The Swamp

Isn't this what the founding fathers tried to protect against?

Everything we've let happen had a failsafe built into the system to a degree, but over time norms change, mission creep happens, and political calculation is the standard.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 6:32 am Isn't this what the founding fathers tried to protect against?

The founding fathers would have preached extensive polling and careful strategizing to reduce personal/professional risk in a time like this. The Dems are once again nailing it.

Of course, "looking at the tax returns" involved just going to their fields and counting the goats at the time.

Make assets goats again.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:28 am Of course, "looking at the tax returns" involved just going to their fields and counting the goats at the time.

Actually sounds a lot tougher than pulling some files from a database.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 9:12 am

A_B wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:28 am Of course, "looking at the tax returns" involved just going to their fields and counting the goats at the time.

Actually sounds a lot tougher than pulling some files from a database.

Even harder with sheep cause you keep falling asleep and have to start over only to fall asleep again.

AND GOD KNOWS THERE ARE PLENTY OF SHEEP TO COUNT THESE DAYS AMIRIGHT???????

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:14 am Everything we've let happen had a failsafe built into the system to a degree, but over time norms change, mission creep happens, and political calculation is the standard.

Basically, the system doesn't work unless everyone agrees that it is going to work as designed. Which I guess makes it just like every other political system.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:06 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:14 am Everything we've let happen had a failsafe built into the system to a degree, but over time norms change, mission creep happens, and political calculation is the standard.

Basically, the system doesn't work unless everyone agrees that it is going to work as designed. Which I guess makes it just like every other political system.

Yeah. The myth of American Exceptionalism has been shoved overboard.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:06 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:14 am Everything we've let happen had a failsafe built into the system to a degree, but over time norms change, mission creep happens, and political calculation is the standard.

Basically, the system doesn't work unless everyone agrees that it is going to work as designed. Which I guess makes it just like every other political system.

This.

That's why I kept asking a page or two back just what people think happens if they all collectively defy the House. Is there law enforcement left willing to actually make arrests? Who oversees the attorney general? Literally, they are lawless and beyond the law at this point.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:23 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:06 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:14 am Everything we've let happen had a failsafe built into the system to a degree, but over time norms change, mission creep happens, and political calculation is the standard.

Basically, the system doesn't work unless everyone agrees that it is going to work as designed. Which I guess makes it just like every other political system.

This.

That's why I kept asking a page or two back just what people think happens if they all collectively defy the House. Is there law enforcement left willing to actually make arrests? Who oversees the attorney general? Literally, they are lawless and beyond the law at this point.

There's a reason why Trump admires guys like Erdogan.

Can someone read this and tell me if it says "actually, its good the Dems are listening to the far right, the proud centrists and the politically apathetic and letting it all play out":

mister d wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 11:41 pm What if one hypothesizes that the professional subservience of establishment Dems is a massive part of what drives that polling?

Or what if none of it really matters. Impeach. Don’t impeach. If the Dems don’t win in 2020 it doesn’t matter and I don’t see how either outcome really influences the next election much. (That’s not an argument to not impeach clearly, more like an argument that the real political advantage to be gained in the next 18 months is investigatory. At this point I almost wish the House would impeach him tomorrow so we could be done with this stupid fucking pointless argument.)

brian wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 5:37 pm Or what if none of it really matters. Impeach. Don’t impeach. If the Dems don’t win in 2020 it doesn’t matter and I don’t see how either outcome really influences the next election much. (That’s not an argument to not impeach clearly, more like an argument that the real political advantage to be gained in the next 18 months is investigatory. At this point I almost wish the House would impeach him tomorrow so we could be done with this stupid fucking pointless argument.)

Don't be a quitter. That's what Trump's banking on. Dig in.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:51 pm

brian wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 5:37 pm Or what if none of it really matters. Impeach. Don’t impeach. If the Dems don’t win in 2020 it doesn’t matter and I don’t see how either outcome really influences the next election much. (That’s not an argument to not impeach clearly, more like an argument that the real political advantage to be gained in the next 18 months is investigatory. At this point I almost wish the House would impeach him tomorrow so we could be done with this stupid fucking pointless argument.)

Don't be a quitter. That's what Trump's banking on. Dig in.

I’m not quitting, I’m saying it literally doesn’t matter. Whatever happens in 2020 is going to happen impeachment or not. The investigations the House can engage in for the next 18 months matter 100 times more. If I’m gonna hear 18 more months of this bullshit just impeach him and let’s move on. I suppose I should just stay off Twitter.

Those investigations might even turn up some impeachable offenses.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 7:57 am Those investigations might even turn up some impeachable offenses.

Yeah, I kinda feel like ongoing investigations pulling off layer by layer of bullshit this person has done over his life would be a good campaign ad. I get the anti-impeachment idea of not wanting him to get a Senate acquittal before 2020, but if we had to endure ongoing investigations into Whitewater and Benghazi, I have no problem with the House continuing to investigate him for anything.

Go after everyone who is protecting him. Impeach him if you think you have the evidence. Trump will be gone someday and all the people protecting him now will have a lot to answer for. Waiting on anything and letting things slide (assuming you have the evidence) is a mistake long term.

I just saw Trump's response to the NYT article about his losses. He is such a baffoon -- keep attacking his pride and he will expose himself (just figuritively hopefully). Short term it may do little, but it will make the history books better.

Playing the Devil's Advocate for a second (realizing that even if he is impeached there's no chance for removal because the Republicans are a bunch of boot-licking pussies), if he was removed, does that prevent him from running again? Say for a minute that they start impeachment proceedings tomorrow, and they get the conviction in the Senate in the autumn. Trump is removed, and Pence is installed as President. What's stopping Trump from just running again? Hell, he'd probably get enough support in primaries that he'd be likely to win the nomination again anyway, because his shitbag supporters would be emboldened as they would play it as a hitjob.

I don't think impeachment and removal disqualifies someone from running for the same office. Alcie Hastings was impeached and removed in the early 80s from Congress, and he ended up being reelected down the road and served in Congress again.

Another thought is if they delay until 2020, and they have the vote in the autumn of 2020, even if they do convict, that doesn't mean he can't simply stay on the ballot, and Pence is President until 1/20/21. He conceivably could still win considering how stacked the deck is against Democrats because of the Electoral College bullshit.

EdRomero wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:22 amWaiting on anything and letting things slide (assuming you have the evidence) is a mistake long term.

Of all the things history will look poorly upon in the aftermath of this bullshit, the Dems not considering whats happening at the southern border to be a crisis worth devoting all of their time to counter will be at or near the top.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:33 amPlaying the Devil's Advocate for a second (realizing that even if he is impeached there's no chance for removal because the Republicans are a bunch of boot-licking pussies), if he was removed, does that prevent him from running again? Say for a minute that they start impeachment proceedings tomorrow, and they get the conviction in the Senate in the autumn. Trump is removed, and Pence is installed as President. What's stopping Trump from just running again? Hell, he'd probably get enough support in primaries that he'd be likely to win the nomination again anyway, because his shitbag supporters would be emboldened as they would play it as a hitjob.

Come on.

Giff wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:21 am

mister d wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 7:57 am Those investigations might even turn up some impeachable offenses.

Yeah, I kinda feel like ongoing investigations pulling off layer by layer of bullshit this person has done over his life would be a good campaign ad. I get the anti-impeachment idea of not wanting him to get a Senate acquittal before 2020, but if we had to endure ongoing investigations into Whitewater and Benghazi, I have no problem with the House continuing to investigate him for anything.

This is what I've been advocating for over a month.

What are you come-onning me about? That I brought up a hypothetical removal that would never happen, or that he would still win the nomination if he was removed?

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:42 am What are you come-onning me about? That I brought up a hypothetical removal that would never happen, or that he would still win the nomination if he was removed?

That anyone should worry an impeached and removed Trump would come back stronger and more popular than ever.

EdRomero wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:31 am I just saw Trump's response to the NYT article about his losses. He is such a baffoon -- keep attacking his pride and he will expose himself (just figuritively hopefully). Short term it may do little, but it will make the history books better.

Nothing amazes any more with this guy, but just think of the fact that Trump has now - and also when campaigning in 2016 - bragged about tax evasion and how smart he is to have done it.

No idea, but I have a hard time imagining that there is no law that an impeached POTUS cannot run again.

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 8:49 am No idea, but I have a hard time imagining that there is no law that an impeached POTUS cannot run again.

I just went and checked the Senate's own site on this. And it says, "In some cases, disqualification from holding future offices is also imposed."

So it doesn't seem to be a rule that they are definitely barred from running again.

As we've discussed, the Founding Fathers didn't fully account for Idiocracy. They were in the middle of throwing off the shackles of the fucking "rules are fucking rules" Brits... The layers of written and unwritten rules were astoundingly deep.

I don't think they could possible wrap their heads around a future America where a literal charlatan and snake oil salesman lied his way into power and was willing to completely subvert our institutions to cover for his crimes against the nation.

The fact that America/Congress didn't tighten shit up after Nixon is going to be the what the history books are actually going to take from this era.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:04 am The fact that America/Congress didn't tighten shit up after Nixon is going to be the what the history books are actually going to take from this era.

Agreed. Just in the past 50 years we’ve had Nixon/Kissinger working to sabotage Vietnam peace talks to help get elected (the most egregious election-related disloyalty in modern times), Ford pardoning Nixon, spying on the Carter campaign, the Iran-Contra pardons, and the Bush administration lying its war into a devastating war and establishing a global torture regime (without anyone even getting charged). And that’s before we even get to Trump. The trend towards political lawlessness has been ongoing for 50+ years now.

Welp. Pretty sure he just did what ended up costing Nixon in invoking privilege to not release full information.

Hey guys, maybe this is what sinks him.

Apparently these two tweets admit to tax fraud for the purposes of salvaging his ego, according to everyone on the internet.

I mean in the world I live in, reporting losses in order to not pay taxes is the very definition of tax evasion.

HDO can dickstomp me if I'm understating here, but if he's saying "we showed accounting losses that weren't actual dollar losses", he's probably well inside the tax boundaries. There's a reason corporate tax laws are complicated as fuck and good tax accountants can get paid a ton.



(Not that I would bet all of his tax prep was done with legality in mind because its him, but accounting losses <> lost dollars.)

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 9:51 am Apparently these two tweets admit to tax fraud for the purposes of salvaging his ego, according to everyone on the internet.

"Everything that I did in those reports is perfectly legal and everyone else did it too. Also it's fake news and I never did it."

- Donald J. Trump

mister d wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:14 am HDO can dickstomp me if I'm understating here, but if he's saying "we showed accounting losses that weren't actual dollar losses", he's probably well inside the tax boundaries. There's a reason corporate tax laws are complicated as fuck and good tax accountants can get paid a ton.

I think this is right to some extent, but at some point income ends up having to be reported as income.

For example, you can claim depreciation on a building, and that can give you a fake "loss" over a number of years ... but at some point you sell the building, and now the entire purchase price has to be reported as income (even if it goes to pay off a mortgage), because the building was depreciated to zero. (This happened to someone I know. He ended up way underwater with the IRS and had to work out a payment plan.)