US Politics XVI: Where the record player stays on all night - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2019, 02:34 PM   #281
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
They shouldn't come across unprepared; they should take as much time as possible to do this right. The desire to rush makes very little sense to me.
Remember this. us working stiffs still have 90 days of work left this year. They have 30!
The vote needs to come before Thanksgiving. The Holidays will sidetrack everything and you a country that is currently paying attention and swinging heavy and fast in support of impeachment, you need to take it, not let it slide away.

Last polls I saw - 49 to 44 were in favor of impeachment.
RASMUSSEN poll!! Even has it at 41% in favor. And they are about 5 or 10 to the right.
__________________

womanfish is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:46 PM   #282
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 03:15 AM
And add on top of that. I think it is wisest to get this wrapped and keep a separation between it and the beginning of the caucuses.
Iowa and NH are at the start of February.

If they wait through the holidays and come back mid January and start work again - major momentum loss and likely overlap with Dem primaries.

They need to just line up as many fact witnesses as possible right now. They have so much info already in just these 14 pages, that they just need corroboration.
I'm guessing also, trying to get the full transcript from the secret server. THAT would be interesting. Because if it is altered in significant ways. He's really toast, as are all the people around him.
__________________

womanfish is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:49 PM   #283
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,738
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Agreed with all of the above, that it should be done before voting starts in February. Also, that doesn't mean that just the House should be done by February. The House should probably be done by the end of the calendar year if not before, so that the Senate can finish whatever they're going to do(probably nothing) by the time voting starts early next year.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:56 PM   #284
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 27,065
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Yep. What was said above. Strike while the iron is hot and the public is paying attention.
mikal is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:59 PM   #285
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 11:15 PM
The longer it goes on, the average member of the public (i) loses interest and (ii) starts to think that if there was a smoking gun or something truly impeachable, surely they'd have found it by now rather than holding endless month-long investigations which nobody but procedural lawyers can actually follow. We live in the time of soundbytes.
anitram is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 03:42 PM   #286
War Child
 
Jerry Dunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 939
Local Time: 11:15 PM
I think that only makes sense if you are only focused on one thing, and I disagree with this only being about one thing. I think you make it so you are digging up dirt about a wide array of things using the impeachment proceedings to get to it. As the article I linked to suggests, the scope of Watergate started with the break-in and cover up, but led to one that encompassed many other Nixon scandals. Trump's volume of unique, absurd, embarrassing scandals would leave no shortage of things to grab people's attention.
Jerry Dunk is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 03:49 PM   #287
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 27,065
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
I think that only makes sense if you are only focused on one thing, and I disagree with this only being about one thing. I think you make it so you are digging up dirt about a wide array of things using the impeachment proceedings to get to it. As the article I linked to suggests, the scope of Watergate started with the break-in and cover up, but led to one that encompassed many other Nixon scandals. Trump's volume of unique, absurd, embarrassing scandals would leave no shortage of things to grab people's attention.
I think it's all about the Democratic Party being agile. If the Ukraine case remains solid, and I think it will, and the general public is tuned in, then you can start to dig deeper and pull out the rest of the crap. Especially if the rest of the crap could tip Republicans who are half wavering.
mikal is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 03:52 PM   #288
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,140
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
I think that only makes sense if you are only focused on one thing, and I disagree with this only being about one thing. I think you make it so you are digging up dirt about a wide array of things using the impeachment proceedings to get to it. As the article I linked to suggests, the scope of Watergate started with the break-in and cover up, but led to one that encompassed many other Nixon scandals. Trump's volume of unique, absurd, embarrassing scandals would leave no shortage of things to grab people's attention.
i think if you feel that the momentum is on your side, and you could actually get a large number of republicans on board - even if it's not enough to remove him from office - then you go forward with the narrow approach.

if it's clear that the GOP senate isn't going to budge even a little, then sure - make it all encompassing.

but as anitram said - our country has an incredibly short attention span. if there's a chance to get him on this and this alone, then do it and do it quick - especially since they seem intent on providing so much evidence publicly.

just because this moves quick, even if it removes him from office (unlikely), it doesn't mean that there won't still be reckoning for everything else. if anything, a quick process could mean a faster reckoning - as the only thing preventing a few charges from being filed today is his office.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 03:52 PM   #289
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,140
Local Time: 10:15 PM
https://twitter.com/TheDweck/status/1177670702184325121
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 04:01 PM   #290
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,738
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Whatever this was is gone now.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 04:07 PM   #291
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,738
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
I think that only makes sense if you are only focused on one thing, and I disagree with this only being about one thing. I think you make it so you are digging up dirt about a wide array of things using the impeachment proceedings to get to it. As the article I linked to suggests, the scope of Watergate started with the break-in and cover up, but led to one that encompassed many other Nixon scandals. Trump's volume of unique, absurd, embarrassing scandals would leave no shortage of things to grab people's attention.
The 'one thing' I'm focused on is winning the election in November 2020. I have been ambivalent about impeachment for a long time because I fear the political blowback if it doesn't play well. At this point, given what's come out in the last couple weeks, I am in favor now, but I want it done expeditiously, because I think a long, drawn-out impeachment inquiry that hangs over the primaries or even into the general will be a bad thing politically for the Democratic party.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 04:08 PM   #292
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,738
Local Time: 10:15 PM
I'm just going to post this again since no one responded the first time...

Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
Looking for some opinions on this - I've just been reading a few things that Krystal Ball has written recently - for those who don't know, she is a former MSNBC host of The Cycle and current writer/tv host for The Hill who is a Bernie supporter - and I'm having trouble agreeing with her 100% even though I know where she's coming from. I read two articles, and they basically boil down this(I will provide links to full materials as well)...

1. MSNBC/CNN is spending too much time, and with too much intensity, covering everything russia/mueller/ukraine/impeachment-related and not enough time covering actual issues like healthcare, climate change, etc., essentially building up expectations that can't be met while ignoring big issues that people actually care about.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/46...he-overpromise

https://www.youtube.com/watch/XuYO7OIYB2c

2. It seems like a good possibility Warren could end up being the nominee and that that would result in a loss in November 2020 because Warren appeals to college-educated people(specifically Ivy League) and white people(she refers to this as the 'Rachel Maddow vote') and struggles to appeal to working-class types and people of color(hence she supports Bernie). She also refers to Warren as a 'faux-progressive' and criticizes her for saying she'd take corporate donations in the general election and for reportedly being in communication with Hillary Clinton.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/46...-lose-to-trump

So I get the gist of her arguments, but it's hard for me to think covering potential impeachable offenses by the POTUS is a bad thing, and her position on Warren seems pretty transparently like a pro-Bernie argument.

Any thoughts?
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 04:26 PM   #293
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
I'm just going to post this again since no one responded the first time...
Not sure how to respond really to the CNN/msnbc coverage. Sure, there was a ton on the Mueller probe. The problem there was that in the end, Trump's lapdog Barr came swooping in and completely sidetracked and neutered the entire thing. Dems didn't move on impeachent and it ended up Leaving all the coverage and build up seem kind of foolish.

This time, i think it is different. I mean, we are like 3 days in and we get new news, and leaks and insight every day, Dems have started impeachment inquiry, and the WH is in dissaray. Fox news is even in shambles at it tries to figure out how to pivot if this whole thing plays out so bad for Trump. This now seems credible, easy to understand, black and white to the public and the coverage therefore, receives the same feeling.


As the for the second part. Yes, very pro Sanders rhetoric, Especially the part about Warren being a faux progressive. That is SO playbook Bernie bot. There can be NO other than ol' Bernie who is the true progressive.
In honesty it's why i like Warren. She is truly a progressive, but if she's being labeled "faux" because she isn't calling for this fanciful "revolution", then all the better. She wants many of the same things, but has real plans to back them up and to me has become a better messenger of these issues.

I share the concern that Warren is still struggling with minority and white working class. Two huge groups that we need this time around to show up. She has made progress, but will have a ton of work to do, to really be able to move them.

Right now we know Biden can do that. But he also lacks to passion of Warren, so we know that getting the grassroots engaged and excited will suffer under him. And also, his slipping in the polls, which means to me that he has started a downward trajectory. I could be wrong. But with Warren starting to take the lead in some polls, it gives people who were playing it safe supporting Biden, feel ok to peel off and support Warren or someone else.
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:49 PM   #294
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 27,065
Local Time: 09:15 PM
The first Republican House member has announced support for the impeachment inquiry against President Trump: Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada
mikal is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:57 PM   #295
War Child
 
Jerry Dunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 939
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
I'm just going to post this again since no one responded the first time...
I don't have quite the time at the moment to read those pieces in full, but in responding to your summary:

1. The Russia hysteria is way too much in focus on those networks, and has been for a long time. Russia undoubtedly tried to interfere, but ultimately it's something that isn't convincing anyone of anything. It's not a non-story, but it's also not the lynchpin issue they want everyone to finally recognize. It's important to have your elections untampered, but committing to voting rights stateside is a much more important way to get to that goal than continuing on about Trump and Putin for the next 14 months.

2. Warren is not a faux-progressive, she actually embodies most of what "progressive" has come to mean, which is to say someone who's more liberal than "liberals." She's essentially what everyone who said "Hillary Clinton has the farthest left platform of any presidential candidate in history" pretended Hillary Clinton actually was.

Warren is a faux-leftist, but not a faux-progressive. She is farther to the left than the rest of the non-Sanders Democratic field, but the gulf between her and Sanders is pretty significant. I think nominating anyone other than Sanders, including her, puts 2020 at a much greater risk.
Jerry Dunk is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:59 PM   #296
War Child
 
Jerry Dunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 939
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
As the for the second part. Yes, very pro Sanders rhetoric, Especially the part about Warren being a faux progressive. That is SO playbook Bernie bot. There can be NO other than ol' Bernie who is the true progressive.
In honesty it's why i like Warren. She is truly a progressive, but if she's being labeled "faux" because she isn't calling for this fanciful "revolution", then all the better. She wants many of the same things, but has real plans to back them up and to me has become a better messenger of these issues.

I share the concern that Warren is still struggling with minority and white working class. Two huge groups that we need this time around to show up. She has made progress, but will have a ton of work to do, to really be able to move them.
Your sneering at the word "revolution" suggests that you don't see fundamental issues in our economic system, and that you don't think a grassroots movement is the way forward. "Revolution" is meant to suggest two things: we need serious change to the core of how we operate as a country, and it needs to be a mass movement that puts it in place. Is that something you disagree with?
Jerry Dunk is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:52 PM   #297
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
Your sneering at the word "revolution" suggests that you don't see fundamental issues in our economic system, and that you don't think a grassroots movement is the way forward. "Revolution" is meant to suggest two things: we need serious change to the core of how we operate as a country, and it needs to be a mass movement that puts it in place. Is that something you disagree with?
I don't completely disagree. But my point is about the message and terminology. Like you said, Warren and Sanders both are progressives and i liked your definition there. But Warren can say we need fundamental change within the system.
Where Sanders use of the term "revolution" (which admittedly he uses less now then in 2016) is implying that the system needs to be torn down.

This doesn't work on me, and it seems to be working with less and less with much of the electorate as Sanders has settled into third place with fairly flat numbers as Warren has climbed steadily for the last few months.

I think this shows that yes, a majority of Democrats and a decent amount of others want change that will reign in runaway, loopholed, cheating, tax-dodging capitalism, BUT we are still at our core Americans that do like our (semi)-capitalist system more than other systems around the world - that at its best rewards people who work hard, better their education and skills and contribute to the country as a whole in a positive way, and does still give people the best shot at success if they want it. And Americans like being Americans.

I think that Warren gets that in a way that Bernie doesn't. And while i have said before that too many progressives spend too much time in their bubble and don't really have a good grasp on the reality of the bulk of the electorate -which is pretty much dead center, with probably a slight left of center lean on social issues.

Most importantly - our republic was set up by the founders precisely NOT to have a revolution. That is why our system of divided government of co-equal branches, are there to prevent any one of those branches, but particularly the Executive from just coming in and turning everything on its head with no one to check it.
As much as many people, particularly progressives may not like it, change in our country comes slowly, and yes the dreaded "I" word, incrementally. So as big of ideas that we hear from ANY of the candidates. Most likely very few will come to pass, or maybe very watered down versions will, that hopefully will get built on and improved as time goes on. But that again, is reality. And we should actually be thankful for this, because massive change in the conservative direction is not something we would like either. So our system is there to protect from both sides over reaching.

I agree that it will be a risk with her running vs. Biden or Bernie who most likely could win pretty easily. But the whole impeachment thing now is a real curve ball on 2020. Will Trump being impeached but not removed make him much weaker? Will it actually help him? Will something REALLY crazy happen and he gets convicted? I don't know. But I think anyone running against Pence will have a cake-walk. But who knows who would run in the end.

Anyway, i digress .
carry on
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 07:53 PM   #298
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikal View Post
The first Republican House member has announced support for the impeachment inquiry against President Trump: Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada
whoa. That's pretty huge... Cracks are what is needed. A first domino. Hopefully something will crack in the senate.
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:09 PM   #299
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikal View Post
The first Republican House member has announced support for the impeachment inquiry against President Trump: Representative Mark Amodei of Nevada
Sorry, didn't see any reporting at first on this but see it now.
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:11 PM   #300
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 27,065
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
I'm not seeing this being reported... Do you have a link or anything?
NYT reported it but supposedly there dbag already pulled back.
__________________

mikal is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×