r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
Democrats announce impeachment. TheMotte: "Trump is actually fucking with my head now...How the hell does this happen? How on earth do Trumps enemies seem to just keep falling over on their own faces over and over and over again?" (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/d97mq7/democrats_announce_impeachment_themotte_trump_is/)
57

The Trump whistleblower story is finally being mentioned on TheMotte for the first time. As OP notes:

We have yet to discuss the Biden-Trump-Ukraine story, I thought maybe because it doesn’t lend itself well to becoming a scissor statement. Biden is on tape declaring that he told Ukraine to cancel their investigation, Hunter Biden was making 0k/month for an oil-gas job he had little experience for, and I have yet to see this contention in dispute. There is heavy debate over what Trump did and whether it was appropriate, but the only story so far is media characterization of a whistleblower report where the whistleblower in question didn’t hear the actual phone call. I figured this was blowing over.

It is odd that a Trump scandal dominating the news hasn’t been discussed on a forum where both left and right views are fairly argued and discussed such as themotte, isn’t it?

 

My of-course-they-killed-Epstein-level cynical view. The primary purpose of politics is to enrich yourself and your family subject to the constraint that you have to do this without getting voters too upset. One easy way is to get foreigners to hire your not-very-bright relatives. By questioning this practice (for what I grant are self-serving political ends) Trump unites both parties against him and so really does risk impeachment.

That certainly explains the Rational view of politics.

 

Is “family members being given positions they are totally unqualified for and seemingly only to enrich themselves” a card that Team Trump really would want to play?

.

Yeah of course. Jared isn’t being paid 0k per month.

Because the controversy around Jared is about his salary.

 

Well impeaching POTUS would be only the first step out of two in removing him from office. First step is likely according to betting markets, but the second one is not. I’d say the chances of Senate getting 60 votes in the election year would be impossible. They probably wouldn’t be able to even get 50 votes since there are some Dems in tossup states that wouldn’t want to rock the boat.

Nothing could stop him from running next year even if they do somehow manage to remove him. And if it is not a clear case I think his chance of winning would be much higher then normal.

Removing Trump from office would actually help his chance of winning reelection. That’s not a galaxy brain take; that’s an observable universe take.

 

Yeah, I don’t doubt that Trump has done (and will do, and even craves doing) several things that, I think, make him unfit to hold the office of the president. The problem is, they are the same things that presidents of all parties have been doing for decades, and what we’re seeing here is a selective call for enforcement that unlikely to be applied to any future Democrat president. My preference would be for Trump and all the other dirty politicians to end up in jail or permanent disgrace. However, in the current circumstances, I see him as a necessary bulwark against a tide of lunacy, and object to this singling out of him as uniquely problematic.

Left without comment

 

A commenter asks “What other president gave aid conditional on a foreign country creating a problem for a domestic opponent?”, and the responses he receives in defense of Trump are Nixon and Reagan delaying the release of the Iranian hostages.

 

Add in calling NPR pravda and the classic “Trump has been the most anti-Russian president since Lyndon Johnson” and you have a classing rationalist political discussion.

 

And in case you thought the title was hyperbole, the full quote is:

Trump is actually fucking with my head now. I don’t understand this. They wait and wait and wait on actual impeachment proceedings, and then finally go forward on this? Not only does this not sound like it will stick, it it ALSO may implicate Biden. How the hell does this happen? How on earth do Trumps enemies seem to just keep falling over on their own faces over and over and over again?

 

Of course now discussion has moved to the “not a verbatim” transcript. Reading through that thread and comparing it to the Republican talking points about the transcript is left as an exercise to the reader.

Yeah of course. Jared isn’t being paid 0k per month.

Maybe this person is being sarcastic but the Saudi’s bailed kushner out to the tune of a billion dollars. MBS bragged about Jared being in his pocket.

[deleted]
Politics really is the mind killer, amirite guys?

if you deplatform trump you will only make him stronger

The 'If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine!' bluff didn't work for Old Ben, lets see how it works out for Trump.
But think of it. No more national coverage of his dumb fucking tweets, the rise and fall of the Trump cable news network...

My of-course-they-killed-Epstein-level cynical view. The primary purpose of politics is to enrich yourself and your family subject to the constraint that you have to do this without getting voters too upset. One easy way is to get foreigners to hire your not-very-bright relatives. By questioning this practice (for what I grant are self-serving political ends) Trump unites both parties against him and so really does risk impeachment.

This is a pretty typical take from the so-called rationalists. They assume they’re smart because they are cynical.

I mean I know they're not coming at it from this direction but that's pretty in-line with Capital As Power theory
the difference is they say this and then try to say how trump is a brave warrior fighting against it, which, utter lmao
Are you telling me that high level elected officials in the United States of America are in it for self-serving reasons? Sounds like something a rationalist would say.
Yeah, this jumped out at me. It mist come from being (or believing yourself to be) too privilegedly insulated from policy to believe people are actually affected by it. Or, it occurred to me as I typed that, too RaTiOnAlLy devoid of empathy to even have meta-empathy (the belief that other people have empathy)

It’s amazing how the same people who would describe themselves as “liberals” or “centrists, who just hate how the SJW’s have radicalized everything” have responses that are basically the same as right wingers.

Hell, David French is more upset about this than they are.

Nothing could stop him from running next year even if they do somehow manage to remove him. And if it is not a clear case I think his chance of winning would be much higher then normal.

Except Article I, section 3, clause 7 in the US constitution which states:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States

I think that only prevents being appointed to office though. Otherwise, how did Alcee Hastings run? Edit: Upon further reflection, the second clause is conditional. The Senate may set that requirement, but is not required to.

Unrelated to this the motte post. (It is all too tl;dr for me atm). My fave post on the impeachement stuff was somebody basically going ‘if trump goes down for this, biden also goes down for this, checkmate libtards!’. Which is a bit ‘checkmate, if you take my king, I will take your pawn, you lose!’.

Both of them going down would be more like "If you take my king, I'll also throw in a bishop."
Underrated

Can we denote an “arrogant teenager explains shit they have no grasp of” wing of internet rationalism? Or this that too broad of a characterization?

That's more like just a wing of the internet in general.

How on earth do Trumps enemies seem to just keep falling over on their own faces over and over and over again?

this is true tho

Yeah, but it’s not because of 12d chess. It’s because when your an R president with an R senate and R house, you have a lot of power and a lot of protection. There’s only one power congress has over the president, and the house has finally decided to use it.

The motte is full of dummies, but no one should doubt Schumer+Pelosi’s ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

Having a normal one…

[deleted]

they said they don't remember Bloomberg's address; the person who lives in the house they linked to is only identified in their comment as "a billionaire Bush donor".
You are right, my bad.
no worries!

TheMotte is awful, but on a purely cynical political level I agree that the politics of impeachment are terrible, Ukraine or not. I get that the left is happy to offer Biden on the altar for their own reasons, but I still don’t see how this advances the goal of removing Trump from office. Removal via impeachment would require a GOP with non-cowards.

> Removal via impeachment would require a GOP with non-cowards. All it requires is that protecting Trump become costlier, in terms of political support for Republican senators, than letting him hang. Which could be the case if the investigation uncovers irrefutable evidence of crimes. More to the point, though, impeachment without conviction would still be very damaging to Trump and the Republicans. And *it's the right thing to do.*
The right thing to do is frequently terrible politics. In this case, it's also pointlessly symbolic. AND THERE IS AN ELECTION RIGHT AFTERWARDS ANYWAY. > All it requires is that protecting Trump become costlier, in terms of political support for Republican senators, than letting him hang. Ok, sure. All it requires is that a whole bunch of Republican voters suddenly care about Ukraine. All it requires is that a bunch of voters who were willing to let the last ten impeachable offenses slide suddenly care about *this phone call* as the last straw. All it requires is a bunch of counterfactuals.
This is pretty weird to me tbh. Here in Europe govs fall all the time and then there simply are new elections, I don't think I have seen 'we will let this slide because there are elections soon anyway'. Calling the other parties out on their shit is important, even if it fails. Else how are you going to message you take their bad shit seriously?
I just don't think it sends much of a message other than "we are impotent."
It's not like not impeaching him gave any indication that Democrats weren't impotent.
Opening the impeachment inquiry has immediately resulted in the release of the call transcript and the trump admin agreeing to turn over the whistleblower report to Congress and to allow the ig to testify in front of congress tomorrow. It will also help the Democrats obtain documents in all their other investigations. It’s not pointless, and it’s not symbolic.
What is the virtue of having documentation on how corrupt your president is if you *cannot remove him from office* and *his supporters don't care*? The ability to say "I told you so?" Some abstract sense of completionism? Knowing full well how corrupt your leaders are and being unable to stop them only normalizes corruption and communicates the complete ineffectiveness of the system as a whole and the total lack of power our party has right now. The damage Trump is doing to the constitutional order is real and the only way to stop the bleeding, that I can see, is to remove him from power ASAP using whatever means are available and then bleach the premises of any trace of him. Going all in on proceduralism, especially when those procedures will not actually stop the problem, and will probably torpedo one your opposition candidates to boot, is not strategic and also makes you look much more concerned with formalities than with the actual problems people want you to solve. It's a perfect storm of bad decision-making: taking the moral high ground on an issue few people care about than for no other reason than to say you have the moral high ground. The only strategic argument I have seen for impeachment -- and this is a big maybe -- is that putting Trump through a trial in the Senate ties him down to DC at a time when he would otherwise be campaigning. This is pretty iffy but at least it's trying.
Well, at a minimum, that documentation may be important to voters in the next election. But what do you think the better alternative is?
The mostly-winning strategy from 2018 was to pretend Trump does not exist and focus on what Dems would do better -- much like what Warren's campaign is doing now. Win in the election, and you have removed Trump from office. Remove via impeachment and you...still have to win the election anyway. There's the separate problem of McConnell, but we'll burn that bridge when we get there.
That’s fair. But they had investigations going on during that campaign too. I don’t think Warren has made any big statements about impeachment. I think they can do both things at the same time again.
Warren has also called for impeachment.
Impeachment isn't "let's hold a vote right now with the currently public information". It's a longer process, and opening it gives the House more power to investigate. The case against Nixon was largely built on the House Judiciary Committee investigations too, and surely we don't think we've seen the worst there is to uncover? Also with over a thousand former federal prosecutors signing a statement that the Mueller Report would result in multiple felony charges if it wasn't for DoJ's policy to not indict a sitting president, I'm pretty hopeful about what's going to happen with Trump after his term, and at that point I'd love to have the GOP senators on record voting in his defence. I don't think the Ukraine scandal specifically changes much here and would have said the same before that blew up, but if it's what it takes to get the do-nothing establishment democrats moving, I'll take it.
Yes, I understand the impeachment process. I just don't see what possible information it could uncover that would sway any GOP senators or would even make them scared to go on the record, as you suggest, rejecting impeachment. Nixon was president in a different era, before the arrival of right-wing talk radio and Fox News. Voters were persuadable on process issues.
[removed]
The admins get pissy over anything that vaguely smacks of threats of violence—unless of course that violence is carried out by police, the carceral system, the US military, etc. So I have to remove this.
Deleted it, it was certainly not meant as a call to violence or action, just to point out the sillyness of it all. My bad sorry.
No need to apologize. I'm just doing what needs to be done to ensure trolls can't call the admins down on sneerclub.
in minecraft
ow yes, im not calling for a new civil war. (Esp as I live on a different continent) I'm just trying to point out the sillyness of the 2a stuff.

Can’t BELIEVE anybody would suggest that the Bidens are cynical and greedy!

Joe Biden is demonstrably neither cynical nor greedy. He's an *idiot,* granted, and he shouldn't be running for president, but if he were cynical and greedy, he'd have managed to turn his absurdly long history of holding public office into, you know, even a fraction of the wealth that nearly all of his Senate colleagues enjoy.
Definitely nothing cynical about doing the bidding of credit card companies for years. Couldn't have had anything to do with those companies being a politically powerful force, and deep source of campaign money, in Delaware, Biden's home state. He must have done it out of a deep and abiding concern for the livelihoods of collection agents and people who sell yachts.
Unironically: yeah. Just doing what’s best for his constituents! Same reason he flipped on busing. He was for it until he realized his voters weren’t. Stupid, certainly. Craven, absolutely. But cynical he ain’t.
Unironically: no.
joe biden is hilarious because he sucks so bad at corruption
That's one reason, yes. You'd think MBNA would have taken care of him enough that his son wouldn't have to go "work" for some shady gas company--that bankruptcy bill by itself was easily worth a few mil--but I guess ol' Joe forgot to negotiate!

[deleted]

What you only want to start fighting Trump at the start of his third term? That is crazy.
The worst thing you can do is be defeatist. Waiting it out isn’t an option for everyone.

Bro Trump is going to be impeached this time bro this is different that was Russia this is Ukraine bro it’s a different strain bro you have to believe me bro different strain

yeah, he’s going to be impeached. There’s 218 votes right now.
This is just like the other times there were 218 votes and some republicans saying 'this is bad'. ;)
How's the impeachment going you dem bootlickers ahahhaha