MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[San Lumen]

That's about as likely as Newsom finding a conscience on the floor and resigning. We'll both be dissapointed.

Well, I would say what he's doing in regards to allowing furloughed employees go on the dole until the shutdown ends is evidence enough of a conscience, but I do understand.

They should refuse to show up to work

[Tobleste]

Realistically, he'll never be impeached. As I understand it, impeachment would require a Dem house (which could definitely happen) and every Dem senator (possible) and at least 19 republican senators (which is never going to happen). Trump could show up to the state of the union drunk, slap every member of congress in the face, stumble out of the building and attack toddlers on the streets of DC by throwing empty cans at their faces and, at most, you'd get about 6 republican senators willing to convict him. I genuinely believe the rest (and Fox news) would argue he deserves sympathy because Pelosi drove him to drink.

There's been no evidence that enough republican politicians are willing to hold him account for anything for impeachment to be a possibility. They simply lack a strong enough conscience.

I do agree. However, I think if there's impeachable (and damning offences) and the GOP does nothing, then I can guarantee they'll lose the Senate, especially for Republicans that didn't go through with it. Even then, the people would simply vote him out and the next President would likely prosecute him.

Maybe. I just don't think enough republican voters would turn on them in 2020 or 2022 to cost them the senate. The problem isn't just the politicians. It's that their voters are as morally bankrupt as McConnell. Trump owns that party and there's no equally bigoted but less corrupt alternative for them to pick.

[San Lumen]

I do agree. However, I think if there's impeachable (and damning offences) and the GOP does nothing, then I can guarantee they'll lose the Senate, especially for Republicans that didn't go through with it. Even then, the people would simply vote him out and the next President would likely prosecute him.

Maybe. I just don't think enough republican voters would turn on them in 2020 or 2022 to cost them the senate. The problem isn't just the politicians. It's that their voters are as morally bankrupt as McConnell. Trump owns that party and there's no equally bigoted but less corrupt alternative for them to pick.

I really do think he could shoot someone on live tv and they wouldn’t abandon him

[Shrillland]

I do agree. However, I think if there's impeachable (and damning offences) and the GOP does nothing, then I can guarantee they'll lose the Senate, especially for Republicans that didn't go through with it. Even then, the people would simply vote him out and the next President would likely prosecute him.

Maybe. I just don't think enough republican voters would turn on them in 2020 or 2022 to cost them the senate. The problem isn't just the politicians. It's that their voters are as morally bankrupt as McConnell. Trump owns that party and there's no equally bigoted but less corrupt alternative for them to pick.

Well, the map in 2020 is a lot better, even with losing Alabama and possibly West Virginia. Democrats can take the Senate, but it won't be easy.

[Telconi]

That's about as likely as Newsom finding a conscience on the floor and resigning. We'll both be dissapointed.

Yeah how dare he serve in the position 62 percent of the electorate voted him into in a free and fair election

He certainly has the legal power to hold the office. Just like McConnel has the legal power to block votes on budget resolutions.

[San Lumen]

Maybe. I just don't think enough republican voters would turn on them in 2020 or 2022 to cost them the senate. The problem isn't just the politicians. It's that their voters are as morally bankrupt as McConnell. Trump owns that party and there's no equally bigoted but less corrupt alternative for them to pick.

Well, the map in 2020 is a lot better, even with losing Alabama and possibly West Virginia. Democrats can take the Senate, but it won't be easy.

That’s if trump hasn’t declared a national emergency and turnout is a record low

[Telconi]

Maybe. I just don't think enough republican voters would turn on them in 2020 or 2022 to cost them the senate. The problem isn't just the politicians. It's that their voters are as morally bankrupt as McConnell. Trump owns that party and there's no equally bigoted but less corrupt alternative for them to pick.

I really do think he could shoot someone on live tv and they wouldn’t abandon him

Depends on who he's shooting tbh...

[Confederate States of German America]

Well, I would say what he's doing in regards to allowing furloughed employees go on the dole until the shutdown ends is evidence enough of a conscience, but I do understand.

They should refuse to show up to work

Then they should be fired. There's a reason even FDR specifically said Federal workers cannot strike.

[Tobleste]

Well, the map in 2020 is a lot better, even with losing Alabama and possibly West Virginia. Democrats can take the Senate, but it won't be easy.

That’s if trump hasn’t declared a national emergency and turnout is a record low

I don't see how it would be a record low. Turnout in 2018 was unusually high for a midterm and democrats normally do better wrt turnout in presidential elections. If he declared a national emergency, his supporters would back him meaning democrats would literally be able to claim they're defending democracy.

[San Lumen]

I really do think he could shoot someone on live tv and they wouldn’t abandon him

Depends on who he's shooting tbh...

Murder charges ought to be partisan ?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They should refuse to show up to work

Then they should be fired. There's a reason even FDR specifically said Federal workers cannot strike.

Because, you know, that wouldn't be an incredibly heartless move and totally not fuel the fire for Communists in America.

They strike beacuse they aren't getting payed so you fire them?

And all of this for a fucking wall? Has America lost it's mind?

[Telconi]

Depends on who he's shooting tbh...

Murder charges ought to be partisan ?

-Shrug-

Then they should be fired. There's a reason even FDR specifically said Federal workers cannot strike.

Because, you know, that wouldn't be an incredibly heartless move and totally not fuel the fire for Communists in America.

They strike beacuse they aren't getting payed so you fire them?

And all of this for a fucking wall? Has America lost it's mind?

There is no fire for communists in America.

[Shrillland]

Then they should be fired. There's a reason even FDR specifically said Federal workers cannot strike.

Because, you know, that wouldn't be an incredibly heartless move and totally not fuel the fire for Communists in America.

They strike beacuse they aren't getting payed so you fire them?

And all of this for a fucking wall? Has America lost it's mind?

To lose something, you have to have had it in the first place.

[Confederate States of German America]

Then they should be fired. There's a reason even FDR specifically said Federal workers cannot strike.

Because, you know, that wouldn't be an incredibly heartless move and totally not fuel the fire for Communists in America.

They strike beacuse they aren't getting payed so you fire them?

And all of this for a fucking wall? Has America lost it's mind?

No, the precedent on Federal employees not being allowed to be derelict in their duties is well established and bipartisan, given they are doing critical jobs. They knew the risks when they signed up to be Federal employees, and especially so since the 1980s when Reagan fired several thousand ATCs, who were replaced by the military.

[San Lumen]

Because, you know, that wouldn't be an incredibly heartless move and totally not fuel the fire for Communists in America.

They strike beacuse they aren't getting payed so you fire them?

And all of this for a fucking wall? Has America lost it's mind?

No, the precedent on Federal employees not being allowed to be derelict in their duties is well established and bipartisan, given they are doing critical jobs. They knew the risks when they signed up to be Federal employees, and especially so since the 1980s when Reagan fired several thousand ATCs, who were replaced by the military.

Well i disagree. Working without pay should be grounds to walk off the job and quite frankly they ought too

[Confederate States of German America]

No, the precedent on Federal employees not being allowed to be derelict in their duties is well established and bipartisan, given they are doing critical jobs. They knew the risks when they signed up to be Federal employees, and especially so since the 1980s when Reagan fired several thousand ATCs, who were replaced by the military.

Well i disagree. Working without pay should be grounds to walk off the job and quite frankly they ought too

Sure, and then they are fired for doing exactly that. As stated, the ATCs tried this in the 80s.

[San Lumen]

Well i disagree. Working without pay should be grounds to walk off the job and quite frankly they ought too

Sure, and then they are fired for doing exactly that. As stated, the ATCs tried this in the 80s.

Yeah let’s fire them for working without pay and propping up a president throwing a tantrum. I’d support their strike

[Telconi]

Sure, and then they are fired for doing exactly that. As stated, the ATCs tried this in the 80s.

Yeah let’s fire them for working without pay and propping up a president throwing a tantrum. I’d support their strike

But what about the economy?

[Confederate States of German America]

Sure, and then they are fired for doing exactly that. As stated, the ATCs tried this in the 80s.

Yeah let’s fire them for working without pay and propping up a president throwing a tantrum. I’d support their strike

It won't be a strike, they'd literally be fired. This is stipulated in the government contracts going back to the FDR administration.

[Shrillland]

Sure, and then they are fired for doing exactly that. As stated, the ATCs tried this in the 80s.

Yeah let’s fire them for working without pay and propping up a president throwing a tantrum. I’d support their strike

Like he said, PATCO did do this and soldiers took their place. Who's to say that Trump wouldn't just do that with most civil servants who get fired?

[San Lumen]

Yeah let’s fire them for working without pay and propping up a president throwing a tantrum. I’d support their strike

It won't be a strike, they'd literally be fired. This is stipulated in the government contracts going back to the FDR administration.

And that’s going to go over real big with the public

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Because, you know, that wouldn't be an incredibly heartless move and totally not fuel the fire for Communists in America.

They strike beacuse they aren't getting payed so you fire them?

And all of this for a fucking wall? Has America lost it's mind?

No, the precedent on Federal employees not being allowed to be derelict in their duties is well established and bipartisan, given they are doing critical jobs. They knew the risks when they signed up to be Federal employees, and especially so since the 1980s when Reagan fired several thousand ATCs, who were replaced by the military.

Reagan also never threw a tantrum over a wall.

If they did fire them, the backlash would be incredible.

[Confederate States of German America]

It won't be a strike, they'd literally be fired. This is stipulated in the government contracts going back to the FDR administration.

And that’s going to go over real big with the public

No, the precedent on Federal employees not being allowed to be derelict in their duties is well established and bipartisan, given they are doing critical jobs. They knew the risks when they signed up to be Federal employees, and especially so since the 1980s when Reagan fired several thousand ATCs, who were replaced by the military.

Reagan also never threw a tantrum over a wall.

If they did fire them, the backlash would be incredible.

Doesn't matter, they signed the contracts which forbid them from striking. FDR and Reagan both made clear what violating said contracts entails.

[Farnhamia]

No, the precedent on Federal employees not being allowed to be derelict in their duties is well established and bipartisan, given they are doing critical jobs. They knew the risks when they signed up to be Federal employees, and especially so since the 1980s when Reagan fired several thousand ATCs, who were replaced by the military.

Reagan also never threw a tantrum over a wall.

If they did fire them, the backlash would be incredible.

Perhaps. They would be violating the Taft-Hartley Act, so ...

[Confederate States of German America]

Yeah let’s fire them for working without pay and propping up a president throwing a tantrum. I’d support their strike

Like he said, PATCO did do this and soldiers took their place. Who's to say that Trump wouldn't just do that with most civil servants who get fired?

Backdoor to the militarist state, I like it.