Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

This whole Trump scandal could really end up derailing the Dem nomination process.

 

When Trump and Pence are impeached for their roles in soliciting information from Ukraine, that would make Pelosi president, and she would presumably run as an incumbent...

 

Or - just to see heads explode, she could appoint Clinton as VP, resign, and then Clinton would run as an incumbent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

This whole Trump scandal could really end up derailing the Dem nomination process.

 

When Trump and Pence are impeached for their roles in soliciting information from Ukraine, that would make Pelosi president, and she would presumably run as an incumbent...

 

Or - just to see heads explode, she could appoint Clinton as VP, resign, and then Clinton would run as an incumbent.

Fun exercise, but neither Trump or Pence are going anywhere. 

Dems need to take the uncontested layup and nominate Biden and move forward. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

Fun exercise, but neither Trump or Pence are going anywhere. 

Dems need to take the uncontested layup and nominate Biden and move forward. 

I think Biden is done.  Not from anything related to Ukraine - he simply has been passed by Warren, and I don't think he has the energy to regain the lead.  Nothing about his campaign so far makes me think he has a good argument on why he should be president (other than "I am not Trump").

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Or - just to see heads explode, she could appoint Clinton as VP, resign, and then Clinton would run as an incumbent.

I don't think she gets to appoint a VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think she gets to appoint a VP.

Seems like she would.  But, I'll listen to why you think she would not be able to appoint a VP.  Is there some provision that limits appointments to elected officials only?

 

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Seems like she would.  But, I'll listen to why you think she would not be able to appoint a VP.  Is there some provision that limits appointments to elected officials only?

 

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

I was mistaken. Thanks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Seems like she would.  But, I'll listen to why you think she would not be able to appoint a VP.  Is there some provision that limits appointments to elected officials only?

 

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

The real irony/scandal would be if Pelosi named Biden as V.P.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Seems like she would.  But, I'll listen to why you think she would not be able to appoint a VP.  Is there some provision that limits appointments to elected officials only?

 

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

No way the Senate would confirm Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

No way the Senate would confirm Hillary.

Trump isn’t going anywhere people, No matter how much you wish for it.  We all know this.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Courtjester said:

Fun exercise, but neither Trump or Pence are going anywhere.

Impeachment doesn't have to include a removal from office.  Its about the integrity of the office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“You’ve got a felon acting lawlessly as the chief executive of the United States,” Scaramucci said.

“I do believe in the next one to three months, the Republicans are going to throw in the towel, they really don’t have a choice,” he said. “If they want to win the presidential election, they can’t win it with Donald Trump.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Trump isn’t going anywhere people, No matter how much you wish for it.  We all know this.

There is a lot of talk on pro-Trump websites about an armed revolt and a march on Washington if they dare try to remove Trump. Would you be in favor of this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m trying to image the political climate before the 2020 election if Trump is impeached but McConnell refuses to hold a trial in violation of the constitution.

Edit: I’m not even sure if McConnell could even do this but people are speculating this would happen.

Edited by Juxtatarot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There is a lot of talk on pro-Trump websites about an armed revolt and a march on Washington if they dare try to remove Trump. Would you be in favor of this? 

About as smart as an invasion of Area 51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I’m trying to image the political climate before the 2020 election if Trump is impeached but McConnell refuses to hold a trial in violation of the constitution.

Edit: I’m not even sure if McConnell could even do this but people are speculating this would happen.

Chris Cuomo just said McConnell will never allow a trial. Supposedly McConnell has told his allies that he doesn’t believe it will ever reach him. 

I think these guys aren’t paying attention. Watch the House- other than Tulsi Gabbard, all of them are in lockstep behind Pelosi. They’re going to impeach him, and McConnell will he forced to have a trial. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Chris Cuomo just said McConnell will never allow a trial. Supposedly Cuomo has told his allies that he doesn’t believe it will ever reach him. 

I think these guys aren’t paying attention. Watch the House- other than Tulsi Gabbard, all of them are in lockstep behind Pelosi. They’re going to impeach him, and McConnell will he forced to have a trial. 

McConnel plays by his own rules, and they're the rules of pure power plays.

He will use the levers of power he has to maintain power, and whatever he can do to avoid this, he'll do.  The man nearly single-handedly stonewalled for a year to deny democrats a SC justice.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Chris Cuomo just said McConnell will never allow a trial. Supposedly Cuomo has told his allies that he doesn’t believe it will ever reach him. 

I think these guys aren’t paying attention. Watch the House- other than Tulsi Gabbard, all of them are in lockstep behind Pelosi. They’re going to impeach him, and McConnell will he forced to have a trial. 

So Cuomo has allies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

McConnel plays by his own rules, and they're the rules of pure power plays.

He will use the levers of power he has to maintain power, and whatever he can do to avoid this, he'll do.  The man nearly single-handedly stonewalled for a year to deny democrats a SC justice.  

This is a little different. For one thing if there is an impeachment, John Roberts gets involved, because he is the trial judge. I don’t think McConnell can tell Roberts “we’re not having any trial.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Sorry meant McConnell. 

But to answer your question: no. 

Fredo stands alone.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is a little different. For one thing if there is an impeachment, John Roberts gets involved, because he is the trial judge. I don’t think McConnell can tell Roberts “we’re not having any trial.” 

What kinda trial do you think he'd put on?

Something that merits the name "trial?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There is a lot of talk on pro-Trump websites about an armed revolt and a march on Washington if they dare try to remove Trump. Would you be in favor of this? 

In order for that to happen there would have to be something very incriminating that is yet to be revealed to get all those senators to turn on Trump. I think a lot of those Trumpers would hide so they wouldn’t be subject to all the I told you sos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is a little different. For one thing if there is an impeachment, John Roberts gets involved, because he is the trial judge. I don’t think McConnell can tell Roberts “we’re not having any trial.” 

I was wondering about that.  Wouldn’t Roberts decide when it starts? That would make sense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I’m trying to image the political climate before the 2020 election if Trump is impeached but McConnell refuses to hold a trial in violation of the constitution.

Edit: I’m not even sure if McConnell could even do this but people are speculating this would happen.

Most likely is that it'd be a sham trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:
5 minutes ago, adonis said:

Most likely is that it'd be a sham trial.

I trust Roberts to be fair.

Does roberts choose who to call?  How much control does he have over the entire process?

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, adonis said:

Does roberts choose who to call?  How much control does he have over the entire process?

No idea. I guess we can go back and study 1998. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This much I know: the House elects 4 members who are known as “managers”; they’re the prosecution. Trump chooses his own attorneys and they are the defense. These guys are the only ones who speak during the trial except for Roberts as the judge, and any witnesses that are called to testify. There are objections, cross examinations, just like a normal trial. The Senators are not allowed to interrupt except on points of order. 

Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton wanted to testify but were talked out of it by their attorneys. Can you imagine if Trump chose to testify? What a spectacle that would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Chris Cuomo just said McConnell will never allow a trial. Supposedly McConnell has told his allies that he doesn’t believe it will ever reach him. 

I think these guys aren’t paying attention. Watch the House- other than Tulsi Gabbard, all of them are in lockstep behind Pelosi. They’re going to impeach him, and McConnell will he forced to have a trial. 

Wouldn't that be obstruction of justice of some sort? Could McConnell be impeached on that basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Sanders is running in his own lane.  He does not have the broad appeal to move forward, and quite frankly his support is fading.

While there’s still a lot of time left, I agree Bernie has stumbled lately.  

But Warren won’t get to keep the progressive veil much longer.  The differences between them, her inauthenticity, her waffling about M4A, his racially diverse and broad working class coalition vs her predominantly white and highly educated base, her liberal imperialist foreign policy, it will get exposed before this is over with. I don’t see this ‘truce’ lasting much longer.

I see Sanders as having a much stronger forecast than the bloggers writing him off right now want to give him credit for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing about the "Pocahontas" smear and Warren's own-goal DNA test is that it's gone forever, and no one will ever bring it up again (certainly not during a general election)

when warren took the dna test that showed she is infinitesimally, within the margin of error Native American (and in doing so pissed off actual Native Americans and activists), that effectively closed the book on that entire chapter

we'll definitely never see this footage again

https://twitter.com/jackallisonlol/status/1176511664885075968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

the thing about the "Pocahontas" smear and Warren's own-goal DNA test is that it's gone forever, and no one will ever bring it up again (certainly not during a general election)

when warren took the dna test that showed she is infinitesimally, within the margin of error Native American (and in doing so pissed off actual Native Americans and activists), that effectively closed the book on that entire chapter

we'll definitely never see this footage again

https://twitter.com/jackallisonlol/status/1176511664885075968

For a certain percentage of the population - that is a deal killer.  They will never vote for her.

 

Of course, they were never going to vote for her anyway.

She has worked extremely hard on this campaign to create a new narrative - and I think she has been very successful (so do a lot of other people apparently.)

 

If this is a choice between Warren and Trump - Warren will win the middle by a substantial margin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 8:17 AM, Sinn Fein said:

Front-runners will come and go - the key is not to peak in 2019, but to build momentum into 2020.  The Dems will have a power struggle - old guard, progressives, centrists, men, women, whites, minorities - all vying for the soul of the party and the right to challenge Trump* in the general election.

This is what I wrote in the very first post - I think it remains true today.

 

Right now - the candidate who is building the most momentum is Warren.  She will have to show that she can keep it going - because the attacks on a front-runner will be a little more pointed.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

For a certain percentage of the population - that is a deal killer.  They will never vote for her.

What Warren did is, literally, Tuesday morning before coffee for Trump.  Like it's not even debatable he does worse every single day he draws breath.  Anyone "not voting for her because Pocahontas" was never going to vote for her in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

What Warren did is, literally, Tuesday morning before coffee for Trump.  Like it's not even debatable he does worse every single day he draws breath.  Anyone "not voting for her because Pocahontas" was never going to vote for her in the first place.

That was kind of my point.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gr00vus said:

Wouldn't that be obstruction of justice of some sort? Could McConnell be impeached on that basis?

As I understand it, there is nothing other than a Senate rule that requires a trial in the event of an impeachment.   McConnell need only require a reinterpretation of the rule  and can then decide not to hold a trial.   The constitution only addresses the Senate's "sole power" to hold an impeachment trial, not any mandate for it to do so.

I imagine that the GOP will see this not as obstruction, but as owning the libs, just like the Garland non-confirmation  Nobody could have contemplated the depth of corruption and partisanship that has invaded our government.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CANCEL_SAM

Elizabeth Warren’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is Chairwoman of Demos, a liberal think tank. 

Per Demos’ 2018 tax filing, they gave $45,000 to the Working Families Party. This was the first year Demos gave anything to WFP.

This is unsubstantiated, but people with inside information cited pressure from donors as a reason why WFP endorsed Warren in a profoundly undemocratic, secretive way. WFP still refuses to release the actual vote tally between Warren & Sanders.

More on the Working Families Party endorsement, which appeared to defy the wishes of the members vs. the superdelegate-like leadership, here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/working-families-party-elizabeth-warren-endorsement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

@CANCEL_SAM

Elizabeth Warren’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is Chairwoman of Demos, a liberal think tank. 

Per Demos’ 2018 tax filing, they gave $45,000 to the Working Families Party. This was the first year Demos gave anything to WFP.

This is unsubstantiated, but people with inside information cited pressure from donors as a reason why WFP endorsed Warren in a profoundly undemocratic, secretive way. WFP still refuses to release the actual vote tally between Warren & Sanders.

More on the Working Families Party endorsement, which appeared to defy the wishes of the members vs. the superdelegate-like leadership, here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/working-families-party-elizabeth-warren-endorsement

So she undoubtedly won their vote pursuant to their rules, and because the numbers aren't being released there must be some conspiracy?  This one is weaker than your usual.  How is voting according to your own rules "profoundly undemocratic?"

Really reaching for something here.   It's a party with 52,000 members in 14 states and DC.   Not exactly influential.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

So she undoubtedly won their vote pursuant to their rules, and because the numbers aren't being released there must be some conspiracy?  This one is weaker than your usual.  How is voting according to your own rules "profoundly undemocratic?"

I love the: "This is unsubstantiated" qualifier :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, -fish- said:

So she undoubtedly won their vote pursuant to their rules, and because the numbers aren't being released there must be some conspiracy?  This one is weaker than your usual.  How is voting according to your own rules "profoundly undemocratic?"

Really reaching for something here.   It's a party with 52,000 members in 14 states and DC.   Not exactly influential.

Where did I say there was a conspiracy?  Just release the numbers.  They did that in 2015.  Their excuses don’t make any sense.  

That they took $45k from Amelia Warren’s think tank is not a good look.  

It’s fine if they preferred Warren over Sanders, but if there’s a disparity between the leaders and membership- you know, actual working families- then just say so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

 Anyone "not voting for her because Pocahontas" was never going to vote for her in the first place.

semi-disagree, but it has nothing to do w the Indian angle. the nickname crystalizes her as  "another perfectly-ridiculous woman who knows better than me" and therefore confers the Hillary taint. if POTUS knows anything at all, its bullyspeak and he nails it here. whether that's enough is highly arguable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ren hoek said:

Where did I say there was a conspiracy?  Just release the numbers.  They did that in 2015.  Their excuses don’t make any sense.  

That they took $45k from Amelia Warren’s think tank is not a good look.  

It’s fine if they preferred Warren over Sanders, but if there’s a disparity between the leaders and membership- you know, actual working families- then just say so.  

I think the Working Families Party's endorsement is only slightly more important than mine.

I'd settle for much less than $45,000

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I love the: "This is unsubstantiated" qualifier :lol: 

Sounds like he was given secondhand information and relayed it back.  No more, no less.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, Bernie never was going to win anything. he's a lightning rod, a rabblerouser, a thorn in the side, a cautionary tale - those guys never convert to leaders. the same feckless Democratics which made Trump possible made Bernie possible and enough young people hadn't heard good ol' fashioned leftyspeak when he began his ABC campaign to make him a thing. i love him, as a Vermonter i know he's ten pounds of #### in a five pound bag, he's closest to my politics than anyone and that will ever make him unelectable

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Sounds like he was given secondhand information and relayed it back.  No more, no less.  

No, he did the math and made an assumption that a majority of the members didn't vote for her.   It could also have been the opposite.   He's created a controversy where there is none.  They adopted their own rules giving 50% weight to leadership and 50% vote to the members.   She won 61% of the total, which is undisputed.    His issue is that there are scenarios where she may not have won the majority of members.   So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the website has a real axe to grind with Warren, and seems to think a party of 50,000 is somehow important to a national election.   This is a bit dramatic.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No, he did the math and made an assumption that a majority of the members didn't vote for her. 

I was referring to the "unsubstantiated" comment.  If they had voted for her across the board, I don't see why they'd have any problem publishing the results.  The fact that they aren't after taking 45 thousand dollars from the think tank Warren's daughter sits on the board of looks suspicious.  

18 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No, he did the math and made an assumption that a majority of the members didn't vote for her.   It could also have been the opposite.   He's created a controversy where there is none.  They adopted their own rules giving 50% weight to leadership and 50% vote to the members.   She won 61% of the total, which is undisputed.    His issue is that there are scenarios where she may not have won the majority of members.   So what?

Yes, I know what the rules are.  The point is that people want to know how the membership voted, versus how the leadership voted.  They released these numbers before, but they're not releasing them now.  Why? 

People understandably think this is against the spirit of transparency and democratic elections.  Just publish the results, that's all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.