https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/27/democrats-subtweeted-organizing-for-action-1476569

Democrats disavow Obama's creation of rival political group
The 2020 field pledges not to form a separate political arm from the DNC.

By LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ, ALEX THOMPSON and HOLLY OTTERBEIN 08/27/2019 07:12 PM EDT

To this day, many Democratic Party officials still fume about Barack Obama’s decision to create his own political group outside of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for Action.

Now they’ve ensured it won't happen again if a Democrat wins the White House in 2020.


The Association of State Democratic Committees announced Tuesday that every leading presidential contender has vowed not to create “any organizing or messaging infrastructure that is parallel or duplicative" to the DNC or state parties. The signed pledge also binds candidates to publicly call on their supporters not to launch outside groups on their behalf.

It's an enormous change for the party, one that will likely strengthen the DNC and state parties after what many Democrats considered neglect of the party infrastructure during the Obama years. It also throws into question the future of Our Revolution, the Bernie Sanders-created grass-roots organization, which state party leaders say would appear to violate the agreement if Sanders wins the general election.

“It's a huge shift,” said Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party. The move sends two messages, she added: "You cannot create another OFA," and "the DNC is an important national infrastructure, but it's not in the states — we are.”

“ are never the shiny object that gets funded with all the appeals from podcasts or big donors,” Kleeb added.

Organizing for Action, the political group that grew out of Obama's first presidential run, decentralized power from the DNC by building a parallel infrastructure that competed for donors. It was a move that many state party chairs loathed, and in the years since have faulted for Democrats' losses at the gubernatorial and statehouse level.

“It wasn't helpful to the political work that needs to get done in building a bench,” said Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party. "We have a political tool in the state parties and the president should use them."

The pledge, signed by Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and 16 other contenders, requires candidates to use state parties as their organizing, messaging and political arm should they become their party's nominee. Many state parties are run by full-time and unpaid chairs who are expected to recruit, train and get candidates elected. But many have few resources at their disposal, and the deal announced Tuesday is an attempt to fix that.

The agreement also mandates the eventual nominee to share all of the data he or she collects during the campaign with the DNC and state parties, which is already a requirement to get access to the party's voter file. The new agreement doesn’t require the nominee to share his or her email list, a notable concession and one that party officials hope could be revisited.

Harris was the first leading candidate to sign the pledge, drafted by the Association of State Democratic Committees, according to multiple sources. Warren had already signaled that she wanted to operate within the existing party infrastructure, donating $5,000 to each of the 50 state parties last year.

But Our Revolution was a point of contention during discussions with the Sanders campaign, according to people familiar with the negotiations. Sanders has long identified as an independent in the Senate, though he caucuses with Democrats. He is a self-described democratic socialist.

It's uncertain what the agreement will mean for organizations like Our Revolution and Next Gen, an outside political group formed by billionaire Tom Steyer, who's now running for president.

“We can't have competing centers of gravity as we move forward,” said Ken Martin, chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and president of the state Democratic committees. “We've learned the lessons of the past."

“If Sen. Sanders is the president, he would put his energy and political capital into the Democratic Party,” Martin added.

Sanders’ campaign argued that Our Revolution could remain in operation because the group already acts and operates “independently” from the Vermont senator. Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, said outside groups such as Move On, Progressive Change Campaign Committee or Third Way would likewise not be affected by the pledge.

"Is Move On going to go away? Is PCCC going to go away? These groups will all continue to exist,” he said, adding that “Joe Biden is not going to shut down Third Way” if he becomes president because he doesn’t control it.

During his campaign, Sanders has promised to pursue change with a mass movement of workers if elected president. Weaver said the pledge will have no effect on Sanders’ ability to rally supporters.

"There’s no reason the Democratic Party can’t be the vehicle to bring 1 million people to the to fight for single-payer,” Weaver said. “In fact, they should be.”

But others disagreed with Weaver's interpretation. The centrist Third Way wasn’t created by Biden, and PCCC and MoveOn similarly weren’t founded by a current presidential candidate.

Our Revolution, by contrast, is a creation of Sanders and his political operation. Nina Turner, the co-chair of Sanders’ campaign, was previously president of Our Revolution, and the group had access to Sanders' massive email list when it formed.

Even Kleeb, who serves on the board of Our Revolution, said the organization would need to substantially change.

“If Sen. Sanders becomes the nominee and the president, I do think that Our Revolution would have to shutter or really focus only on local candidates,” Kleeb said. “But Our Revolution would have to really shift its message.”

Though Sanders is not involved in Our Revolution's operations, a legal line the organization follows, the current goal of Our Revolution is to reform the party by getting people elected to the DNC and state parties. The portion of the organization dedicated to that “would have to end,” Kleeb said.

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

...from the debates, is just more of the same bullshit that'll cost them the general election again.

The DNC's arrogance is going to be their undoing.

they are a mess...

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

They all agree on the underlying facts. And none of them has a real proposal to deal with it. And voters, even Democrats, don't care.

At best a climate debate would be pointless. At worst it would be counterproductive.

Democratic Voters Overwhelmingly Support Hosting A Climate Debate, Poll Finds

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-debate-poll_n_5d07ce8ae4b0ea7c4a4d84c6

Among registered voters, 41% want a climate-only debate. Among Democrats, that number surges to 64%.
headshot
By Alexander C. Kaufman

Democratic voters overwhelmingly support devoting one of the Democratic National Committee’s four televised presidential primary debates to climate change, according to a new poll.

An online YouGov survey, commissioned by the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress, polled 1,030 registered voters over two days last week to ask if they’d “support or oppose setting side” one of the debates “to focus specifically on the issue of climate change.” Democrats and independents who lean blue supported the idea by 64%, with 42% strongly in support and 22% somewhat in favor. That compares to just 11% of Democrats opposed, 6% not sure and 20% neutral.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Join HuffPost Plus

SARAH SILBIGER VIA GETTY IMAGES
Nearly half of Republicans opposed the debate, with just over 37% strongly opposed and nearly 18% in favor. Among U.S. voters overall, support hit 41%, with 26% strongly in support and 15% somewhat in favor. That compares to 27% opposed, 7% not sure and 26% neutral.

Among registered Democrats, support for a climate debate is overwhelming. 
DATA FOR PROGRESS
Among registered Democrats, support for a climate debate is overwhelming.
“Presidential candidates are releasing climate platforms at a faster pace than the New York Yankees are winning baseball games,” said Julian Brave NoiseCat, the Green New Deal strategy chief at Data for Progress. “The Democratic Party must live up to the spirit of its name and host a damn debate.”

The DNC rejected calls for a climate-only debate earlier this month, setting off a firestorm between the Democrats’ main party organ and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who hitched his 2020 presidential campaign to the crisis of climate change alone.

“Democrats need to be the party of solutions on the climate crisis; the first step is holding a full-fledged debate on this existential threat,” Inslee told HuffPost. “Grassroots Democrats want a climate debate. It’s time for the DNC to listen to them.”

Among U.S. voters overall, support for a climate debate is stronger than opposition. 
DATA FOR PROGRESS
Among U.S. voters overall, support for a climate debate is stronger than opposition.
Inslee, whose donors and polling already qualify him for the scheduled debates, called global warming a uniquely “existential crisis” that merits an event focused on the disparate plans to curb emissions. DNC Chair Tom Perez lamented in a Medium post titled “On Debates” that, “If we change our guidelines at the request of one candidate who has made climate change their campaign’s signature issue, how do we say no to the numerous other requests we’ve had?”

More than a dozen of Inslee’s 2020 rivals, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), backed his demand for a climate debate. As of Monday, a petition for a climate debate sponsored by 18 progressive and environmental groups had more than 216,000 signatures.

The climate debate fight is in many ways penance for the fact that candidates spent what Grist calculated to be just five minutes and 22 seconds debating climate change during the 2016 presidential debates. (The issue got only slightly more play during the Democratic primary debates.)

Since then, climate change has become a top issue for Democrats. A March Gallup poll found 81% of self-described liberals, 77% of Democrats and 53% of independents reported feeling “highly worried” about climate change. An April CNN survey pegged climate change as a top issue for 82% of registered Democrats planning to vote in the 2020 presidential primary.

“All the data indicates that voters are alarmed about global warming,” said NoiseCat, an occasional HuffPost contributor. “It should come as no surprise that they want a debate.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

If anything I'm surprised those numbers you're quoting aren't higher.

They'll also say they support intensive action on climate change if you ask them.

At best, they're lying, and perhaps to themselves. More likely, they don't even understand the question.

People think of it as a political issue at this point. They don't really think of it as something that is or ever even will affect them personally.

When idiot climate deniers say shit like "Well if these climate alarmists really think the future is so bad, why are they still having children?", they're kinda right. We on the left know logically that either an environmental catastrophe, or an economic catastrophe, or most likely both, is inevitably in our not-very-distant future. But we compartmentalize it, "do what we can" (which is almost always negligible, or sometimes counterproductive), and we go on with our lives. We've learned to compartmentalize it too well.

You don’t think voters in CA, PR, FL and the gulf coast aren’t concerned with climate change?

You don’t think our lives are presently impacted by climate change?

Inslee announced himself as a single policy candidate...how did he qualify for the debates if no one really cared?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

>You don’t think voters in CA, PR, FL and the gulf coast
>aren’t concerned with climate change?

That's right. The natural calamities that they have faced, and will face in the coming years, are caused by climate change. But most of them don't really understand that. For now, they still think they're "doing their part" if they recycle their plastic bottles.

>You don’t think our lives are presently impacted by climate
>change?

Yes they are. Most definitely. Unfortunately, that's not relevant to the political "discussion."

>Inslee announced himself as a single policy candidate...

Oh yeah, you mean the first major candidate to drop out of the race. I almost forgot that dude.

>how
>did he qualify for the debates if no one really cared?

He is the governor of a major state. And, he claims to care about climate change, and he tries to tell people that it can be addressed, and he doesn't go into specifics, so that's all another small bonus among the Democratic party electorate. Apparently not enough to get him past the top 20, though.

> And none of them has a
>real proposal to deal with it. And voters, even Democrats,
>don't care.
>

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

How could it be counter-productive? I'm honestly curious about your logic here.

Pointless? I mean, maybe. But I don't get how it could be counterproductive. At the very least it might raise awareness on the issue, and it might force candidates to have an actual plan.

It would force candidates (ideally) to be more specific and not so...generic.


That isn't to say that you would approve of any plan put forward- but I think forcing them to be more specific couldn't hurt.


Unless you think plans could potentially scare off voters, but I don't think a climate change denier is going to vote Dem anyway. Curious why/how it would be counterproductive.


And this is the question that could come off snarky, but I honestly don't intend it.


Is there anything you think Dem orgs (for instance, the DNC) could be doing better/differently?


You really are their most consistent defender around these parts. And while I admit a lot of folks around here (including me to a point, frankly) don't fully grasp what the DNC *does*...no organization is perfect.

I'm curious what you would have them do differently if you could.

>
>
>How could it be counter-productive? I'm honestly curious
>about your logic here.

In short, because it would force them to divide themselves, and then divide the voting base, over issues that bear no relationship anyway to what would practically happen during the (hopeful) presidency. And it would force them to take positions that they know they'd never be able to act on anyway, but that would be used against them as weapons in a general election.

Imagine I proposed some BOLD! climate action. If it's truly BOLD!, in all caps with an exclamation point, then it would probably be economically catastrophic (which indeed, any effective climate plan probably will be), so I'd have to come up with some Rube-Goldberg contraption of economic incentives to convince my supporters that *they* wouldn't be the ones to pay for it (yes, I am referencing the GND, though the real GND somehow manages the Rube Goldberg device without the BOLD! action). Some people would go for it, some people wouldn't. It would all be somewhat academic, though, because while everyone wants to think their favored political proposals are made in good faith, everyone knows as a matter of basic logic that this BOLD! proposal wouldn't happen anyway.

Then imagine you, a candidate running against me, see through my shameless lies about what I would be able to accomplish, you point them out here and there, and you put out your own plan that isn't nearly as BOLD!, but better than nothing, and at the very least it's an unstated fact that you would stand waiting (as all Democrats would) to sign an international treaty to institute a carbon tax, which is probably the only political maneuver that would significantly address the issue.

Then consider the dynamics down the line. Maybe I win the primary. My GE opponent would then hang that BOLD! initiative around my neck every chance he gets, the fact that I even mentioned economic consequences is taken as an admission of catastrophe for three quarters of the overall electorate, and I lose in a landslide. I've essentially (falsely) promised to bankrupt most voters in an attempt to address an issue that most people, even Democrats, haven't actually internalized as a real factor in their lives.

Maybe you win the primary. Suddenly my voters think you don't really care about the issue at all. But that's the least of your problems. My BOLD! proposal wasn't even your proposal, but it was a serious topic of discussion in the primary that led to your nomination. So public opinion is soured on you, too.

American voters can easily internalize something like losing their jobs. They can't easily internalize something like mass starvation and refugee resettlement (somewhere...), amplified natural disasters and other weather volatility (weather, psh...), wholesale change of regional climate conditions (somewhere...), ecosystem collapse (wtf is an ecosystem?), and disastrous spread of infectious disease (I'll be fine...), particularly when they're told (accurately) that this is all caused by a few degrees average temperature change, caused by a marginal growth of one of the less-effective greenhouse gases (which they themselves exhale), triggered by them living the same kind of life that their parents and grandparents lived. Human psychology has stacked the deck for us to lose that game every time we play it.


>Pointless? I mean, maybe. But I don't get how it could be
>counterproductive. At the very least it might raise awareness
>on the issue, and it might force candidates to have an actual
>plan.
>
>It would force candidates (ideally) to be more specific and
>not so...generic.

My assertion is that awareness is the problem. Genericity, or better, vagueness, is the only way to swat the issue away from political discussion before it gets used against us.


>That isn't to say that you would approve of any plan put
>forward- but I think forcing them to be more specific couldn't
>hurt.
>
>
>Unless you think plans could potentially scare off voters, but
>I don't think a climate change denier is going to vote Dem
>anyway. Curious why/how it would be counterproductive.


My point is: everyone is a climate change denier. Some of us just don't want to admit it. It's encoded in our animal instincts to assume the world around us is static.


>And this is the question that could come off snarky, but I
>honestly don't intend it.
>
>
>Is there anything you think Dem orgs (for instance, the DNC)
>could be doing better/differently?


Avoid the subject entirely. Democrats should run, at most, on the claim (hopefully honest) that they respect science in general, and then employ every political skill they have to avoid any further questions on this specific topic. When they're president, they'll have the power to regulate industries, fund research, and (hopefully) engage the world. Candidates don't have the power to do any of that.


>You really are their most consistent defender around these
>parts. And while I admit a lot of folks around here
>(including me to a point, frankly) don't fully grasp what the
>DNC *does*...no organization is perfect.

I don't "defend" the DNC. My point has always been that people are stuck in this narrative that the DNC is some all-powerful organization that pulls strings around who gets what votes. They simply don't have that much power. They raise money (not much, by the standards of presidential races), they distribute money (mostly to no-name down-ballot candidates who aren't associated with any particular movement and for whom there often isn't enough interest for a primary race anyway), and they give what little imprimatur they have to a handful of debates, which become the "official" debates pretty much by default. Nobody cared what the DNC did before it got turned into a conspiracy theory.

>I'm curious what you would have them do differently if you
>could.

The DNC? I honestly don't care about the DNC. It'd be like complaining about the management at my local grocery store. I hope they know what they're doing. It'd be a fucking hassle if they let the store close down. But I'm fully aware that the day-to-day work that they do is a series of decisions that you or I wouldn't find the tiniest bit interesting.

It's the candidates that I worry about.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Didn't know there was a name for the phenomenon. Thanks!

but not for the reasons stated in your later post

mainly i don't think this is something to debate.
i want the democratic party as a whole, to form a climate forum full of experts
that can come up with a common platform of solutions
not based on some best-case scenario, i don't want a single mention of jobs-creation in there (that should be a side-effect)
or clean coal or any such nonsense
they can break it down based on here are the extreme measures we can and/or need to take,
here's the middle-ground and here are the cowardly measures
I'd like to be able to read about what needs to be done -
i dont need to read a warren plan, or a sander's plan or an islee plan or the mayor dude's plan
i want to read a 'here's our comprehensive plan of things we are going to do'
developed by experts and that everyone signs up to

i am a little bit too uninformed to be sitting here listening to different versions of what people intend to do
especially since i am not convinced this is something one team can do-
and I also think we need to throw out there 'well what about jobs, or how do we pay for it and all that nonsense - this is way too important.
otherwise its all just platitudes.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

What exactly is on the Democrat litmus test?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

That 2 of the leading candidates are...a converted republican and an independent...

...and you'd struggle to squeeze daylight in the separation between their policies...

?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

"a converted republican"
what views did you hold TWENTY YEARS ago that have absolutely no bearing on how you view the world today? If you're human, my guess is a lot.

Young man barely in his 20s

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

i also said "if you're human"
idgaf how old you are
if anyone has been rocking with something for 20 years, that's who you are. You're not a "converted" anything
but whatever, just be dense about it
dueces

is why Obama won. These niggas don't wanna win.

They're last year's Rams (OFFENSE) in the Super Bowl.

Seriously wondering wtf makes the Dems operate the way they do at times.

It’s like they enjoy almost winning more than actually winning.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

the democratic party exists to contain the populist left.
They would rather lose to Trump than win with someone of the politics of a bernie sannders.
They're the coastal, liberal "good cop" in the two-party good cop/bad cop routine.
As long as both parties are funded by the same corporate donor class, they will have the same goals.

We need to stop acting as if these are honest actors.

It would be extremely difficult to be THAT bad at your job if they were actually trying to get stuff done

R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

seriously
every time i read someone say... 'if obama had done this'
and then they tie it to what the GOP would've done....
my question is always, well why don't the dems do this? where's the outrage?
if anyone deserves this its *this* president
but instead we have yet another hearing that goes nowhere.
why are we so feckless?
i am really disappointed, tbh.
wtf is an impeachment inquiry?

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

because the right feels like they have no choice, so they throw decorum and decency out the window. They think that most of the main pillars of society (the media, the educational system, popular entertainment) are opposed to them. So they go hard for the remaining pillar - government.


The D's don't do that because they think controlling those other things should be enough. Then, control of the federal government has a night-and-day difference with who controls the national popular culture.

Short additional rant: this is part of why Obama's 2 victories masked the fact that the Republicans had taken control of so many state-level and federal-level seats and governorships in the in 2010's. I didn't realize that until the days after the 2016 election, when the news and media figures finally started to point out that fact. So many people were so content with Obama at the head that the sense of urgency at the lower levels was nonexistant.

>They think that most
>of the main pillars of society (the media, the educational
>system, popular entertainment) are opposed to them. So they go
>hard for the remaining pillar - government.

I think the main pillars outside of maybe popular entertainment have a republican bent
they have basically taken over talk radio, the have held the media hostage (we now both-sides idiocy) and they dont give an inch
they go hard at those as well, not just government
this whole outrage witht msnbc's odonnell is case in point
republicans are relentless. any small issue is blown up
we dont even blow up big issues (and perhaps this is becuase we dont own the airwaves)

but seriously... i think about how hard the gop goes at *everything*
whereas we whimper. im exhausted tbh. and very disappointed.
unfortunately, i dont have another option except to sign up to this fecklessness
i mean... there are toddlers in cages and showing up to court to defend themselves for crying out loud.

ugh.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

is almost beside the point. Perception is reality.

they have packaged victimhood

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

They know their audience is dumb as fuck. How else can you sell survivor food buckets to people in Arkansas.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Yea you got your Alex Joneses selling survival kits, and vitamins but is that where the bulk of their income is coming from


How many of these outlets are propped up by corporate interests to spew propaganda?

R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

Old white people listening to the radio and shit.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

because even if government fails, they can argue that it's proof that big government is ineffective. I'm really not sure how you battle that. The democrats can't do that because they need to show government can be affected, and also because the people who get hurt are the most vulnerable. Short of taking back the senate and a bunch of gubernatorial races (which seems like the plan) there's not much they can do.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

but i am asking for taking bold stances on issues that matter
and a lot of issues matter today
we can play hard ball on some issues- but we have rolled over a lot
despite having the house
the budget and budget ceiling is one example
the fact that this administration is basically robbing from other coffers to fund ICE is another

there has to be more effective ways of holding this administration accountable
than tweeting disapproval, asking us to sign petitions (hello pelosi) and asking us to pray (again hello pelosi)

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>but i am asking for taking bold stances on issues that
>matter
>and a lot of issues matter today
>we can play hard ball on some issues- but we have rolled over
>a lot
>despite having the house
>the budget and budget ceiling is one example
>the fact that this administration is basically robbing from
>other coffers to fund ICE is another
>
>there has to be more effective ways of holding this
>administration accountable
>than tweeting disapproval, asking us to sign petitions (hello
>pelosi) and asking us to pray (again hello pelosi)

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

is the initial fight over the wall (shutdown).

And weren't Dems tremendously popular after that in polls (since we love polls so much around here)?

Like, even Pelosi was popular.


AND...they won. Trump caved.


And then they proceed to fund ICE and give Trump and out on the ceiling.


I'm not a "they are the same team!" guy, but damn you can see why people think that sometimes.

>
>is the initial fight over the wall (shutdown).
>
>And weren't Dems tremendously popular after that in polls
>(since we love polls so much around here)?
>
>Like, even Pelosi was popular.
>
>
>AND...they won. Trump caved.
>
>
>And then they proceed to fund ICE and give Trump and out on
>the ceiling.
>
>
>I'm not a "they are the same team!" guy, but damn you can see
>why people think that sometimes.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

at this point
she is basically stifling any chances of holding this administration accountable
i am pretty sure if she got out the way there are folk who may show some backbone.

i'm so over her

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>at this point
>she is basically stifling any chances of holding this
>administration accountable
>i am pretty sure if she got out the way there are folk who may
>show some backbone.
>
>i'm so over her

And yea she is legit the Mitch McConnell of the House. Just swatting all attempts to go on the offensive against this corrupt "admin" away at every turn.

Fuck is she good for.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

We were able to be firm on that issue BECAUSE it was the popular position. It wasn't the popular position because we stood firm on it.

Asking politicians to have a spine is like asking a car to drive through a lake. It isn't their job, and it's usually fatal.

>
>We were able to be firm on that issue BECAUSE it was the
>popular position. It wasn't the popular position because we
>stood firm on it.

especially now that we have pelosi talking about optics and having the public behind (impeachment)
its not leadership. its being sheep.

i dont know if its all politicians.... unfortunately its *these* politicians.

beyond frustrated.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but when has ANY politician led the public on ANYTHING? I think people want a superhero to save the day.

>
>I'm not trying to argue with you, but when has ANY politician
>led the public on ANYTHING? I think people want a superhero to
>save the day.


and to me leadership is not just following
its not just taking the easy route
sometimes it also means going out and selling an idea
its a lot harder- i've done it before (and i know...smaller scale but whatev)

they are representatives but that doesn't mean they are sheep
i'd like us to hold them to a higher standard than we are holding a stenographer (sorry to stenographers)

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

...it is still a lesson for Dems to fight and a counter to this idea that Dems won the mid-terms on the backs of moderates and with the expectation they would work with the GOP.

The Dems/Nancy held strong. Didn't cave. And didn't try to look like the reasonable ones. They won and themselves had a bump in popularity.



The Dems also did a great job at controlling the media cycle there too.


They had leverage and they used it. And yet, they then gave up their leverage on the debt ceiling. Why? Not only that, but they did so relatively quietly.


Curious if you saw the Salon article posted first here-

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13342507&mesg_id=13342507&page=#13344257

I'm not sure if Dems don't want power or don't know what to do when they actually have power.

And I really do wonder if some in the party are really as upset about Trump as they say.

>And I really do wonder if some in the party are really as
>upset about Trump as they say.

i think because they aren't directly affected, and perhaps neither are most of their constituents
they'd rather play the politics of "optics" (wtf is this)
i also think they merely see this a way of expanding the party
because the other side is so awful and there is no other choice

i've spent the past summer (well, the past 2 and 1/2 yrs rather)
dealing with immigration... and seriously... the culture there is awful
and its become progressively worse - even for someone legally here
i cant even begin to imagine wtf ice is doing behind closed doors
these policies are directly affecting and impacting people directly
but dems are acting as though things are normal and its politics as usual
its beyond frustrating.
watching the tariffs game and everything else play out im like seriously..
does the presidency just have all these powers, or is this the complacency of those we sent explicitly to hold him accountable.
im over it


its also the same way i side-eye anyone who both sides the current climate
or who's response is complacency.
this shit is too crucial - it directly affects many of us
and looking around i feel like everyone is just like, *shrug*


ugh

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

serious question. The dems simply don't have the numbers or control to do much beyond what they're doing? You used to be able to shame folks into acting appropriately but this version of the republican party doesn't feel shame.

>serious question. The dems simply don't have the numbers or
>control to do much beyond what they're doing?

They have the House. They can do A LOT more than they're doing. Which is basically next to nothing. They tweet and stuff.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

Having the house means they can hold hearings, subpoena documents and control some funding. They're having hearings and issuing subpoenas. You can only play with the funding so much because that hurts the most vulnerable. I'm genuinely curious as to what else you would have them do.

>Having the house means they can hold hearings, subpoena
>documents and control some funding. They're having hearings
>and issuing subpoenas. You can only play with the funding so
>much because that hurts the most vulnerable. I'm genuinely
>curious as to what else you would have them do.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

that if a president breaks the law, the opposing party will respond by doing something extremely unpopular, weakening that opposition even further and giving more power to the lawless president.

That does not help.


If people are still pretending that a few more news stories about the Mueller report will make the public change their minds and finally want the Congress to overrule the voters, they're living in a fantasy land.

>RE: So a precedent is set...
>that if a president breaks the law, the opposing party will
>respond

Haha stop there. Done. Yes. Popular or not, if a president breaks a law, it'd be super dope to have the precedent set that the opposing party will respond.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

If someone pulls a gun and tries to rob me, should I respond by pulling out a pen knife and stabbing myself in the leg?

Do better.

>If someone pulls a gun and tries to rob me, should I respond
>by pulling out a pen knife and stabbing myself in the leg?

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

I don't see how you win by hurting yourself and helping the other guy in both the short term and the long term.

How does exposing the multitude of Individual 1 and his "admin"s daily high crimes help him ? Be specific.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

If you think any new news is gonna be made by people sitting in a hearing room repeating old news, then that's pretty naive.

Impeachment articles have to be passed by the House as a whole, and those articles wouldn't pass the House, the body that we supposedly control!

How strong does that make us look?

Meanwhile, we're saying an election should be overturned, when the voters by huge margins STILL don't want the election overturned. Even a huge number of voters who voted against Trump still don't want him to be removed from office. And this is people who KNOW about the crimes.

All of this, when a new election is right around the corner anyway. Without impeachment, it's looking like any one of the leading Dem candidates could win in 2016 (I'll put aside my Bernie issues for the moment, LOL), and the odds of taking the senate, which seemed ludicrous a few months ago, are starting to get plausible. This is before we even account for the fact that there might be a recession coming in the next year that right now gets squarely blamed on Trump.

If we DO impeach, then first of all we lose the House. The blue-wave red-district house members who DO support the articles lose to the Republicans who have an advantage in their districts anyway. The ones who oppose it lose the support and enthusiasm of their base. We give up any hope of taking the Senate, as suddenly Doug Jones, and whoever's running in Georgia and Texas have to take sides.

Meanwhile Trump blames any bad economic news that happens in the coming year on the "uncertainty" caused by impeachment, and it works just well enough to get him reelected.

We'd be fucked.

The analogy is supposed to be brutal.

i also quite like what katie porter said
"“I cannot with a clean conscience ignore my duty to defend the Constitution. I can’t claim to be committed to rooting out corruption and putting people over politics and then not apply those same principles and standards in all of the work I do,” Porter said, AP reported."

i think we are assuming that impeachment should be based solely on the mueller report
when this administration has committed so many impeachable offenses
im not sure anyone of us can predict with any kind of certainty what would happen if formal proceedings were launched
(not this wimpy inquiry bullshit)
that forces this on the front pages in a way that hasn't happened at all

I hate 45 with all my guts but whatev, he was selected... that doesn't mean he gets to get away with any and everything after
the lack of accountability imo actually hurts the party - many of us are still going to be involved in campaigning mainly because the other side is godawful and personally i am terrified of them keeping the senate

but i can also see how this level of complacency hurts efforts to drive new voters
right now its not about trump supporters, or people likely to support trump or leaning, or looking to be 'convinced' despite everything that has happened the past two years
they are a lost cause.
and if we lose because of them... so be it - it mean the country as a whole is lost and fukkit. i will give up then

but lets not be cowardly about this.
laws are only valid inasmuch as they respected, and people are held to account
otherwise we also open the door to a presidency in future that is much more effective at breaking rules and norms
(honestly we are not in a worse situation because of the incompetency of *this* administration)
and nothing matters.
i dont want to live in that world. not with the power this country currently wields.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

And I'm not gonna idolize the Constitution. It's a legal document, and a flawed one, in many many ways. We have to deal with what we have.



>i also quite like what katie porter said
>"“I cannot with a clean conscience ignore my duty to defend
>the Constitution. I can’t claim to be committed to rooting
>out corruption and putting people over politics and then not
>apply those same principles and standards in all of the work I
>do,” Porter said, AP reported."
>
>i think we are assuming that impeachment should be based
>solely on the mueller report
>when this administration has committed so many impeachable
>offenses
>im not sure anyone of us can predict with any kind of
>certainty what would happen if formal proceedings were
>launched

Okay, what, in your wildest dreams, might happen? Any scenario that leads even to Trump's removal (let alone any lasting rebuke) just doesn't withstand any basic plausibility test.

>(not this wimpy inquiry bullshit)

What is the difference between "formal proceedings" and "this wimpy inquiry bullshit"? The same people, meet in the same room, questioning the same witnesses, under the same rules.

>that forces this on the front pages in a way that hasn't
>happened at all

This has all been on the front pages! It's on the front pages every single day. It still hasn't worked!


>I hate 45 with all my guts but whatev, he was selected... that
>doesn't mean he gets to get away with any and everything
>after

Well, you and I can both say "fuck Trump" as loud as we want. But that doesn't change the fact that the House does not have the power to remove him from office before the next election.

>the lack of accountability imo actually hurts the party - many
>of us are still going to be involved in campaigning mainly
>because the other side is godawful and personally i am
>terrified of them keeping the senate
>
>but i can also see how this level of complacency hurts efforts
>to drive new voters

New voters have never been where the votes are. Sad, but true. And again, it's wishful thinking to assume it'll change now. We hurt our own political position, and thereby help Trump, if we aren't prepared to work with the world as it actually is.

>right now its not about trump supporters, or people likely to
>support trump or leaning, or looking to be 'convinced' despite
>everything that has happened the past two years
>they are a lost cause.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of people who just don't care much about the news. I don't like those people, but if we write them off as a lot cause then we will lose every election we ever run.

>and if we lose because of them... so be it - it mean the
>country as a whole is lost and fukkit. i will give up then

Will you, though? We say that kind of thing all the time. But we're still alive the next day, and we still have to do something the next day. I wanted to give up the day GW Bush was 'elected.' I wanted to give up the day GW bush was reelected. I wanted to give up the day the Tea Party stopped being a joke. I wanted to give up the day Trump was elected. But when we give up on the strategic problem of getting these fuckers out of power, *that's* when we become culpable for their lawlessness.


>but lets not be cowardly about this.

Dodging a no-win scenario is not cowardly, especially when it opens up a future scenario where we can win.


>laws are only valid inasmuch as they respected, and people are
>held to account

That sounds very good in the abstract. But it's the same logic that has put millions of people in jail over (for example) harmless drug violations, while at the same time feeding an underground market that actually has ruined lives.

Intentions aren't the whole story. Unintended consequences matter. In the case of impeachment, the unintended consequences of the process of impeachment can invite even more lawlessness.

>otherwise we also open the door to a presidency in future that
>is much more effective at breaking rules and norms

You seem to think it's impeachment or nothing.

You might not be willing to admit that impeachment would lose us the house, the senate, and the presidency in 2020. I personally think you're fooling yourself there, but we don't need to argue it out now.

But you must admit that the people who currently DO support Trump would turn him into a fucking martyr figure among a major fraction of the public if he was removed from office by the Congress (assuming we even COULD remove him from office through impeachment, which we can't).

At the same time, in an election campaign, every single element of his popularity can be undermined. If the voters rebuke him, it's a thousand times more damaging to his movement, and to his legacy, than if Jerry Nadler rebukes him.

>(honestly we are not in a worse situation because of the
>incompetency of *this* administration)
>and nothing matters.
>i dont want to live in that world. not with the power this
>country currently wields.

If there was a way to rebuke Trump today, to remove him from office, to embarrass and truly shame his supporters, I would be all for it. But there isn't.

There IS, however, a way to do all that over the course of the coming year. I don't want us to give up that opportunity over a mirage.

then maybe yes, you can argue i am indulging in wishful thinking
my assumption is that impeachment is a public trial when a public officer, including the president, engages in unlawful acts
that it is a constitutional process ... the end result is not guaranteed
i dont know why you assume i believe impeachment is a guaranteed means of removing this president
as far as i know, it is the only process the house can use when the process violates the law
now unless we are saying this president has not violated the law... then...

if he has... the house has a duty to charge him
this is not some idolation of the constitution (wierd thing to say really)



>Okay, what, in your wildest dreams, might happen? Any scenario
>that leads even to Trump's removal (let alone any lasting
>rebuke) just doesn't withstand any basic plausibility test.
>
>>(not this wimpy inquiry bullshit)
>
>What is the difference between "formal proceedings" and "this
>wimpy inquiry bullshit"? The same people, meet in the same
>room, questioning the same witnesses, under the same rules.


they need to bring forward formal articles of impeachment -
right now this inquiry - makes zero sense when there is already enough existing evidence
again, unless we are saying this president has not broken any laws?
if that's the case then we are on different sides of this aisle
there needs to be a debate in the house about this presidents wrong-doings - not in the various house committees
obviously im not privy to the proceedings on clinton's impeachment process
and maybe i should read up on it - but I assume this involves collating all the existing evidence
up to and including his financial records etc into one process.
whatever is happening now is distraction, nothing more, nothing else
and to me its a delaying tactic to wait until the nov elections
which is a big mistake


>This has all been on the front pages! It's on the front pages
>every single day. It still hasn't worked!

i disagree. there has been a lot of normalizing of what this president does in the media and not enough of holding his feet to the fire
there's been a lot of reading tweets and outrage culture but not enough accountability
honestly, there is an entire discussion to be had about the media


>Well, you and I can both say "fuck Trump" as loud as we want.
>But that doesn't change the fact that the House does not have
>the power to remove him from office before the next election.

again, its not just about removing him from office- come on.
its about what do we do about a president that has run rough-shod on the laws he is supposed to preserve?
if it only forces every single representative to go on record on where they stand about the suitability of this president
that still means something
if it forces president (or his minions) to have to defend his actions in the house of congress that still means something
if it forces him to pause.... that still means something
if it forces every single record of his wrong-doing to be laid out in a comprehensive manner that is still something
the leave this president- the most ill-suited of all, and one whom i assume many people agree is unfit for office
to finish even his first term without a mark on his record?
that is folly.


>New voters have never been where the votes are. Sad, but true.
>And again, it's wishful thinking to assume it'll change now.
>We hurt our own political position, and thereby help Trump, if
>we aren't prepared to work with the world as it actually is.


yea this wasnt true even in the midterms
its not even true in recent history.
the people who are going to vote trump (whether they are loud about it, or a silent majority)
are going to vote for him regardless- pandering to *them* means absolutely nothing


>>they are a lost cause.

>Not necessarily. There are a lot of people who just don't care
>much about the news.

and these are the people we need to focus on getting.
political organizing is not just about a news cycle.

>
>>and if we lose because of them... so be it - it mean the
>>country as a whole is lost and fukkit. i will give up then
>
>Will you, though? We say that kind of thing all the time. But
>we're still alive the next day, and we still have to do
>something the next day. I wanted to give up the day GW Bush
>was 'elected.' I wanted to give up the day GW bush was
>reelected. I wanted to give up the day the Tea Party stopped
>being a joke. I wanted to give up the day Trump was elected.
>But when we give up on the strategic problem of getting these
>fuckers out of power, *that's* when we become culpable for
>their lawlessness.


aw come on. stop being literal.
yes i will give up on my idealism that there are still a majority of people in this country who are actually ethical
i still have that belief
it doesnt mean i will give up on life
it also means i think those of us who want a better world will have to get back on the drawing board to figure out other means of making it happen.


>>but lets not be cowardly about this.
>
>Dodging a no-win scenario is not cowardly, especially when it
>opens up a future scenario where we can win.

for some reason you are basing your arguments on ...im not sure what assumptions really.
the assumption that impeachment hearings = a no-win scenario is based on what exactly?


>>laws are only valid inasmuch as they respected, and people
>are
>>held to account
>
>That sounds very good in the abstract. But it's the same logic
>that has put millions of people in jail over (for example)
>harmless drug violations, while at the same time feeding an
>underground market that actually has ruined lives.

again, apples and oranges. we can talk about the travesty that is the judiciary (and anyone watching the judicial nominees should prepare for the worst- the senate is rapidly changing the landscape)
but when we are talking about normalizing a president that can just do wtf he wants?
then yes, not holding him to account sets a very bad precedent
not having any parameters on what is acceptable? nothing good can come from that.

>Intentions aren't the whole story. Unintended consequences
>matter. In the case of impeachment, the unintended
>consequences of the process of impeachment can invite even
>more lawlessness.

we dont know that. where is this coming from? why is it that the only consequences on your plate are negative?


>You seem to think it's impeachment or nothing.

again... i didnt say that at all - lets not be hyperbolic with my words


>You might not be willing to admit that impeachment would lose
>us the house, the senate, and the presidency in 2020. I
>personally think you're fooling yourself there, but we don't
>need to argue it out now.

im fooling myself? based on what exactly? your assumptions
i want to see this process play out. none of us knows *how* it will
my argument is that this is the procedure we have to address a presidency and administration that acts as though it is lawless.
not on us abrogating this responsibility

>
>But you must admit that the people who currently DO support
>Trump would turn him into a fucking martyr figure among a
>major fraction of the public if he was removed from office by
>the Congress (assuming we even COULD remove him from office
>through impeachment, which we can't).

let them. they already treat him like the second coming
that is independent on whether or not this is the right thing to do.
maybe he's not removed from office- but he becomes one of the few presidents who underwent impeachment proceedings
to me that is still meaningful.


>At the same time, in an election campaign, every single
>element of his popularity can be undermined. If the voters
>rebuke him, it's a thousand times more damaging to his
>movement, and to his legacy, than if Jerry Nadler rebukes
>him.

disagree

>If there was a way to rebuke Trump today, to remove him from
>office, to embarrass and truly shame his supporters, I would
>be all for it. But there isn't.

disagree

basically what you are saying is that between elections, presidents, and elected officials can do whatever they want and it is *only* through elections that we can do something about it?
that sets a dangerous precedent imo

anyway. this is a lot of typing
if at the end of all this you still feel the same way you do then obviously we are not getting anywhere
and personally, this is where i stop.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

>then maybe yes, you can argue i am indulging in wishful
>thinking
>my assumption is that impeachment is a public trial when a
>public officer, including the president, engages in unlawful
>acts
>that it is a constitutional process ... the end result is not
>guaranteed

But it is. Come on. As you've said, this fucker commits impeachable offenses every day. And nobody cares. I'm not happy about that, but it's how it is. Yeah, it has a lot to do with the media. Yeah, it has a lot to do with human nature, a lot to do with psychology, a lot to do with, well, a thousand factors that I'm not a fan of. But my displeasure doesn't change the fact that a strong majority of the public is well aware that what's going on is not right, and yet they don't want anything done about it.


>i dont know why you assume i believe impeachment is a
>guaranteed means of removing this president

I don't think you think it's guaranteed. I think you think it's possible. And I think you're completely wrong about that.

>as far as i know, it is the only process the house can use
>when the process violates the law

It's the only process they can use, and it doesn't work. If there was a process that could work, I'd be all for it.

>now unless we are saying this president has not violated the
>law... then...

Definitely not saying that. I agree, he breaks the law every single day.


>if he has... the house has a duty to charge him

Why?

It's WAY too easy to just say "because it's the law." There are a thousand scenarios where a prosecution should not be made, even if the defendant is guilty.

Yeah, maybe I chose a trivial one by going with unjust drug laws.

I think you understand the claim I'm trying to make, that impeachment would be even worse than inaction. You dispute it, of course, but you follow it. Still, in the interests of cleaning up my case, here's a closer analogy, though it isn't about crime:

Consider a reverse of the classic "Trolley problem", though I think this variant would be far less controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Imagine a trolley is out of control, bounding along the tracks at high speed, about to hit someone. You can't stop it. But you're standing next to a switch that will redirect the trolley along another track. Ordinarily that would definitely be the right thing to do. But then you notice there are ten people standing on the other track.

I don't think it would be controversial to say the correct course of action would be to leave the switch alone and let that one person be hit. It would be no consolation at all to their family. And it certainly wouldn't be a "win" in any sense. But in that very contrived scenario (contrived, like the Constitution is contrived), it is the most decent of two horrific options.

Some might complain "yeah, but you're assuming the terrible alternate scenario will happen. You don't KNOW that." And sure, maybe a meteor comes down unexpectedly and destroys the track in front of the large group of people, saving them all. Yeah, that's a scenario where the "worse" option could turn out to be better. But it's really fucking implausible.

And my argument, again, is that the scenario where impeachment acts as an effective check on a lawless presidency is really implausible. Not random meteor level implausible but let's AT LEAST ignore the assumption that Trump can possibly be removed from office this way. We've seen how these politicians work. I mean if you can't trust Nancy Pelosi to do what you consider the right thing, then how in the hell are you gonna trust Mitch McConnell? And why is the fact that Nancy Pelosi is in power the thing we're mad about while Mitch McConnell is also in power?



>this is not some idolation of the constitution (wierd thing to
>say really)
>
>
>
>>Okay, what, in your wildest dreams, might happen? Any
>scenario
>>that leads even to Trump's removal (let alone any lasting
>>rebuke) just doesn't withstand any basic plausibility test.
>>
>>>(not this wimpy inquiry bullshit)
>>
>>What is the difference between "formal proceedings" and
>"this
>>wimpy inquiry bullshit"? The same people, meet in the same
>>room, questioning the same witnesses, under the same rules.
>
>
>they need to bring forward formal articles of impeachment -

Okay, this is partially a miscommunication between us. Bringing articles is technically a step beyond "formal proceedings." I think normally the committee that holds the hearings is the committee that writes up the articles of impeachment.

Sometimes people have been complaining that the proceedings in Nadler's (Judiciary), Cummings's (Oversight), and Schiff's (Intelligence) committees aren't good enough because they aren't technically called committees on impeachment.

I certainly agree that hearings are irrelevant at this point. I'm a little surprised that you're saying that (if indeed you are saying that), because you seem to be saying that you expect more incriminating evidence to somehow arise through those investigations. But I certainly don't think it will. Or at least, that in itself wouldn't make any difference. It sounds like we agree there, or at any rate, it's currently a minor point.

> right now this inquiry - makes zero sense when there is
>already enough existing evidence
>again, unless we are saying this president has not broken any
>laws?
>if that's the case then we are on different sides of this
>aisle

And again, just to be clear, I am DEFINITELY not saying serious crimes have not been committed, nor that they aren't STILL being committed. I also wouldn't dispute the fact that the average American citizen thinks serious crimes have been committed (I actually don't know where the polls currently stand on this, but I think it'll be blatantly clear in retrospect).

>there needs to be a debate in the house about this presidents
>wrong-doings - not in the various house committees

Okay well here we can start disagreeing again. Just like how more committee hearings won't establish any new evidence, or a change in public opinion, debate in the house certainly won't establish new evidence, or a change in public opinion.

>obviously im not privy to the proceedings on clinton's
>impeachment process
>and maybe i should read up on it - but I assume this involves
>collating all the existing evidence

The press has been in the business of collating that evidence for years. Moreover, the existing committees communicate. It's not like the Intelligence committee doesn't know what the Judiciary committee knows.

>up to and including his financial records etc into one
>process.

Well, we still don't have all the financial records, and there's still a long hard slog ahead to find all of them. In fact, that's one thing these committees really ARE working on.

When they do come to light, I'm sure there will be another dozen scandals. But like all the others, they'll fizzle out over time because, as you've noted, the big picture gets lost as every little piece of it, one-by-one, gets normalized.


>whatever is happening now is distraction, nothing more,
>nothing else
>and to me its a delaying tactic

This won't be surprising, I'm sure, but I'm personally a little surprised that while I initially agreed with you on this point, I actually don't think it's a delay tactic. Even though I think delay is the best course of action, it looks like the investigations have fizzled because some things are finished (testimony, which has generally been without value because there's no way to enforce subpoenas), while other things have slowed to a crawl for purely logistical reasons (banking records, which unfortunately require layer after layer after layer of international legal disputes).

>to wait until the nov
>elections
>which is a big mistake
>
>
>>This has all been on the front pages! It's on the front
>pages
>>every single day. It still hasn't worked!
>
>i disagree. there has been a lot of normalizing of what this
>president does in the media and not enough of holding his feet
>to the fire

Sure, I definitely agree on this. The media is a huge part of the problem here. But as much as Trump may say so, the media *aren't* under the control of the House leadership. And I certainly don't know how anyone might expect the House leadership to step in and play the role of the media.


>there's been a lot of reading tweets and outrage culture but
>not enough accountability

Absolutely. It's a fucking travesty. I'm not disputing that at all.

>honestly, there is an entire discussion to be had about the
>media

There is, but we'd probably agree about everything, which would be no fucking fun at all.

>>Well, you and I can both say "fuck Trump" as loud as we
>want.
>>But that doesn't change the fact that the House does not
>have
>>the power to remove him from office before the next
>election.
>
>again, its not just about removing him from office- come on.
>its about what do we do about a president that has run
>rough-shod on the laws he is supposed to preserve?
>if it only forces every single representative to go on record
>on where they stand about the suitability of this president
>that still means something

It doesn't mean much, though. Does anyone even remember who voted in Nixon's impeachment hearings, let alone how they voted? I assume if we asked people on the street, nine out of ten of them wouldn't even know if impeachment hearings were held at all.

>if it forces president (or his minions) to have to defend his
>actions

Sadly they've learned not to even go in front of cameras if they might be asked embarrassing questions.

> in the house of congress that still means something

Well, they certainly won't be brought in front of the House. There's no way to enforce the subpoenas. The executive branch is in charge of that (part of why the system that the founders set up, doesn't work).

>if it forces him to pause.... that still means something

Sadly it doesn't.

>if it forces every single record of his wrong-doing to be laid
>out in a comprehensive manner that is still something

I still assert that it already has --- again, apart from financial records, which may never come and if they do, everyone's all set up to get over them. quickly.

>the leave this president- the most ill-suited of all, and one
>whom i assume many people agree is unfit for office

Definitely.

>to finish even his first term without a mark on his record?
>that is folly.

Well, but there are plenty of marks on his record. The House leadership also doesn't control the historians. Every crime he's committed is a mark on his record. And every politician who's made excuses for him will have a mark on their record as well. If you think the Democrats are making excuses for him then you're welcome to think they'll have marks against them as well. Nobody has to be innocent.


>>New voters have never been where the votes are. Sad, but
>true.
>>And again, it's wishful thinking to assume it'll change now.
>>We hurt our own political position, and thereby help Trump,
>if
>>we aren't prepared to work with the world as it actually is.
>
>
>
>yea this wasnt true even in the midterms
>its not even true in recent history.
>the people who are going to vote trump (whether they are loud
>about it, or a silent majority)
>are going to vote for him regardless- pandering to *them*
>means absolutely nothing

Nobody's talking about pandering to Trump's actual supporters. At this point his truly definite supporters amount to about 25% of the electorate. Even if we could change their minds (and I agree, we can't), they're almost as irrelevant as the millennials.

>>>they are a lost cause.
>
>>Not necessarily. There are a lot of people who just don't
>care
>>much about the news.
>
>and these are the people we need to focus on getting.
>political organizing is not just about a news cycle.

Getting how? My point is that we can and should get them in the election. But getting them to call for impeachment is a MUCH bigger lift, and not one that House leadership has the power to carry out.

If you're saying we need to start organizing specifically to push for impeachment, more power to you. But there's not much time. And even if there were, it's pretty implausible. Tom Steyer spent a bazillion dollars running ads for impeachment, and calling Democrats spineless. And it went nowhere.

>>>and if we lose because of them... so be it - it mean the
>>>country as a whole is lost and fukkit. i will give up then
>>
>>Will you, though? We say that kind of thing all the time.
>But
>>we're still alive the next day, and we still have to do
>>something the next day. I wanted to give up the day GW Bush
>>was 'elected.' I wanted to give up the day GW bush was
>>reelected. I wanted to give up the day the Tea Party stopped
>>being a joke. I wanted to give up the day Trump was elected.
>>But when we give up on the strategic problem of getting
>these
>>fuckers out of power, *that's* when we become culpable for
>>their lawlessness.
>
>
>aw come on. stop being literal.
>yes i will give up on my idealism that there are still a
>majority of people in this country who are actually ethical
>i still have that belief

Okay well there's a place where we definitely disagree. I haven't had that much faith in humanity in decades.



>it doesnt mean i will give up on life
>it also means i think those of us who want a better world will
>have to get back on the drawing board to figure out other
>means of making it happen.
>
>
>>>but lets not be cowardly about this.
>>
>>Dodging a no-win scenario is not cowardly, especially when
>it
>>opens up a future scenario where we can win.
>
>for some reason you are basing your arguments on ...im not
>sure what assumptions really.
>the assumption that impeachment hearings = a no-win scenario
>is based on what exactly?

Do you at least admit that there is NO realistic chance that impeachment leads to Trump's removal (and even less chance, by the way, that Pence would be removed from the picture as well)? Can we at least find common ground on that much?

That much, is based on the fact that impeachment currently has a bare majority of support even just among the Democratic caucus, and universal opposition among House Republicans. So in total, that represents about a quarter of the House. Say the rest of the Democrats who haven't spoken up yet (because doing so would be dangerous in their districts, otherwise they would have done it already) split about 50/50. That puts us at maybe 40% in the overall House. So, if it's even gonna get out of the House at all, House leadership has to cajole about 40 Democrats to give up their hopes of reelection (a number, by the way, strikingly similar to the entirety of the "blue wave").

So let's say all THAT happens. Then it goes to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell chooses whether to even hold a trial. There is NO requirement for him to take it up at all. (In the Clinton case, BTW, this wasn't an issue because the Republicans held the Senate.)

So let's say *something*, *anything*, convinces Mitch the Fuck McConnell to take up an impeachment trial. Then, we need SIXTY-SEVEN VOTES to convict in the Senate. This means every Democrat (including ones like Doug Jones, who would obviously be giving up his seat), plus TWENTY certified-piece-of-shit Republicans.


As for my claim that we'd lose the House, I've explained that a bunch of times in here already. Our current majority is built on members for whom taking *either* side on impeachment would be politically disastrous.

The Senate: to win that, we have to GAIN seats, despite the fact that again, taking sides on impeachment is dangerous for many of those candidates.

And for Trump's reelection --- let's not even get to the argument that overturning an election is a really dangerous business. Let's just start and end with the fact the most effective tool we might hope to have to run against Trump would be an economic slowdown. It would completely undermine the only substantive argument Trump has ever made that the voters (idiots that they are) are STILL taking seriously. If an impeachment push started gaining any real steam, then suddenly Trump has a magic excuse to explain away his recession. ("Investors are afraid that the Democrats are gonna remove me and start regulating things again!")


>>>laws are only valid inasmuch as they respected, and people
>>are
>>>held to account
>>
>>That sounds very good in the abstract. But it's the same
>logic
>>that has put millions of people in jail over (for example)
>>harmless drug violations, while at the same time feeding an
>>underground market that actually has ruined lives.
>
>again, apples and oranges. we can talk about the travesty that
>is the judiciary (and anyone watching the judicial nominees
>should prepare for the worst- the senate is rapidly changing
>the landscape)
>but when we are talking about normalizing a president that can
>just do wtf he wants?
>then yes, not holding him to account sets a very bad
>precedent

We're repeating ourselves. Again, there is no way to hold him to account. And again, if we tried, we'd set an even worse precedent.

>not having any parameters on what is acceptable? nothing good
>can come from that.
>
>>Intentions aren't the whole story. Unintended consequences
>>matter. In the case of impeachment, the unintended
>>consequences of the process of impeachment can invite even
>>more lawlessness.
>
>we dont know that.

Yes, we do. Look, in that other branch of this thread, where you called me out for being dismissive. I will certainly admit that it was a low blow for me to compare you with climate deniers. Especially considering that I've been too depressed about the subject to take you up on your offer of a serious conversation about it.

But still, "we don't know that" is exactly the case that those climate deniers made. And it worked because there was a dangerous kernel of truth to it. We don't know every detail of how to properly model climate numerically. We don't know every detail of how every possible feedback mechanism works. And we certainly don't know for sure that someone won't come up with a truly renewable energy source eventually. I still have my hopes up for fusion (which is still "ten years off and holding"). But even if it isn't certain, the case for denial is really fucking implausible. And that's the best that anyone can say about anything in the real world.

No, we can't predict the future, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the world, physically, or politically.

>where is this coming from? why is it that
>the only consequences on your plate are negative?

Because the only consequences I consider even remotely plausible, are negative, for reasons I've outlined in detail.


>>You seem to think it's impeachment or nothing.
>
>again... i didnt say that at all - lets not be hyperbolic with
>my words

Well, you have been saying that if there isn't impeachment then he will have acted with impunity. I took impunity to mean "nothing."


>>You might not be willing to admit that impeachment would
>lose
>>us the house, the senate, and the presidency in 2020. I
>>personally think you're fooling yourself there, but we don't
>>need to argue it out now.
>
>im fooling myself? based on what exactly? your assumptions
>i want to see this process play out. none of us knows *how* it
>will
>my argument is that this is the procedure we have to address a
>presidency and administration that acts as though it is
>lawless.

And the procedure I have to live longer is to drink a hell of a lot of booze so I pass out and get plenty of rest. Unfortunately the procedure doesn't work.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm trying to make a specific logical point that really shouldn't be controversial: just because something is the only procedure we have to achieve some aim, that does NOT imply that that procedure acts as it was intended to act.

>not on us abrogating this responsibility
>
>>
>>But you must admit that the people who currently DO support
>>Trump would turn him into a fucking martyr figure among a
>>major fraction of the public if he was removed from office
>by
>>the Congress (assuming we even COULD remove him from office
>>through impeachment, which we can't).
>
>let them. they already treat him like the second coming
>that is independent on whether or not this is the right thing
>to do.
>maybe he's not removed from office- but he becomes one of the
>few presidents who underwent impeachment proceedings
>to me that is still meaningful.

To him that's another way to achieve immortality. Even a helpless, useless, trust-fund fuckup like him can become one of the most controversial figures in world history. Was that not his goal from the very beginning?


>>At the same time, in an election campaign, every single
>>element of his popularity can be undermined. If the voters
>>rebuke him, it's a thousand times more damaging to his
>>movement, and to his legacy, than if Jerry Nadler rebukes
>>him.
>
>disagree

Really? Are you saying a "rebuke" from a partisan House committee would carry more historical weight than a rebuke from the entire voting population? I assume I'm misunderstanding you here.

>>If there was a way to rebuke Trump today, to remove him from
>>office, to embarrass and truly shame his supporters, I would
>>be all for it. But there isn't.
>
>disagree
>
>basically what you are saying is that between elections,
>presidents, and elected officials can do whatever they want
>and it is *only* through elections that we can do something
>about it?

Yes, exactly. At least as long as they aren't opposed by a Senate supermajority.

>that sets a dangerous precedent imo

Hardly the most dangerous precedent set by the "founding fathers," though.

>anyway. this is a lot of typing
>if at the end of all this you still feel the same way you do
>then obviously we are not getting anywhere
>and personally, this is where i stop.

Alright. Again, no hard feelings.