[Politics] TRUMP IS GUILTY

Dr. Thrax

New member
Dec 5, 2011
347
0
0
Eacaraxe said:
Basically, the Democratic party is a walking corpse and blind support of it is only going to continue making the systemic problems our country faces worse. Sadly, the problems have metastasized to the point a new party system is only a beginning; numerous Constitutional amendments, perhaps even a Constitutional convention, is what it'll take. That was true before Trump, it's still true, and it'll continue being true regardless how Trump is disposed as President. Trump's a symptom, not a cause.
The problem is that we still need the Democratic party because they're the only other party with power in this country. I'd like to see a takeover by true progressives, as a third party is doomed to failure. But not only that, the changes you list - of which I'm not opposed to in the slightest - would be impossible until we almost entirely oust the Republicans, which sure as shit isn't going to happen. The US needs a political revolution to take place in order to start fixing our many problems, but quite frankly I think the US is a slowly sinking ship and we're just trying to keep our heads above water for as long as possible.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,350
363
88
Eacaraxe said:
I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.
You speak like if Pence has been sitting on his hands all this time. If he is as evil and competent as you say, then he hasn't.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Eacaraxe said:
I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.
You speak like if Pence has been sitting on his hands all this time. If he is as evil and competent as you say, then he hasn't.
Of course he hasn't been sitting on his hands, however he is able to do much less harm in his current position due to Trump's ego. The second people start taking the spotlight Trump goes into a jealous tizzy, so Pence is still treading carefully.
EDIT: For example, Trump took credit for this but Pence is who drafted it:
https://thinkprogress.org/pence-responsible-for-trump-transgender-military-ban-f4d3b67bde47/

generals3 said:
Asita said:
Not so, actually. I seem to remember you're not from the States, so this might be a point of confusion. Forgive me if I end up explaining something you already know. Congress is not a singular body in the States. It's divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. For any bill or motion to pass, it must pass first in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Democrats currently hold a slim majority in the House (235 to 198, or 54%), and Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate (53 to 45, with 2 senators in other parties).

While Democrats could certainly pass an impeachment resolution in the House, it's unlikely to pass the Senate without mass defections from the Republicans who have been burying their head in the sand ever since it became apparent that Mueller was actually going to investigate rather than carry the party line and quietly bury the matter. This further makes impeachment itself an uphill battle, as impeachment requires a Senate supermajority to actually pass. That's 67 votes in the Republican dominated Senate.

So here's the likely chain of events. Articles of Impeachment pass on party lines in the House, and are then rejected on party lines in the Senate. Impeachment attempt dies there. Less likely is that it passes both bodies of congress, but is unable to secure a supermajority vote required to implement. So again we hit a case where the Impeachment process dies. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans start crowing about how this somehow 'proves' Trump's innocent and that the Democrats were always just working off of irrational hatred, and people who can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the case against Trump and the mechanics of impeachment take it hook line and sinker. Republican base gets further energized, Democrats get further demoralized.

Point being that, as frustrating as it is, impeachment is not probable so long as the Senate is packed with Trump loyalists (or people who defer to loyalists like McConnell and Nunes) who won't hear a thing against him on principle. We're finally starting to see cracks in that wall with Representative Justin Amash, but thus far he's the only Republican in Congress who has voiced support for impeachment.
I admit I mistakenly used "congress" instead of "house of representatives". And while you're right the impeachment procedure will likely get blocked in the senate due to Republicans being only loyal to their party currently the ball is clearly in the democrats court. The next move has to come from the house of representatives. (Regardless of our assumptions of what will happen afterwards)

They have a choice between doing what is morally right and what is politically right.
It would not be " morally right" for the House to impeach Trump knowing it would just die in the Senate because that would only embolden Trump further. You do what is right to protect the people and the nation, and moving to impeach knowing it would fail in the Senate is not doing that, it is being reckless rather than thinking through the chain of events that will take place in each scenario. They should do what is best for the people and focus on mitigating the damage being done by Trump rather than wasting time going through the motions to impeach Trump without it doing anything substantial to actually stop him from causing more harm. Impeaching would be "just for show", but instead of making things better, it would just make them worse. Of course if they can find some way to get the votes in the Senate then by all means move forward, but until that happens, they should focus more on finally being able to start investigating his finances and have the numerous cases against him ready to go for when they can move to act both with impeachment and criminal charges. They should be strategic about this, not just put on an ineffective show. Charging Trump after he is no longer able to pardon and influence cases should be more important than actual impeachment. If Impeachment can be used as an effective tool, then that is great, but it is not the primary objective here. The primary objective is to protect the people.
 

Anti-American Eagle

HAPPENING IMMINENT
Legacy
May 2, 2011
3,772
8
13
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Saelune posts a Saelune thread and people respond with Saelune thread responses so that Saelune can respond in their usual Saelune way. And nobody is surprised. Yes, Saelune. Trump is guilty. Yes. He's eventually going to be out of office. Nothing has changed. Why do you want Pence in office between now and the next election?
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Agema said:
So what do you really want to argue here?
That if Saelune is allowed to, by her own admission, get catharsis by screaming about Trump here, I should be allowed to get just as pissed about the whole circus that is the US political system. In short, you should probably ignore me, since I typically agree with investigations, but I know the reasons behind this one and I'm just annoyed in a hot room.
Eacaraxe said:
I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.
This. Everyone bitches against Trump now? How would you guys like a hardline Republican with the full backing of his party? You want a War? He'll give you a war you won't believe.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
Agema said:
The Republican party members love Trump like crazy....to all intents and purposes, the Congressional Republicans are totally in Trump's pocket.
Not as much as you'd think. Very little unqualified, genuine support for Trump actually exists, and in most cases it's limited to the lowest-of-low information voter camp who are an ultra-minority. As for a lot of others, at this point it's more an open statement of defiance against the current political climate, and the nonstop torrential downpour of invective unleashed by Democratic die-hards in the three years since his nomination, than it is actual support for the man. The South Park episode "Doubling Down" pretty much nails the phenomenon of Trump supporters feeling buyers' remorse (for those who do) and continuing to support him because they feel under constant attack, while the socioeconomic factors which played into their decision to (often protest) vote for him go completely ignored.

Dr. Thrax said:
The problem is that we still need the Democratic party because they're the only other party with power in this country.
We need an opposition party, which the Democratic party isn't. The sole thing at which the Democratic party truly excels, is keeping people voting Democratic out of fear of what might happen if they demand actual representation, and start primarying/recalling candidates (the latter in jurisdictions where recall elections may happen).

Look at what happened with the tea party. Regardless who funded whom, or what organizations disproportionately supported them, at the end of the day the tea party backed up its rhetoric with primary challenges and threats to stay home. At the time, the Republican party had super-minorities in both chambers of Congress, a Democratic President with the most political capital coming out of the election since Kennedy, and were losing state legislatures and governor's offices.

This occurred expressly because after Bush, Republican voters were demoralized, adrift, sick of the Republican party playing the tactical-voting card and not backing up campaign promises, and had absolutely nothing to lose. So they demanded change in the Republican party, and was willing to back up those demands with primary challenges. Regardless whether you agree with the tea party's ideology and policy positions (I don't), that's the situation as it was and what happened.

That's what Democratic voters need to do.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Eacaraxe said:
This occurred expressly because after Bush, Republican voters were demoralized, adrift, sick of the Republican party playing the tactical-voting card and not backing up campaign promises, and had absolutely nothing to lose. So they demanded change in the Republican party, and was willing to back up those demands with primary challenges. Regardless whether you agree with the tea party's ideology and policy positions (I don't), that's the situation as it was and what happened.

That's what Democratic voters need to do.
They already did. It was called Occupy Wall Street. And it didn't work because liberalism is almost by definition unorganized. Progressive ideals are not centered on a fixed point the way conservatism is because conservatism is rooted in a "return", an attempt to reignite what has existed in the past.

More than that, I'd say the Tea Party had the unique position of a 24 hour propaganda network backing up the libertarian position. Fox's primary money makers love extremism because extremism sells. So when a group of fundamental Republican voters started pushing insanity, a very loud "Ka-ching" noise went off at the media giant. A movement that no one would normally have given credit to is suddenly at the center of wall-to-wall positive spin. Glenn Beck, Hannity, Fox and Friends, all of them started pushing it as a legitimate political position, even Bill O'Reilly to a certain extent.

For the last 11 years now, the Republican party is led by Fox, not the other way around. It wasn't the voters leading the Republicans, it was the network leading the party. Despite the right wing media's insistence that such is the case, the same is not true for Democrats. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, those are rooted in sensationalism, not liberalism. So Occupy did not receive the same spin the Tea Party did, nor is the Democratic party bound to the positions of any of these networks.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
irishda said:
They already did. It was called Occupy Wall Street. And it didn't work because liberalism is almost by definition unorganized.
Actually, I'd say it didn't work because the Occupy movement needed popular appeal to achieve its ends, especially as it was actively working against the interests of...well, anyone named in the Panama Papers. Occupy leaders were sadly in a state of denial about this, and decided to act as kooky, arcane, generally unapproachable, and unsympathetic as humanly possible, with shit like progressive stacks and social justice jazz hands. Then the black bloc fucktards came out to play, everything went to hell in a handbasket, and the media really didn't actually have to do much of anything to frame them poorly and turn popular opinion against them.

More than that, I'd say the Tea Party...
Remember the tea party started as the brainchild of dissatisfied Ron Paul supporters, and was promptly hijacked by talking heads and billionaire-funded organizers. Sure, the media reported on it practically nonstop for two years which fueled the movement's growth and popularity; FNC is not alone in that. You could very much conclude conservative news media, and paleocon allies, hijacked the party.

Except, they could not do that without Republican voters. At the end of the day, voters determine election outcomes. That anger and malaise already existed, and that was capitalized upon; without it, the tea party never would have grown to the proportions and success it did. Astroturfing only goes so far.

undeadsuitor said:
No joke. The most coverage fox news gave it was lambasting the protestors for leaving trash behind (after being forced to quickly leave under threats of violence)...
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert did more in one interview to kill Occupy than Fox News ever did or could do.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Eacaraxe said:
Except, they could not do that without Republican voters. At the end of the day, voters determine election outcomes. That anger and malaise already existed, and that was capitalized upon; without it, the tea party never would have grown to the proportions and success it did. Astroturfing only goes so far.
I think that what has made Fox, Breitbart and similar conservative outlets so effective is that they know how to capitalize on the anger, fear or frustration that a lot of the US population are feeling. These are not feelings without merit, on the contrary the average US citizen has a lot to be angry, afraid or frustrated about, in terms of declining standards of living, more difficulties in getting and holding a job and a government that is disinterested in solving these issues (Republicans because their paymasters want these things, Democrats because their core base doesn't have these problems).

The problem is really that Fox and their ilk are great at stoking the fire of these emotions, they are great at getting the disenfranchised US voters riled up and roaring for change, but they also direct these justified emotions away from the actual problems causing them. Instead of focusing on stuff like the US hilariously bad labor laws, they turn that discontent towards pretty much everything else. Mexicans, GLBTQ issues, Afro Americans, Muslims, Social Justice Warriors, Coastal Elites, Globalists, these have all been targets for Republican media in the last decade alone and they all have in common that they have very little to do with the issues facing regular Fly Over Americans but are easy scapegoats for media.

Trump won because he (or rather, his campaign staff) understood that if you constantly attack some minority or made up enemy and adress some serious issues (like the plight of WV coal miners and Rust Belt industrial workers) you'll get a ton of votes. Because you are connecting to the regular voters and showing that you understand their problems, but you also put the blame anywhere but where it belongs and you aren't promising effective change. But for some guy who can barely afford to feed his family, it is enough that one candidate actually recognizes that he needs the government to bring him a solution. If that candidate also wants to institute Primae Noctis rights for the President, you can live with that as long as he saves your job.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Guys, you know Pence is already in office right? He is the VICE PRESIDENT! Like, I know we joke its a do nothing job, but then lets all remember how ineffective Dick Cheney was...oh wait.

Also Trump AND Pence need to go. Why should Pence stay in office if we remove Trump? How the hell is Trump's second in command going to be clean when Trump is guilty of so much? Trump's entire administration is a criminal empire that needs to go behind bars.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,210
1,715
118
Country
4
Gethsemani said:
Trump won because he (or rather, his campaign staff) understood that if you constantly attack some minority or made up enemy and adress some serious issues (like the plight of WV coal miners and Rust Belt industrial workers) you'll get a ton of votes. Because you are connecting to the regular voters and showing that you understand their problems, but you also put the blame anywhere but where it belongs and you aren't promising effective change. But for some guy who can barely afford to feed his family, it is enough that one candidate actually recognizes that he needs the government to bring him a solution. If that candidate also wants to institute Primae Noctis rights for the President, you can live with that as long as he saves your job.
So if you want to rise to positions of power over your fellow humans in our current society, lying will win you that power. Ruthlessness is rewarded because most humans are running on a fear-based evolutionary script.
Truth and the subtle nuances of reality are for losers.
My disgust for the world we've created has imploded under its own weight.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Kwak said:
So if you want to rise to positions of power over your fellow humans in our current society, lying will win you that power. Ruthlessness is rewarded because most humans are running on a fear-based evolutionary script.
Truth and the subtle nuances of reality are for losers.
My disgust for the world we've created has imploded under its own weight.
I wouldn't say that. I would say that truth and subtle nuance of reality are for people who are kind of well off and not in immediate danger. When you are in danger, be it acute mortal harm (like a tiger bearing down on you) or more nebulous forms like the inability to get a job to feed yourself and your family, you don't have time to think about the nuance of the danger. You want to get away from that tiger or find a way to get a job that will provide good pay and job security.

The big failure of the Democrats in the USA, and to some extent most contemporary liberal or social democrat governments in the Western world, is that the last 30 years, since the introduction of 'Reaganomics' and the advent of Liberterianism, has seen increasingly large parts of the population stagnating in or even losing standards of living. Add to that an increased alienation of the lower socioeconomic classes ('white trash' and people of color in the US, immigrants and uneducated menial laborers in Europe) from society due to increasing pressure on welfare programs and you've got a recipe for disillusionment with the current system and governments. As the cherry on top, the escalating wealth distribution of wealth going to the richest 0.1-1% at the expense of everyone else compounds the severity of these problems.

Susan Faludi, in her book Stiffed! from 1998, pointed out that the American man suffers from the broken promise that if he just put in the hours, did the job and didn't complain he'd be rewarded with job security, decent pay and thus the ability to provide for a family. That hasn't been the case since the early-90's and now a large group of people, predominantly white men, are getting fed up with trying for all they are worth to do right by themselves and society and still ending up getting screwed by corporations (who outsources their jobs) and the government (who takes the tax but doesn't give you anything back).

Trump won because he realized those coal miners in West Virgina, along with the industrial workers of Michigan and all the other people in the 40 or so states in the US in-land, are worried about losing their jobs and thus their ability to sustain themselves and live the life they want (generally that of a classic family). Nobody else did that. Republicans were too busy talking about abortion restrictions or gun laws or terrorism. Democrats kept yapping about gay marriage, better immigrant control and more federal programs that cost tons of tax payer money. So when Trump promised people to get their jobs back, to make America great again by building a US economy based on US workers doing honest work and living a decent life, that resounded.

The Democrats, had they even realized these were problems for millions upon millions of Americans, could easily have countered by suggesting stuff like re-education programs for workers who have lost their jobs or efforts to re-vitalize the rural USA. When Eacaraxe says that Trump won because the Democrats failed to address important issues, that's a really important point. Trump was allowed free reign over the issue that for many swing voters trump (lame pun) all other concerns: their ability to live a quiet, uneventful life where they go to work everyday and come home to a loving family. As long as they have a job, a place to buy groceries and some leisure activity for the weekends all is well. Threaten that and they'll do anything to keep it or get it back.

If anything, this is an issue about how Politicians are no longer in touch with the people they are supposed to represent.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Gethsemani said:
I wouldn't say that.
I would. You know why?
Gethsemani said:
The Democrats, had they even realized these were problems for millions upon millions of Americans, could easily have countered by suggesting stuff like re-education programs for workers who have lost their jobs or efforts to re-vitalize the rural USA.
They. Did.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/rural-communities/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/workforce-and-skills/

The rural communities don't want job retraining. They want their old jobs. They want things to continue to be the ways things have been forever. And the mindset they have is more government interference is a bad thing for them. They don't want the solutions you're proposing. They want their hard labor, red-blooded American jobs, and they want to keep telling themselves that it's all because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They don't care about wealth inequality, they voted for a President who is making it even worse.

I actually saw someone from a rural community talking on another board a few days ago. He was firmly opposed to the idea of receiving any kind of government aid and I mean any. To the point where he claimed that there hadn't been a dime of federal money used in creating his town (nearly everyone else there called BS on that).

I think you've fallen into a trap Geth. The trap of assuming that human beings are rational creatures, as opposed to creatures capable of rationality. So I think Kwak is right. The rallying cry of Trump voters wasn't "American jobs." It was "build the wall." That and "lock her up."
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
erttheking said:
They. Did.
Coming from probably the least-trusted candidate in Democratic party history, who during her husband's administration actively campaigned for the crime and welfare bills, NAFTA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Her husband, mind, being the President who signed NAFTA and promised it would curb immigration and halt offshoring. The campaign promise itself being a twenty-five-year-old canard that has yet to see the first glimmer of being delivered, or really even a good-faith attempt at delivering when they were legislatively capable of doing so.

How might it be Bernie Sanders can host town halls in deep red districts intentionally stacked with "Trump supporters", propose policies that are similar to if not further left than Democratic proposals, and walk out with standing ovations? He's a born-and-raised coastie and self-avowed socialist (and Jewish if you want to go "that" angle), who is "supposed" to be everything "Trump supporters" "hate".
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Eacaraxe said:
erttheking said:
They. Did.
Coming from probably the least-trusted candidate in Democratic party history, who during her husband's administration actively campaigned for the crime and welfare bills, NAFTA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Her husband, mind, being the President who signed NAFTA and promised it would curb immigration and halt offshoring. The campaign promise itself being a twenty-five-year-old canard that has yet to see the first glimmer of being delivered, or really even a good-faith attempt at delivering when they were legislatively capable of doing so.

How might it be Bernie Sanders can host town halls in deep red districts intentionally stacked with "Trump supporters", propose policies that are similar to if not further left than Democratic proposals, and walk out with standing ovations? He's a born-and-raised coastie and self-avowed socialist (and Jewish if you want to go "that" angle), who is "supposed" to be everything "Trump supporters" "hate".
Agema said:
erttheking said:
They. Did.
They probably should have been noisier about it, then.
So what do we have to suggest that rural communities actually want any of what's being suggested? I'm curious. I've never actually seen any support from these communities for retraining or investment. Just the same old same old about wanting the same jobs they've always had back.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
erttheking said:
So what do we have to suggest that rural communities actually want any of what's being suggested? I'm curious. I've never actually seen any support from these communities for retraining or investment. Just the same old same old about wanting the same jobs they've always had back.
I'm absolutely sure they want their old jobs back. Many such communities are usually built around industries, and the industry is a huge source of character and community identification. Were it to be replaced, it would at minimum need to be gradual and preferentially something at least reasonably similar: you're unlikely to get many miners who want to become customer services representatives, where they might be okay with other manual labour jobs.

The reality is that there is nothing to save these communities. Once, no-one lived there because there was no economic point to living there. Then there was coal and people moved in, now there's not (useful) coal they may as well all leave again. But as above, obviously they like their community.

They've been left behind by the march of time, and there's no realistic way of changing that. Nevertheless, you can show them some love and sympathy in some way. And something practical, rather than dumb-as-fuck claims you're going to give them their jobs back when it's clearly not going to happen.
 

Gergar12_v1legacy

New member
Aug 17, 2012
314
0
0
Don't impeach him on obstruction, that's like getting arrested for resisting arrest, and there's no crime in the first place.

Impeach him for emoluments.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Agema said:
erttheking said:
So what do we have to suggest that rural communities actually want any of what's being suggested? I'm curious. I've never actually seen any support from these communities for retraining or investment. Just the same old same old about wanting the same jobs they've always had back.
I'm absolutely sure they want their old jobs back. Many such communities are usually built around industries, and the industry is a huge source of character and community identification. Were it to be replaced, it would at minimum need to be gradual and preferentially something at least reasonably similar: you're unlikely to get many miners who want to become customer services representatives, where they might be okay with other manual labour jobs.

The reality is that there is nothing to save these communities. Once, no-one lived there because there was no economic point to living there. Then there was coal and people moved in, now there's not (useful) coal they may as well all leave again. But as above, obviously they like their community.

They've been left behind by the march of time, and there's no realistic way of changing that. Nevertheless, you can show them some love and sympathy in some way. And something practical, rather than dumb-as-fuck claims you're going to give them their jobs back when it's clearly not going to happen.
That is why it is so easy for Republicans to exploit them. They want to hear the lie no matter how unrealistic it is. The youth are more willing to change, but the baby boomers in these towns still often hold the majority and they are willing to take their fight to "not change" to the grave. They exist in their own delusional bubbles and refuse to plan for the futures of the youth. In the end, these towns wind up having all the youth move away and then they die painfully and slowly. Democrats did bring solutions to make this far less painful and even options to revitalize the towns with infrastructure plans and incentives for new businesses and retrain and bring in new options but that was not what they wanted to hear so they ignored it and fell in line behind the guy telling them coal can live forever.

I hear the same thing from dying oil towns here in Texas as well. My sister lives in one of them in west Texas and you hear the same thing from them. They are delusional tbh. I have heard them say ignorant things like "Automation isn't going to affect us out here" while talking about how all the middle school girls are busy picking out their babies daddies so they can get on welfare as soon as possible so they don't have their power and water cut off. They do this all the while ranting about how "Obama was going to take their guns" and praising Trump who is "gonna fix everything". Seriously. The stuff I have heard here is madness and I honestly think it is futile to try and explain reality to them at this point.