[Politics] TRUMP IS GUILTY

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point.

My entire point is the Western justice system does not work the way you seem to believe it does, nor does it work the way you seem to believe it should. Because we have adopted the idea those accused of criminal offenses should be given due process in courts of law, and the determination of guilt is based upon an accusers' ability to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Like him or not, Trump is a citizen of the United States, and as a citizen of the United States he is entitled to due process.

You're arguing a special counsel, appointed by the DoJ who is in turn appointed by the President, should have unilateral right to usurp Congressional authority as enumerated in Article I to indict the President of criminal charges. And for what, to try him in the criminal justice system, itself under the authority of the Judiciary, which is expressly forbidden from this by Article III (likely because, as any person with a functioning brain can note, the federal Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch). Basically throwing our entire system of procedural checks and balances right the fuck out the window.

For as much as you bitch about Nazis, your ideas of what criminal justice should be are awfully similar to theirs.

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

Mueller said Trump is NOT innocent but that as part of the DOJ he is under the policy that as sitting president, he cant say Trump is guilty.

This is not because Trump is an 'American citizen', rather it is because he is The President and according to Mueller, he is ABOVE THE LAW.

You also dont know what due process is. I would LOVE for Trump to go through due process. That would mean he is being actively tried in a court of law. The problem here IS THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!

Squilookle:
What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

This helps me deal with my anger at the terrible situation the US is in. Keeping it in does not help me feel better. Though it is frustrating in its own way, it also validates me that those who oppose me have to rely on hypocrisy, lies and misinformation just to disagree with me. Seeing other people who have proven to care about equal rights and moral decency point out the same things as me helps me maintain some tiny shred of faith in people.

That said, I have to ask what you hope to gain by going out of your way to dismiss my caring about this?

Dirty Hipsters:
So...is this thread in any way different to the other Trump thread directly below it? How many threads about Trump do we need cluttering up off topic?

This is why we need the Religion and Politics circle jerk back.

The other topic was saying that if he is innocent, he needs to prove it because Trump was actively doing everything he can to obstruct justice and not prove it. That he kept having all this supposed evidence that exonerates him, yet he intentionally tries everything he can to keep it out of anyone else's hands.

This topic is about being proven even more right about Trump's guilt, though really all Mueller did was re-iterate his report, which again said Trump is NOT INNOCENT. I know suddenly Right-Wingers are now pretending to care that if he is not 100% proven guilty it means he is not guilty, despite never giving that caveat to minorities or Democrats in a hypocritical bid to defend him, but the truth is, Trump by being NOT INNOCENT, means he IS GUILTY.

Saelune:

generals3:

No, he said that he cannot charge the president. Charging someone doesn't make them guilty either. He couldn't have said Trump is guilty regardless of him being president or not. A court has to determine guilt.

So as far as we know he's neither innocent or guilty. He's potentially both. While imho he seems guilty, that doesn't make it true.

Mueller has said Trump is not innocent and that he wont declare a sitting President guilty. Its really not complicated beyond Mueller's support of a fascist line of thinking where the President is above the law.

No, no and no. First and foremost, Mueller is not a judge and is not supposed to declare anyone innocent or guilty. His job is to determine whether someone should be charged based on his investigation. Due to current regulations and the findings of his report he had determined he couldn't charge the president and it was up to congress to take over from where he left off. If you want to blame anyone blame the democrats who hold the majority in congress. The ball is in their court now.

There is nothing "Fascistic" about following the rules and expecting others to continue the work you started within the existing legal framework.

Saelune:
Mueller said Trump is NOT innocent but that as part of the DOJ he is under the policy that as sitting president, he cant say Trump is guilty.

This is not because Trump is an 'American citizen', rather it is because he is The President and according to Mueller, he is ABOVE THE LAW.

You also dont know what due process is. I would LOVE for Trump to go through due process. That would mean he is being actively tried in a court of law. The problem here IS THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!

Due process doesn't only apply to crim pro, ya dingus. It applies from everything to tenure disputes in state-funded universities to social benefits. Neither the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amendments apply solely to the judiciary; this is the entire reason the House and Senate drafted and ratified their own rules for impeachment. Conducting the process in accordance with their own rules is all that is necessary to satisfy the due process requirement.

And absolutely, the political question doctrine interferes with the review of due process questions arising from an impeachment procedure, especially with regards to Presidential impeachment. That's exactly what White and Souter were on about in their concurrences to Nixon v. United States (1993).

Mueller's entire fucking point is the President is not "above the law" as you put it. His point is the judiciary has no Constitutional authority in this matter; Congress does. Therefore, it's their decision to impeach. It would be incredibly inappropriate, unprofessional, and unethical for him to make such a statement, even potentially prejudicial.

Saelune:

Squilookle:
What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

This helps me deal with my anger at the terrible situation the US is in. Keeping it in does not help me feel better. Though it is frustrating in its own way, it also validates me that those who oppose me have to rely on hypocrisy, lies and misinformation just to disagree with me. Seeing other people who have proven to care about equal rights and moral decency point out the same things as me helps me maintain some tiny shred of faith in people.

That said, I have to ask what you hope to gain by going out of your way to dismiss my caring about this?

I'm not trying to gain or dismiss anything, and when you're going out of your way to keep not one but two Trump-bashing threads at the head of off-topic, I'm hardly going out of my way to post in them, am I?

And I get where you're coming from, I was pretty put out when Trump came to power as well, but you're investing SO MUCH energy, allowing yourself to get SO enraged at everything he does- you're helping your short-term indignance perhaps but it doesn't sound healthy getting that overwrought, that often, about events so beyond your control.

As for your opponents resorting to lies and hypocrisy, granted I read these threads as little as possible but I'm not really seeing them do much of that. Are you sure you're not using these threads to soundboard your political opinions, and at every opportunity dismissing all opposition as irrational? Because I can definitely see the logic to that too, even if it's possibly even more dangerous to your wellbeing in the long run than the former.

Leg End:
Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

Eh?

Stop for a moment and think about the entire law enforcement system in the USA - state police forces, FBI, etc. They spend their time investigating millions of crimes a year, most of which never result in charges, never mind conviction. What do you think the cost of all that is? Is it all a waste of money, when the police check out a murder, burglary or assault and don't end up with the case going to court?

You are not paying money to get a result. You are paying money to investigate just in case, because the people have a right to know, because the alternative is not paying anything, never investigating, and never convicting anyone. And if you're paying a lot for investigation of foreign subversion of your government and potential criminality by the holder of the highest office of state in the land, you bloody well should be, because it's a really big deal and you want to get it right.

So what do you really want to argue here? Ignorance of crime is bliss so let's not even look? It's better to do a half-arsed job on half the money which makes it far more likely for the guilty to get away with it? Otherwise, unless there's an audit identifying waste and inefficiency in the process, just suck it up and be proud your country has a commitment to law that is willing to throw large sums at making sure top officials aren't bent.

Saelune:
...though really all Mueller did was re-iterate his report, which again said Trump is NOT INNOCENT.

No, he didn't. He said Trump is not cleared of the crime. There's been no legal proceedings to determine guilt or innocence. Implicitly, what Mueller has said is that there is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with a crime. Until such as a point as he is found guilty, however, he benefits from a legal presumption of innocence.

Trump is not above the law: he is beholden to different legal procedures as set down in the constitution. One might consider at an institutional level that perhaps the way he can be held accountable is dangerously tainted by political bias in ways it isn't for suspects overseen by the judiciary, but you cannot pretend there isn't a means to deal with him at all.

Kwak:

An entire fucking point that he doesn't even fucking say is not much of an entire fucking point though is it?

Just because Mueller is professional enough to hold himself to the policies and standards expected of his office and department doesn't mean that what he isn't saying isn't a point. He has continually pointed out that it was not his job to indict Trump and that while his report doesn't call Trump guilty of collusion and conspiracy it has also found several points where he is potentially guilty of said crimes. That he keeps saying this and reiterating that it is up to congress to move forward if they want an actual verdict against Trump is as far as an official can go on record without outright saying "my boss is a criminal, fucking impeach already".

For those who know how to listen to what's missing in political statements, Mueller is practically shouting.

Gethsemani:
For those who know how to listen to what's missing in political statements, Mueller is practically shouting.

+1

People in positions where what they can say is heavily constrained have ways of saying what really needs to be said for those who know how to interpret.

Saelune:
Gore beat Bush.

One thing I'm going to really piss you off by pointing out here - Gore was the beginning of actively pushing "kill coal" for the Democrats, which cost him WV (the first time a non-incumbent Republican won since 1928, mind you) and WV is worth 5 electoral votes, enough that Gore would have won if he took WV. Think about that for a second - "kill coal" killed Gore's chance at the presidency. Because if he had won WV, Florida would have been irrelevant. The same could be said for his home state (Tennessee) or Clinton's home state (Arkansas), which both shouldn't have been that hard to win and either of which would have given him the election on their own.

Saelune:
The Supreme Court beat Gore.

So, what part(s) of the Supreme Court's position on Bush v Gore do you take issue with? (Why do I suspect the answer here is "whatever parts mean that Bush won"?)

If you listen to media estimates (remembering that the media that treated Clinton like a forgone conclusion), a recount of the counties Gore wanted recounted wouldn't have changed the result, but there's a *possibility* a recount of the entire state might have.

Lil devils x:

EDIT: Although that was made somewhat in jest, Trumps accounts were flagged for possible Money Laundering. If further investigation shows that to be the case, under Federal law, they very well could seize his properties. It has also been shown that he has committed Fraud, another crime that could result in Asset Forfeiture.

...and he's one of the few that might be able to hire a lawyer to defend his property, and a lot of that property costs more than such a case typically costs to defend. At the same time, asset forfeiture is one of those examples of a thing that *sounds* on some level like a good idea, but is horribly abused.

Eacaraxe:

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

To be fair, there's a real chance that attempting impeachment with a GOP Senate might hurt their odds in 2020 specifically because it is fantastically unlikely to work unless they have such a multitude of unquestionable evidence that *not* voting to remove Trump would hurt GOP Senator's reelection odds more than doing so. Which is why Pelosi keeps warning against it - she expects that a failed impeachment would hurt the party and that there's little chance it would succeed with the current Senate.

Saelune:
Mueller said Trump is NOT innocent but that as part of the DOJ he is under the policy that as sitting president, he cant say Trump is guilty.

Mueller doesn't say *anyone* is guilty, that's not his job. The most he does is say whether or not he believes there's enough evidence to bring charges against someone. There's kind of a massive difference between those things, and that you pretend it isn't is why people keep comparing your views on "justice" to things like witch trials and literal Nazi courts.

In the case of Mueller and Trump, he even points this out, giving a strong implication that he *does* think there's enough evidence to charge him with obstruction without actually saying it, but because of how impeachment works there has to be enough evidence (between the Mueller investigation and whatever Congress discovers in the process) to compel a GOP Senate to vote a GOP president out of office - which is going to be difficult.

Saelune:
This is not because Trump is an 'American citizen', rather it is because he is The President and according to Mueller, he is ABOVE THE LAW.

He's not above the law, he merely cannot be brought up on charges by the courts while he is in office (this protection is there to keep spurious legal charges from crippling the operations of the US government). It's the job of the House to press charges against the President (this is literally what articles of impeachment are), and the Senate to serve as jury, with the only possible punishment being removal from office. Once out of office (whether by impeachment, not being reelected, or finishing his second term) he's subject to criminal charges in the courts in the usual fashion.

Marik2:
Ace Attorney should really make a game based on this case. It's so retarded and cartoony, that it would definitely fit with the games aesthetics. Donald, his presidency, and his case is one big live action cartoon.

It would probably be like "Farewell, My Turnabout"; but instead of Maya being kidnapped, Pearl would be put in a cage at a concentration camp.

Squilookle:

Saelune:

Squilookle:
What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

This helps me deal with my anger at the terrible situation the US is in. Keeping it in does not help me feel better. Though it is frustrating in its own way, it also validates me that those who oppose me have to rely on hypocrisy, lies and misinformation just to disagree with me. Seeing other people who have proven to care about equal rights and moral decency point out the same things as me helps me maintain some tiny shred of faith in people.

That said, I have to ask what you hope to gain by going out of your way to dismiss my caring about this?

I'm not trying to gain or dismiss anything, and when you're going out of your way to keep not one but two Trump-bashing threads at the head of off-topic, I'm hardly going out of my way to post in them, am I?

And I get where you're coming from, I was pretty put out when Trump came to power as well, but you're investing SO MUCH energy, allowing yourself to get SO enraged at everything he does- you're helping your short-term indignance perhaps but it doesn't sound healthy getting that overwrought, that often, about events so beyond your control.

As for your opponents resorting to lies and hypocrisy, granted I read these threads as little as possible but I'm not really seeing them do much of that. Are you sure you're not using these threads to soundboard your political opinions, and at every opportunity dismissing all opposition as irrational? Because I can definitely see the logic to that too, even if it's possibly even more dangerous to your wellbeing in the long run than the former.

Apathy is a big part of why Trump is President and why he still is president. Giving a fuck means getting mad.

And you said yourself, you don't look into these topics and arguments. Ofcourse you don't see whats happening if you actively avoid looking at whats happening.

The opposition to me is white supremacy. They like to downplay it by rephrasing it as 'political differences', but that is intentional manipulation to hide that what they mean is WHITE SUPREMACY. Its not that everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, it is that I disagree with ALL Nazis. But if you're going to actively avoid getting involved, then don't talk down to me like you're involved.

Squilookle:

Saelune:

Squilookle:
What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

This helps me deal with my anger at the terrible situation the US is in. Keeping it in does not help me feel better. Though it is frustrating in its own way, it also validates me that those who oppose me have to rely on hypocrisy, lies and misinformation just to disagree with me. Seeing other people who have proven to care about equal rights and moral decency point out the same things as me helps me maintain some tiny shred of faith in people.

That said, I have to ask what you hope to gain by going out of your way to dismiss my caring about this?

I'm not trying to gain or dismiss anything, and when you're going out of your way to keep not one but two Trump-bashing threads at the head of off-topic, I'm hardly going out of my way to post in them, am I?

And I get where you're coming from, I was pretty put out when Trump came to power as well, but you're investing SO MUCH energy, allowing yourself to get SO enraged at everything he does- you're helping your short-term indignance perhaps but it doesn't sound healthy getting that overwrought, that often, about events so beyond your control.

As for your opponents resorting to lies and hypocrisy, granted I read these threads as little as possible but I'm not really seeing them do much of that. Are you sure you're not using these threads to soundboard your political opinions, and at every opportunity dismissing all opposition as irrational? Because I can definitely see the logic to that too, even if it's possibly even more dangerous to your wellbeing in the long run than the former.

What you have to understand is that trump might have already destroyed our country and he might have also destroyed the world. Hes pretty much shown that the US cannot be trusted with treaties and hes done a ton of damage to our reputation abroad and hes appointed a lot of judges so its totally likely that US will have a pretty conservative bent for a really long time which is bad for anyone who isn't a straight white man, we are already seeing abortion/trans rights being taken away, Ive also been hearing that some states are trying to roll back on the right of gay marriage. Not to mention hes almost made an enemy of or largest trading partners which has also resulted in russia and china becoming closer, what most american's don't understand is that while they were both communist, they didn't get along. And this is also the closest we have come to having nukes flying in a very long time. So... this is actually a really really bad situation.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Mueller said Trump is NOT innocent but that as part of the DOJ he is under the policy that as sitting president, he cant say Trump is guilty.

This is not because Trump is an 'American citizen', rather it is because he is The President and according to Mueller, he is ABOVE THE LAW.

You also dont know what due process is. I would LOVE for Trump to go through due process. That would mean he is being actively tried in a court of law. The problem here IS THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!

Due process doesn't only apply to crim pro, ya dingus. It applies from everything to tenure disputes in state-funded universities to social benefits. Neither the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amendments apply solely to the judiciary; this is the entire reason the House and Senate drafted and ratified their own rules for impeachment. Conducting the process in accordance with their own rules is all that is necessary to satisfy the due process requirement.

And absolutely, the political question doctrine interferes with the review of due process questions arising from an impeachment procedure, especially with regards to Presidential impeachment. That's exactly what White and Souter were on about in their concurrences to Nixon v. United States (1993).

Mueller's entire fucking point is the President is not "above the law" as you put it. His point is the judiciary has no Constitutional authority in this matter; Congress does. Therefore, it's their decision to impeach. It would be incredibly inappropriate, unprofessional, and unethical for him to make such a statement, even potentially prejudicial.

A President who does not respect the due process of his citizens does not deserve the same protections. Certainly does not deserve extra protections either.

Trump's side does not give the people they persecute what they give Trump.

Gethsemani:
For those who know how to listen to what's missing in political statements, Mueller is practically shouting.

Yup. Really disturbing how, when you scratch the surface, the party of juridical democracy and its supporters demonstrate so little (if any) understanding of legal procedure.

Schadrach:
One thing I'm going to really piss you off by pointing out here - Gore was the beginning of actively pushing "kill coal" for the Democrats, which cost him WV...

The case of WV pretty much encapsulates Democratic problems with middle and rust belt America in a nutshell. No solutions for deindustrialization, no political will to enact what few solutions have been sheepishly offered, no willingness to confront Democratic credibility gaps head-on, no willingness to acknowledge those same socioeconomic issues have migrated to the coasts and threaten to destroy the prosperity of tech sector cities. Just a whole lot of marginalization and invective, and token minimum effort even for populations of historically-oppressed people.

The Democratic party line, "racist hillbillies", doesn't explain how in the span of fifty years, coal country went from ride-or-die unionism and literal armed conflicts against coal companies and the government for the right to organize, to MAGA country.

So, what part(s) of the Supreme Court's position on Bush v Gore do you take issue with?

I'm not Saelune, but my opinion of Bush v. Gore is the decision itself wasn't bad...at least in finding the procedural integrity of elections and recounts absolutely paramount to democratic government, and that recounts are subject to equal protection. Unfortunately, that was the point SCOTUS fell off a cliff, because despite this they found the safe harbor deadline absolute and ordered the recounts stopped. The decision contradicts the ratio; a decision consistent with it would have ordered the recounts completed in a manner consistent with equal protection, the safe harbor deadline be damned because the absolute deadline for certifying electoral votes was 6 January. The question of whether the state would be able to meet its own statutory obligations was for the state courts to decide; moreover, a presumptive failure on the state's part to meet its own obligations implies the state legislature was afoul of the Constitution by being unable to guarantee equal protection in the first place.

To be fair, there's a real chance that attempting impeachment with a GOP Senate might hurt their odds in 2020 specifically because it is fantastically unlikely to work unless they have such a multitude of unquestionable evidence that *not* voting to remove Trump would hurt GOP Senator's reelection odds more than doing so. Which is why Pelosi keeps warning against it - she expects that a failed impeachment would hurt the party and that there's little chance it would succeed with the current Senate.

See my earlier post about Democrats playing electoral politics with impeachment, and how the situation is more analogous to Whitewater than Lewinsky in terms of potential electoral fallout.

The problem is either we're in a "Constitutional crisis" as Pelosi put it, or we're not, and either Trump's alleged malfeasance is either irreparably and existentially harmful to the country, or it isn't. The current Democratic line is that we are, and Trump's alleged malfeasance is. If that's the case, then the issue transcends electoral politics, Democrats should be willing to put their own electoral prospects on the line to see justice done (or, worst-case scenario, "save the country" or what the fuck ever), and exercise every authority guaranteed them by the Constitution as fervently as possible to see the matter resolved. Anything less would be a complete abdication of their oaths of office, and outright betrayal of their own constituencies.

As I said, they need to nut up or shut up. Except at this point, shutting up isn't an option politically. Democratic rhetorical escalation has ensured that; voting to impeach may have electoral consequences, but failing to do so will. That's before we consider the question of whether the Senate would realistically vote to convict.

Personally, I think McConnell and Senate Republicans are bluffing their asses off in hopes of deterring the House from voting to impeach in the first place. They know for a fact their only recourse at that point would be to game Senate rules to hear the trial in closed session, and suppress evidence (Trent Lott did the same thing in '98); that doesn't play well in the news and could have electoral blowback in turn. Senate Republicans talk big, but at the end of the day they're loyal to themselves; not only is McConnell no exception, he's the case example being singularly obsessed with legacy, and his hyper-partisanship is an instrument as opposed to an end of itself. If circumstances align they're forced to choose between Trump or their own asses, under the bus Trump goes.

Saelune:

Squilookle:

Saelune:
This helps me deal with my anger at the terrible situation the US is in. Keeping it in does not help me feel better. Though it is frustrating in its own way, it also validates me that those who oppose me have to rely on hypocrisy, lies and misinformation just to disagree with me. Seeing other people who have proven to care about equal rights and moral decency point out the same things as me helps me maintain some tiny shred of faith in people.

That said, I have to ask what you hope to gain by going out of your way to dismiss my caring about this?

I'm not trying to gain or dismiss anything, and when you're going out of your way to keep not one but two Trump-bashing threads at the head of off-topic, I'm hardly going out of my way to post in them, am I?

And I get where you're coming from, I was pretty put out when Trump came to power as well, but you're investing SO MUCH energy, allowing yourself to get SO enraged at everything he does- you're helping your short-term indignance perhaps but it doesn't sound healthy getting that overwrought, that often, about events so beyond your control.

As for your opponents resorting to lies and hypocrisy, granted I read these threads as little as possible but I'm not really seeing them do much of that. Are you sure you're not using these threads to soundboard your political opinions, and at every opportunity dismissing all opposition as irrational? Because I can definitely see the logic to that too, even if it's possibly even more dangerous to your wellbeing in the long run than the former.

Apathy is a big part of why Trump is President and why he still is president. Giving a fuck means getting mad.

And you said yourself, you don't look into these topics and arguments. Ofcourse you don't see whats happening if you actively avoid looking at whats happening.

The opposition to me is white supremacy. They like to downplay it by rephrasing it as 'political differences', but that is intentional manipulation to hide that what they mean is WHITE SUPREMACY. Its not that everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, it is that I disagree with ALL Nazis. But if you're going to actively avoid getting involved, then don't talk down to me like you're involved.

Again, I'm not trying to dismiss or talk down to anyone. I'm also not avoiding getting involved, I simply don't even have that luxury as I'm not a voteable U.S. citizen. Personally I think any nation that calls itself a superpower and tries to dictate the policies of other nations should have its leader voted in by the whole world, but that's just me. As for understanding what's going on, I do keep up to speed, thanks for that assumption. I use news sources, not forum posts for that.

Saelune:
A President who does not respect the due process of his citizens does not deserve the same protections. Certainly does not deserve extra protections either.

Trump's side does not give the people they persecute what they give Trump.

Would you say then we need a special court of, by, and for the people to preside over matters Congress or the judiciary (as they're Executive appointments) cannot be trusted to try and decide impartially, to oversee cases of politically-motivated or -charged crimes which may devalue national integrity or undermine national security interests?

generals3:
If you want to blame anyone blame the democrats who hold the majority in congress. The ball is in their court now.

Not so, actually. I seem to remember you're not from the States, so this might be a point of confusion. Forgive me if I end up explaining something you already know. Congress is not a singular body in the States. It's divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. For any bill or motion to pass, it must pass first in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Democrats currently hold a slim majority in the House (235 to 198, or 54%), and Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate (53 to 45, with 2 senators in other parties).

While Democrats could certainly pass an impeachment resolution in the House, it's unlikely to pass the Senate without mass defections from the Republicans who have been burying their head in the sand ever since it became apparent that Mueller was actually going to investigate rather than carry the party line and quietly bury the matter. This further makes impeachment itself an uphill battle, as impeachment requires a Senate supermajority to actually pass. That's 67 votes in the Republican dominated Senate.

So here's the likely chain of events. Articles of Impeachment pass on party lines in the House, and are then rejected on party lines in the Senate. Impeachment attempt dies there. Less likely is that it passes both bodies of congress, but is unable to secure a supermajority vote required to implement. So again we hit a case where the Impeachment process dies. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans start crowing about how this somehow 'proves' Trump's innocent and that the Democrats were always just working off of irrational hatred, and people who can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the case against Trump and the mechanics of impeachment take it hook line and sinker. Republican base gets further energized, Democrats get further demoralized.

Point being that, as frustrating as it is, impeachment is not probable so long as the Senate is packed with Trump loyalists (or people who defer to loyalists like McConnell and Nunes) who won't hear a thing against him on principle. We're finally starting to see cracks in that wall with Representative Justin Amash, but thus far he's the only Republican in Congress who has voiced support for impeachment.

Eacaraxe:

Yup. Really disturbing how, when you scratch the surface, the party of juridical democracy and its supporters demonstrate so little (if any) understanding of legal procedure.

The response to this has shown up broad ignorance of subtext and political dialogue across the board, not just in one party. Democrat supporters have been claiming the statement indicates his guilt or (conversely) that Mueller put Party above law; Republican supporters have equally wrongly claimed that the statement is reiterating an exoneration.

Saelune:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mueller-if-we-had-confidence-that-the-president-did-not-commit-a-crime-we-would-have-said-so-841450/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-did-not-determine-if-trump-committed-crime.html

Mueller's remarks, which lasted 10 minutes, reiterated the key conclusions of the Special Counsel's report, including he and his team could not determine whether President Trump committed a crime. "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," he said.

It is not a question of guilt. It is a question of whether or not the Republican US President is Above the Law.

Mueller, unable to truly put country above party also resigns. Mueller is a Republican.

TRUMP. IS. GUILTY.

.
This should be closed or merged with the original thread.

I advise you to get some counseling on this issue from a professional, it seems to bother you to the point it clouds your rational judgement.

Eacaraxe:

I'm not Saelune,

And that's why you gave a far more detailed and nuanced answer than I ever thought she would. I really do actually expect that after reading that she's going to spend some time trying to come up with a way to phrase her answer in a fashion that isn't "because it resulted in Bush winning." And then she'll either answer with *that*, or just ignore that part.

Eacaraxe:

See my earlier post about Democrats playing electoral politics with impeachment, and how the situation is more analogous to Whitewater than Lewinsky in terms of potential electoral fallout.

The problem is either we're in a "Constitutional crisis" as Pelosi put it, or we're not, and either Trump's alleged malfeasance is either irreparably and existentially harmful to the country, or it isn't. The current Democratic line is that we are, and Trump's alleged malfeasance is. If that's the case, then the issue transcends electoral politics, Democrats should be willing to put their own electoral prospects on the line to see justice done (or, worst-case scenario, "save the country" or what the fuck ever), and exercise every authority guaranteed them by the Constitution as fervently as possible to see the matter resolved. Anything less would be a complete abdication of their oaths of office, and outright betrayal of their own constituencies.

As I said, they need to nut up or shut up. Except at this point, shutting up isn't an option politically. Democratic rhetorical escalation has ensured that; voting to impeach may have electoral consequences, but failing to do so will. That's before we consider the question of whether the Senate would realistically vote to convict.

Personally, I think McConnell and Senate Republicans are bluffing their asses off in hopes of deterring the House from voting to impeach in the first place. They know for a fact their only recourse at that point would be to game Senate rules to hear the trial in closed session, and suppress evidence (Trent Lott did the same thing in '98); that doesn't play well in the news and could have electoral blowback in turn. Senate Republicans talk big, but at the end of the day they're loyal to themselves; not only is McConnell no exception, he's the case example being singularly obsessed with legacy, and his hyper-partisanship is an instrument as opposed to an end of itself. If circumstances align they're forced to choose between Trump or their own asses, under the bus Trump goes.

I can't argue about any of that, except that I always assume that politicians look out for their own immediate interests first and foremost, and anyone else only benefits to the degree that they are useful. So I expect Dem politicians to behave in a fashion that doesn't endanger them staying in power, and I expect GOP politicians to do likewise. If the evidence was big enough, public enough and blatant enough I expect that "Trump or their own asses" situation to happen, but I don't think that's the current situation, at least not yet (though the House doing some investigating might manage it). For now, their asses align with being "loyal", so they wouldn't turn on Trump because "disloyalty" is more likely to cost them than not.

Just like if Trump won 2020 but Senate flipped I fully expect Trump to be impeached with the quickness. At which point, we replace the Jester with the Theocrat. I'm not positive that's an improvement.

Asita:

Not so, actually. I seem to remember you're not from the States, so this might be a point of confusion. Forgive me if I end up explaining something you already know. Congress is not a singular body in the States. It's divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. For any bill or motion to pass, it must pass first in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Democrats currently hold a slim majority in the House (235 to 198, or 54%), and Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate (53 to 45, with 2 senators in other parties).

While Democrats could certainly pass an impeachment resolution in the House, it's unlikely to pass the Senate without mass defections from the Republicans who have been burying their head in the sand ever since it became apparent that Mueller was actually going to investigate rather than carry the party line and quietly bury the matter. This further makes impeachment itself an uphill battle, as impeachment requires a Senate supermajority to actually pass. That's 67 votes in the Republican dominated Senate.

So here's the likely chain of events. Articles of Impeachment pass on party lines in the House, and are then rejected on party lines in the Senate. Impeachment attempt dies there. Less likely is that it passes both bodies of congress, but is unable to secure a supermajority vote required to implement. So again we hit a case where the Impeachment process dies. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans start crowing about how this somehow 'proves' Trump's innocent and that the Democrats were always just working off of irrational hatred, and people who can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the case against Trump and the mechanics of impeachment take it hook line and sinker. Republican base gets further energized, Democrats get further demoralized.

Point being that, as frustrating as it is, impeachment is not probable so long as the Senate is packed with Trump loyalists (or people who defer to loyalists like McConnell and Nunes) who won't hear a thing against him on principle. We're finally starting to see cracks in that wall with Representative Justin Amash, but thus far he's the only Republican in Congress who has voiced support for impeachment.

I admit I mistakenly used "congress" instead of "house of representatives". And while you're right the impeachment procedure will likely get blocked in the senate due to Republicans being only loyal to their party currently the ball is clearly in the democrats court. The next move has to come from the house of representatives. (Regardless of our assumptions of what will happen afterwards)

They have a choice between doing what is morally right and what is politically right.

Silvanus:
The response to this has shown up broad ignorance of subtext and political dialogue across the board...

Absolutely agree with regards to the Trump lunacy. But, the whole "juridical democracy" comment was intended to contextualize it in a far greater scope than merely the Trump stuff -- this has been a pretty distressing trend across the board, not limited to electoral politics. The problem with juridical democracy is the opposition can merely politicize judicial appointments, and win bigger, stabler, policy victories in the long run. The politicization of judicial appointments is hardly new, but when one party falls back to the court system and fails to develop an effective long-term electoral strategy as the Democrats have for the past four decades, we end up in the clusterfuck we have now.

Juridical democracy isn't without its benefits, but it's a short-term counter-strategy to interest-group liberalism. And, as the past decade has unarguably shown, juridical democracy completely fails when the judicial system becomes so mired in electoral politics so as to enable interest-group liberalism (read, Citizens United). This is exactly the problem to which I alluded; Democratic voters at large have neither the understanding of the court system, nor its procedures and limitations, nor of the benefits and drawbacks of using the courts as a vehicle for public policy, to demand of Democratic candidates and elected officials proper and necessary use of the courts.

Basically, the Democratic party is a walking corpse and blind support of it is only going to continue making the systemic problems our country faces worse. Sadly, the problems have metastasized to the point a new party system is only a beginning; numerous Constitutional amendments, perhaps even a Constitutional convention, is what it'll take. That was true before Trump, it's still true, and it'll continue being true regardless how Trump is disposed as President. Trump's a symptom, not a cause.

Schadrach:
I can't argue about any of that, except that I always assume that politicians look out for their own immediate interests first and foremost...

I think it boils down to two factors.

1. I don't think Trump has nearly as many real allies in the Senate as he or anyone else thinks. Remember that back in 2016, most of them were "never Trump" Republicans, up to and including McConnell who famously outlined a plan for Republican Senate candidates to run a negative campaign against Trump, to distance themselves from the then-candidate. That relationship is one-way -- Trump needs the Senate, but the Senate doesn't need Trump -- and it's more accurate to say Trump triangulated to accommodate the Senate in the big picture than the other way around. And, even then, Trump and Senate Republicans have conflicted (mostly privately, in some cases quite publicly) over numerous issues -- Yemen, health care, the shutdown, the border wall emergency declaration, to name a few.

I believe the partisan unanimity between the White House and Senate Republicans is largely a facade. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if McConnell and his caucus are sharpening the knives behind closed doors, especially considering a Pence presidency would be eminently preferable -- same policy outcomes, same appointments, better PR.

2. Democrats went into 2018 unrealistically confident in the "blue wave". They genuinely thought they'd be able to flip the Senate and claim a mandate, which would make impeachment nominally easier; therefore, they tried to turn the midterms into not just a referendum on Trump, but leaned hard into impeachment talk as a key platform issue. Then they tanked it; winning 41 House seats sure sounds impressive, but the reality was it was a solidly mediocre performance for a midterm swing and largely thanks to blue dog nominations. And they went and lost seats in the Senate.

They wrote checks their ass couldn't cash, and now they're in a situation where they're expected to deliver on campaign promises but lack the political capital. The most hilarious part of this, is that if the House draws and passes articles of impeachment, and if Senate Republicans throw Trump under the bus, Senate Republicans will probably take credit for themselves.

But honestly, the way things are sitting right now? Part of me wants to say if the House draws articles of impeachment, the Senate cuts a backroom deal with Trump to stonewall the process in exchange for him withdrawing his 2020 candidacy and endorsing Pence.

Schadrach:
Just like if Trump won 2020 but Senate flipped I fully expect Trump to be impeached with the quickness. At which point, we replace the Jester with the Theocrat. I'm not positive that's an improvement.

I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.

Eacaraxe:
1. I don't think Trump has nearly as many real allies in the Senate as he or anyone else thinks.

I totally agree. I think actually they broadly despise him, and they'd turn on him in an instant if it were in their benefit.

But it's politics so it's a popularity game. The Republican party members love Trump like crazy. They still love him despite all the incompetence, chaos, corruption and lies his administration has come out with so far, so they're not likely to stop loving him. So to all intents and purposes, the Congressional Republicans are totally in Trump's pocket.

Eacaraxe:
Basically, the Democratic party is a walking corpse and blind support of it is only going to continue making the systemic problems our country faces worse. Sadly, the problems have metastasized to the point a new party system is only a beginning; numerous Constitutional amendments, perhaps even a Constitutional convention, is what it'll take. That was true before Trump, it's still true, and it'll continue being true regardless how Trump is disposed as President. Trump's a symptom, not a cause.

The problem is that we still need the Democratic party because they're the only other party with power in this country. I'd like to see a takeover by true progressives, as a third party is doomed to failure. But not only that, the changes you list - of which I'm not opposed to in the slightest - would be impossible until we almost entirely oust the Republicans, which sure as shit isn't going to happen. The US needs a political revolution to take place in order to start fixing our many problems, but quite frankly I think the US is a slowly sinking ship and we're just trying to keep our heads above water for as long as possible.

Eacaraxe:
I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.

You speak like if Pence has been sitting on his hands all this time. If he is as evil and competent as you say, then he hasn't.

CaitSeith:

Eacaraxe:
I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.

You speak like if Pence has been sitting on his hands all this time. If he is as evil and competent as you say, then he hasn't.

Of course he hasn't been sitting on his hands, however he is able to do much less harm in his current position due to Trump's ego. The second people start taking the spotlight Trump goes into a jealous tizzy, so Pence is still treading carefully.
EDIT: For example, Trump took credit for this but Pence is who drafted it:
https://thinkprogress.org/pence-responsible-for-trump-transgender-military-ban-f4d3b67bde47/

generals3:

Asita:

Not so, actually. I seem to remember you're not from the States, so this might be a point of confusion. Forgive me if I end up explaining something you already know. Congress is not a singular body in the States. It's divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate. For any bill or motion to pass, it must pass first in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Democrats currently hold a slim majority in the House (235 to 198, or 54%), and Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate (53 to 45, with 2 senators in other parties).

While Democrats could certainly pass an impeachment resolution in the House, it's unlikely to pass the Senate without mass defections from the Republicans who have been burying their head in the sand ever since it became apparent that Mueller was actually going to investigate rather than carry the party line and quietly bury the matter. This further makes impeachment itself an uphill battle, as impeachment requires a Senate supermajority to actually pass. That's 67 votes in the Republican dominated Senate.

So here's the likely chain of events. Articles of Impeachment pass on party lines in the House, and are then rejected on party lines in the Senate. Impeachment attempt dies there. Less likely is that it passes both bodies of congress, but is unable to secure a supermajority vote required to implement. So again we hit a case where the Impeachment process dies. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans start crowing about how this somehow 'proves' Trump's innocent and that the Democrats were always just working off of irrational hatred, and people who can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the case against Trump and the mechanics of impeachment take it hook line and sinker. Republican base gets further energized, Democrats get further demoralized.

Point being that, as frustrating as it is, impeachment is not probable so long as the Senate is packed with Trump loyalists (or people who defer to loyalists like McConnell and Nunes) who won't hear a thing against him on principle. We're finally starting to see cracks in that wall with Representative Justin Amash, but thus far he's the only Republican in Congress who has voiced support for impeachment.

I admit I mistakenly used "congress" instead of "house of representatives". And while you're right the impeachment procedure will likely get blocked in the senate due to Republicans being only loyal to their party currently the ball is clearly in the democrats court. The next move has to come from the house of representatives. (Regardless of our assumptions of what will happen afterwards)

They have a choice between doing what is morally right and what is politically right.

It would not be " morally right" for the House to impeach Trump knowing it would just die in the Senate because that would only embolden Trump further. You do what is right to protect the people and the nation, and moving to impeach knowing it would fail in the Senate is not doing that, it is being reckless rather than thinking through the chain of events that will take place in each scenario. They should do what is best for the people and focus on mitigating the damage being done by Trump rather than wasting time going through the motions to impeach Trump without it doing anything substantial to actually stop him from causing more harm. Impeaching would be "just for show", but instead of making things better, it would just make them worse. Of course if they can find some way to get the votes in the Senate then by all means move forward, but until that happens, they should focus more on finally being able to start investigating his finances and have the numerous cases against him ready to go for when they can move to act both with impeachment and criminal charges. They should be strategic about this, not just put on an ineffective show. Charging Trump after he is no longer able to pardon and influence cases should be more important than actual impeachment. If Impeachment can be used as an effective tool, then that is great, but it is not the primary objective here. The primary objective is to protect the people.

Saelune posts a Saelune thread and people respond with Saelune thread responses so that Saelune can respond in their usual Saelune way. And nobody is surprised. Yes, Saelune. Trump is guilty. Yes. He's eventually going to be out of office. Nothing has changed. Why do you want Pence in office between now and the next election?

Agema:

So what do you really want to argue here?

That if Saelune is allowed to, by her own admission, get catharsis by screaming about Trump here, I should be allowed to get just as pissed about the whole circus that is the US political system. In short, you should probably ignore me, since I typically agree with investigations, but I know the reasons behind this one and I'm just annoyed in a hot room.

Eacaraxe:

I live in Indiana. About an hours' drive from the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak, in fact. Trust me, given the choice between Trump and Pence, give me the fuckin' MAGA hat. Trump is just loudmouthed, stupid, and corrupt. Pence is pure evil, and worse, competent.

I do not give a flying fuck how bad you think Trump is, you do not want Pence in office.

This. Everyone bitches against Trump now? How would you guys like a hardline Republican with the full backing of his party? You want a War? He'll give you a war you won't believe.

Agema:
The Republican party members love Trump like crazy....to all intents and purposes, the Congressional Republicans are totally in Trump's pocket.

Not as much as you'd think. Very little unqualified, genuine support for Trump actually exists, and in most cases it's limited to the lowest-of-low information voter camp who are an ultra-minority. As for a lot of others, at this point it's more an open statement of defiance against the current political climate, and the nonstop torrential downpour of invective unleashed by Democratic die-hards in the three years since his nomination, than it is actual support for the man. The South Park episode "Doubling Down" pretty much nails the phenomenon of Trump supporters feeling buyers' remorse (for those who do) and continuing to support him because they feel under constant attack, while the socioeconomic factors which played into their decision to (often protest) vote for him go completely ignored.

Dr. Thrax:
The problem is that we still need the Democratic party because they're the only other party with power in this country.

We need an opposition party, which the Democratic party isn't. The sole thing at which the Democratic party truly excels, is keeping people voting Democratic out of fear of what might happen if they demand actual representation, and start primarying/recalling candidates (the latter in jurisdictions where recall elections may happen).

Look at what happened with the tea party. Regardless who funded whom, or what organizations disproportionately supported them, at the end of the day the tea party backed up its rhetoric with primary challenges and threats to stay home. At the time, the Republican party had super-minorities in both chambers of Congress, a Democratic President with the most political capital coming out of the election since Kennedy, and were losing state legislatures and governor's offices.

This occurred expressly because after Bush, Republican voters were demoralized, adrift, sick of the Republican party playing the tactical-voting card and not backing up campaign promises, and had absolutely nothing to lose. So they demanded change in the Republican party, and was willing to back up those demands with primary challenges. Regardless whether you agree with the tea party's ideology and policy positions (I don't), that's the situation as it was and what happened.

That's what Democratic voters need to do.

Eacaraxe:

This occurred expressly because after Bush, Republican voters were demoralized, adrift, sick of the Republican party playing the tactical-voting card and not backing up campaign promises, and had absolutely nothing to lose. So they demanded change in the Republican party, and was willing to back up those demands with primary challenges. Regardless whether you agree with the tea party's ideology and policy positions (I don't), that's the situation as it was and what happened.

That's what Democratic voters need to do.

They already did. It was called Occupy Wall Street. And it didn't work because liberalism is almost by definition unorganized. Progressive ideals are not centered on a fixed point the way conservatism is because conservatism is rooted in a "return", an attempt to reignite what has existed in the past.

More than that, I'd say the Tea Party had the unique position of a 24 hour propaganda network backing up the libertarian position. Fox's primary money makers love extremism because extremism sells. So when a group of fundamental Republican voters started pushing insanity, a very loud "Ka-ching" noise went off at the media giant. A movement that no one would normally have given credit to is suddenly at the center of wall-to-wall positive spin. Glenn Beck, Hannity, Fox and Friends, all of them started pushing it as a legitimate political position, even Bill O'Reilly to a certain extent.

For the last 11 years now, the Republican party is led by Fox, not the other way around. It wasn't the voters leading the Republicans, it was the network leading the party. Despite the right wing media's insistence that such is the case, the same is not true for Democrats. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, those are rooted in sensationalism, not liberalism. So Occupy did not receive the same spin the Tea Party did, nor is the Democratic party bound to the positions of any of these networks.

irishda:

Eacaraxe:

This occurred expressly because after Bush, Republican voters were demoralized, adrift, sick of the Republican party playing the tactical-voting card and not backing up campaign promises, and had absolutely nothing to lose. So they demanded change in the Republican party, and was willing to back up those demands with primary challenges. Regardless whether you agree with the tea party's ideology and policy positions (I don't), that's the situation as it was and what happened.

That's what Democratic voters need to do.

They already did. It was called Occupy Wall Street. And it didn't work because liberalism is almost by definition unorganized. Progressive ideals are not centered on a fixed point the way conservatism is because conservatism is rooted in a "return", an attempt to reignite what has existed in the past.

More than that, I'd say the Tea Party had the unique position of a 24 hour propaganda network backing up the libertarian position. Fox's primary money makers love extremism because extremism sells. So when a group of fundamental Republican voters started pushing insanity, a very loud "Ka-ching" noise went off at the media giant. A movement that no one would normally have given credit to is suddenly at the center of wall-to-wall positive spin. Glenn Beck, Hannity, Fox and Friends, all of them started pushing it as a legitimate political position, even Bill O'Reilly to a certain extent.

For the last 11 years now, the Republican party is led by Fox, not the other way around. It wasn't the voters leading the Republicans, it was the network leading the party. Despite the right wing media's insistence that such is the case, the same is not true for Democrats. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, those are rooted in sensationalism, not liberalism. So Occupy did not receive the same spin the Tea Party did, nor is the Democratic party bound to the positions of any of these networks.

The sad thing was that Occupy was literally every moving goal post conservatives hold up for protesting.

It was fairly organized. Non violent. Non disruptive. And had a clear, not exactly controversial message (that 90% of the nation's wealth is kept locked up by 1% of its people and we would be better off if that weren't the case)

It was everything protests today aren't. But that wasn't good enough because something something when they were physically removed by force they didn't stop to pick up after themselves (while being held at gunpoint to leave)

No joke. The most coverage fox news gave it was lambasting the protestors for leaving trash behind (after being forced to quickly leave under threats of violence)

It was Obama's missing label pin all over again

irishda:
They already did. It was called Occupy Wall Street. And it didn't work because liberalism is almost by definition unorganized.

Actually, I'd say it didn't work because the Occupy movement needed popular appeal to achieve its ends, especially as it was actively working against the interests of...well, anyone named in the Panama Papers. Occupy leaders were sadly in a state of denial about this, and decided to act as kooky, arcane, generally unapproachable, and unsympathetic as humanly possible, with shit like progressive stacks and social justice jazz hands. Then the black bloc fucktards came out to play, everything went to hell in a handbasket, and the media really didn't actually have to do much of anything to frame them poorly and turn popular opinion against them.

More than that, I'd say the Tea Party...

Remember the tea party started as the brainchild of dissatisfied Ron Paul supporters, and was promptly hijacked by talking heads and billionaire-funded organizers. Sure, the media reported on it practically nonstop for two years which fueled the movement's growth and popularity; FNC is not alone in that. You could very much conclude conservative news media, and paleocon allies, hijacked the party.

Except, they could not do that without Republican voters. At the end of the day, voters determine election outcomes. That anger and malaise already existed, and that was capitalized upon; without it, the tea party never would have grown to the proportions and success it did. Astroturfing only goes so far.

undeadsuitor:
No joke. The most coverage fox news gave it was lambasting the protestors for leaving trash behind (after being forced to quickly leave under threats of violence)...

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert did more in one interview to kill Occupy than Fox News ever did or could do.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here