The News Thread

[The Ozzman]

seriously would have been happy-as-hell to see Trump Impeached

What has he done that is grounds for impeachment?

 

[CiG]

seriously would have been happy-as-hell to see Trump Impeached

Desperately hoping for someone you dislike to be impeached says so much about the person doing it.

 

[Dak]

 

[CiG]

lol Breitbart

Elizabeth Warren Releases DNA Test Showing 0.1-3.1% Native Ancestry

From the Daily Beast article:

UPDATE: The Cherokee Nation released a statement on Monday afternoon. “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely is inappropriate and wrong,” the tribe’s secretary of state wrote. “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

The statement concluded: “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.

This has been a pretty hilarious self-own. Another "white ally" bites the dust.

Ben Shapiro touched on this and actually had a funny idea: Trump should donate 0.001 of the million dollars he pledged to a charity of her choice.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

What has he done that is grounds for impeachment?

can't hear tone-of-voice in print, but this totally sounds like a snarky sarcastic statement
you should have at least taken the 3 seconds to do this "Trump" "impeachment" - Google Search

 

[The Ozzman]

Just polls and opinion pieces. Nothing that says 'Trump has done X which is grounds for impeachment' because it would have happened already if they had evidence or a reason to do so

 

[Einherjar86]

Just polls and opinion pieces. Nothing that says 'Trump has done X which is grounds for impeachment' because it would have happened already if they had evidence or a reason to do so

There's no reason to think this is true. The republican party is more or less a sycophantic blob of shit, and they'll keep him there as long as he gives them what they want.

I'm not saying he has done anything impeachable; I think it's questionable whether he has. But I also think it's questionable whether he'd be impeached even if evidence did come to light. The base will cry fake news and the republicans will play along.

 

[The Ozzman]

There's no reason to think this is true. The republican party is more or less a sycophantic blob of shit, and they'll keep him there as long as he gives them what they want.

I'm not saying he has done anything impeachable; I think it's questionable whether he has. But I also think it's questionable whether he'd be impeached even if evidence did come to light. The base will cry fake news and the republicans will play along.

At this very moment, he wouldn't be impeached because they wouldn't have enough votes. If the Dems take back Congress (which they won't), there are talks of them beginning proceedings and it'll probably be for some bullshit reason.

 

[Dak]

sycophantic blob of shit, and they'll keep him there as long as he gives them what they want.

Isn't this both parties? I recall the anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-Wall St, anti-corruption left pretty much vanishing from 08-16.

 

[CiG]

can't hear tone-of-voice in print, but this totally sounds like a snarky sarcastic statement
you should have at least taken the 3 seconds to do this "Trump" "impeachment" - Google Search

Impeach your account.

 

[The Ozzman]

Canada becomes even more degenerate and legalizes recreational marijuana. Congratulations, you decadent fucks.

 

[Einherjar86]

Isn't this both parties? I recall the anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-Wall St, anti-corruption left pretty much vanishing from 08-16.

Except they didn't, which is partly why Clinton lost. That and the republicans didn't care who was nominated, as long as they won.

At this very moment, he wouldn't be impeached because they wouldn't have enough votes.

Which goes to my point. Even if he committed an impeachable offense, the republicans wouldn't pursue it. They have too much power.

 

[CiG]

Canada becomes even more degenerate and legalizes recreational marijuana. Congratulations, you decadent fucks.

Finally Canada does something correct for once.

That and the republicans didn't care who was nominated, as long as they won.

You're right, the #NeverTrump schism wasn't a thing.

 

[Einherjar86]

It wasn't after he was nominated (virtually, I mean; I'm sure there were still some small enclaves in locales that didn't matter). By contrast, the #NeverHillary people held their ground, a lot of them going for Jill Stein or abstaining.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Except they didn't, which is partly why Clinton lost. That and the republicans didn't care who was nominated, as long as they won.

Dems didn't care about who Repubs nominated, as long as Repubs lost.

It wasn't after he was nominated (virtually, I mean; I'm sure there were still some small enclaves in locales that didn't matter). By contrast, the #NeverHillary people held their ground, a lot of them going for Jill Stein or abstaining.

Both had low turnout and Trump lost a lot of wealthier Republican voters. I bet that more disillusioned Repubs/conservatives voted Johnson than Dems did Stein.

 

[Dak]

Except they didn't, which is partly why Clinton lost. That and the republicans didn't care who was nominated, as long as they won.

I'm not sure what you're basing this statement on. Clinton pulled in only 71,000 less votes in 2016 than Obama in 2012, and overall turnout was lower in 2012 and 2016 (but slightly higher in 2016 than 2012) than 2008, which was mostly attributed to reduced minority turnout.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...es-stack-up-to-obama-and-romney/#a16c4101661e

 

[Einherjar86]

Dems didn't care about who Repubs nominated, as long as Repubs lost.

So? I don't follow the comparison.

Both had low turnout and Trump lost a lot of wealthier Republican voters. I bet that more disillusioned Repubs/conservatives voted Johnson than Dems did Stein.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot" or "wealthier," but Trump definitely didn't alienate most affluent republican voters. In fact, research after the election has shown that the idea that most of his base was comprised of lower-income blue collar workers wasn't accurate. More than half of his voter base was comprised of upper-middle class, affluent families.

I also think you underestimate the amount of pissed off democrats and Bernie bros who either voted for Stein, abstained (more likely), or even voted for Trump.

I'm not sure what you're basing this statement on. Clinton pulled in only 71,000 less votes in 2016 than Obama in 2012, and overall turnout was lower in 2012 and 2016 (but slightly higher in 2016 than 2012) than 2008, which was mostly attributed to reduced minority turnout.

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I said. I'm saying that Clinton repelled more democratic voters than Trump did republican voters. The "NeverTrump" bandwagon basically collapsed once he was nominated.

Trump did not win because he was more attractive to this base of white voters. He won because Hillary Clinton was less attractive to the traditional Democratic base of urban, minorities, and more educated voters. This is a profound fact, because Democratic voters were so extraordinarily repelled by Trump that they were supposed to have the extra motivation to turn out. Running against Trump, any Democratic candidate should have ridden a wave of anti-Trump sentiment among these voters. It therefore took a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton among the Democratic base to not only undo this wave, but to lose many additional liberal votes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribe...use-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#316d573c53ab

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Dems pushed Trump to the media and promoted him until he secured the nomination, per the Pied Piper strategy.

Trump definitely saw declines among educated whites. Also

Mrs. Clinton’s gains were concentrated among the most affluent and best-educated white voters, much as Mr. Trump’s gains were concentrated among the lowest-income and least-educated white voters.

She gained 17 points among white postgraduates, according to Upshot estimates, but just four points among whites with a bachelor’s degree.

There was a similar pattern by income. Over all, she picked up 24 points among white voters with a degree making more than $250,000, according to the exit polls, while she made only slight gains among those making less than $100,000 per year.

These gains helped her win huge margins in the most well-educated and prosperous liberal bastions of the new economy, like Manhattan, Silicon Valley, Washington, Seattle, Chicago and Boston. There, Mrs. Clinton ran up huge margins in traditionally liberal enclaves and stamped out nearly every last wealthy precinct that supported the Republicans.

Scarsdale, N.Y., voted for Mrs. Clinton by 57 points, up from Mr. Obama’s 18-point win. You could drive a full 30 miles through the leafy suburbs northwest of Boston before reaching a town where Mr. Trump hit 20 percent of the vote. She won the affluent east-side suburbs of Seattle, like Mercer Island, Bellevue and Issaquah, by around 50 points — doubling Mr. Obama’s victory.

Every old-money Republican enclave of western Connecticut, like Darien and Greenwich, voted for Mrs. Clinton, in some cases swinging 30 points in her direction. Every precinct of Winnetka and Glencoe, Ill., went to Mrs. Clinton as well.

Her gains were nearly as impressive in affluent Republican suburbs, like those edging west of Kansas City, Mo., and Houston; north of Atlanta, Dallas and Columbus, Ohio; or south of Charlotte, N.C., and Los Angeles in Orange County. Mrs. Clinton didn’t always win these affluent Republican enclaves, but she made big gains.

But the narrowness of Mrs. Clinton’s gains among well-educated voters helped to concentrate her support in the coasts and the prosperous but safely Republican Sun Belt. It left her short in middle-class, battleground-state suburbs, like those around Philadelphia, Detroit and Tampa, Fla., where far fewer workers have a postgraduate degree, make more than $100,000 per year or work in finance, science or technology.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/...on-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

Stein got far fewer votes than Johnson. You guys just get a lot more butthurt when third parties spoil your anointed candidates.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dems pushed Trump to the media and promoted him until he secured the nomination, per the Pied Piper strategy.

That I agree with.

Trump definitely saw declines among educated whites.

So did Clinton though, based on what I've read--education roughly correlated with higher incomes. That doesn't mean the highest incomes necessarily; mainly it means upper-middle class white voters.

Trump's gains may have been among lower, working-class voters; but they didn't comprise the majority of his constituency. That still belongs to upper-middle-class and upper-class republicans, many of whom may have preferred someone other than Trump but who had no problem voting him into office. By contrast, many democrats preferred someone other than Clinton, and had no problem demonstrating that in their voting patterns.

Stein got far fewer votes than Johnson. You guys just get a lot more butthurt when third parties spoil your anointed candidates.

Well she wasn't my anointed candidate. She was just better than the alternative. (That's not an invitation for argument; it's over and done, I'm not interested in rehashing the pros and cons between the two)

As I said, many pissed off democrats did vote for Stein, but more probably didn't vote at all.

 

[Dak]

Hillary Clinton was not rejected based on her Foreign Policy compared with Obama because overall they had almost identical platforms. She just has zero humanity and it's repulsive.