Politics is not a dirty word. (And why it's still not time to impeach.)

[pnwmom]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1140042918050316290.html

Politics is not a dirty word. It does not suggest self-interest or nefarious intent.

Politics is the process by which we make the rules for society to live by.

If we don't win, we have to play by rules set by the other side. There's no glory in letting GOP make the rules.

1/
When we say something is political, like the impeachment process, it means the voters create the consequences.

The will of the people must be considered, because they have the ultimate say. That's how democracy works.

2/
When an elected Democrat makes political calculations about their reelection, it means they are concerned about keeping their voters happy.

Getting Democrats reelected is not about one individual's job, it's about keeping the Democratic party in power.

3/
When Joe Manchin votes to save his seat instead of standing on symbolism, that's not about him, it's about his voters.

We may not like it but he doesn't answer to us. He answers to West Va. His votes keep him in office and keeps his seat in Dem hands. We're lucky to have him.
4/

SNIP

Nancy is not deciding if Trump's crimes are impeachable. Of course they are.

She is deciding if impeaching him, with everything on the line in a census election, is worth it.

Again, see here: sallyal.ink/REDMAP
13/
As it stands now, her calculation is that it is not worth the risk. The votes might not even be there. We know they aren't there in the Senate. Trump will not be removed. His policies will not end.

It's not ACA. "Sending a message" does not save millions of lives.
14/
Nancy does not guard power for her own self-interest. It's about keeping Democrats in power and all the good Democrats can do with their power.

Not to mention the very real fear of what GOP will do if they have the power to make gerrymandering worse. sallyal.ink/REDMAP
15/
Of course public opinion can change. We all hope it does.

And when it does, Members will change their positions.

[stillcool]

1. I could read this every day..

the incessant wailing makes me sick, but then if I watched cable news, I'd probably be wailing too. It's like the wave at a concert, spreading over the internet. Or is that the Russians?

[Turin_C3PO]

2. Thank you for this.

It sums up my thoughts although ultimately I hope they impeach his ass.

[JI7]

3. the most moral thing to do is getting rid of him

which right now is still through the election next year.

[uponit7771]

5. The election he openly said he'd cheat in? 2020 wont be a free and fair election

[pnwmom]

10. All the more reason we have to keep control of the House, at least. n/t

[uponit7771]

11. That's not the way cheating in an election works, the one who cheats wins EVERYTHING... not just

... win their spot and that's it.

I think the most under reported part of the Mueller report was the depth of penetration the Russians got to in our election in 16 and 18.

Its like having Russians plant dormant Ebola virus and then someone telling us Ebola wont hurt us at the time of the Russians choosing.

There's no 2020 election, Red Don called that off the second he openly said he'd cheat.

[pnwmom]

12. It's harder to cheat on House races because there are so many of them.

But I'm not sure what your point is. If we can't get Trump thrown out of office (because of the Senate), then how does it help if we do impeach him? How does it help with the cheating?

[uponit7771]

13. Impeachment is a requirement there's no if on impeachment

Because it's the only thing we really have right now

[pnwmom]

14. But the Senate won't oust him yet, so why not just keep investigating him

in the committees till we have something that even the R's in the Senate can't look away from?

[uponit7771]

18. I agree timing is important but no impeachment is not an option

[triron]

36. Agree 100% with most everything you posted above. My sentiments too.

2020 will not be a fair election (if it happens at all). Putin is not about to loose his stooge in the WH.
And the American public (maybe most of the media as well) right now is mostly ignorant of what happened in 2016.

[CrispyQ]

26. The media will report on an impeachment inquiry.

People will actually hear what he's done on network news. Who's reporting on the various investigations? If one isn't into politics then it's likely they don't know all the shit he's done. He will campaign on, "Even the dems didn't think I did anything wrong." I'm not feeling very optimistic about our country's chance of surviving Trump/Barr/McConnell.

[Qutzupalotl]

4. I can't be sure the next election will be free and fair.

Considering the Senate has not passed anything to help election security, and we know Russia interfered in 2016.

That’s weighing on my calculus towards impeaching Trump. I’m not saying when — I think Pelosi’s instincts are good. But it needs to happen, despite Senate intransigence.

The people’s house must speak to condemn the conduct, no matter the political consequences — and I think it would actually benefit our party to have his partisan hacks circle the wagons around Trump. Everyone knows he’s a crook.

[uponit7771]

6. THANK YOU !!!

[Baltimike]

7. THANK YOU!!! nt

[ehrnst]

16. I think that Pelosi probably knows more about the state of election security than any of us.

We also have a better idea of how those on the left were manipulated to campaign against Hillary.

Those of us that didn't fall for the propaganda shared on FB and twitter can be a great resource now.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Possibly.

Although the last I heard was Congress was hoping for a briefing from the counterintelligence probe, but hasn’t received one.

[ehrnst]

19. 'Certainly' is the most accurate descriptor. After all, we don't get any briefings,

have any of the inside information, or the experience she does.

That's far more than a "possibility." That's a certainty.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. Why can't she get Schiff a counterintel briefing?

[ehrnst]

21. Goalposts moved. Got it....

You've given up trying to actually rebut the argument that she has decades of experience neither you nor I have, and more inside information.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. You're ignoring the fact that a counterintel briefing

is what would give her actual inside information you claim she already has.

[ehrnst]

23. You're trying to divert from the topic.

That's what moving the goal posts means in terms of a logical fallacy. Trying to change the topic from one that you were proven wrong about, in order to continue arguing your side. I didn't derail, so you're trying to accuse me of "ignoring" that tangent that you went off on.

A single intel meeting is supposed to negate the fact that she has decades of experience you don't, and access to information you don't? And that means that 'possibly' you have as much information about the state of election security that she does.

Please.

You'll find that I don't derail easily.



You don't like her. I get it.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. You must have missed the part upthread

where I said I trusted her instincts.

Instead we get your assertion that since she has decades of experience in Washington that she must know something we don’t about whether we can trust the state of our election security. That’s not proof, just an assertion.

We were discussing the question of whether we should impeach and you made this about Pelosi.

You love to argue and change the subject, we get it.

[ehrnst]

27. You were replying to this post of mine, yes?

Perhaps you can share the sources of information, and experience you have that she doesn't concerning election security?

Otherwise, logic leads us to state the strong probability, even certainty, that yes, she does know more about the state of election security than do you or I do, and likely anyone else, even in congress.

Proceed to change the topic if you like, because this one isn't really one that's still up for debate....

[Qutzupalotl]

29. You're reading things that aren't there.

I didn’t say I knew more than Pelosi did. I even said it’s possible that she knows more than I do, not that that’s relevant.

Why do you keep changing the subject to Pelosi? I’m not attacking her. We’re talking about impeachment and the security of the next election.

Remember Schiff is complaining he still hasn’t had a counterintel briefing that would give him a snapshot of the state of election security. Congress is being kept in the dark about this, and that’s a problem.

[ehrnst]

30. If you re-read from the post of mine that you replied to, you'll see where

you went off in another direction.

When I stayed with the subject of my post, (which was Pelosi's depth of experience, knowlege and access to information about election security was more than "possibly" greater than either of us) you accused me of trying to "change the subject."

Star Member ehrnst (22,206 posts)

19. 'Certainly' is the most accurate descriptor. After all, we don't get any briefings,

have any of the inside information, or the experience she does.

That's far more than a "possibility." That's a certainty.

Is that clearer?

[Qutzupalotl]

31. So we have to discuss only the subjects you bring up

and not the thread topic. Got it.

[ehrnst]

33. Straw man, anyone?

When you are replying to a post of mine, I assume that you know that you are replying to me, and not to someone else.

Veering off topic within a conversation will be called out as such.

When you reply to a statement of mine (Pelosi has more experience and counsel than anyone else concerning election security) with "possibly" then make a statement about a single intel meeting, as though it discounts what I stated is moving the goal posts

Especially when I re-iterate that "possibly" isn't really an accurate descriptor of the statement "Pelosi has more experience and counsel than anyone else concerning election security," and your response is "Why can't she get Schiff a counterintel briefing?" that certainly seems to attempting to rebut the fact that she has more experience and access to information than anyone else, including you or I..

Then I point out that it's moving the goalposts...

And you double down "You're ignoring the fact that a counterintel briefing is what would give her actual inside information you claim she already has."

When what I actually stated was that she has more than you or I do....

Instead we get your assertion that since she has decades of experience in Washington that she must know something we don’t about whether we can trust the state of our election security. That’s not proof, just an assertion.

"Instead we get your assertion.... You mean reminding you of what I originally stated and you were responding to? That she has more knowledge and experience and access to intel than any of us, which - unless you have some experience or a source that gives you more tools to understand the state of the security of our election than Speaker Pelosi - it's pretty much certain that she knows more than me or even.... you. That seems upsetting to you for some reason. You rebut by somehow inferring that a single intel meeting proves my logical, reasonable, fact based statement wrong. It seems you are put out by someone not being convinced that Pelosi can't really be trusted on election security, because you disagree.

You are the one that was ignoring what I stated, and complained that I was "diverting and ignoring" when I kept pointing out what my claim was.

And now, instead of simply giving up trying to divert me or admit you didn't really address what I said, you complain that my not being derailed or accepting the moving of goalposts is somehow unreasonable.

Is that clearer?

[Qutzupalotl]

34. Yes, I read your wonderful post that you've now posted three times.

Did you realize that was posted in response to a post of mine? Mind-blowing, I know.

Then you blathered on about FB and propaganda, and honestly I don’t know WTF you’re trying to say there.


In a thread about impeachment, to a post on election security, you divert to defending Pelosi (whom I am not attacking) and making it about the extent of her knowledge.

How about addressing what I originally said?

[ehrnst]

35. "Blathered..."

I hit a nerve, did i?

In a thread about impeachment, to a post on election security, you divert to defending Pelosi (whom I am not attacking) and making it about the extent of her knowledge.

I replied to your statement about election security - your topic...

And talked about how many people could be more aware of propaganda this time around.

You stated "Possibly" to my statement about Peolosi, and I defended it, and you got unhappy and accused me of hijacking the discussion and not allowing for other "topics."

Here is where I address what you originally said.....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212237331#post16

And when I stuck to it, you got unhappy. Describing it as "blather" indicates that you didn't really read it carefully or understand it.

Getting upset at other people when they continue conversing with you as though you had isn't the fault of the other person.

Is that clearer?

[Qutzupalotl]

37. Sounds like I hit a nerve.

Thanks for explaining your blather better.

Propaganda was not the whole of the election attack. There were also cyber intrusions into election systems in most states, which is what I was referring to.

Congress needs a briefing. We can’t assume Pelosi has already had one or has some non-public inside information, at least not without evidence. The evidence we have seen indicates Congress is still in the dark.

[ehrnst]

38. "I know you are but what am I?"

That's where you're at now?

We can’t assume Pelosi has already had one or has some non-public inside information, at least not without evidence.

But, isn't the point of 'non-public' "inside" information that it's.... non public? "inside?"

You seem to be moving the goal posts to something much more specific than I claimed, which was that she has more tools at her disposal (experience, access to information) to have a handle on election security than you or I, or really anyone else. That seemed to set you off.

It sounds as though, if I'm hearing your blather correctly, is that you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, based on a bias you have based on disagreeing with her about some things, so that indicates she's wrong until you have adequate "proof" that's she's right.

The evidence we have seen indicates Congress is still in the dark.

Again - the absence of evidence is evidence of absence fallacy. Because you are "in the dark" therefore congress must be just as "in the dark," as you are.

I'm guessing that "Prove that they aren't in the dark!" and "Why do you have such 'blind faith' that Pelosi/congress know enough/everything to prevent any/all election interference?" straw men might be attacked next.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. Projection is not just a room at the movie theater.

Speaking of being in the dark.

What you wrote is not what I am arguing. Again, this is not about Pelosi, whose mention seems to have set you off. I am not biased against her; in fact I said I trusted her, so I have no idea why you are being so defensive.

Nor is this a question of absence of evidence as you claim. The evidence I cited is that Congress is complaining they have not had a briefing on counterintel; which indicates they have not had such a briefing, and are likely lacking the information which you assert Pelosi has. That’s evidence of absence.

[ehrnst]

40. If you are going to ignore what I wrote in order to attack yet another straw man...

There is no real basis upon which you have to reply.

You never clearly understood, and refuse to acknowledge that you didn't understand what I stated to begin with - perhaps defensiveness and an uwillingness to admit that are why you still attack those legions of strawmen.

For the last time - this is what you state Pelosi not getting one specific intel meeting "disproves." My post was about Pelosi. Your attempts to move goalposts and attack strawmen still have not done so.



Speaking of projection.. look in a mirror.

[Qutzupalotl]

41. I told you I didn't get why you referenced propaganda

and even thanked you for clarifying. But I pointed out that I was talking about election security specifically, not propaganda, which is a problem with or without elections.

I said above that Congress needs a briefing on counterintel because they have not had one and are asking for one. While evidence is scant, there is evidence that Congress is insufficiently informed, because they are saying so. There is evidence of absence.

If you want me to stop replying, stop misstating my position.

If you’re not going to read what I wrote, I see little point in continuing.

[ehrnst]

42. More of the same...

[Qutzupalotl]

43. Should I post a screen shot?

[ehrnst]

45. Stung, did it?

[Qutzupalotl]

46. (whoosh)

[ehrnst]

47. ....

Tag ur it

[Qutzupalotl]

48. As a very important person once said,

“‘I know you are, but what am I?’ Is that where we are now?”



(“Very important” meaning, “posts multiple screen shots of an argument they’re evidently proud of, even it if’s not quite on point.”)

[ehrnst]

49. Those screen shots really get under your skin, don't they?

You keep bringing them up...obsessing even.

If it makes you envious, and you want to know how to do that, all you need to do is ask.



Tag u r it now

[Qutzupalotl]

50. It's weird that you keep posting it

as if it were something to be proud of. That shows an attitude of self-importance, especially when I keep pointing out how it’s not quite relevant.

[ehrnst]

51. More obsessing...

Sorry, I'm married.

[Qutzupalotl]

53. More self-importance...

[standingtall]

25. Jerry Nadler and Maxine Waters have decades of experience in congress too

it's not like people who disagree with her on impeachment stand alone.

[ehrnst]

28. My statement was concerning election security, not impeachment.

Here it is again...

[StarfishSaver]

8. This is an awesome post!

Your posts are usually awesome, but this is even awesomer than most!

[pnwmom]

9. That means a lot coming from you, StarfishSaver.

I hope people take the time to read the whole thread. I'd have posted the whole thing except that I don't know how copyright laws apply to Twitter . . .(probably no one else does, either.)

[ehrnst]

15. I trust Pelosi on this more than I trust me or anyone else. It sucks to feel like

one is out of the loop, or not in control, but adults will experience this more than once in their lives on a personal level, even if they don't want to admit it.

I think that white people, but men especially, are used to events and society being arranged in a familiar and comfortable way. The feeling of not being in control or at least consulted with is very disorienting and upsetting - and the person who is calling the shots right now isn't one of them.

I see a lot of entitlement from men on this board right now - they feel entitled to an explanation from Pelosi about what is going on, because they are uncomfortable and don't feel confident that someone like them is being included. That expresses itself as anger - which feels far more powerful than helplessness.

Like the lawyer in the coffee shop who hears people speaking Spanish, and this isn't something he's used to, so it's "wrong" and threatening, and he loses it, many on the left don't have the tools to trust a woman to steer the ship, especially if she's not really focused on male approval - see also: the 2016 election...

I'm sure that there will be many "Well you are just putting blind faith in someone because you aren't freaking out right now over the fact that we aren't being CONSULTED or LISTENED to, and WE ARE VERY CONCERNED that things are being handled by a "skittish" or "scared" or "clueless" or "wrongheaded" "puppet of big donors" because she just DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE WHAT I - I MEAN - EVERYBODY sees as clear as day!!" posts in response to your thoughtful post.

People with black/white, dualistic, my way/highway, If I don't understand it, it's suspicious and/or corrupt mindsets tend to accuse anyone who isn't ranting of being a "sheep" because they think that woman has the skill and resources to guide up through this without our imput, and since we don't agree.....that just can't possibly be the case.

[Takket]

32. #15 is the real trick, isn't it?

This is where we are depending on our House committees to change the opinion. To make drumpf look SO guilty no one could possibly believe he is innocent.

Now, it is true that the Senate will never convict. Truth means nothing to rethugs. But there is political capital to be gained. Winning the Senate is a MAJOR 2020 goal. After all even if we defeat drumpf and keep the house, it will be at least two more years of McConnell being the one person no vote in every bill.

What me need to do is make drumpf’s guilt the noose that every vulnerable 2020 rethug senator wears around their neck. You want to save drumpf? It will cost you your Senate seat to defend a criminal to do it.

[Hekate]

44. KnR

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. The rule of law is being dismantled NOW, corrupt judges are being appointed NOW

This isn’t just about winning elections 18 mos from now, it’s about protecting the Constitution and preserving democracy NOW.

The longer Pelosi waits, the more likely Barr’s investigations of the investigators will usurp the narrative and suck all the media attention away from Trump’s impeachable offences.

Our house is burning down, should we wait to analyze the risks of putting out the fire?