Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

So if Cohen testified to criminal acts in coordination with Trump

Literally, or by inference?

If literally, would that mean cases against Trump could be grown out of these per default? Is that something that happens in the American system?

How him being sentenced effect for example the chances how him testifying against Trump in a trial as part of a "testify upwards plea deal", something I've heard talk of that the prosecution is likely pursuing as a means to secure evidence?

[Trekkin]

Impeachment talk is suddenly coming into fashion. It is premature, imo, but a sign that the Mueller probe is building momentum. Given that Donald's current lawyer is also apparently cooperating, it's rough stuff for the Trump.

 if nothing else this will make it much harder to claim the probe is a bunch of nonsense. Sure, Trump will still say that, but it'll be less believable when his surrogates repeat it.

Strictly speaking, though, Cohen admitted to crimes that aren't related to Russia. There's no new evidence of collusion, so Mueller isn't necessarily better off.

[RedKing]

Yeah, the multiple two terms in a row is rather unusual in US history. Also, with Trumps low approval and some Trump voters having buyers remorse, the Dems would have to fail pretty hard to lose in 2020 IMO.

Somewhere, the Democratic National Committee just said, "Hold my pinot grigio..."

If anyone can fumble the ball at the 1-yard line, it's the Democratic Party.

[nenjin]

Yeah, the multiple two terms in a row is rather unusual in US history. Also, with Trumps low approval and some Trump voters having buyers remorse, the Dems would have to fail pretty hard to lose in 2020 IMO.

Somewhere, the Democratic National Committee just said, "Hold my pinot grigio..."

If anyone can fumble the ball at the 1-yard line, it's the Democratic Party.

^

If Trump stabbed a baby while shouting from the podium, I'd only give Democrats a 50% chance of retaking anything.

If Dems are smart, they will quietly bide their time with dignity. But I feel like that gif above is demonstrative of how a lot of dems will react, which will just entrench his base to even more ludicrous degrees. Remember, his base loathes Democrats more than anything else in this world.

[smjjames]

Yeah, the multiple two terms in a row is rather unusual in US history. Also, with Trumps low approval and some Trump voters having buyers remorse, the Dems would have to fail pretty hard to lose in 2020 IMO.

Somewhere, the Democratic National Committee just said, "Hold my pinot grigio..."

If anyone can fumble the ball at the 1-yard line, it's the Democratic Party.

^

If Trump stabbed a baby while shouting from the podium, I'd only give Democrats a 50% chance of retaking anything.

If Dems are smart, they will quietly bide their time with dignity. But I feel like that gif above is demonstrative of how a lot of dems will react, which will just entrench his base to even more ludicrous degrees. Remember, his base loathes Democrats more than anything else in this world.

What gif?

[Trekkin]

But I feel like that gif above is demonstrative of how a lot of dems will react, which will just entrench his base to even more ludicrous degrees. Remember, his base loathes Democrats more than anything else in this world.

Do you see a way to do anything other than entrench them, though? At this point anyone still showing up to Trump's rallies is unlikely to be swayed by any argument put forth by a Democrat -- or, indeed, anyone other than Trump or his surrogates, if they've bought fully into everything thus far.

With the current progressive/centrist split in the party, uniting against people who were never going to vote for them anyway might be a smarter strategy than otherwise.

[smjjames]

It's not the ones who are complete utter zealots that the Democrats should target, it's the types who are having buyers remorse about voting for Trump. It'd be a waste of energy to try and flip the core which would never flip on Trump anyway.

As for the split in the party, they're united against Trump, so, I don't see that neccesarily being a problem. As long as the DNC doesn't do any dumb stuff to further exacerbate the current split, it shouldn't be a problem.

A crowded primary will likely also be healthy for the party since they can hash out their differences.

[nenjin]

This is just my take but....

Trump's base needs to cool the fuck down. They need a sobering taste of reality.

What works against that is triumphant dems going "neener neener neener." That will keep Trumpians angry, resentful and belligerent for much longer. Assuming something can actually be made of this, I think Dems need to not crow about it. (Not that impeachment hearings can honestly be anything but political theater.)

I guess what I'm saying is, "We told you so" isn't going to turn the temperature down on politics in this country. Die hard Trumpians are going to call conspiracy and fake news and everything no matter what you do....it's the folks somewhere closer to the middle that need the space to gracefully convince themselves they didn't back a delirious, corrupt, oligarchic baboon. That's less likely to happen if Dems are all the things conservative republicans expect them to be: smug, loud, self-righteous, etc...even though that perfectly describes Trump backers over the last couple of years.

smjjames pretty much said it too.

[smjjames]

There is definetly going to be some heavy meta-analysis after the midterms about the way forward for the Dems, and theres already hints that it's the interface zone between rural/urban, the suburbs (accidential pun I think, heh), that is going to be key.

[Trekkin]

I guess what I'm saying is, "We told you so" isn't going to turn the temperature down on politics in this country. Die hard Trumpians are going to call conspiracy and fake news and everything no matter what you do....it's the folks somewhere closer to the middle that need the space to gracefully convince themselves they didn't back a delirious, corrupt, oligarchic baboon.

They did exactly that, though. Laying aside the question of whether we should let them lie to themselves about how they were suckered into this, when Real America finally took the wheel, they swerved hard right and drove straight into a ditch. Their shame at that isn't going to be much affected by Democratic sanctimony, I think, and if bitter resentment got them to the polls the first time, pigheaded unwillingness to look facts in the face will probably get them back.

I just don't know how much Democrats will really matter here. The buyer's remorse crowd already wants out; they just need a non-baboonist conservative with a national platform. The specifically anti-Hillary folks are easy to appease. Who, then, is left in Trump's camp and at Trump's rallies but the diehards, and what practical use are they except as a rhetorical punching bag for the next fifty years?

Honestly, were I in the DNC, at this point I'd start proposing putting trigger warnings before football games and so forth specifically to piss off the Trumpians. Heck, run actual Trump voter (photographic) safaris with pith helmets and everything. The people who will tut-tut about the high road will fall in line behind anyone-but-Trump anyway and the Democratic base will have fun with it.

[nenjin]

That's the kind of arrogance and partisanship that got us here in the first place. But I guess if you want to permanently entrench an ever widening rabid right and ensure we get the same level of completely preposterous rhetoric for the next two cycles, that's one way to do it. A safari hunt on Trumpians isn't going to get the Buyer's Remorse people to be more reasonable next time around or go back to valuing progressive social change or responsibility or our reputation on the world stage. It's just going to further convince them that both side suck and vote for the next interesting demagogue to come along.

If you put conservative republicans in a corner over this, they're just going to fight back that much harder and unreasonably. Yeah, yeah, everyone wants them to have their comeuppance instead of letting them slink back in to obscurity until the next crack pot wins the nomination. But vengeance isn't what we need right now. We need to move the fuck on.

[smjjames]

Something like a Safari with pith helmets on Trumpians would probably alienate some Democrats and independents as well because it'd be too far. I could see some sort of Monty Python-esque sketch doing that, but in real life, no way.

Going out of the way to mock and intentionally piss off conservatives isn't going to win Democrats any elections.

[Frumple]

Moving the fuck on largely consists of motivating demographics that aren't that particular lot, though. The thing about that entrenched rabid right is that it's not widening, and thanks to the racist fuckjobbery the American right-wing embraces, it's not bloody going to.

It wasn't arrogance or leftwing partisanship that got us here, frankly. It was rightwing malfeasance and leftwing apathy brought about in part by literal foreign intervention. If getting some cheap shots in on those that supported the former helps mitigate the latter, it's probably a good move.

[Trekkin]

That's the kind of arrogance and partisanship that got us here in the first place. But I guess if you want to permanently entrench an ever widening rabid right and ensure we get the same level of completely preposterous rhetoric for the next two cycles, that's one way to do it. A safari hunt on Trumpians isn't going to get the Buyer's Remorse people to be more reasonable next time around or go back to valuing progressive social change or responsibility or our reputation on the world stage. It's just going to further convince them that both side suck and vote for the next interesting demagogue to come along.

If you put conservative republicans in a corner over this, they're just going to fight back that much harder and unreasonably. Yeah, yeah, everyone wants them to have their comeuppance instead of letting them slink back in to obscurity until the next crack pot wins the nomination. But vengeance isn't what we need right now. We need to move the fuck on.

I kind of do want that, yes*, if only so we'll stop trying to bring them back into the fold -- because, as I said above, I don't think they can come back no matter what we do. If they haven't jumped ship by now, they're either happy with all this or too invested to openly regret their decision. Every time we ask how we bring them back and move on, the answer is almost always some form of compromise which is then immediately converted into a unilateral loss on our part amid rhetoric about how "elections have consequences" and so forth.

If there's another way to accommodate them, I'd be all for it, but it seems to me that they're already permanently entrenched; if nothing else, how long has the Southern Strategy been going for? We keep pretending that Trump Country is a fixable problem when it seems more like it's just a more honest face put on decades of existing entrenchment.

What does a path out look like for them, legislatively and rhetorically? What do they not already have a ready way to dismiss?

*less the actual hunting. I did specify a photographic safari; I don't want anyone hurt.

[nenjin]

I've always rejected the idea that "They" are not part of the fabric of America. For better or worse, they are. You can't get rid of them, you can only marginalize them for so long, and whether you like it or not, they're part of every debate in this country. So rather than shaming them for our own entertainment and gratification, giving them the space to come to a more reasonable place is the only way IMO that you let them walk back from radicalism. Mocking them just increases the likelihood that they will double down on the stupid, because "Fuck Democrats."