Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

[Steve of phpBB]

Let’s say I accept all that ... why fucking say it? What purpose does “we don’t really think his actions are that bad”, which is the optics of the quote, serve aside from attempting to diminish the power of those willing to threaten it?

The optics of the quote are that they reassure the tens of millions of people who aren't strong partisans and don't like "partisan bickering" that the Dems aren't simply going after Trump because they can. So that when the Dems go after him hard later, it'll be because of new information that was revealed. Pelosi can reluctantly decide that impeachment is the only appropriate thing to do.

[mister d]

So an appeal to the mythical middle that serves to normalize and diminish the effects of this administration's actions to date?

[mister d]

You can view it as strategy to take on Trump. I'm comfortable viewing it as a strategy to reaffirm their commitment to avoiding strong commitments and appeal to those who say "climate change might be bad but fighting it sounds expensive" and "its bad to not have health care but I do and mine works ok".

[Steve of phpBB]

So an appeal to the mythical middle that serves to normalize and diminish the effects of this administration's actions to date?

No.

[mister d]

... reassure the tens of millions of people who aren't strong partisans and don't like "partisan bickering" ...

?

[mister d]

Honestly, why is leadership appealing to a hypothetical center that still views Trump versus (literally anyone) as mere "partisan bickering" when you could appeal to a massive left and would-be left that doesn't support the Dems because the Dems don't support them?

[brian]

I think it's hyperbolic to say that not impeaching him somehow normalizes his behavior.

Look, we all know what's up. The House has the votes to impeach and as it stands Trump would never be convicted in the Senate, so the realities of the situation are clear to everyone. What's not clear are what unintended circumstances could happen as a result of the political circus that articles of impeachment in the House would bring. Just off the top of my head, one of those would probably be an automatic impeachment for any future Democratic president when there is a GOP House majority for the most banal of offenses. Like also mentioned, throwing some gasoline on the Republican victim complex could ultimately backfire, especially since the impeachment proceedings would be happening a few months before an election.

I would love to see him impeached as much as anyone, but the possible negatives probably outweigh the positives. Everyone more or less knows who Trump is at this point. Impeaching him without any hope of actually removing him from office doesn't make much sense. I would have preferred Pelosi just say she's going to keep the options open as far as impeachment, but even what she said doesn't preclude it if the political calculus changes at all.

In short, the whole story is pretty much nothing to get too upset about. In my opinion.

[Steve of phpBB]

... reassure the tens of millions of people who aren't strong partisans and don't like "partisan bickering" ...

?

I disagree with both parts of your response. I don't think the middle is mythical, nor do I think they are aware of what Pelosi said, nor do I think she normalized anything. It's all fucking kabuki for the press.

I realize my "reassure the tens of millions" was not quite right. I don't think they are going to hear anything about this now. I think compelling evidence will arise of Trump doing something that even the middle will find impeachable. When the Dems move on that, and these folks tune in, the story won't be "this is not credible because Pelosi has been gunning for Trump since day one".

[mister d]

I think it's hyperbolic to say that not impeaching him somehow normalizes his behavior.

Look, we all know what's up. The House has the votes to impeach and as it stands Trump would never be convicted in the Senate, so the realities of the situation are clear to everyone. What's not clear are what unintended circumstances could happen as a result of the political circus that articles of impeachment in the House would bring. Just off the top of my head, one of those would probably be an automatic impeachment for any future Democratic president when there is a GOP House majority for the most banal of offenses. Like also mentioned, throwing some gasoline on the Republican victim complex could ultimately backfire, especially since the impeachment proceedings would be happening a few months before an election.

I would love to see him impeached as much as anyone, but the possible negatives probably outweigh the positives. Everyone more or less knows who Trump is at this point. Impeaching him without any hope of actually removing him from office doesn't make much sense. I would have preferred Pelosi just say she's going to keep the options open as far as impeachment, but even what she said doesn't preclude it if the political calculus changes at all.

In short, the whole story is pretty much nothing to get too upset about. In my opinion.

Then she should fucking say that. "We know the Senate Republicans will protect this president and that limits our options." That's not, at all, how she phrased it.

[EnochRoot]

I think it's hyperbolic to say that not impeaching him somehow normalizes his behavior.

Look, we all know what's up. The House has the votes to impeach and as it stands Trump would never be convicted in the Senate, so the realities of the situation are clear to everyone. What's not clear are what unintended circumstances could happen as a result of the political circus that articles of impeachment in the House would bring. Just off the top of my head, one of those would probably be an automatic impeachment for any future Democratic president when there is a GOP House majority for the most banal of offenses. Like also mentioned, throwing some gasoline on the Republican victim complex could ultimately backfire, especially since the impeachment proceedings would be happening a few months before an election.

I would love to see him impeached as much as anyone, but the possible negatives probably outweigh the positives. Everyone more or less knows who Trump is at this point. Impeaching him without any hope of actually removing him from office doesn't make much sense. I would have preferred Pelosi just say she's going to keep the options open as far as impeachment, but even what she said doesn't preclude it if the political calculus changes at all.

In short, the whole story is pretty much nothing to get too upset about. In my opinion.

Then she should fucking say that. "We know the Senate Republicans will protect this president and that limits our options." That's not, at all, how she phrased it.

The reason she didn't say that is because she wanted to remind Donald Trump that she's the danger between the rear and sideview mirrors.

She's fucking with him.

[Steve of phpBB]

Honestly, why is leadership appealing to a hypothetical center that still views Trump versus (literally anyone) as mere "partisan bickering" when you could appeal to a massive left and would-be left that doesn't support the Dems because the Dems don't support them?

I guess I am still skeptical that the left is "massive", or massive enough to get the job done. They are massive on Twitter, but the most popular potential Dem candidate in the polls right now is Joe Biden. Bernie is up there, but after four years of campaigning, he's at 27%? And Warren is around 95? So that means 60% of Democrats are supporting neoliberal shills like Biden, Harris, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, etc.

The Blue Wave in the 2018 elections did sweep in some hard-core liberals, but also a lot of "moderate" folks like the asshole who knocked off Mia Love and who opposes Pelosi because she's too far left.

I wish the Left really were massive. But watching the Washington carbon tax go down in flames tells me that they aren't there yet.

[mister d]

The reason she didn't say that is because she wanted to remind Donald Trump that she's the danger between the rear and sideview mirrors.

She's fucking with him.

Fucking with him more or less than calling him "Drumpf" does?

[Joe K]

I really don’t think this is some strategic play by Pelosi to keep Trump in line. I just think she lives in fear of GOP blowback.

[mister d]

I guess I am still skeptical that the left is "massive", or massive enough to get the job done. They are massive on Twitter, but the most popular potential Dem candidate in the polls right now is Joe Biden. Bernie is up there, but after four years of campaigning, he's at 27%? And Warren is around 95? So that means 60% of Democrats are supporting neoliberal shills like Biden, Harris, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, etc.

The Blue Wave in the 2018 elections did sweep in some hard-core liberals, but also a lot of "moderate" folks like the asshole who knocked off Mia Love and who opposes Pelosi because she's too far left.

I wish the Left really were massive. But watching the Washington carbon tax go down in flames tells me that they aren't there yet.

What would you speculate the demographics of adult non-voters would be? The blue wave worked precisely because the low level candidates, not the national party, took control of the message. That message does not resonate with Pelosi and isn't supported by Pelosi.

[Joe K]

Also, considering that the Democratic Party gave the Bush Administration a pass for establishing a global torture regime, and (with a few exceptions) is currently supporting convicted Iran-Contra criminal Elliot Abrams in his effort to orchestrate a coup in Venezuela, I really wouldn’t hold my breath on Trump ever getting impeached or indicted. This isn’t about Pelosi waiting for more evidence. It’s about the Democratic leadership constantly staying in a defensive posture instead of trying to hold the GOP accountable.

[brian]

Democrats still need to pull votes from the middle to win. Like it or not. That's less true than it's ever been, but still true.

Here's a pretty good piece about how that works in reality from The Atlantic.

The only other option is assuming that there's some huge treasure trove of voters out there who are so far left that they've never voted because they're so fucking smart they realize that not voting for the lesser of two evils is better for them. I guess. I'm not sure how that argument goes exactly.

[Steve of phpBB]

I guess I am still skeptical that the left is "massive", or massive enough to get the job done. They are massive on Twitter, but the most popular potential Dem candidate in the polls right now is Joe Biden. Bernie is up there, but after four years of campaigning, he's at 27%? And Warren is around 95? So that means 60% of Democrats are supporting neoliberal shills like Biden, Harris, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, etc.

The Blue Wave in the 2018 elections did sweep in some hard-core liberals, but also a lot of "moderate" folks like the asshole who knocked off Mia Love and who opposes Pelosi because she's too far left.

I wish the Left really were massive. But watching the Washington carbon tax go down in flames tells me that they aren't there yet.

What would you speculate the demographics of adult non-voters would be? The blue wave worked precisely because the low level candidates, not the national party, took control of the message. That message does not resonate with Pelosi and isn't supported by Pelosi.

The message that won here was "Pelosi is too liberal." So yeah, I guess Pelosi didn't support that message, but I don't think it's the same message you think it was.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen evidence that all those folks in Orange County, California, who elected Dems instead of Republicans this time around have all of a sudden become massively liberal.

[mister d]

You don't have to be "massively liberal" or "socialist" to support the issues being pushed hardest by the left. You have to be ... something else ... to actively fight them: https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-m ... ct-1318788

[degenerasian]

Honestly, why is leadership appealing to a hypothetical center that still views Trump versus (literally anyone) as mere "partisan bickering" when you could appeal to a massive left and would-be left that doesn't support the Dems because the Dems don't support them?

I think they fear that going left would lose their moderate base.

For example, Latinos and Asians are pretty conservative and not that progressive when it comes to many issues, such as taxes, education and religion.
They only reason they don't vote Republican is because the GOP has abandoned them and they have to go to the Democrats.
But if the Democrats abandon them as well by going left, they might turn back right.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/18/52437184 ... lls-showed

[Steve of phpBB]

You don't have to be "massively liberal" or "socialist" to support the issues being pushed hardest by the left. You have to be ... something else ... to actively fight them: https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-m ... ct-1318788

I don't know about socialist, but I think "we're going to raise taxes by trillions of dollars and totally re-do the national health insurance market" is a pretty liberal move. So is a job guarantee or UBI, as well as tax increases to fund a massive expansion of rail and public transit and the other investments included in the GND.

[mister d]

Where's the support for an overall cost increase for single payer? Everything I've read shows its a long term savings, to say nothing of the moral obligation.

[mister d]

As far as allowing fighting climate changed to be framed as "the libs want your money" ... JFC. Really? We need to weigh science against marginal tax rates?

[degenerasian]

As far as allowing fighting climate changed to be framed as "the libs want your money" ... JFC. Really? We need to weigh science against marginal tax rates?

Yes, this is how conservatives think, everything is about money. i live in the most conservative city in Canada. People bitch about every tax hike, then complain that the snow isn't being cleared.

Be in reality, if it wasn't about money, everyone would be buying organic foods and electric cars at double the price.

[Joe K]

Where's the support for an overall cost increase for single payer? Everything I've read shows its a long term savings, to say nothing of the moral obligation.

I’m glad you used the phrase “moral obligation” because the biggest differentiator between ineffective Democratic politicians and effective ones is the ability to frame political issues in moral terms and not just technocratic ones. Take the issue of climate change — the scope of global suffering and dislocation that will result from the course we’re on is massive. Just think about the scale of the refugee crisis that could result from coastal flooding in extremely densely populated places like Bangladesh or Southern India. So it’s insane when liberals talk about the GND in terms of “can we afford it” as opposed to “what can we do to try and prevent massive global suffering.”

[The Sybian]

I think it's hyperbolic to say that not impeaching him somehow normalizes his behavior.

Look, we all know what's up. The House has the votes to impeach and as it stands Trump would never be convicted in the Senate, so the realities of the situation are clear to everyone. What's not clear are what unintended circumstances could happen as a result of the political circus that articles of impeachment in the House would bring. Just off the top of my head, one of those would probably be an automatic impeachment for any future Democratic president when there is a GOP House majority for the most banal of offenses. Like also mentioned, throwing some gasoline on the Republican victim complex could ultimately backfire, especially since the impeachment proceedings would be happening a few months before an election.

I would love to see him impeached as much as anyone, but the possible negatives probably outweigh the positives. Everyone more or less knows who Trump is at this point. Impeaching him without any hope of actually removing him from office doesn't make much sense. I would have preferred Pelosi just say she's going to keep the options open as far as impeachment, but even what she said doesn't preclude it if the political calculus changes at all.

In short, the whole story is pretty much nothing to get too upset about. In my opinion.

I agree with Brian's take, and while I also would love nothing more than to see Trump impeached or indicted, I cringe every time a Dem Rep comes out saying they are filing articles of impeachment, because it is still premature. They need Mueller's report to have some smoking gun, which I don't believe it will, or the House hearings to turn up irrefutable evidence of a crime, which I think is the strongest possibility (25th Amendment isn't going to happen unless Trump completely loses his shit and his brain irreparably breaks on live TV). Unless something is proven that is so irrefutable and horrible that Republican Senators would vote to convict, impeaching Trump will be a year long all-consuming shit show, that is guaranteed to end without a conviction, which will leave most Americans believing it proves Trump's innocence and makes the entire process seem like Dems put us through the process out of a partisan hatred of Trump. After Clinton's impeachment proceedings, his popularity went up, and people saw him as a victim. Granted, he was impeached for lying about a blowjob during an investigation into a real estate deal that turned up no proof of a crime, as opposed to the laundry list of crimes and treason Trump has committed.

[mister d]

I don't get how you reconcile that last sentence and with the preceding sentences.

[brian]

I don't get how you reconcile that last sentence and with the preceding sentences.

It still could serve to accidentally turn Trump into a victim. Almost no one save for the most wingiest of wingnuts thinks that at this point.

If there was even a remote chance it could result in Trump being removed from office, I'd say the hell with it -- go ahead. Save that, I agree that Pelosi's and the Dem's messaging should be that everyone knows Trump is unfit for office, but the Republicans will protect him no matter what so we're going to save the country from the whole spectacle of impeachment and defeat him at the ballot box in 2020.

[Steve of phpBB]

Where's the support for an overall cost increase for single payer? Everything I've read shows its a long term savings, to say nothing of the moral obligation.

I'm not saying it's an overall cost increase. I'm saying it will require massive increases in taxes, because the way the costs would be paid in a single-payer system are very different from how they are paid now, because so many people are on employer-furnished health insurance. It would also involve massive disruption of so many industries - while we are also going to massively disrupt so many industries to deal with climate change.

I can't remember if I asked this on here before, but has any country ever switched to single payer from a system based primarily on private, employer-provided health insurance? As far as I know, most of the European countries with single payer adopted it right after WW II, and they didn't really have a private insurance system at the time.

(Anyway, single payer is unnecessary. What matters is universal coverage and guaranteed affordability. That can be done without single payer and without banning private insurance.)

As far as allowing fighting climate changed to be framed as "the libs want your money" ... JFC. Really? We need to weigh science against marginal tax rates?

I'm not saying we need to weigh science against marginal tax rates. I'm saying that the currently-proposed GND and Single Payer, are both heavily liberal policies - in response to your statement that the policies being proposed were not really that liberal. They clearly are - which doesn't mean they are bad or wrong. I'd be totally fine with carbon pricing, a massive government investment in carbon-reducing technologies, massive investments in transit etc., and raising taxes to do it.

Hell, any plan to combat climate change is going to be massively liberal. And it is going to require people to raise taxes on themselves. And I am not real convinced that people are going to be eager to do it - especially based on Washington.

[brian]

Also and I hate to harp on this, but if you want to talk about normalizing behavior -- we do NOT want to get into a situation where the impeachment of the opposing party's president is normalized in our political discourse. I realize Trump's crimes are beyond the pale, but that's kind of the point.

I don't trust the GOP to not do that -- they already have. Not impeaching Trump is actually a bit of an ace in the hole against that.

If President Elizabeth Warren gets her finger caught in some small-time scandal in 2023 and the GOP House tries to impeach her, all the Dems have to do is say "Trump was the most corrupt president in American history and we didn't impeach him, so this is bullshit" and chances are that will actually land.

[The Sybian]

I don't get how you reconcile that last sentence and with the preceding sentences.

The last sentence was my view on the differences between Clinton's and Trump's crimes, while the rest of it is the general public perception. I hear from a lot of people that they don't like Trump, but they are sick of the Dems and media constantly attacking him. Even for people that don't like Trump, he is better at framing the topic of political discourse. The current example is the stupid "Tim Apple issue." Trump is turning the perception into Dems being so petty, they will turn him seeming to confuse Tim Cook's name into a media attack. WHile I view the real issue as people laughed at his early onset dementia causing a gaffe, Trump proved how fucking twisted his narcissistic brain is, that instead of admitting to a meaningless gaffe, he triple and quadruples down on lying that the gaffe didn't occur. Yet, I've heard people who don't support Trump saying Dems need to stop attacking him on this stupid shit, who cares if he said Tim Apple?

[degenerasian]

Where's the support for an overall cost increase for single payer? Everything I've read shows its a long term savings, to say nothing of the moral obligation.

I'm not saying it's an overall cost increase. I'm saying it will require massive increases in taxes, because the way the costs would be paid in a single-payer system are very different from how they are paid now, because so many people are on employer-furnished health insurance. It would also involve massive disruption of so many industries - while we are also going to massively disrupt so many industries to deal with climate change.

I can't remember if I asked this on here before, but has any country ever switched to single payer from a system based primarily on private, employer-provided health insurance? As far as I know, most of the European countries with single payer adopted it right after WW II, and they didn't really have a private insurance system at the time.

(Anyway, single payer is unnecessary. What matters is universal coverage and guaranteed affordability. That can be done without single payer and without banning private insurance.)

As far as allowing fighting climate changed to be framed as "the libs want your money" ... JFC. Really? We need to weigh science against marginal tax rates?

I'm not saying we need to weigh science against marginal tax rates. I'm saying that the currently-proposed GND and Single Payer, are both heavily liberal policies - in response to your statement that the policies being proposed were not really that liberal. They clearly are - which doesn't mean they are bad or wrong. I'd be totally fine with carbon pricing, a massive government investment in carbon-reducing technologies, massive investments in transit etc., and raising taxes to do it.

Hell, any plan to combat climate change is going to be massively liberal. And it is going to require people to raise taxes on themselves. And I am not real convinced that people are going to be eager to do it - especially based on Washington.

There's going to be an election in Alberta in the upcoming months (last day it can happen is May 31) and carbon tax (imposed $100 per adult per year since 2015) is one of the biggest issues.

[The Sybian]

Also and I hate to harp on this, but if you want to talk about normalizing behavior -- we do NOT want to get into a situation where the impeachment of the opposing party's president is normalized in our political discourse. I realize Trump's crimes are beyond the pale, but that's kind of the point.

I don't trust the GOP to not do that -- they already have. Not impeaching Trump is actually a bit of an ace in the hole against that.

If President Elizabeth Warren gets her finger caught in some small-time scandal in 2023 and the GOP House tries to impeach her, all the Dems have to do is say "Trump was the most corrupt president in American history and we didn't impeach him, so this is bullshit" and chances are that will actually land.

Naw, Republicans would still impeach, and say Warren is more corrupt than Trump was. Trump was never impeached, and we just impeached Warren, so that proves Warren is even more corrupt than Trump,

[mister d]

I've typed out a dozen responses and deleted them all because I can't believe "the counter to Republicans protecting an impeachable president is taking impeachment off the table with the payoff of future good faith" is being treated as a proper and defensible strategy.

[mister d]

Naw, Republicans would still impeach, and say Warren is more corrupt than Trump was. Trump was never impeached, and we just impeached Warren, so that proves Warren is even more corrupt than Trump,

Fucking Christ, thank you.

[brian]

Well, that's only like the fourth or fifth-best argument against impeachment, for what it's worth. But I do see your point.

[L-Jam3]

Assuming there's no statute of limitations for criminal actions that could give rise to it, wouldn't impeachment be better to save for 2021 if the not-remote chance he wins reelection? Even if he does (the Dems could still fuck it up in the upper midwest again and lose again despite a popular vote win because of the fucking electoral college), 2020 would probably still result in an increase in blue seats, and likely a majority in the Senate.

[The Sybian]

Assuming there's no statute of limitations for criminal actions that could give rise to it, wouldn't impeachment be better to save for 2021 if the not-remote chance he wins reelection? Even if he does (the Dems could still fuck it up in the upper midwest again and lose again despite a popular vote win because of the fucking electoral college), 2020 would probably still result in an increase in blue seats, and likely a majority in the Senate.

Sure, but then we are stuck with 4 years of Pence, or whoever else Trump brings in as VP

[sancarlos]

[brian]

This is stupid and petty as hell and I love it.

[The Sybian]

This is stupid and petty as hell and I love it.

From the way that article framed it, I don't think it's petty at all. If the VP customarily had an office in the House, then I'd say it was petty, but the article made it sound like it was unusual, and Ryan gave Pence an office in the House for symbolic reasons, which I read as keeping House Republicans in line by reminding them that the WH is watching them.