Glitterhater
SILVER ELITE
I am a managing editor and it pains me to say that some of the best, impartial news I've found as it pertains to politics has been from Twitter- independant journalism that's not being compensated for.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
I'm not the one that goes around squinting and needs the specs
Amazon.com: Round Bubble Thick Scratchy Lensed Nerd Eye Glasses Fake Plastic Costume Prop : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry
Amazon.com: Round Bubble Thick Scratchy Lensed Nerd Eye Glasses Fake Plastic Costume Prop : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry
www.amazon.com
Desert Hound
DA
Where do you come up with that statement? That he sent a violent mob? Did you read/watch his speech? Seems as if you didn't.
whatithink
GOLD
If the impeachment is a unconstitutional, then does that mean the DoJ and FBI should be pursuing T for the alleged crimes?
If they can't pursue him, as he was President, and Congress can't impeach, as he is no longer President, does that mean that a President is above the law, can commit any crime he/she wants and then just needs to resign to avoid justice?
Yes, if he committed a crime he should be pursued for criminal conduct. IMO, impeachment no. It's a misuse of impeachment and divisive political theater...all form, no substance. I will repeat this, he was impeached by American citizens on November 3, 2020. Why make him a martyr? Let him fade off in obscurity.
whatithink
GOLD
So this has gone to committee. I assume the GOP are hard at work looking to work with it to ensure it includes all the pieces they want, their state legislatures are hard at work already apparently.
This would seem to be an outstanding opportunity to ensure Federal elections are sound and legal going forward, do you think the GOP will look to do that in the House & Senate? Alternatively, do you think they will look to work at the state level, putting different criteria in place is various states dependent on what works best locally (for them)?
A compromise bill with some of what each side wants would actually go along way to ensuring confidence in elections - but neither side would want that sadly.
Desert Hound
DA
I think you are mixing 2 things up.
Impeachment is related to removing someone from office. He is already gone. So what is the point?
What you are talking about is if he incited a riot and can the FBI investigate. That is a very different thing.
That won't go anywhere however because in his public comments/speeches did not tell people to riot. Unless there are some secret communications that come to light, he did not incite a riot.
" The only remedies in impeachment are removal from office and disqualification to hold positions of “trust or profit.” The disqualification vote can’t take place until after the removal, and you can’t “remove” someone from an office they don’t hold. What’s more if you’re impeaching the President the Chief Justice must preside. The Chief Justice isn’t presiding, so this can’t be a presidential impeachment. But if you’re not impeaching a president, and you can’t impeach a private citizen, then there’s no power to impeach Trump."
whatithink
GOLD
I agree with that TBH, impeachment is just a side show and not a very pleasant one.
whatithink
GOLD
Generally yes, but the DoJ stance has been that they do not or cannot investigate any President (for any crime). That's flawed IMO, as the standard for impeachment, i.e. high crimes etc., is different. It sets up the President as being essentially above the law (or just most laws), certainly at the moment in the partisan cesspool that is American politics as fuck knows what you'd want to have done to get 67 senators to vote to impeach you.
Besides, the state of new york is diligently conducting their own probes/investigation of Trump and Co's finances. He'll no longer be insulated by being president. I'm sure the State Attorney General and others are chomping at the bit. It may come to nothing but it's not going to be painless for trump and crew.
Id love it if they could compromise but I don't think it's in the cards. The Rs want voter identification, limited mail in ballots with checks and guarantees preferring in person, oppose early voting, want local control including redistricting, look with hostility on ballot harvesting, and want frequent purges of the voter roles. The Ds want limited or no voter ID, expanded mail in balloting, early voting, federal control, look neutrally or favorably on ballot harvesting, and wanted limited purges of the voter rolls. The Rs want to make casserole, the Ds want to make soup. I just don't see it given the issues are fundamental to outlook, not disagreements on the margins or scope.
whatithink
GOLD
Yeah, and then there's the small matter of the $400M or so in debt coming due apparently, with various lenders exiting the stage as fast as they can.
whatithink
GOLD
I think there's plenty of room to compromise, and zero likelihood that there will be any.
I think the GOP's words, "Elections have consequences", and their removal of the filibuster on SCOTUS may come back to haunt them in the next couple of years. It will probably depend on the next 6 months.
I read your room to compromise as the rs should just cave on the big principles. As to elections have consequences I didn’t see any d movement in other big r existential issues like abortion and immigration
I’m increasing convinced our principles are just fundamentally misaligned. The best solution is to kick everything down to the state levels and fight it out there because when everything becomes existential (on the d side climate change, race equity, abortion) and people begin to hate each other a divorce is the only way out.
whatithink
GOLD
No, I was talking about the election bill, compromising on that. You're talking like the GOP are paragons of virtue and have done nothing but compromise when they have control.
Politicians like cultural war issues, e.g. abortion. Politicians couldn't give a cr@p about abortion, but it allows them to pull in a group of the electorate that will ignore everything else and vote for them on that. This shouldn't be confused with actual principles ... which neither side have and which any of us can amply prove.
I think your existential stuff is on the extremes for GOP, just like the extreme stuff for the Ds. There's plenty for both parties to compromise on that would align with the majority view of the population, including abortion, common sense gun control laws, a plan to combat climate change that can be a positive for the economy etc. Most people would be fine with a functioning government - its the extremes on each side that jump to hyperbole and talk about hate and fight etc.
I just think the fundamental on election reform are really different: soup and casserole. It's easier to compromise if we all buy into the idea of soup and we are just talking the ingredients (Rs like their soup plain, Ds spicier). But this is really fundamental and different: federal control with expanded voting and few controls v. state control with expanded controls and more limited voting. The difference with the R politicians is that it also affects them on this (as opposed to abortion)...it's no coincidence that the Ds are pushing for expanded voting because it helps them and the Rs are pushing for more restricted because it helps them. This is an issue too which both the bases are aligned considering that 1/3 of Ds thought the 2016 election was stolen and about 40% of Rs think 2020 it was stolen (a number which expands if you include whether 2020 was fair). And speaking about fairness, the issue of elections also circulates with the issues of the press, money in campaigns, the tech companies and the pollsters....a "grand compromise" would resolve settling that which is daunting....immigration and abortion are actually easier than this.
And as I've stated before, I'm a Tulsi fan and she has plenty to critique both parties of....I'm not saying the GOP is a paragon of virtue....I think her critique of the parties is right on.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Tucker is a snake, always has been. Another example of an over privileged silver spoon playing to the “base”. Isn’t that what trump wanted was to “federalize” state elections? The federal election rules are already, federalized.
Yeah, but Trump just wanted to federalize them in an R vision. That's as much of a mistake as HR1. Leave it to the states...fight it out there.
Isn't this endemic to the industry as a whole? Tucker, Maddow, Late Night, you name it.
Hüsker Dü
DA
It must be the way the message is communicated being echoed.
whatithink
GOLD
The GOP have won one national/presidential election, based on number of votes, since 1988 - in 2004. I understand why they want more restrictions. Their problem is that the gap is widening and so they need the restrictions more and the gerrymandering along side it. That's not a long term strategy, but US politics is too short term. There's plenty of policies that the GOP advocate, traditional conservative policies that would appeal to a wider base, but they have too many extreme elements at the moment, IMV, to make those policies their actual central platform and message. The D's need to be careful they don't go the same way.