PDA

View Full Version : Impeach?


Terez
11-05-2014, 10:44 PM
Haven't done a poll in a while. This is a fun one. As you non-US folks probably know, the GOP took over the US senate yesterday so in January they will have both houses of congress, and Obama is in for the usual lame duck last two years of a two-term president.

Lots of Republicans can't wait for the opportunity to impeach Obama, for whatever reason. His avowed plan to issue executive orders on immigration reform is currently the most popular potential impeachable offense.

Other Republicans think it would be a terrible PR move on their part. Some even think it would be legal overreach, not just political overreach.

So, will they impeach him (i.e. charge him), or will they not? I'm going for yes, and hoping I'm wrong. The base is really itching for it, and itching to assert their new political power in some kind of told-you-so way. It might be hard for the politicians to resist. Depends on how much time they spend talking to their base; I think the donors are probably mostly against it, but impeachment trials are great spectacles and perhaps a good chance to slip lawmaking under the popular radar.

Nazbaque
11-05-2014, 11:11 PM
I went with "no". There has to be at least one real sadist there who wants to wach Obama wriggle under the threat of being impeached. Can that sadist convince the others?

Southpaw2012
11-05-2014, 11:45 PM
Obama is arrogant and believes he is above the law, but I don't think he'll try and do anything too stupid to get himself impeached; that would hurt his "legacy" after all, right? It would be stupid for Republicans to go for impeachment unless it's blatantly obvious. However, I've always wondered if he'd like to get impeached in order for his party to go on a "racist" tirade.
By the way, when are Democrats going to stop calling black Conservative Tim Scott an "Uncle Tom" for winning South Carolina? Funny how it's only racist when it comes from one side...
But yeah, overall it would be stupid for impeachment unless he does something insane.

Terez
11-06-2014, 12:38 AM
By the way, when are Democrats going to stop calling black Conservative Tim Scott an "Uncle Tom" for winning South Carolina?
I haven't heard anyone call him that. Who did? Maddow actually included his win in her "silver lining" post-mortem presentation tonight.

DahLliA
11-06-2014, 01:14 AM
Voted yes.

Not because I'm 100% on what it means, but it sounds like the stupid thing to do, and when given a choice, politicians will do the stupid thing.

GonzoTheGreat
11-06-2014, 03:16 AM
I see no reason to assume that this new batch of Republicans is much more sensible than the last one.

They can (and possibly will) impeach Obama for "presidenting while black", which for much of their base is the worst thing he's done so far.

Terez
11-06-2014, 10:08 AM
Voted yes.

Not because I'm 100% on what it means, but it sounds like the stupid thing to do, and when given a choice, politicians will do the stupid thing.
Not old enough to remember Bill Clinton's impeachment, eh? :)

Republicans have wanted to impeach (and convict) a Democratic president since Nixon.

GonzoTheGreat
11-06-2014, 10:30 AM
Republicans have wanted to impeach (and convict) a Democratic president since Nixon.
Sort of like the Red Ajah with Blue Amyrlins, actually. Why can't your politicians be original?
They could've chosen to target a Brown president for impeachment, for instance.

Kimon
11-06-2014, 06:05 PM
So, will they impeach him (i.e. charge him), or will they not? I'm going for yes, and hoping I'm wrong. The base is really itching for it, and itching to assert their new political power in some kind of told-you-so way. It might be hard for the politicians to resist. Depends on how much time they spend talking to their base; I think the donors are probably mostly against it, but impeachment trials are great spectacles and perhaps a good chance to slip lawmaking under the popular radar.

Why would you hope that you're wrong? Impeaching him would be the most incredibly stupid thing that the Republicans could possibly do, and would require only a simple majority of the House to accomplish. There are some sane Republicans in the House, but Boehner hasn't exactly shown much ability to control his caucus so far, not sure he will be able to stop them now that they finally have control of the Senate too. If I were the president, I'd start giving speeches in January (and leading up to January) calling upon the Republicans to do something sensible about immigration reform. I'd start by calling for mutual action born out of compromise, and hope the Republicans are too stupid to realize that actually passing something that would appeal to the growing Hispanic population would be the smartest thing they could do for the long-term health of their party, and instead hope to trap them on the assumption that the House Republicans (the Senate Republicans likely would be much more willing to do the sensible thing...) would just look to their self-interest and refuse. I'd then lace my rhetoric over the next months with increasing amounts of invective and condescension, and make clear that if they wouldn't do the right thing, that I would. Then, probably around May, I'd issue an executive order on immigration reform, and i'd sit back and pray that those morons were actually dumb enough to try to impeach me for it.

I vote yes. He obviously wouldn't be convicted by the Senate...

Davian93
11-06-2014, 06:43 PM
Not old enough to remember Bill Clinton's impeachment, eh? :)

Republicans have wanted to impeach (and convict) a Democratic president since Nixon.

Funny story, it was his fellow Republicans that actually pushed for the impeachment. Hell, Senator Goldwater was the one that went to the White House and basically forced Nixon to resign rather than go to prison. Goldwater, the standard bearer of the Conservative movement for 40 years. The Dems wouldn't have even tried to impeach if the GOP hadnt turned on Nixon.


Also, Nixon's actual crimes were miles and miles beyond anything Clinton ever did (or Johnson for that matter). Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached purely out of political reasons. Nixon actually committed multiple Class A felonies.

They will probably try to...Cruz and the other nutters are just begging for it. IF they are that stupid, expect 2016 to be an even more massive wave election for the Dems than it already will be.

Davian93
11-06-2014, 06:46 PM
If I were the president, I'd start giving speeches in January (and leading up to January) calling upon the Republicans to do something sensible about immigration reform. I'd start by calling for mutual action born out of compromise, and hope the Republicans are too stupid to realize that actually passing something that would appeal to the growing Hispanic population would be the smartest thing they could do for the long-term health of their party, and instead hope to trap them on the assumption that the House Republicans (the Senate Republicans likely would be much more willing to do the sensible thing...) would just look to their self-interest and refuse.

Um, the entire Dem party has been doing exactly that for the past 6 years with no effect. The GOP doesnt give a damn and they've fully realized that as long as they keep lying and lying consistently, they will never be called on it by a chickenshit media. And their base will believe them regardless of what they say as they have a complete echo chamber.

Terez
11-06-2014, 06:55 PM
So, will they impeach him (i.e. charge him), or will they not? I'm going for yes, and hoping I'm wrong. The base is really itching for it, and itching to assert their new political power in some kind of told-you-so way. It might be hard for the politicians to resist. Depends on how much time they spend talking to their base; I think the donors are probably mostly against it, but impeachment trials are great spectacles and perhaps a good chance to slip lawmaking under the popular radar.
Why would you hope that you're wrong?
That, if for no other reason.

Kimon
11-06-2014, 07:02 PM
Um, the entire Dem party has been doing exactly that for the past 6 years with no effect. The GOP doesnt give a damn and they've fully realized that as long as they keep lying and lying consistently, they will never be called on it by a chickenshit media. And their base will believe them regardless of what they say as they have a complete echo chamber.

Aside from rhetoric, what have the dems really done on this issue the past 6 years? They've tried to shame and cajole the Republicans into doing the right thing, true, but the president has resisted actually issuing an executive order on this matter. He should have done this prior to the election and watched the republicans over-react and implode. He might as well do this now, after all, clearly the republicans won't do anything beneficial for the country of their own volition. So doing so unilaterally now will serve two purposes - it needs to be done, and it will also cause the right to self-immolate.

Davian93
11-06-2014, 07:24 PM
Aside from rhetoric, what have the dems really done on this issue the past 6 years? They've tried to shame and cajole the Republicans into doing the right thing, true, but the president has resisted actually issuing an executive order on this matter. He should have done this prior to the election and watched the republicans over-react and implode. He might as well do this now, after all, clearly the republicans won't do anything beneficial for the country of their own volition. So doing so unilaterally now will serve two purposes - it needs to be done, and it will also cause the right to self-immolate.

Nothing...mainly because they are a bunch of spineless chickenshits that can't even campaign on their successes. They're so afraid of being called "liberal" that they actually run away from popular Democratic legislation. It's pathetic and embarrassing to watch them do it time after time.

Millions upon millions of Americans have healthcare for the first time ever and its overall a very popular program...yet they pretended they never passed it.

The economy is recovering big time and unemployment is under 6%...yet they ran away from that too.

Its so pathetic that they continually allow the Right to define the rules of the fight election after election and their base simply refuses to show up in mid-term elections.

Terez
11-06-2014, 09:06 PM
For the record, I didn't vote this election. I voted in the primary and the run-off, but then I moved to IL (hi Kimon; we should meet some time; I'll be in Chicago at least once a month including this Saturday), and 1) I don't want to vote here because I know nothing about their local politics, and 2) it's damn near impossible to qualify for an absentee ballot for MS unless you're military.

I'm going to need to figure out something before next election. I'd like to time my visits to MS during election time, but I was nervous about it this year because I didn't want to get stuck with bad road conditions. I think after a winter in IL I'll be a little more comfortable with staying until the first week of November.

Question is, is it legal for me to vote in MS? I kind of half still live there, since my bank account is there, my car note is there, my phone is there, my car insurance is there, my car tag (state tax) is there, and damn near everyone I know is there. In other words, it's not like I don't still pay taxes there.

I was particularly uninspired to risk bad roads for this election because Travis Childers is 1) unelectable in MS, and 2) more conservative than Thad Cochran. So count me among those who didn't bother to show up this midterm, though you can thank me for helping to keep Chris McDaniel out of the senate in the primary.

Davian93
11-06-2014, 09:14 PM
Question is, is it legal for me to vote in MS? I kind of half still live there, since my bank account is there, my car note is there, my phone is there, my car insurance is there, my car tag (state tax) is there, and damn near everyone I know is there. In other words, it's not like I don't still pay taxes there.

Do you have a legal residence there or are you in IL as a student? If you have permanently moved to IL, it'd be illegal for you to vote in MS. Also, you should likely legally change your car tags, license, etc if you aren't living in MS anymore.

Kimon
11-06-2014, 09:35 PM
For the record, I didn't vote this election. I voted in the primary and the run-off, but then I moved to IL (hi Kimon; we should meet some time; I'll be in Chicago at least once a month including this Saturday), and 1) I don't want to vote here because I know nothing about their local politics, and 2) it's damn near impossible to qualify for an absentee ballot for MS unless you're military.

I'm going to need to figure out something before next election. I'd like to time my visits to MS during election time, but I was nervous about it this year because I didn't want to get stuck with bad road conditions. I think after a winter in IL I'll be a little more comfortable with staying until the first week of November.

Question is, is it legal for me to vote in MS? I kind of half still live there, since my bank account is there, my car note is there, my phone is there, my car insurance is there, my car tag (state tax) is there, and damn near everyone I know is there. In other words, it's not like I don't still pay taxes there.

I was particularly uninspired to risk bad roads for this election because Travis Childers is 1) unelectable in MS, and 2) more conservative than Thad Cochran. So count me among those who didn't bother to show up this midterm, though you can thank me for helping to keep Chris McDaniel out of the senate in the primary.

Depending on where you live in Illinois, the local politics might not be that different from back in Mississippi. Are you near Chicago, or somewhere in the sticks? If in the sticks, the sticks everywhere are essentially the same - Republican. As for how long you can maintain residency in Mississippi, you will likely have to switch over next time you need to renew your car insurance. If so, expect to also have to transfer your car title over to Illinois.

As another aside on voting, surprised Mississippi would make it difficult to absentee - Michigan never gave me any problem doing so either when I was still in-state but away from my natal deme during college, or during post-bac when I was briefly in Philly. I wish we could just transition over to voting online. There must be a way to do that securely, and voting anytime other than really early can be a massive pain in the ass even if you live in a district not plagued by Republican shenanigans.

Davian93
11-06-2014, 09:49 PM
There must be a way to do that securely

No, no, no, no, no. No voting without a paper trail that can be recounted. If companies with billions upon billions of money at stake cant protect credit card payments, there is no way to make online voting secure.

Voting should be as easy as possible (mail-in comes to mind) but online should never, ever happen.

Terez
11-06-2014, 11:33 PM
Depending on where you live in Illinois, the local politics might not be that different from back in Mississippi.
Oh, I'm sure. But I don't feel invested in the culture in any way. Maybe that will change over time.

Are you near Chicago, or somewhere in the sticks?
I'm in the sticks, but only about an hour from the outer burbs. Definitely red country for presidential elections.

As for how long you can maintain residency in Mississippi, you will likely have to switch over next time you need to renew your car insurance. If so, expect to also have to transfer your car title over to Illinois.
I tried to switch my car insurance when I moved here, but they wouldn't because I hadn't moved my car registration. I didn't want to do that because I'm not really sure how permanent a resident I am. It's a big change. I still feel kind of like I live in MS because I almost never go anywhere and interact with people mostly online.

As another aside on voting, surprised Mississippi would make it difficult to absentee...
Not sure why. MS is voter-suppression land; we have been trying to find ways to make it harder to vote since Reconstruction.

No, no, no, no, no. No voting without a paper trail that can be recounted. If companies with billions upon billions of money at stake cant protect credit card payments, there is no way to make online voting secure.
There is no way to make voting secure period, unless you take away privacy. Haven't you heard all the conspiracy theories about who owns the voting machines? That's aside from visibly flawed calibrations.

We have had this discussion about online voting before. I think yks said it has been successful in Estonia, but I can't remember the details. I don't think secure digital elections are so unreachable as to say "never ever".

yks 6nnetu hing
11-07-2014, 01:59 AM
No, no, no, no, no. No voting without a paper trail that can be recounted. If companies with billions upon billions of money at stake cant protect credit card payments, there is no way to make online voting secure.

Voting should be as easy as possible (mail-in comes to mind) but online should never, ever happen.

to be fair, the whole credit card system in US is a fricking joke. You just swipe it, no code asked, no ID, nothing; and if you want a new credit card, that's laughably easy as well.

Estonia has had electronic voting for a few years now and it's worked ok - you get an ID card with a chip and 2 pin codes, one to log in with (4 digits) and one to vote with/do other stuff with (6 digits, I think). I can, for example, look at my medical records whenever I want. Or my police records. Or look at whether anyone from the government has accessed my records, and who; and if it's unwarranted I can sue them. Because it's an invasion of privacy and I have proof.

Of course no system is 100% hack-proof and there is one party in particular that's yammering on and on about how shenanigans can take place, but really - individual identity theft (i.e. that someone pretends to be you, specifically) is easy to avoid and intercept; and large-scale shenanigans are prevented by the fact that you need to have the ID card in your possession, and the codes, in order to register anything at all. Also, being a database monkey, I know from personal experience that there is always a trail. Even the lack of a trail can be a trail.

Anonymity in the internet era is one big fat fairy tale and it's about time people stop fooling themselves and instead take actions to make their identities online as safe and secure as possible.

Davian93
11-07-2014, 07:24 AM
There is no way to make voting secure period, unless you take away privacy. Haven't you heard all the conspiracy theories about who owns the voting machines? That's aside from visibly flawed calibrations

If you are referring to the most recent case in Maryland, the "calibration" issue disappeared as soon as they gave her a pen to touch the screen instead of her finger. I'm not saying it didnt work because she had really fat fingers but the screen didn't work right because she had really fat fingers.


As for electronic voting...paper scantron sheets that can be manually recounted work just fine and they give you an easy paper trail to prevent shenanigans. If they want help increase voter turnout, stop passing onerous Voter ID laws, stop eliminating or limiting early voting and make Election Day a national holiday where all you can do is vote. If they are so concerned with in-person voter fraud (they're not really but its a great way to attack women, minorities and college students) have people get a finger dipped in non-removable ink once they've voted...then they cant vote again that day.

GonzoTheGreat
11-07-2014, 07:46 AM
I'm not saying it didnt work because she had really fat fingers but the screen didn't work right because she had really fat fingers.


If they are so concerned with in-person voter fraud (they're not really but its a great way to attack women, minorities and college students) have people get a finger dipped in non-removable ink once they've voted...then they cant vote again that day.
Wouldn't that require an enormous amount of ink? :confused:

Davian93
11-07-2014, 08:08 AM
Wouldn't that require an enormous amount of ink? :confused:

It really wouldn't be that onerous. You only have to do the tip of the finger and that system works elsewhere to prevent double voting...its better than systematically preventing women, minorities and college students from voting just because those groups tend to skew to the Left in the US.

But then, the current kick about preventing voter fraud has never been about anything other than voter suppression.

SauceyBlueConfetti
11-07-2014, 12:26 PM
I saw a good conversation on <insert random political show> ??? that discussed the fact that GOP needs to play nice right now. They need to be able to start a snowball effect showing they CAN do something other than block/argue/stall any and all political good. They have two years to build that idea enough to guarantee a GOP presidential win in 2016.

Cuz if Hillary runs (ha, IF, ha!), as much as she polarizes things, she will win.

Kimon
11-07-2014, 04:47 PM
I saw a good conversation on <insert random political show> ??? that discussed the fact that GOP needs to play nice right now. They need to be able to start a snowball effect showing they CAN do something other than block/argue/stall any and all political good. They have two years to build that idea enough to guarantee a GOP presidential win in 2016.

Cuz if Hillary runs (ha, IF, ha!), as much as she polarizes things, she will win.

These essentially are their choices:

- Play ball with Obama and start passing middle-right type legislation. Runs the risk of Obama getting all the credit, especially if Obama is anywhere near as astute as Bill Clinton was. Is he? Frankly the answer to that is emphatically no. Still potentially dangerous for the Republicans, and they hate Obama way more than they did Clinton. Clinton after all was way more charismatic, a southerner, and white. Obama is black. His hawkish policies, invasive patriot-act continuations, and generally center-right domestic policies can't change that one unforgivable fact.

- Do nothing, and hope the independents mostly blame Obama and the dems, and that a significant percentage of true dems continue to be so annoyed at their own party that many don't show up to vote.

- Impeach Obama. Dumbest move, as while it will energize their base, it will also energize and re-animate the left, and every none hill-billy will transparently recognize that Obama hasn't done anything remotely worthy of impeachment. Still think it will be difficult for the sane voices on the right to stop their mob.

GonzoTheGreat
11-08-2014, 03:34 AM
Still think it will be difficult for the sane voices on the right to stop their mob.
Are there any such sane voices there?
Apart from Obama cum sui, obviously. They're on the right, but they won't be listened to in this.

Kimon
11-08-2014, 11:00 AM
Are there any such sane voices there?
Apart from Obama cum sui, obviously. They're on the right, but they won't be listened to in this.

In the Senate? Yes. In the House? The issue here is different. With being up for election every two years, they are constantly campaigning. And due to gerrymandering, most are in districts so red that their only threat is from further to the right of themselves. They worry about primary challengers, not about appealing to the center. The arithmetic for the senators is still quite different. Sure there is still the worry of being challenged in primaries by Tea Party types (or if they are already a Tea Party partisan, from even more vitriolic right wingers), but they serve six years, and must appeal to their entire state, not just a very gerrymandered stratum of their state. But it's only the House here that matters. I think any House Republican that doesn't push for impeachment would be facing a serious challenge in their next primary. The only Republican senators that would be vulnerable would be those that are up in '16.

Davian93
11-08-2014, 09:27 PM
An impeachment attempt would be the greatest gift the GOP could ever give the Democrats going into 2016. I really hope they are dumb enough to try.

suttree
11-12-2014, 05:48 PM
Rep Joe Barton of Texas. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joe-barton-impeach-obama-immigration)

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said on Monday that impeaching President Obama "would be a consideration" if he moves forward unilaterally on immigration.
Barton's comments were made during an interview with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who now hosts NewsMaxTV's "America's Forum."
Barton was asked about the possibility that Obama could take executive action to slow deportations.
ďWell impeachment is indicting in the House and thatís a possibility. But you still have to convict in the Senate and that takes a two-thirds vote," Barton said. "But impeachment would be a consideration, yes sir."

Davian93
11-12-2014, 08:59 PM
Rep Joe Barton of Texas. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joe-barton-impeach-obama-immigration)

Mind you that is the same Joe Barton that apologized to British Petroleum for getting the Gulf of Mexico and those clean sandy beaches all over their oil back after Deepwater Horizon well leaked everywhere.

Gotta give him credit...when he gets bought by an industry, he stays bought.

suttree
11-13-2014, 01:28 PM
Annnnd here we go. Obama is moving forward with immigration reform (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1).


President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) will ignore angry protests from Republicans and announce as soon as next week a broad overhaul of the nationís immigration enforcement system that will protect up to five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits, according to administration officials who have direct knowledge of the plan.Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nationís laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the governmentís 12,000 immigration agents. One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.
A new enforcement memorandum, which will direct the actions of Border Patrol agents and judges at the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and other federal law enforcement and judicial agencies, will make clear that deportations should still proceed for convicted criminals, foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers, officials said.

Can you hear the wails and gnashing of teeth starting? "Amnesty for all illegals! America as we know it is finished!"

Ivhon
11-13-2014, 01:45 PM
Methinks that once again Obama is goading Republicans into something that will rebound against them. He keeps doing it and they keep falling for it.

Davian93
11-13-2014, 05:26 PM
Methinks that once again Obama is goading Republicans into something that will rebound against them. He keeps doing it and they keep falling for it.

Yes, it is quite fun to watch. From an academic standpoint, its going to be fun for them to go absolutely nuts and see it backfire spectacularly in 2016.

Terez
11-13-2014, 07:06 PM
lol, I just saw Mitch McConnell saying something like "I was hoping the president would see the election results and come to work with us in the middle." This from the guy who said, right after the 2008 election, that his #1 agenda item was making sure that Obama didn't get a second term. He didn't accomplish that, nor did he accomplish anything else.

Davian93
11-13-2014, 07:29 PM
lol, I just saw Mitch McConnell saying something like "I was hoping the president would see the election results and come to work with us in the middle." This from the guy who said, right after the 2008 election, that his #1 agenda item was making sure that Obama didn't get a second term. He didn't accomplish that, nor did he accomplish anything else.

Obama should call the entire GOP senate delegation into the East Room of the White House for a banquet...cue the White House band to strike up Rains of Castermere and have a bunch of crossbowmen finish them off.


Or he should just pull a Godfather 2: "Nothing, that's my offer. You can have nothing. And I'd also appreciate it if you funded this Immigration bill out of your own campaign funds"

Ivhon
11-13-2014, 09:52 PM
Obama should call the entire GOP senate delegation into the East Room of the White House for a banquet...cue the White House band to strike up Rains of Castermere and have a bunch of crossbowmen finish them off.

I call this a win-win. Conservatives get justification that Obama is the dictator they claim he is and the rest of us get to have a sane, centrist and effective government.

Frenzy
11-14-2014, 10:10 PM
One of the Republican senators, i don't remember who, said he wished Obama wouldn't be so hasty with forcing Immigration reform via executive order.

Obama's been president for six fucking years. Apparently waiting for six years before acting is too hasty for Congress.

GonzoTheGreat
11-15-2014, 04:01 AM
One of the Republican senators, i don't remember who, said he wished Obama wouldn't be so hasty with forcing Immigration reform via executive order.

Obama's been president for six fucking years. Apparently waiting for six years before acting is too hasty for Congress.
Maybe that Republican is an Ogier. They're less hasty than humans are, after all. Could an Ogier be elected to the US Senate?

Or, if you want to say that Ogier are fictional beings (this is the non-WOT board, after all): how about Bigfoot?
Suppose that Bigfoot finally came forward and wanted to run for elected office, would there be any law saying she wasn't eligible?

Nazbaque
11-15-2014, 04:12 AM
Shame on you Gonzo! No Ogier would join any hasty human political party especially the hateful warmongering republicans who are worse than darkfriends and trollocs.

ShadowbaneX
11-15-2014, 07:49 AM
One of the Republican senators, i don't remember who, said he wished Obama wouldn't be so hasty with forcing Immigration reform via executive order.

Obama's been president for six fucking years. Apparently waiting for six years before acting is too hasty for Congress.
That's some high level asshatery right there.

Davian93
11-15-2014, 12:41 PM
That's some high level asshatery right there.

Back in the summer, after the Senate and House recessed, several GOP leaders demanded that Obama "take action on the immigration problem using EO if necessary"...right after they closed up shop refusing to move on the Immigration reform bill.

Of course, the moment he indicated he might go that route, they pulled a 180 and said he was a dictator for wanting to take action with EOs.

Cognitive Dissonance at its finest.

GonzoTheGreat
11-16-2014, 03:12 AM
Cognitive Dissonance at its finest.
I'm not sure of that. I am willing to grant you the "dissonance" part, but the claim of "cognition" when applied to Republican law makers is mere slander.

ShadowbaneX
11-16-2014, 10:12 AM
Yeah, that doesn't really apply here. Their beliefs seem to be as follows: "you're wrong". There's no real contrasting belief.

Sei'taer
11-16-2014, 02:41 PM
1. It wouldn't help anything and I don't think they're that stupid...ok, they're that stupid but their corporate handlers probably aren't..

2. Joe Biden

3. Joe Biden

Have you ever seen Joe Biden? Or as Obama calls him, Job Security Joe..

Kimon
11-16-2014, 03:28 PM
1. It wouldn't help anything and I don't think they're that stupid...ok, they're that stupid but their corporate handlers probably aren't..

2. Joe Biden

3. Joe Biden

Have you ever seen Joe Biden? Or as Obama calls him, Job Security Joe..

Biden would never be an issue as there would be zero chance of conviction by the senate since that requires 2/3 of the senate. They definitely are not so stupid as to believe they could somehow convince a dozen democrats, let alone all of their own senators, but then that's the point. It is empty rhetoric for House Republicans. It allows them to return to the constituents and campaign upon the fact that they impeached Obama. It would however be an incredibly embarrassing vote for the Republican senators in purple states, especially those up for re-election in '16. That is the only thing potentially stopping this from likely happening. There is no danger for most of the House Republicans to do this, only danger if they don't. Do we really think that Boehner can restrain his caucus, and make them look beyond their own self-interest and to the interest of their party as a whole?

Sei'taer
11-16-2014, 07:15 PM
Biden would never be an issue as there would be zero chance of conviction by the senate since that requires 2/3 of the senate. They definitely are not so stupid as to believe they could somehow convince a dozen democrats, let alone all of their own senators, but then that's the point. It is empty rhetoric for House Republicans. It allows them to return to the constituents and campaign upon the fact that they impeached Obama. It would however be an incredibly embarrassing vote for the Republican senators in purple states, especially those up for re-election in '16. That is the only thing potentially stopping this from likely happening. There is no danger for most of the House Republicans to do this, only danger if they don't. Do we really think that Boehner can restrain his caucus, and make them look beyond their own self-interest and to the interest of their party as a whole?

Honestly, as a third party voter, I don't give a shit what they do to each other as long as they keep pissing voters off.. Eventually people are going to pick up on the fact that these shitheads are all in our business and aren't worth crossing the street to piss on.

I'll let you know how I do as a write-in candidate.

Kimon
11-16-2014, 08:26 PM
Honestly, as a third party voter, I don't give a shit what they do to each other as long as they keep pissing voters off.. Eventually people are going to pick up on the fact that these shitheads are all in our business and aren't worth crossing the street to piss on.

I'll let you know how I do as a write-in candidate.

This sentiment is exactly why voter turn-out is always so low. I don't even disagree. I think just about all of us agree that our choice is always between 2 schmucks. It's just that one of those schmucks has either completely sold his soul to corporate interests and/or is insane, and the other has either mostly sold his soul to corporate interests and/or is a pansy. It's a depressing choice.

GonzoTheGreat
11-17-2014, 03:31 AM
Eventually people are going to pick up on the fact that these shitheads are all in our business and aren't worth crossing the street to piss on.
Citation needed.

Based on all the available evidence, when "people pick up" on this, the idiots are simply replaced by fresh idiots with the same idiotic goals.
There is even a proper Marxist term for this idea, that when things get bad enough, everyone will wise up and start making sensible choices: it's called Verelendung (Miserabilisation, could be a reasonable translation). It didn't work when Pol Pot tried it, but perhaps you're hoping for things to get even worse than what he managed to achieve.

Don't hope that the opposition will get so bad that they disqualify themselves. That does not work. Instead it is necessary to offer up real opposition, and alternatives that people actually can accept (ideally: would even like, but that's often not really easy).

Terez
11-17-2014, 04:34 AM
Yes, exactly. Real alternatives are needed, and it requires that we find good people to run rather than waiting to see what the system offers. It's not easy. People who can run are rare; people who can ditch work to run for office are even more rare.

Part of our problem in the US is that we have such terribly long and expensive campaign seasons. I read on Facebook that TV ads for political candidates are banned in Australia. That would solve a lot of our problems. Someone who can argue its compatibility with the First Amendment should take that one to court.

GonzoTheGreat
11-17-2014, 05:55 AM
Why bother with the First?
Go straight for the far holier Second immediately:

"(Some) of those ads are proposing gun laws! They want to take your rights away!" That way, you'll get the NRA on board, which means an automatic win, if I understand US politics correctly.

Nazbaque
11-17-2014, 07:04 AM
You know it just so happens that my mind, while it was whirring around and amusing itself sort of stumbled on this idea (or possibly farted it out) that oh so very neatly captures the core of pretty much all the worlds problems:

"If people won't improve, how is the world ever going to?"

GonzoTheGreat
11-17-2014, 07:12 AM
Ah, GWB answered that one: "If you do not succeed at first, try, try again."

I, being the naive guy that I am, had always thought that trying to figure out why you were failing could be useful now and then, but he's set me straight on that. Just keep trying.