[Terez]

Gothos, on 16 December 2019 - 12:20 PM, said:

I'm keeping mostly away from the race now, but I have to ask resident americans... what do you think about setting up a 77 year old man as a frontrunner? Are the Democrats expecting to lose the election so they only 'burn' a pretty bad candidate and build up better for 2020? I am, personally, at a loss.

I would prefer that we not. But we haven't had a candidate or president die in office of old age in living memory, despite electing lots of old fuckers, so people tend to put it out of their minds.

Also, anyone who expects Pelosi to do anything other than hand the articles over to the Senate and move on with the business of the House doesn't know anything about her. She was desperate for any excuse not to impeach Trump in the first place. She pushed for limited articles of impeachment because she wanted to keep things as simple as possible. She's done.

And Romney is not going to save us. We need 20 Republican senators for a conviction, and there aren't half that many with a spine.

[Gothos]

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 08:18 AM, said:

Gothos, on 16 December 2019 - 12:20 PM, said:

I'm keeping mostly away from the race now, but I have to ask resident americans... what do you think about setting up a 77 year old man as a frontrunner? Are the Democrats expecting to lose the election so they only 'burn' a pretty bad candidate and build up better for 2020? I am, personally, at a loss.

I would prefer that we not. But we haven't had a candidate or president die in office of old age in living memory, despite electing lots of old fuckers, so people tend to put it out of their minds.

That's the age that Reagan FINISHED his double term. And he's the oldest you've had before Donnie (another old rich guy). He'll be 78 next year, that makes him 82 when attempting to get re-elected, this is seriously sounding like some Frank Underwood plot in the making to get someone else in office when Biden kicks the bucket or becomes unfit for office. Other frontrunners? Sanders is 78, Warren is 70.

I mean, it's not that younger people are automatically better (there's plenty of idiots and assholes in power that are in their 40s and 50s), but it seems obvious to me that the Dems need some change in course to get back in the game. Guess next year will show.

(Ah well. At the very least something we're getting out of this whole mess is that finally we're going to get rid of entry visas... hopefully. )

[Terez]

70 is borderline but workable IMO; I wish Warren had run in 2016 but Hillary just had to have another go. Bernie was too old in 2016. Warren is super healthy for her age, so there's that.

I would prefer Bernie to Biden but I don't really want either of them. I want Warren.

[Aptorian]

I'm still waiting for that Oprah / Rock 2020 campaign.

[Tsundoku]

Aptorian, on 19 December 2019 - 11:29 AM, said:

I'm still waiting for that Oprah / Rock 2020 campaign.

What, like Tommy?

Oh, sorry - I thought you meant Rock / Opera.



@Tezza
Agreed on Warren. The only decent one of the bunch who doesn't look like dying tomorrow.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 19 December 2019 - 12:09 PM

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 08:18 AM, said:

Also, anyone who expects Pelosi to do anything other than hand the articles over to the Senate and move on with the business of the House doesn't know anything about her.

I may not be an American, but this woman has been at the very edge of savvy this whole time in every move she's made as far as I can tell, and I actually DO expect her not to send the articles. She's a career politician playing chess against a failed reality tv star crook. She didn't want to impeach him before this because it seems like they were working to get iron clad articles first...and the Ukraine stuff just forced her hand?

If I'm wrong in that assumption, so be it....but as it stands the buzz is that she's not sending them...probably on the back of McConnell's little TV interview where he vowed to protect the president instead of doing his job.

And I mean, she has precedent to do it this way. McConnell refused to let Obama's SCOTUS pick on the floor, right? For no other reason than petty villainy. This is that reversed. There is no actual law that says she HAS to send them...ever....this is all political. As such, she's a big fish and Trump is a small one. She can technically hold onto them through the next election and send them to a democratic senate.


Re: Impeachment. This means that Trump can now not be pardoned at the federal level right? Like that's why Nixon resigned right? So he could be pardoned. I mean I know Trump was already going to be fucked law-wise at the State level, but this removes any safety of ever being pardoned right, or even pardon himself.

[amphibian]

Nancy Pelosi is not a truly gifted politician or a genius in dealing with Trump. She's a moderate Democrat who has a lot of ties to the health insurance industry through her aide, Wendell Primus. She doesn't want Medicare for All or anything like that to happen and she's kinda against most of the other progressive planks as well.

Be very careful about saying she's great or going to achieve a high level goal because she hasn't really done that on any level before.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 19 December 2019 - 03:14 PM, said:

Nancy Pelosi is not a truly gifted politician or a genius in dealing with Trump. She's a moderate Democrat who has a lot of ties to the health insurance industry through her aide, Wendell Primus. She doesn't want Medicare for All or anything like that to happen and she's kinda against most of the other progressive planks as well.

Be very careful about saying she's great or going to achieve a high level goal because she hasn't really done that on any level before.

Quite frankly I don't have to be careful about anything man.

I'm Canadian.

I'm just calling it how I see it. I know you and some others are super Left and therefore don't like her....but from what I've seen, she's a damned good politician and everything that encompasses (good and bad; depending in your personal feelings/preferences). She may not be entirely within one's sense of what you want from her party, but she's good at her specific job as Speaker and has been good at handling things so far with Trump. I like her, and Adam Schiff both. I think they will be remembered well by history. Schiff especially has given quotes that will end up in your history books, no doubt.

What is that saying about letting perfect be the enemy of good? You have a literal racist, sexist D-bag blowhard in the White house, a derelict party in majority of your senate, and here you are down talking a woman who saw fit to uphold your Constitution when so many others are choosing not to...that is a very good thing for your Republic no matter how you slice it. Because without it, that piece of paper would become quite worthless.

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2019 - 02:45 PM, said:

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 08:18 AM, said:

Also, anyone who expects Pelosi to do anything other than hand the articles over to the Senate and move on with the business of the House doesn't know anything about her.

I may not be an American, but this woman has been at the very edge of savvy this whole time in every move she's made as far as I can tell, and I actually DO expect her not to send the articles. She's a career politician playing chess against a failed reality tv star crook. She didn't want to impeach him before this because it seems like they were working to get iron clad articles first...and the Ukraine stuff just forced her hand?

If I'm wrong in that assumption, so be it....but as it stands the buzz is that she's not sending them...probably on the back of McConnell's little TV interview where he vowed to protect the president instead of doing his job.

And I mean, she has precedent to do it this way. McConnell refused to let Obama's SCOTUS pick on the floor, right? For no other reason than petty villainy. This is that reversed. There is no actual law that says she HAS to send them...ever....this is all political. As such, she's a big fish and Trump is a small one. She can technically hold onto them through the next election and send them to a democratic senate.


Re: Impeachment. This means that Trump can now not be pardoned at the federal level right? Like that's why Nixon resigned right? So he could be pardoned. I mean I know Trump was already going to be fucked law-wise at the State level, but this removes any safety of ever being pardoned right, or even pardon himself.

Correct Trump can now not be Pardoned for the specific impeachment articles. Nancy could hold on to the Impeachment until Hell freezes over.

[QuickTidal]

Vengeance, on 19 December 2019 - 03:25 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2019 - 02:45 PM, said:

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 08:18 AM, said:

Also, anyone who expects Pelosi to do anything other than hand the articles over to the Senate and move on with the business of the House doesn't know anything about her.

I may not be an American, but this woman has been at the very edge of savvy this whole time in every move she's made as far as I can tell, and I actually DO expect her not to send the articles. She's a career politician playing chess against a failed reality tv star crook. She didn't want to impeach him before this because it seems like they were working to get iron clad articles first...and the Ukraine stuff just forced her hand?

If I'm wrong in that assumption, so be it....but as it stands the buzz is that she's not sending them...probably on the back of McConnell's little TV interview where he vowed to protect the president instead of doing his job.

And I mean, she has precedent to do it this way. McConnell refused to let Obama's SCOTUS pick on the floor, right? For no other reason than petty villainy. This is that reversed. There is no actual law that says she HAS to send them...ever....this is all political. As such, she's a big fish and Trump is a small one. She can technically hold onto them through the next election and send them to a democratic senate.


Re: Impeachment. This means that Trump can now not be pardoned at the federal level right? Like that's why Nixon resigned right? So he could be pardoned. I mean I know Trump was already going to be fucked law-wise at the State level, but this removes any safety of ever being pardoned right, or even pardon himself.

Correct Trump can now not be Pardoned for the specific impeachment articles. Nancy could hold on to the Impeachment until Hell freezes over.

Ah, thanks for the clarification, I assumed, but wanted to be sure.

[Cause]

Except are these articles criminal? Abuse of power. And obstructing congress? I don’t think a federal prosecutor can send him to jail foe either?

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 19 December 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

Except are these articles criminal? Abuse of power. And obstructing congress? I don’t think a federal prosecutor can send him to jail foe either?

I mean it doesn't really matter, he's already an unindicted co-conspirator in the State of NY (which he can't be pardoned for either)....that thing that Cohen is in the slammer for. Whenever he leaves office, chances are he's heading to jail.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2019 - 03:25 PM, said:

amphibian, on 19 December 2019 - 03:14 PM, said:

Nancy Pelosi is not a truly gifted politician or a genius in dealing with Trump. She's a moderate Democrat who has a lot of ties to the health insurance industry through her aide, Wendell Primus. She doesn't want Medicare for All or anything like that to happen and she's kinda against most of the other progressive planks as well.

Be very careful about saying she's great or going to achieve a high level goal because she hasn't really done that on any level before.

Quite frankly I don't have to be careful about anything man.

I'm Canadian.

I'm just calling it how I see it. I know you and some others are super Left and therefore don't like her....but from what I've seen, she's a damned good politician and everything that encompasses (good and bad; depending in your personal feelings/preferences). She may not be entirely within one's sense of what you want from her party, but she's good at her specific job as Speaker and has been good at handling things so far with Trump. I like her, and Adam Schiff both. I think they will be remembered well by history. Schiff especially has given quotes that will end up in your history books, no doubt.

What is that saying about letting perfect be the enemy of good? You have a literal racist, sexist D-bag blowhard in the White house, a derelict party in majority of your senate, and here you are down talking a woman who saw fit to uphold your Constitution when so many others are choosing not to...that is a very good thing for your Republic no matter how you slice it. Because without it, that piece of paper would become quite worthless.

She's not a particularly gifted politician.

She has one of the most reliable Democrat districts in the country (more than 85% Democrat) and was literally handpicked in 1986 to get the seat by the previous holder after the previous holder got terminal cancer. She still squeaked by in the primary. Since then, she's essentially not had a challenge in 30 years. She doesn't run campaigns to get elected anymore. She presided over the loss of the House during Obama's terms and weirdly enough, her support of a stronger Obamacare platform turned into "better than this isn't achievable, so I'm going to spike progress".

She's had major problems with party unity (Hoyer was a frenemy) for a long time and has regularly trashed the agendas of the bright new stars like AOC, Tlaib, and Porter while also being unwilling to get obstructionist like the Republicans to prevent horrible things from happening.

She's also had to agree within her party to a 4 year limit on being Speaker bc she's that unpopular with them.

She's done some good things, I am not going to say that she hasn't. But her record is not that of brilliance, even when accounting for Republican sabotage of the government. It's a very mixed bag with a lot of natural advantages that aren't being used fully.

[QuickTidal]

And I disagree? Like the first half of your comments are trying to explain away any success she had in the role, or how qualified she was for it for begin with (implying it was given to her and she didn't deserve it ect.)...if that ain't a really rank way to to try 'splain away the fact that you don't happen to like her by disqualifying her from the position as if she's undeserving, I don't know what is. And the second half of your statement is from your specific angle of politics which does not line up with hers, so meh? Shrug.

I'm conformable with what I said AND that you think I'm wrong, or misguided. No skin in the game.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2019 - 05:17 PM, said:

And I disagree? Like the first half of your comments are trying to explain away any success she had in the role, or how qualified she was for it for begin with (implying it was given to her and she didn't deserve it ect.)...if that ain't a really rank way to to try 'splain away the fact that you don't happen to like her by disqualifying her from the position as if she's undeserving, I don't know what is. And the second half of your statement is from your specific angle of politics which does not line up with hers, so meh? Shrug.

I'm conformable with what I said AND that you think I'm wrong, or misguided. No skin in the game.

Part of being a gifted politician is winning competitive campaigns. It takes a ton of organizational skills and an understanding of what not only connects to voters, but gets them to the polls. The only challenging campaign she's had was the primary that she squeaked by in 1987 despite being handpicked by the previous holder (Sala Burton, who was the wife of Phil Burton, who held the office for almost 20 years before he died suddenly).

The circumstances of how she got her start and the continued security she has had and would have if she went as left as she likes mean that there's a lot being abandoned on the metaphorical political table in terms of ambitious agendas. Her seat is 100% safe no matter what and she's using that security to do "not much" because that's what she wants to do.

If you genuinely think I'm just saying this because I am farther left than her, then you're wrong. There's a major problem in the Democrat party that is best exemplified by Pelosi, Schumer, and Tom Perez in that they're mostly losing the competitive elections, not providing great opposition to extremely damaging actions by the GOP (the GOP packing of the courts is going to crush social programs and human rights for the next 25 years), and their lukewarm responses to things like the border nightmare treatment/abuse/assaults/murders of immigrants is stunning. Plus the whole nonchalant treatment of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.

The GOP understands how to wield power and seize it much better than the Democrats do. And the Democrats are barely providing opposition because many of them don't know how and/or don't care to ensure elections are fair and how to govern once in power.

This isn't a chess grandmaster playing against a scrub. It's a competent, mostly centrist legislator who is struggling to get anything substantive in terms of legislation done despite a majority and a massively unpopular president.

Sam Rayburn would have wiped the floor with this setup. Tip O'Neill probably could have done the same, but he'd likely be all for Afghanistan and Iraq wars continuing.

There's a lot of history here that gets lost in the reductive arguments about someone being more left or Pelosi being a woman. Looking at it all creates a ton of "FDR and Rayburn were about 200% more left than Pelosi or Obama and that was in the 1930s and 1940s, plus they were more competent in the business of winning and governing" consternation in me.

[Terez]

Any "buzz" about what Pelosi is going to do is basically the beltway pundit class projecting their own strategy onto her. They've been doing it all throughout this process, and they're almost always wrong.

Impeachment has no bearing on pardons as long as your VP is willing to pardon you, and Pence would pardon Trump for literally any federal crime.

Cohen is in federal prison. He was charged by the SDNY Attorney General's office for federal crimes. Trump can be pardoned for those. Manafort is the one facing NY state charges. (Trump could too, but not for the federal campaign finance violations.)

This post has been edited by Terez: 19 December 2019 - 06:52 PM

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Any "buzz" about what Pelosi is going to do is basically the beltway pundit class projecting their own strategy onto her. They've been doing it all throughout this process, and they're almost always wrong.

I guess it's not in the news for any real reasons then, or?

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Impeachment has no bearing on pardons as long as your VP is willing to pardon you, and Pence would pardon Trump for literally any federal crime.

As I understand it, this is not correct. Nixon resigned instead of getting impeached because he feared this factor.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives a president the power to pardon anyone who has been convicted of offenses against the United States, with one exception: "In Cases of Impeachment." If Trump is impeached by the House, he can never be pardoned for these crimes. He cannot pardon himself, and he cannot be pardoned by a future president. ~ Robert B. Reich is an American political commentator, professor and author. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Trump can be pardoned for those.

No, apparently he cannot now that he's been impeached. See above.

[Vengeance]

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Any "buzz" about what Pelosi is going to do is basically the beltway pundit class projecting their own strategy onto her. They've been doing it all throughout this process, and they're almost always wrong.

Impeachment has no bearing on pardons as long as your VP is willing to pardon you, and Pence would pardon Trump for literally any federal crime.

Cohen is in federal prison. He was charged by the SDNY Attorney General's office for federal crimes. Trump can be pardoned for those. Manafort is the one facing NY state charges. (Trump could too, but not for the federal campaign finance violations.)

Trump can not Pardon himself for the articles of impeachment. Once a President has been impeached he can not be pardoned by any prior President. The president can pardon any federal crime except for impeachment to allow him to do otherwise would be to remove the threat of impeachment and render the presidency above the law.

[Terez]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2019 - 06:49 PM, said:

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Any "buzz" about what Pelosi is going to do is basically the beltway pundit class projecting their own strategy onto her. They've been doing it all throughout this process, and they're almost always wrong.

I guess it's not in the news for any real reasons then, or?

Again, it's just punditry and projection. Any time Pelosi or Nadler or Schiff has been asked about it, they have indicated that this is not part of their plans, at least until very recently, and the minor lip service they have given to the idea doesn't make me think there's any great strategy here. The Senate is going to do what it's going to do and in Pelosi's calculation there's probably not much or any benefit to waiting. There's a bit of process before they send the articles over, like choosing impeachment managers, but I don't expect this to happen any later than January.

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2019 - 06:49 PM, said:

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Impeachment has no bearing on pardons as long as your VP is willing to pardon you, and Pence would pardon Trump for literally any federal crime.

As I understand it, this is not correct. Nixon resigned instead of getting impeached because he feared this factor.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives a president the power to pardon anyone who has been convicted of offenses against the United States, with one exception: "In Cases of Impeachment." If Trump is impeached by the House, he can never be pardoned for these crimes. He cannot pardon himself, and he cannot be pardoned by a future president. ~ Robert B. Reich is an American political commentator, professor and author. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Terez, on 19 December 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Trump can be pardoned for those.

No, apparently he cannot now that he's been impeached. See above.

The narrowest interpretation of the impeachment exception—the consensus interpretation—is that the president cannot protect anyone, including himself, from the impeachment process itself, which is solely a power of Congress. It's a separation of powers issue. So if, for example, a judge is being impeached, he cannot pardon that judge and stop the impeachment process, or overturn an impeachment conviction (which is, of course, different from a criminal conviction).

Even the broadest interpretation of the impeachment exception (that he cannot be pardoned in criminal law for crimes he was impeached for) wouldn't apply to the campaign finance violations Cohen went to jail for, because Trump hasn't been impeached for that. But that broad interpretation is not widely considered to be a viable interpretation, anyway, and it has never been tested in court. Again, either way, it won't apply to Trump because neither of the articles of impeachment apply to any of the crimes he is likely to be charged with when he leaves office. But even if it did, and Pence pardoned him, and someone with standing challenged that pardon in court, it would probably eventually go in Trump's favor because the current SCOTUS is very keen on executive power.

Basically, at this point there are only two ways Trump can avoid being charged with federal crimes:

1. He gets convicted in the Senate, and Pence takes office and pardons him for any crimes he might have committed.
2. He gets acquitted in the Senate, and wins reelection in 2020, and the statute of limitations runs out on most of the crimes he could be charged with.

Obviously, if 1 fails to happen, he will do whatever is in his power to make 2 happen. He will cheat in every imaginable way to stay in power. And as it stands right now, it's almost certain that the Senate will allow him to do it.

[Macros]

The more soundbites I hear of McConnell and Co on the radio the more disgusted with politicians and humanity in general I become