Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the rules suggest that "the Senate" can decide that it's not immediate, and as a practical matter this probably means that McConnell gets to decide.

Right. Good luck with this thing. Seems certain to effect a brilliant victory for Democrats. All that talk about Biden’s cokehead kid on a board for no good reason and Joe’s calls to Ukraine (true or not), and the Steele Dossier comparison... and the Mueller fizzle.

What could go wrong?

This has a high likelihood of doing what Ds do best: Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

If you care about global trade, you must pray for a recession. That’s the only thing likely to get him out if impeachment soldiers forward.

Nancy tried. History will recall her as the adult in the room.

ETA: Correction: This WH might be aiming to fail with far more vigor than Democrats. Ya might win this WWF battle royale of idiots - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/u...ng-points.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the rules suggest that "the Senate" can decide that it's not immediate, and as a practical matter this probably means that McConnell gets to decide.

ty your rule doesn’t seem so loose

“ Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, 102 the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ty your rule doesn’t seem so loose

“ Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, 102 the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.”

"unless otherwise ordered by the Senate" seems potentially like a big loophole, but I am not an expert on Senate procedure

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"unless otherwise ordered by the Senate" seems potentially like a big loophole, but I am not an expert on Senate procedure

Has to start but he can derail after starting?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Has to start but he can derail after starting?

Does it seem likely that McConnell would want to drag it out? Seems likelier that he would rush through it, and push to a quick vote. But it's hard to say now.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Are you saying Ty was wrong to refer to "Congressmen" instead of "Senators?" If so, he was not. Both Senators and Representatives are Congressmen.

LessinChiangMai

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Has to start but he can derail after starting?

There is some debate on whether it even has to start. https://www.niskanencenter.org/is-a-...rial-optional/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Are you saying Ty was wrong to refer to "Congressmen" instead of "Senators?" If so, he was not. Both Senators and Representatives are Congressmen.

LessinChiangMai

No. I was assuming he was using the term to refer to the House, as it is frequently used.

I don't think even he thinks the Senators that matter will apply any standard in earnest. They won't even think about it. The 1/3 that would save Trump are already drafting their acquittals.

If it even comes to that. This is just an inquiry for the moment. Pelosi and McConnell, who do deals, can find a way to slow play and ineffectually run this thing so it fizzles.

Warren has to be loving this. Joe's getting tarnished, Trump's in the soup, and Bernie's fading. She's got a nice track forward if this thing persists. I can't imagine how many financial firms are calling their lobbyists and freaking out. "Joe and Trump are dragging each other down the toilet, and, and, that leaves... Warren???"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nope. I'm more interesting in talking to people who don't share my beliefs. But you don't seem to believe in anything.

I thought about this. First I'd say we shouldn't use "believe." We should use "conclude." I can conclude certain things based on what I observe. Belief is a different animal. That's coming to every issue with a set of values and letting those values guide how you approach each issue. That creates rigidity. That's a lot of what's causing polarization in our society.

Each situation is different. "Values" or "beliefs" are a narcissism that blinds people from seeing each situation subjectively.

So, in regard to the types of issues before us here, in the US, no, I don't really "believe" in any set of principles to the point that I can't be swayed. If I thought Trump really was an existential threat to democracy, I'd have a different conclusion. But I don't. I think he's a natural phenomenon that can occur (in many forms) when an entrenched and myopic governing class ignores problems or papers over them for decades. He's been coming for a long time. Be thankful this populist wave is here in the form of a buffoon like Trump. Imagine if it arose in the form of a cunning and shrewd statesperson who could actually get things done.

I don't want the bundle of things Trump is selling. But I also don't want to be governed by the people aligned in resistance to him. I can't really "believe" anything here because I see little worth getting behind on either side. I see a system in disarray and society, myself included, that deserves to suffer the national nervous breakdown we are at the moment.

The horse race fascinates me because it's all that matters. You talk of who did what and whether it was illegal and how awful it was. Or when Presidents you like are in office, you talk about how great their achievements have been. That's nice, but it ignores how things get done, the only real laws: Power and Political Skill. The system is one of winners and losers. Getting into the legality or illegality of what Trump does is only relevant in terms of determining whether it's bad enough to make a difference in the political power game.

In a game where power and skill are the only things of relevance, I guess you can pick a team. But you don't "believe" in that team or its basket of policies.

If I see a candidate whose policies I conclude are well considered and will help the country, and either help me or won't hurt me too much to make such a vote irrational, I'll support that candidate. The last candidate to have done that would be Jimmy Carter, way back when, in the Crisis of Confidence speech. He nailed it. He was thinking ahead. Maybe Warren will do the same. I sense she has the mettle for it.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Warren has to be loving this. Joe's getting tarnished, Trump's in the soup, and Bernie's fading. She's got a nice track forward if this thing persists. I can't imagine how many financial firms are calling their lobbyists and freaking out. "Joe and Trump are dragging each other down the toilet, and, and, that leaves... Warren???"

Trump will reach a bullshit trade "deal" with China, the markets will surge, and middle america will vote the economy. This is not the issue on which to hang Trump. It's too nebulous and confusing.

Worse, the Democrats are not stating the message well. It should be - "Congress, which has Constitutionally has the power of the purse, approved this military aid (i.e your tax dollars!) to Ukraine (a country invaded by Russia twice in the last 5 years!), and Trump unconstitutionally withheld (i.e. used) that appropriated military aid (your tax dollars!) against this known invader for the crass purpose of gaining an advantage against a political opponent here at home. He has committed a high crime and misdemeanor against Congress, America and you."

LessinChiangMai

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Are you saying Ty was wrong to refer to "Congressmen" instead of "Senators?" If so, he was not. Both Senators and Representatives are Congressmen.

LessinChiangMai

As someone who has had to deal with official etiquette for such folks, this is incorrect. A handful of people, usually reporters who don't actually have to introduce, list, or seat people, have argued that because "congress" includes both the house and senate "congressman" and "congresswomen" should include Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate. However, if you call a Member of the Senate "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" you will quickly be corrected, and if you persist in making the argument their staff will point out that the etiquette is you use the highest title so even if it is not wrong it shouldn't be used. By the way, this goes for "Members of Congress" too.

--- Greedy Vanderbilt

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Worse, the Democrats are not stating the message well. It should be - "Congress, which has Constitutionally has the power of the purse, approved this military aid (i.e your tax dollars!) to Ukraine (a country invaded by Russia twice in the last 5 years!), and Trump unconstitutionally withheld (i.e. used) that appropriated military aid (your tax dollars!) against this known invader for the crass purpose of gaining an advantage against a political opponent here at home. He has committed a high crime and misdemeanor against Congress, America and you."

Have heard some Democratic Congresscritters say this, but not enough.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Trump will reach a bullshit trade "deal" with China, the markets will surge, and middle america will vote the economy. This is not the issue on which to hang Trump. It's too nebulous and confusing.

Worse, the Democrats are not stating the message well. It should be - "Congress, which has Constitutionally has the power of the purse, approved this military aid (i.e your tax dollars!) to Ukraine (a country invaded by Russia twice in the last 5 years!), and Trump unconstitutionally withheld (i.e. used) that appropriated military aid (your tax dollars!) against this known invader for the crass purpose of gaining an advantage against a political opponent here at home. He has committed a high crime and misdemeanor against Congress, America and you."

LessinChiangMai

I don't know. There's a lot more information to come out. One transcript is not the whole record of what the whistle blower whistled.

If there isn't more, I tend to agree with you. But again, you are assuming an incumbent with a strategy, acting rationally. This moron, one day after skating out of the Mueller thing, engages in this phone call? I could see him holding tight on China and trying to placate the voters getting hammered by the trade war with more subsidies.

We're on the Do Long Bridge with this guy.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As someone who has had to deal with official etiquette for such folks, this is incorrect. A handful of people, usually reporters who don't actually have to introduce, list, or seat people, have argued that because "congress" includes both the house and senate "congressman" and "congresswomen" should include Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate. However, if you call a Member of the Senate "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" you will quickly be corrected, and if you persist in making the argument their staff will point out that the etiquette is you use the highest title so even if it is not wrong it shouldn't be used. By the way, this goes for "Members of Congress" too.

--- Greedy Vanderbilt

Agreed as to usage, but not as to historical or technical correctness. And the OED sides with me. https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/d...s-congressmen/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So assume in the absence of that, most of the Senate and House will apply standards similar to Fed Evidence rules and caselaw regarding how those are applied.

Are you really so stupid as to believe that this is how people, much less politicians, actually make decisions? Because it isn't.