Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:The problem with releasing the whistleblower complaint is not that it could blow up in the Dems faces politically; it’s that after the whistleblower is inevitably dragged through the media and sent to work in the US consulate of Siberia, NO ONE ELSE WILL EVER BLOW A WHISTLE AGAIN.

How is this a different outcome than now, where whistleblowing either put this person at risk for professional retribution or set them up to be brutally maligned and slandered by conservative media....but also nobody is bothering to follow up on the act itself? Is this MORE likely to encourage future whistleblowers?

Self wrote:I just wanna go back to not knowing who the attorney general is. Is that too much to ask?

McParadigm wrote:Democratic leadership has a huge authenticity problem right now with its voters. Swept in on the promise of accountability, they’ve been tepid and pathetic. This is a big part of why the new guard has so much momentum within the party, and if Democratic leaders want to prevent that rebellion from exploding, they need to show that they are actually willing to commit to that accountability. If you prefer a Democrat party run by Joe Bidens and Chuck Schumers to one run by left idealists and youthful socialists, then you really want the former to pursue claims of this level of consequence. Looking like part of an elite establishment that dealmakes to avoid correcting itself is how republicans lost control to their own populist insurrection.

Mickey wrote:Honestly President Pelosi is only a slightly less blackpilled timeline than President Trump.

wease wrote:So, let’s say the House actually votes for impeachment. Doesn’t it require a two-thirds majority vote from the Senate to remove him from office? There’s no way in hell that’ll ever happen. So what’s the point of impeachment? Senate Republicans could watch him shoot a man in the head while selling the White House to Putin, and they’d still never remove him. And look at how bolstered he’d be for the election after he’s acquitted. There’s no winning here. Except for Trump. It’s a dead issue guys.

Strat wrote:

wease wrote:So, let’s say the House actually votes for impeachment. Doesn’t it require a two-thirds majority vote from the Senate to remove him from office? There’s no way in hell that’ll ever happen. So what’s the point of impeachment? Senate Republicans could watch him shoot a man in the head while selling the White House to Putin, and they’d still never remove him. And look at how bolstered he’d be for the election after he’s acquitted. There’s no winning here. Except for Trump. It’s a dead issue guys.

"Wait, the president of the united states continually sold out the country, broke the law numerous times, defied the constitution, and you guys did NOTHING??? Cool, cool government"

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

wease wrote:So, let’s say the House actually votes for impeachment. Doesn’t it require a two-thirds majority vote from the Senate to remove him from office? There’s no way in hell that’ll ever happen. So what’s the point of impeachment? Senate Republicans could watch him shoot a man in the head while selling the White House to Putin, and they’d still never remove him. And look at how bolstered he’d be for the election after he’s acquitted. There’s no winning here. Except for Trump. It’s a dead issue guys.

"Wait, the president of the united states continually sold out the country, broke the law numerous times, defied the constitution, and you guys did NOTHING??? Cool, cool government"

You disagree?

Strat wrote:

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:

wease wrote:So, let’s say the House actually votes for impeachment. Doesn’t it require a two-thirds majority vote from the Senate to remove him from office? There’s no way in hell that’ll ever happen. So what’s the point of impeachment? Senate Republicans could watch him shoot a man in the head while selling the White House to Putin, and they’d still never remove him. And look at how bolstered he’d be for the election after he’s acquitted. There’s no winning here. Except for Trump. It’s a dead issue guys.

"Wait, the president of the united states continually sold out the country, broke the law numerous times, defied the constitution, and you guys did NOTHING??? Cool, cool government"

You disagree?

Disagree with what? That it will make a lick of difference? No. But they need to move forward with it. Otherwise they are just as content with Trump as the republicans. Democrats already have an awful fucking reputation as being the party of non doers and cowards. They are really working that angle right now. Sure as shit.

McParadigm wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Democratic leadership has a huge authenticity problem right now with its voters. Swept in on the promise of accountability, they’ve been tepid and pathetic. This is a big part of why the new guard has so much momentum within the party, and if Democratic leaders want to prevent that rebellion from exploding, they need to show that they are actually willing to commit to that accountability. If you prefer a Democrat party run by Joe Bidens and Chuck Schumers to one run by left idealists and youthful socialists, then you really want the former to pursue claims of this level of consequence. Looking like part of an elite establishment that dealmakes to avoid correcting itself is how republicans lost control to their own populist insurrection.

Another week of inaction on the part of leadership could really cause these intra-party rumbles to escalate.

The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place. It was largely the fact that we don't want our people, like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine.