atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6962: Impeachment follies

Let's start here. So the Democrats, having passed an article of impeachment, now intend to sit on it, and do nothing with it, in order to have a club to hit President Trump with during the campaigns.

First off, I don't think the tactic is going to work as well as they hope it will. So far the entire "ORANGE MAN BAD" tear the Democrat-media complex has been on, since Trump's election in 2016, has been a gigantic wad of fail. Not once has anything they've charged him with turned out to have any truth to it whatsoever; and since the talk turned from "investigate!" to "impeach!" the Democrat numbers have been dropping and Trump's have been rising. A lot of people are going to find the Democrats' fapping around to be a turn off.

Second, the House of Representatives cannot tell the Senate what to do. That's in the Constitution. Possible responses to articles of impeachment include simply ignoring them entirely or refusing to take up the matter or vacating them without debate. The President can only be removed by the Senate, and it's up to the Senate what they do with the articles of impeachment.

Third, one Congress cannot bind the actions of another. If next year's elections go the way they damned well ought to go, then the GOP will win back the House of Representatives (because of Trump's coattails)...and guess what happens to those articles of impeachment? It takes a simple majority to impeach the President; it also takes a simple majority to un-impeach him. This Congress can't force the next one to continue with impeachment.

But it's all they've got. Can any of their candidates win on their own merits? Hell no. Do they have a ghost of a chance of beating Trump based on any normal election tactics? I doubt it. Trump is very popular and has managed to make an end run around the media gatekeepers, and his campaign rallies and public appearances are jammed with cheering crowds of supporters. At this point the Democrats' best hope lies in clubbing Trump over the head with "muh impeachment!" for the next ten months.

Which, IMHO, puts them in the unenviable position of choosing from two losing propositions. Having impeached him, they are doomed; even holding the hearings was a mistake and they can't take it back. So they can either look like partisan lunatics--even more like partisan lunatics--by playing stupid games with sending the articles to the Senate...or they can send them up and have the Senate acquit the President.

Neither of which does them any good.

Which is why Nancy Pelosi refuses to discuss impeachment with reporters any longer. If Queen Botox actually thought it was a winning proposition it would take half the Army to get her to shut up about it.

* * *

The world is actually getting better. So there are twelve wars going on, and only one of them isn't some kind of islamic internecine warfare.

* * *

So a guy who has swallowed the whole global warming thing tries to have a "conversation" with Freeman Dyson about it.

The guy asks Dyson why he's skeptical of anthropogenic global warming; Dyson explains why. Then the guy talks about the "concensus" and tries to pin him down on why, and Dyson explains that he doesn't agree with the guy's assumptions. Then the guy comes back from another angle, asking Dyson why he doesn't agree with AGW and the "concensus".

Dyson sums up the entire thing:
I decided I have no wish to continue this discussion. Your last message just repeats the same old party line that we have many good reasons to distrust. You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.
The fact is that there is a lot wrong with climate "science" (hence my scare quotes) and Dyson is a consummate physicist. He's among the last of the early 20th century physicists who were brought up in a system which understood that the laws of nature are not a matter of opinion.

Why would you want to waste time talking to someone who absolutely refuses to listen to what you're saying?

* * *

As long as you don't steal more than $950 worth of stuff, you're not going to go to jail, so why on earth wouldn't you just brazenly walk out of the store carrying your loot?

The criminal justice system in Cook County has decided that it will not prosecute shoplifters unless they steal more than $950 worth of goods. Expect prices to rise steeply.

* * *

...you know, in some ways, I'm actually looking forward to the politics blackout next week? This is starting to wear on me, all this stupidity and horseshit.

* * *

Anyway, we're not doing sugar cookies tonight. I'm doing peanut butter cookies. So I'd better get baking.
Subscribe

  • #7558: Yeah, I thought that sounded kind of strange.

    What if they held an insurrection and nobody came? Wednesday night Mrs. Fungus was telling me all about how the news said there was going to be a…

  • #7557: Whose fault, exactly?

    Kid is ranked 62 out of 120 with a GPA of 0.13. What's his mother have to say? He didn't fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their…

  • #7556: Yakisoba night!

    I don't get to make it very often, but I saw a really nice piece of round steak at the store the other day, so I bought it. 1-1.5 lbs beef (round…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments