, then he wouldn't have decided not to run again. This wasn't he couldn't run or lost the nomination, this was him deciding he couldn't be president and also do what needed to be done in Vietnam to resolve it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/03/31/a-pearl-harbor-in-politics-lbjs-stunning-decision-not-to-seek-reelection/

LBJ chose not to run again because all his percieved success came from Kennedy's legacy, and another Kennedy announced he was going to primary Johnson.

 

[tstorm823]

I can't help but feel here again you are just painting this in the worst possible light. From what I can read, he did not condemn the report, he ignored it. By the time of the commission, there was already a major white backlash to what he had already done, and with Vietnam woes added Johnson had little political capital left for further radical action - he left the presidency in 1968 because he knew he was done for.

You're right, condemned wasn't quite right. The man who asked for the commission described the result as this:

But Harris said Johnson got false information that the report gave him no credit for his work to advance civil rights and erase poverty and that it would spell disaster for his presidency. Johnson believed that.

“Turns out, he did think I forgot I was a Johnson man,” Harris said. “He rejected our report and refused to meet with us. And that’s a shame, because Johnson did more to turn back racism and poverty than any president before or since.”

Corrales man recalls work on LBJ's Kerner Commission

Fred Harris last surviving member of group that surveyed race and poverty issues

www.abqjournal.com

He declined to act on the commission's report because he thought it was bad for him.

Had he won, how much longer might it have taken?

Well, zero longer, because that Civil Rights Act passed before the election. But if Goldwater were in the Whitehouse, also zero, because the elimination of Jim Crow was not the contentious part to him.

 

[Silvanus]

Well, zero longer, because that Civil Rights Act passed before the election. But if Goldwater were in the Whitehouse, also zero, because the elimination of Jim Crow was not the contentious part to him.

We talked about this before; a bill passing does not immediately roll back decades (or centuries) of racial inequity. It requires political will to maintain and enforce something of this magnitude. Over and over again we've seen a President's projects ignored or rolled back under their successor, whether or not they managed to become law.

If Goldwater cared much about it, he wouldn't have prioritised some abstract notion of anti-federalism over civil rights. That's an unforgivable choice.

 

[Agema]

LBJ chose not to run again because all his percieved success came from Kennedy's legacy, and another Kennedy announced he was going to primary Johnson.

You mean all his actual, real success, because he passed the Civil Rights Bill where JFK had been blocked, and built on it with subsequent legislature to address civil rights and poverty.

He declined to act on the commission's report because he thought it was bad for him.

He thought it was bad for his presidency. That's not the same thing.

But if Goldwater were in the Whitehouse, also zero, because the elimination of Jim Crow was not the contentious part to him.

Yes, exactly. Jim Crow just didn't matter to him as much as a notion of the some responsibilities of state and federal government. Goldwater would not have banned slavery either, for the same reason. That's why people like Lincoln get a massive monument to last the ages, and people like Goldwater get a footnote in history books.

 

[Worgen]

I never made this point. The Democratic Party already had the black vote. LBJ dd what he did for the gratification he got from people like you thinking he was great.

Yes you did. "Lyndon Johnson was a racist, power-hungry, manipulative bastard, he just happened to be one that recognized there was power in the Civil Rights Movement that he could take for himself. And, at least so far, it freaking worked." This directly implies that he only did it for the power of the black voter and such and only did it for cynical selfserving reasons. Also, you need to recognize the difference between great as good and great as impactful.

LBJ chose not to run again because all his percieved success came from Kennedy's legacy, and another Kennedy announced he was going to primary Johnson.

I don't think this is true but even if it was then it still speaks to him being much less narcissistic then trump since LBJ didn't let his head get so far up his ass as to think he was deluded into thinking he was winning in a landslide.

 

[tstorm823]

We talked about this before; a bill passing does not immediately roll back decades (or centuries) of racial inequity. It requires political will to maintain and enforce something of this magnitude. Over and over again we've seen a President's projects ignored or rolled back under their successor, whether or not they managed to become law.

If Goldwater cared much about it, he wouldn't have prioritised some abstract notion of anti-federalism over civil rights. That's an unforgivable choice.

We have talked about this before, and your analysis is wrong. Goldwater's vote against the Act of 1964 was on the grounds of constitutionality. Once passed, we have an entire 3rd branch of government who is tasked with determining constitutionality of laws. It isn't the presidency.

Goldwater would not have banned slavery either, for the same reason.

Bullcrap. The man voted in favor of the Civil Rights act of 1957 and the 24th Amendment. There are few powers more directly delegated to the states than running their own elections, and he voted for federal involvement in that issue. The "states rights over everything" position you're projecting onto him is nothing but your own creation. Don't give me that "he wouldn't ban slavery" crap.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes you did. "Lyndon Johnson was a racist, power-hungry, manipulative bastard, he just happened to be one that recognized there was power in the Civil Rights Movement that he could take for himself. And, at least so far, it freaking worked." This directly implies that he only did it for the power of the black voter and such and only did it for cynical selfserving reasons.

He did only do it for cynical, self-serving reasons, but the reasons were he wanted people to worship him. I say "it freaking worked" because here you are praising him today. I never said a thing about getting black votes.

 

[Silvanus]

We have talked about this before, and your analysis is wrong. Goldwater's vote against the Act of 1964 was on the grounds of constitutionality. Once passed, we have an entire 3rd branch of government who is tasked with determining constitutionality of laws. It isn't the presidency.

And if he chose to prioritise this abstract constitutional concern over civil rights, then he made an abysmal call, and civil rights cannot have been terribly important to him.

 

[Agema]

We have talked about this before, and your analysis is wrong. Goldwater's vote against the Act of 1964 was on the grounds of constitutionality. Once passed, we have an entire 3rd branch of government who is tasked with determining constitutionality of laws. It isn't the presidency.

If it is up to the courts to decide, Goldwater could have voted for, and let the courts decide what was legal. So did he not want them to even be able to look? Was it posturing in preparation for a presidential run?

Bullcrap. The man voted in favor of the Civil Rights act of 1957 and the 24th Amendment. There are few powers more directly delegated to the states than running their own elections, and he voted for federal involvement in that issue.

If he was prepared to intervene with federal involvement there, then why not on widespread denial of rights to millions of Americans?

The "states rights over everything" position you're projecting onto him is nothing but your own creation. Don't give me that "he wouldn't ban slavery" crap.

But it's totally okay for you to insist on your personal creation of Johnson's motivations? Although I guess there is at least the consistency that you don't want either Johnson or Goldwater judged on their actual political accomplishments.

Why are you so mad about this? Was Goldwater a relative of yours or something, is this why you're so anti-LBJ and outraged on behalf of Bazza? Is it just that you hate the Democratic Party so much that you can't accept they were the ones to finally make the breakthrough and score the great victory?

 

[Houseman]

Is it just that you hate the Democratic Party so much that you can't accept they were the ones to finally make the breakthrough and score the great victory?

Wow, I'm surprised to see you acknowledge that partisan hate can blind people. I've been beating that drum for months!

 

[SilentPony]

Wow, I'm surprised to see you acknowledge that partisan hate can blind people. I've been beating that drum for months!

By your own admittance you've only known was "Partisan" means for two months.

 

[Houseman]

By your own admittance you've only known was "Partisan" means for two months.

Actually, I learned it through context, by being exposed to it.

But what's your point? Partisan hate doesn't blind people? I haven't been beating that drum for months?