Politics First Contact

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

He didn't leave the Labour party though, just stepped down as leader.  A loss in 2020 would definetly be a sign of a need for leadership change though.

Doesn't matter, Labour is the U.K. equivalent of the Democrats, a Party that's too far gone to reform.  Best bet for leftists is looking elsewhere to find green pastures instead of trying to roll back the clock to some preThatcher era.

Edited December 15, 2019 by ComradeMaster

[smjjames]

Real subtle (if intended or not) on 'green pastures', but the main problem is that the UK has a viable non-main party that Labour voters could go to, LibDems while the US doesn't. Yes, the greens are viable in the sense of existing and 'being an option', but it doesn't have the same operational strength as the Libertarians do (all 50 states plus Guam and something else).

 

Regardless though, if the Democrats lose in 2020, it's definetly time to do a rethink.

[ComradeYellow]

On 12/14/2019 at 8:05 PM, smjjames said:

Real subtle (if intended or not) on 'green pastures', but the main problem is that the UK has a viable non-main party that Labour voters could go to, LibDems while the US doesn't. Yes, the greens are viable in the sense of existing and 'being an option', but it doesn't have the same operational strength as the Libertarians do (all 50 states plus Guam and something else).

 

Regardless though, if the Democrats lose in 2020, it's definetly time to do a rethink.

The Republican Party and Lincoln was not on several Southern States in the 1860 election but Lincoln still managed to grab 40% of the popular vote, and he was sort of the oddball of the party's platform, chosen because of sheer strength of character rather than ideological purity.

History rhymes, it's the strength of the candidate that matters, someone who can draw voters in.

[Guard Dog]

2 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

chosen because of sheer strength of character rather than ideological purity.

Wonder if we'll ever find our way back there again.

[smjjames]

Perhaps, but even if history rhymes, 1860 has several things that don't exist today, aside from the issue of slavery about to go supernova at that point, the Republican party wasn't a third party in the conventional sense, it rose out of the collapse of the Whig party (some of them joined the democrats, some joined other parties, the rest formed the Republican party), the other major party was utterly split and had two candidates (the portion of the Whigs joining the Democrats certainly contributed to this).

I don't see the Democrats utterly splitting, but I could definetly see the kind of behavior we saw in 2016 if say, Biden had poor debate performance or something, namely some of them staying home and others going for the Green and Libertarian parties. However, with partisanship as strong as it is, I wouldn't bank on something like that.

[Gromnir]

12 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Wonder if we'll ever find our way back there again.

am s'posing we would need a world war or life altering cataclysm to bring 'bout such a sea change.  as such, am willing to muddle through with a choice between the lesser o' evils.

as an aside, if we were the House leadership, we would impeach trump and then hold articles instead o' delivering to the senate for a trial. don't give guys such as graham a chance to claim the President were exonerated. if trump wins election, then decide on whether or not to deliver, 'cause by then all the Court cases will have been resolved. get mcghan, mulvaney and pompeo to testify as well as obtain relevant documents and have trump tax records as well w/o having to consider how a trial affects ability o' democrat senators running for Presidency.

impeach now, but if mcconnell is gonna run a sham trial, then wait on delivery o' articles 'til is strategic better to do so. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

21 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am s'posing we would need a world war or life altering cataclysm to bring 'bout such a sea change.  as such, am willing to muddle through with a choice between the lesser o' evils.

as an aside, if we were the House leadership, we would impeach trump and then hold articles instead o' delivering to the senate for a trial. don't give guys such as graham a chance to claim the President were exonerated. if trump wins election, then decide on whether or not to deliver, 'cause by then all the Court cases will have been resolved. get mcghan, mulvaney and pompeo to testify as well as obtain relevant documents and have trump tax records as well w/o having to consider how a trial affects ability o' democrat senators running for Presidency.

impeach now, but if mcconnell is gonna run a sham trial, then wait on delivery o' articles 'til is strategic better to do so. 

HA! Good Fun!

Makes sense to me. That is also a reason to consider Censure. If they Senate is not going to remove him no matter what he did then take the justice you know you can have, There is no rebuttal and no defense against it. "You did this. Shame on you". It's not perfect but it is not nothing and nothing is what we are going to end up with. 

[smjjames]

9 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am s'posing we would need a world war or life altering cataclysm to bring 'bout such a sea change.  as such, am willing to muddle through with a choice between the lesser o' evils.

as an aside, if we were the House leadership, we would impeach trump and then hold articles instead o' delivering to the senate for a trial. don't give guys such as graham a chance to claim the President were exonerated. if trump wins election, then decide on whether or not to deliver, 'cause by then all the Court cases will have been resolved. get mcghan, mulvaney and pompeo to testify as well as obtain relevant documents and have trump tax records as well w/o having to consider how a trial affects ability o' democrat senators running for Presidency.

HA! Good Fun!

Do it too soon after the election and the Democrats will get doubly accused of trying to overthrow an election, how soon is too soon though, no idea, a year? two? Part of the reason why they are going so fast is to try and avoid quagmiring it among the election. Johnson was impeached similarily late in his term, but looking at wikipedia, running into election season didn't appear to be a concern. Meanwhile, the two most recent ones, Nixon (in a purely technical sense), and Clinton had theirs well into their second term, so, there isn't any modern precedent for how to do an impeachment late in a first term. Sure, Johnson was, but nearly everything about politics is so different from over 150 years ago that all you can really say is 'yes, it's been done in the first term.'

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Makes sense to me. That is also a reason to consider Censure. If they Senate is not going to remove him no matter what he did then take the justice you know you can have, There is no rebuttal and no defense against it. "You did this. Shame on you". It's not perfect but it is not nothing and nothing is what we are going to end up with. 

I have seen some articles saying that they should pursue censure for that reason, but I haven't really seen anything in the way of Democrats looking to do that route instead of impeachment. Probably something they can do if impeachment fails to go through.

[Gromnir]

the "overthrow" argument has always been stoopid. removal o' a President by necessity is rejection o election results, but the mechanic is clear written into the Constitution. fox news claim at the moment is it is stoopid to impeach and remove 'cause an election is just on the horizon. obviously such won't be a factor after the election.

if there is sufficient evidence that the President abused power, then removal from office is appropriate and all the bs arguments will fade away. tricky part is getting enough republicans to buy into the idea that trump did something wrong... which should be easy but ain't. gaslighting and misdirection has folks spouting nonsense 'bout process mistakes, the whistleblower identity, coup attempts and the asinine argument 'bout how trump had genuine concerns regarding ukrainian corruption when he asked "zellensky" to investigate the bidens. 

at the moment, trump's base still clings to notion that trump didn't actual do anything wrong, and they will continue to believe such regardless o' facts. even so, stonewalling by the wh, which itself should be grounds for impeachment and removal, has a shelf life. once Court rules on numerous cases, then all those senators is gonna need decide whether trump's base is worth a genuine and indisputable violation o' the Constitution.  am certain more than a few republicans balk when faced with historical precedent o'  voluntary relinquishing all oversight authority to the Presidency.

do after Presidential election, but with benefit o' better evidence or more egregious stonewalling by the wh makes the idiotic overthrow argument moot. take trump's hypothetical 5th avenue shooting and make occur  on day after election. whosoever raises overthrow o' election results regarding the shooting situation looks like a complete nincompoop, no? no different for ukraine as long is new evidence.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[smjjames]

16 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

at the moment, trump's base still clings to notion that trump didn't actual do anything wrong, and they will continue to believe such regardless o' facts. even so, stonewalling by the wh, which itself should be grounds for impeachment and removal, has a shelf life. once Court rules on numerous cases, then all those senators is gonna need decide whether trump's base is worth a genuine and indisputable violation o' the Constitution.  am certain more than a few republicans balk when faced with historical precedent o'  voluntary relinquishing all oversight authority to the Presidency.

What happens when Republicans don't see a genuine violation of the Constitution though?  And McConnell seems more than happy to relinquish oversight authority in exchange for various Republican desired stuff.

Edited December 16, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

34 minutes ago, smjjames said:

What happens when Republicans don't see a genuine violation of the Constitution though?  And McConnell seems more than happy to relinquish oversight authority in exchange for various Republican desired stuff.

then you are exact same place you are now, but trump will have been impeached (historical relevant) and republicans won't be able to claim exoneration with a sham trial.

the thing is, there is reason to believe being able to actual interview the central players and acquire documents relevant to the ukrainian kerfuffle will produce embarrassing results for the President. the evidence has been daming with democrats needing interview tangential players and w/o benefit o' documents. if such stuff were tending to be exculpatory, there woulda' been a release o' such already. 

impeach trump now and then make him sweat the reality o' a future trial which will need recognize bolton and mcghan testimony... as well as documentation.

the one thing 'bout which the republicans has been correct is that the democrats is rushing this situation. 'course they are doing so 'cause having a bunch o' democrats running for President and needing sit silent during an impeachment trial is less than ideal from a campaigning pov. as a lesson from the russia investigation, the democrats also know the public has a short attention span, and wait another year for resolution is risky. nevertheless, unlike censure, impeachment is historical relevant, so impeach today. when Court affirms all the past decisions on the matter and President needs surrender documents and witnesses for impeachment, then re explore the issues. new damning evidence makes this issue fresh meat even if is a year removed.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

You guys are making it sound like the Republicans in the Senate, and House for that matter, don't know or believe if Trump did something wrong. That is a false premise. Of course they do. They are not stupid. The pro-trump voter base may or may not know. Or does not believe. The anti-Trump voters won't care if he did anything wrong or not.  They are out there shouting "hooray for our tribe". But the Congress. Of course they know and of course they know it's wrong. It. Does, Not. Matter. Don't bring up Nixon. Different times, different people. They all knew Clinton perjured himself. It. Did. Not. Matter. A Senate of the Party of the President is not going to remove that President. The political party does not matter. If Trump were a Democrat and the Dems held the House and everything else was the same the impeachment would not have happened. If the House was Republican, Senate Democrat, Trump a Democrat and all else the same he would not be removed. It. Does. Not. Matter what he did. 

In a relatively short time this is all going to be over and nothing will be any different for having gone through it. The Senate will acquit. Trump will crow about how it was all a witch hunt and how he was exonerated. The Senate Republicans will make the media rounds and with a straight face defend  Trump and their acquittal. In six months the fact that he actually did everything he was accused of doing will be forgotten. And don't get mad at the Republicans because that is just how things are. If all the parties are reversed it ends the same way.

THAT is why they really should consider Censure. Because if they do that then it will not be forgotten. He did this. Period. That is how history will remember it. Plus it gives them fodder for debates and campaign ads and there is nothing he can do about it. Yes, he won't be removed from office but he's not going to be anyway. 

This is just how s--t is now. 

[Gromnir]

48 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You guys are making it sound like the Republicans in the Senate, and House for that matter, don't know or believe if Trump did something wrong. 

nope. is not what we are suggesting. if you believe we sound as you describe, you ain't been paying attention. have said many times on these boards, republicans are very much aware o' what happened after nixon left office. history as taught in schools makes sound as if nixon were a bad guy and when everybody realized what a crook he were, the nation, as a whole, passed judgement on his misdeeds. Gromnir keeps reminding people how republican voters did not forgive republican House members who were making obvious they were supporting impeachment. in spite o clear evidence o' nixon misdeeds, republican voters did not forgive republican disloyalty in the next election cycle. 

senators know trump did wrong, but they see the same polls we all do which show little movement 'mong trump base. regardless o' what republicans think o' trump. they are responsive to their constituencies, and the constituencies is... am at a loss to describe, but the trump base remains solid regardless o' government shutdowns and ineptitude and caving to both turkey and china in matter o' months.  how or why don't matter at this point. trump base is. 

however, because o' solidness o' trump base, republican senators ain't gonna support impeachment and removal even if they believe trump done wrong. most o' the educated republican men and women in Congress already know trump has done wrong. the thing is, most Congressmen want to be reelected. job 1 o' any Congressman is to get re elected. 

senators has a bit more security with their longer terms than members o' the house. if is clear that evidence is mounting against trump and becomes clear history will curse the names o' those who stood loyal to a bad President, senators will abandon trump, 'cause as fickle as is voters, senators is concerned 'bout legacy. is a smart bet to predict trump base four or six years from today?

history will look back at trump with sadness and contempt. have said many times that if you mark and measure trump misdeeds and nixon misdeeds side-by-side, trump looks far worse... and nixon were actual an effective chief executive who made genuine inroads with china, helped create the epa, were advocating universal health while trump has been little more than a bumbling incompetent for the past three years.  with six-year terms and many o these senators considering multiple terms, they gotta embrace history if only for the most selfish and practical reasons. 

censure will be forgotten almost immediate. impeachment is history. impeach now and then let trump try and pull an andrew jackson move when the Court rules he gotta provide documents and witnesses in a Congressional impeachment investigation. see how many senators balk at such as a bridge too far. will be more than a couple.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

I hope you are correct Grom. I hope pessimism has gotten the better of me. Well, before Spring Training starts we'll know. 

[Bartimaeus]

Would be utterly shocked if he was convicted in the Senate. McConnell has made it clear he's going to make a sham of it as much as he possibly can, and Lindsay Graham has already come out and announced that he'll do the equivalent of plugging his ears during the trial. Not exactly hearing much that suggests others are even receptive to the idea.

[smjjames]

Might as well replace all of the Republican Senators (or at least the ones who don’t want to do it fairly) with actual kangaroos during the Senate trial, right? I know GD would say replace them with rats, but the term is kangaroo court, not rat court. 

[Gfted1]

You could say the same thing about our entire government. Parties band together under a siege mentality.

[Gfted1]

Poll: Impeached or not, Trump lead Democratic rivals.

[Keyrock]

There's a better chance of a million dollars in cold hard cash just randomly appearing in my home than Trump actually being forced to resign the presidency. I get home from the road on the 20th,  I'll let you folks know if the money is there. 

[HoonDing]

No way to get rid of Tromp except maybe, you second amendment people... well, maybe there is a way, I don't know.

[Raithe]

 

How the UK Parliment seats changed from 2017 to 2019...

[ShadySands]

Plaid Cymru?

Sounds like a Star Wars villain with lumberjack fashion sensibilities

 

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or throw it up on the rando thread but decided here because of the political aspect. Millennials Are Leaving Religion And Not Coming Back

I think I've discussed it a bit here before but I've known more than a few people that fell into this category due, in large part, to politics.

Quote

Why does it matter if millennials’ rupture with religion turns out to be permanent? For one thing, religious involvement is associated with a wide variety of positive social outcomes like increased interpersonal trust and civic engagement that are hard to reproduce in other ways. And this trend has obvious political implications. As we wrote a few months ago, whether people are religious is increasingly tied to — and even driven by — their political identities. For years, the Christian conservative movement has warned about a tide of rising secularism, but research has suggested that the strong association between religion and the Republican Party may actually be fueling this divide. And if even more Democrats lose their faith, that will only exacerbate the acrimonious rift between secular liberals and religious conservatives.

“At that critical moment when people are getting married and having kids and their religious identity is becoming more stable, Republicans mostly do still return to religion — it’s Democrats that aren’t coming back,” said Michele Margolis, author of “From the Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity.”

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by ShadySands

[Keyrock]

4 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Plaid Cymru?

Sounds like a Star Wars Villain with lumberjack fashion sensibilities

 

I was thinking X-Wing pilot that dies during the Battle of Endor.

[Agiel]

17 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

senators know trump did wrong, but they see the same polls we all do which show little movement 'mong trump base. regardless o' what republicans think o' trump. they are responsive to their constituencies, and the constituencies is... am at a loss to describe, but the trump base remains solid regardless o' government shutdowns and ineptitude and caving to both turkey and china in matter o' months.  how or why don't matter at this point. trump base is. 

 

 

On the other hand were I to go to retirement communities in Florida and Arizona and ask the seniors living there whether or not they voted for Nixon in 1972 there will probably come a point at which I will find it difficult to believe them if they said they did not, considering the near total Electoral clean-sweep and popular vote landslide.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Agiel

[smjjames]

Perhaps instead of turtling up and bunkering down, the Christian conservatives could find out why it's happening. It's called adapting This bit from the article is probably key " We moved to a city and talked a lot about how we came to see all of this negativity from people who were highly religious and increasingly didn’t want a part in it.” Of course, the caveat is that it's an ancedote from one person, so, can't solve the problem from just that.

I've never been religiously involved, just didn't care for it, so, I can't speak to the experience of those who drifted away if that's the main part.

Edited December 17, 2019 by smjjames