Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Depends how many of them think he can actually win.

Remember when Trump first showed up noone, including the majority of Repubs, cared for him at all. They only started attaching to him when he started gaining momentum and showing signs of coming through.

Hopeful thinking on my part, for sure, but the ones who were only along for the ride will probably turn on him if things get dicey. Depends on how well the Dems handle this.

The problem with that analysis is that there's no benefit to the inverse. Staying loyal contains a small-to-substantial chance of personal victory, while defecting almost definitely sacrifices your own political career. The RNC will primary defectors to discourage it in the future even if Sanders wins the nomination and looks on track to beat Reagan's record a year from now.

Think like a rightist would in this situation. Even if there's a possible alternative scenario where defectors break off or take over the RNC as Trump crashes in the background:

A. Would a rightist even think of that possibility?

B. And if they did think of it, what would they consider sufficient signs to gamble it all vs. sticking with Trump, who's already brought the GOP to its modern high mark?

This will not fucking happen. It wouldn't happen even if we got a full color video of Trump committing rape on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with the time and date displayed, much less this weird Ukrainian connection Cold War throwback thing that they're going with.

[Trekkin]

This might work in Trump's favor. Get it done early, get it over with, get the senate to vote no, and then he goes into the election with as clean a record as he can, having survived an impeachment attempt.

There's just over a year until the election, though. For the process to finish by then, Trump would have to cooperate. He's not psychologically capable of viewing a lawsuit as anything other than a fight between two people, and so cannot separate cooperation from concession -- and, being a fundamentally weak man, concession in anything is unthinkable. Besides, even if he wanted to produce anything Congress will demand, he's only ever filled his administration with deeply dysfunctional incompetents. There will almost certainly be some record they simply forgot to create out of a combination of disrespect for the rule of law and simple stupidity, and an equally laughable attempt to cover that up. They cannot help but obstruct justice because none of them can actually do anything, including comply with a subpoena, without a lobbyist to hold their hand and remind them which end of the pen goes on the paper to sign things.

Even if the White House had the willingness and ability to obey the law, at some point Trump will be asked to testify. That prospect alone was so disastrous Dowd left the White House over it; between his mental decrepitude and his sneering contempt for the concept of truth, the first time he's asked a question to which his answer will be broadcast without editing, he will fall completely apart. Everyone in the White House but Trump knows this, and they will scramble to prevent it.

Swift compliance, I think, is on par with his resignation in its improbability. Not impossible, but there are a lot of failure points.

[Doomblade187]

Now, the situation they are likely to actually vote to impeach him is if the polls drop and they start looking bad. This would, of course, be McConnell's orders.

[Trekkin]

Now, the situation they are likely to actually vote to impeach him is if the polls drop and they start looking bad. This would, of course, be McConnell's orders.

I would be surprised if they were to drop so precipitously when we already know his base actively cheers on his lawlessness.

[Doomblade187]

Now, the situation they are likely to actually vote to impeach him is if the polls drop and they start looking bad. This would, of course, be McConnell's orders.

I would be surprised if they were to drop so precipitously when we already know his base actively cheers on his lawlessness.

Yeah. It's unlikely.

[SalmonGod]

A couple things to keep in mind about Trump's base, since the nature of his popular support keeps coming up:

The far-right reactionaries only love a winner.  Hierarchy of winners and losers is baked deeply into their perception of the world.  Someone like Trump succeeds at presenting the confidence and skin-deep trappings of being a winner, and they'll get behind it.  The power in this is so long as Trump maintains this superficiality, reality can't touch him in the minds of his supporters.  The weakness in this is that as soon as any crack appears in that perception, that power will collapse quickly.  So long as he's in office and free to say whatever he wants, he's in the most powerful position of control over the narrative regarding his presidency, and can maintain the perception of being a winner.  Constantly complaining about how he doesn't respect the legal constraints and traditions of his office even works to his favor on this point, because it grants him an "above-it-all" winning appearance so long as he suffers no consequences.  But I think it might be harder for him to position himself for the same narrative control through impeachment proceedings.  The real threat of suffering consequences damages that "above-it-all" perception.  And as soon as it begins to look like there's a chance he could be impeached, I think you'll see his supporters turn on him hard.

Second, conservative loyalty only goes so far as it's useful to them.  Remember how quickly they turned on Bush Jr after he left office?  He'd served his purpose, and there was no benefit to invest energy in sticking up for him anymore.  By 2009, I hardly ever saw a single word in defense of him.  They'll stand by their man in the spotlight.  But as soon as they're out of the spotlight, it's easier to absolve oneself of association, lighten the baggage of the movement by leaving as much negative legacy behind with that individual, and move on to the next prospect of power.

[smjjames]

Weren’t they kind of souring on him towards the end of his second term anyway? Also, it wouldn’t be fair to label all of his base far-right wing reactionaries, but you still make the point about Bush Jr. and his standing with conservatives

Looks like the WH is feeling the pressure, they’re now preparing to release the whistleblower complaint.

[SalmonGod]

Weren’t they kind of souring on him towards the end of his second term anyway? Also, it wouldn’t be fair to label all of his base far-right wing reactionaries, but you still make the point about Bush Jr. and his standing with conservatives

I wasn't labeling all of his base far-right reactionaries.  But they are a significant faction.  Their size is debatable, but their influence is not.

[McTraveller]

Too bad you can't impeach people for being more interested in keeping their position than serving the country...

I mean, couldn't you simply impeach Trump just based on arguments that he's violated the oath of office?  I mean, "preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States" is not something that is easily observed by most modern politicians (especially the "preserve" part - many people are all about changing it).

Oh heh, betrayal of the Oath is actually quoted in the reason Pelosi gave for starting the inquiry.

[Reelya]

Second, conservative loyalty only goes so far as it's useful to them.  Remember how quickly they turned on Bush Jr after he left office?  He'd served his purpose, and there was no benefit to invest energy in sticking up for him anymore.  By 2009, I hardly ever saw a single word in defense of him.  They'll stand by their man in the spotlight.  But as soon as they're out of the spotlight, it's easier to absolve oneself of association, lighten the baggage of the movement by leaving as much negative legacy behind with that individual, and move on to the next prospect of power.

Bush was a liberal remember, who only got into the war because you liberals were pushing the war drums so hard, when all the conservatives were saying it was folly.

[sluissa]

Bush also left just as the market crashed and we were getting an idea of how bad it actually was. If there's one thing conservatives won't accept it's a President associated with a bad economy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

True only to the extent that "bad economy" is defined as the rich being unhappy. The economy has been without exception terrible for working people since 08, but they'll happily sublimate if they get a pat on the head from the saints of capital.

[sluissa]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ukraine-unredacted-call-transcript-read-ukraine-president-released-by-white-house-today-2019-09-25-live-updates/

White House apparently released the transcript.

It's not as damning as it could be, but it sounds pretty clear he's asking the President of Ukraine to look into the Biden family's activities.

Not saying those activities don't deserve to be looked into. I'm not going to defend Biden just to spite Trump. But there's other ways to do that other than Trump going around doing a shit job at pretending to be a private eye and dragging all sorts of conflict of interest questions into it.

As weak as it is, and as little as I expect to come of it, I hope it goes somewhere.

[Sergius]

It's not a transcript tho, just the part they wanted to share. It's another of their "memos".

There's at least 3 spots where stuff has been omitted with ellipsis. Right after one of them, the Ukranian prez makes reference to "specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue", no company has been mentioned, so that is omitted from the memo.

They just did such a bad job at it that even what's in there is pretty illegal:

• We do a lot for you, you don't do a lot for us - setting up the quid prop quo
• Investigate my political rival - already illegal, asking foreign countries for contributions (monetary or otherwise) in election campaign
• Your economy is going to get better from now on (he's withholding funds from Ukraine at this point) - quid pro quo, icing on the illegal cake

Nothing about this is weak, plus it opens the door to all the other stuff, a lot of which has been openly admitted to (such as obstruction of justice), the self-enrichment part (the stuff with the Trump tower, the golf clubs, and the things with the expensive hotels and armed forces, all of which is known publicly), plus a lot of the things that will probably come out, like money laundering and previous crimes.

EDIT: The thing is, there's already plenty of stuff from before that's objectively worse than this and impeachable. The only reason the Dems dragged their feet is that they care more about their own status than about damage to the public. But this one really hits them where it hurts them, an overt illegal attack on them and their chances of getting elected. So now they're mad. Not saying they won't fuck up again, but at least they have some motivation to try to do something about it.

[Frumple]

In related news of incompetence, the white house apparently emailed the house democrats their list of talking points on the ukraine call. Oops.