The Gaming Den

Mistborn wrote:Honestly I'm not interested in arguing narrow semantics. What would it take for you to believe that Pelosi is seriously doing impeachment and not just cravenly kicking the can down the road? 'cause I assume that if impeachment doesn't happen you'll blame Pelosi and if it does you'll credit someone else and blame Pelosi for it not being faster. So I don't see a point in extending this argument.

She's the speaker of the house, she could have called a vote yesterday, she could call one today.

If someone wanted to convince me that Pelosi wasn't slowrolling impeachment to waste time then maybe they should go back in time and silence the members who leaked the information that she's opposing impeachment!

There's a list of the members who have signed on to impeachment and it has four P names and zero of them are Pelosi.

and a motion for impeachment.

Me: There are 131 House democrats who have already cosponsored impeachment articles. Pelosi may very well lose this fight, but it is a fight.

Pelosi: Not talking about impeachment.

*hours long argument between democratic house members*

Pelosi: Okay look, what if I ask him to resign a thing that will definitely have any effect and we impeach him on Wednesday.

You: WOW GOT YOU NOW!

If I wanted to prove kaelik wrong on this I would've found something that had her actually processing impeachment. I don't think a pic of her saying that impeachment is a thing that can happen is all that convincing.

MGuy wrote:If I wanted to prove kaelik wrong on this I would've found something that had her actually processing impeachment. I don't think a pic of her saying that impeachment is a thing that can happen is all that convincing.

I also want to stress that 9 hours ago I was posting about how the house democrat's were currently having a fight to decide what to do. So posting the results of that fight as proof it never happened is weird.

I would love to know the theory of politics that Mistborn subscribes to where Nancy Pelosi was always 100% pro impeachment immediately, had the power to do it at any time, and made an announcement that didn't say impeachment, then went and talked to her caucus for several hours, then made a new announcement that said they would consider impeachment at some point in the future.

Does he believe Nancy Pelosi was being chickenshit and hiding her preferences before, then had to compromise with the conservative members of the caucus and agree to have no impeachment proceedings until next week at the earliest? That she effectively lost on her goal to have impeachment as soon as possible?

That image is a bit wide, could do with spoilering.

Ways you know the US Capitol riot wasn't leftists (besides the obvious)- a leftist who broke into Pelosi's office would have left her a Halloween decoration spinal column with a bow on it.

If they weren't a complete idiot they'd would steal some of her documents or hard drives, too. Fuck photo ops and whatever the hell a spinal column is supposed to signal.

Whatever wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:Trump isn't particularly serious about stealing the election. He is just posturing. And the other Republicans don't really want or need for him to win, they've got what they want.

This is a terrible take. We all know that Trump is literally incapable of the discipline and self-reflection necessary to be good at anything. So when he does a shit job, that's hardly proof that he's indifferent to the outcome--he's always going to do a shit job!

We know the things he wants to do because he tells us. He's spent months announcing in public that his plan was to steal the election if he lost. Now he's going through all the steps of that plan. Poorly, yes, but he's committed to it. And that means we should expect him to continue escalating things, to the point of actual violence. Because he is very much not "just posturing".

And here we are.

edit: just so we're clear, this is the beginning of the violence.

What? This is exactly what I or anyone else expected. Some pointless riots.

And no one said there wouldn't be violence.

But you think this is the beginning of a successful coup?

You seriously think that?

Really?

I don't think it's the beginning of a successful coup (unless people who know what the fuck they would do with that kind of access decide to actually cosplay Trumpers so the cops open the doors for them), but I also think it's incredibly disingenuous to call it the beginning of violence. Right Wingers have been killing people for years, the beginning of Trumper violence was back in 2016 or 2015...

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:If they weren't a complete idiot they'd would steal some of her documents or hard drives, too. Fuck photo ops and whatever the hell a spinal column is supposed to signal.

They kinda did:

https://sofrep.com/news/breaking-comput ... JWxX9DUMYQ

Nancy pelosi is going to pass a resolution on tuesday to ask pence to do the thing he already said he wouldnt do on last Wednesday because she believes he just didnt have any staff watch her press conference on Thursday.

But perhaps by maybe Wednesday of next week she might start the process of scheduling a vote for impeachment on thursday.

This is what happens when a party leadership is so gun shy about being responsible for literally anything that they just keep begging other people to do their job for them instead of doing it.

I say party leadership because over 170 members were cosponsors of impeachment on friday.

Leress wrote:

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:If they weren't a complete idiot they'd would steal some of her documents or hard drives, too. Fuck photo ops and whatever the hell a spinal column is supposed to signal.

They kinda did:

https://sofrep.com/news/breaking-comput ... JWxX9DUMYQ

Ah, they'd better post that shit!

Good article from the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/maga ... e=Homepage

Up to 218 who have signed on to the article of impeachment.

But we aren't even asking for unanimous consent on that so we can vote on it tomorrow. Instead we are just spending another two days passing a resolution to ask Mike Pence to pretty please do the thing we already asked him to do in a press conference.

EDIT: This is a war crime against my sanity:

In a separate interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. Clyburn suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was considering impeaching now but not sending the article to the Senate for trial for weeks — possibly until after Mr. Biden’s first 100 days in office. The Senate must immediately begin a trial when it receives impeachment articles, but it cannot begin one without them.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/10 ... rump-biden

PhoneLobster wrote:Some pointless riots.

The cool thing about fascists is that when they start doing political violence and it doesn't work, they stop immediately and never do it again.

The House has started the impeachment process. What does this mean if he is going to be out of office soon?

MGuy wrote:The House has started the impeachment process.

While I can understand why you would believe that because the media has been extremely shitty, describing the act of asking for unanimous consent and then scheduling a vote on a House Resolution to ask Pence to pretty please remove Trump as impeachment, what do you actually think they have done to "start" the impeachment process. Because as of today they have not in fact even asked for unanimous consent to proceed (and once they do and someone objects, probably wednesday, but at the point definitely tuesday at the earliest, it's another 24 hours before they can have a vote to proceed.)

Whatever wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:Some pointless riots.

The cool thing about fascists is that when they start doing political violence and it doesn't work, they stop immediately and never do it again.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously be a panic merchant freaking the fuck out over a minor riot.

Then at the same time ignore the various claims I've made, in the post you originally quoted, that you are on the verge of potential coup.

Well actually, I do understand. You have baby brain. You don't understand the complexities of political power and scary news stories scare you.

So a warning about the Republican party rigging an coup for some undecided future date and the political instability that could accidentally trigger it goes right the fuck over your head.

But footage of some dumb angry cattle roaming around bumping into shit and dying of heart attacks in a building that you are fairly sure is important makes you shit your pants.

If you had a deeper understanding of politics you would know that people like you, shallow easily manipulated rubes, are one of the main contributing factors that makes these bad things and more potentially viable.

Apparently, if he's impeached, he retro-actively wasn't the President in the sense that he loses, forever, all the perks that come from having been one. Notably, ex-presidents get a Secret Service detachment to guard them and their under 16 kids, and he'll not have them between him and any deplorables who realises he's betrayed them.

Assuming he actually gets impeached, of course, not holding my breath.

Kaelik wrote:

MGuy wrote:The House has started the impeachment process.

While I can understand why you would believe that because the media has been extremely shitty, describing the act of asking for unanimous consent and then scheduling a vote on a House Resolution to ask Pence to pretty please remove Trump as impeachment, what do you actually think they have done to "start" the impeachment process. Because as of today they have not in fact even asked for unanimous consent to proceed (and once they do and someone objects, probably wednesday, but at the point definitely tuesday at the earliest, it's another 24 hours before they can have a vote to proceed.)

The way it's being sold to me by the media surrounding it is the certainty with which is seems to be talked about. I do not believe Pelosi and people like her want to go through with an impeachment and so what I'm guessing is going on here is that a deal was made. My guess is that the deal made was that they would wait until Tuesday (maybe Wednesday) at the latest and then it's going to happen. It would be extremely bad to get everyone in the media to say 'it's happening' just to get to that deadline and reverse course. At the very least I think they have to do something with this.

It'll probably ultimately fail and I'm also guessing that the grace period was made so that a bunch of conversations can be made.

The word from house members is "as early as wednesday" which still gives room for never, but I also dont know if they mean asking for unanimous consent on wednesday (in which case the vote is on thursday) or the vote on wednesday.

Also as I linked earlier, clyburn has been going around saying they might impeach and then just sit on the articles until 101 days into the biden presidency. Which is absolutely the funniest stupid thing I've ever heard because absolutely no republican is going to vote to convict if trump has not been president for 100 days. If that really is their plan....

I would not be surprised if Dems and the media sold even more of their credibility off because party leaders are allergic doing anything that isn't a symbolic gesture. It would be very dumb though to get everyone geared for impeachment (because we all know they have 'people' who make sure things like this get into the media) just to then do nothing with that energy. It's one thing for a good deal of them to be assuring the Republicans that as long as they didn't literally march into the chambers with the hooligans they won't be punished. It's another thing for them to have bothered putting impeachment out there just to about face on doing so for no gain.

Pence sent an official letter to Nancy Pelosi expressly saying that he won't be invoking the 25th amendment.

So we are continuing to vote on whether we will vote on a resolution to ask him to do so.

Also at least one rioter alleges he had inside help from three congress people. So really adds to the need to go forward with Cori Bush's bill to investigate and expel those members who contributed to this.