What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

We had a funny gerrymandering case in BC years ago.  A cabinet minister's riding was redrawn so that it included a very narrow long territory which attached to the rest of her riding.  It was a corridor of very high value homes in more downscale neighborhood.    It became known as Gracie's Finger.  When that government fell BC went with a non partisan commission similar to what Malthus described.

[Admiral Yi]

    Sen. Susan Collins of Maine
    Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
    Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
    Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah
    Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
    Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

6 who voted impeachment trial constituiional

[Valmy]

So the usual suspects plus Cassidy who I admit I don't know much about.

[Zoupa]

Out of the 6, who will vote to actually impeach though?

4, maybe? Cassidy won't and Collins is a cunt.

[Syt]

    Sen. Susan Collins of Maine
    Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
    Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
    Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah
    Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
    Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

6 who voted impeachment trial constituiional

So are the remaining GOP senators saying that if an outgoing president engages in impeachable behavior and there's not enough time to go through an impeachment trial until after that president leaves office, then that president walks away without consequences? That would seem like a blank check to do whatever for any lame duck president.

(I understand of course that Republicans would happily reconsider their position if an outgoing Democrat president gave reason to impeach in the last week or two in office.)

[Tonitrus]

That is what it sounds like to me.

For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad.  That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy.  It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.

[alfred russel]

So are the remaining GOP senators saying that if an outgoing president engages in impeachable behavior and there's not enough time to go through an impeachment trial until after that president leaves office, then that president walks away without consequences? That would seem like a blank check to do whatever for any lame duck president.

(I understand of course that Republicans would happily reconsider their position if an outgoing Democrat president gave reason to impeach in the last week or two in office.)

It doesn't seem like a blank check unless he is also somehow absolved from criminal charges.

[Admiral Yi]

For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad.  That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy.  It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.

I agree, but which vote do you think would be easier to explain in a primary?

[Syt]

For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad.  That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy.  It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.

I agree, but which vote do you think would be easier to explain in a primary?

Always nice when politicians make dumb decisions and take ridiculous positions because the reasonable way to act doesn't carry the vote.

[alfred russel]

For myself, I think the Constitutional position to proceed is ironclad.  That those GOP are taking their stand there I think only further exposes their intellectual bankruptcy.  It is the legal foundation (incitement to insurrection) of the case, when it comes to actual conviction/acquittal phase, that is far more debatable, and thus would be a more defensible position to take one's stand.

I agree, but which vote do you think would be easier to explain in a primary?

I doubt most senators are more concerned about primary challenges.

[alfred russel]

So a sad update on my life/the Biden presidency.

As some of you may remember, I bet $20k on the presidential election, mostly in low risk bets. Ended up winning about $4.5k. Kept rolling that over into other bets on other current events, and got up to $28k total ($8k of profits).

I have now bet most of that on cabinet selections. But it looks like there is more republican opposition to the education and EPA appointments than I thought, and I thought that there would be more cabinet approvals than there have been (I have $1,700 just on Gina Raimondo getting approved by March 1, and after I made that bet Ted Cruz put a hold on her nomination). I may be fucked and losing all my post election profits. Even worse, since I made some of these bets when they seemed low risk, I have almost no upside.

[Eddie Teach]

The House always wins in the end. You should know that.

[Caliga]

Here's a bit of advice for you: gambling is for idiots.

[Habbaku]

  But an idiot won't take your advice.

[Caliga]