Pages:
Author

Topic: US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 15. (Read 5824 times)

legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
....
Mueller Report: Not a big shift.
Mueller Testimony: Not a big shift.
Ukraine Scandal: Obvious big shift.

Wait...

So now there's an actual "Ukraine Scandal?"

I learned something today.

Have they decided what is in the box labeled Ukraine Scandal?

Let's keep this as a serious discussion thread.  I'd like to respond to you seriously, but it's clear your questions aren't serious.

Please don't take this as an attack on you, it's nothing personal, but knock it off with the passive aggressive/bad faith arguments.  There are plenty of other threads for that.

If you have a point to make, just make it.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
....
Mueller Report: Not a big shift.
Mueller Testimony: Not a big shift.
Ukraine Scandal: Obvious big shift.

Wait...

So now there's an actual "Ukraine Scandal?"

I learned something today.

Have they decided what is in the box labeled Ukraine Scandal?
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
--SNIP OF 538 STUFF--

I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win.

Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at.

Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold.

This is all fair, imo - although I question the silent majority part.  If you think you know what they think, they aren't really silent...even if they haven't said anything.

The most interesting takeaway, imo,  is not the actual numbers, just the shift in opinion after each event.

Mueller Report: Not a big shift.
Mueller Testimony: Not a big shift.
Ukraine Scandal: Obvious big shift.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
--SNIP OF 538 STUFF--

I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win.

Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at.

Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
I think FiveThirtyEight ....

So, regardless of the facts, impeach?
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I think FiveThirtyEight does of pretty good job of building models based on all the major poll results over time and explaining how the models work.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Should the Impeachment Inquiry Proceed:


Should Trump Be Impeached or Impeached and Removed from Office:


General Support of Impeachment
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Two consecutive events can imply guilt.  Are you saying that they can't?

You mean like Biden's son getting a high paying job at a company being investigated for corruption after his dad threatens to have the lead prosecutor fired and hold back aid if they don't? Good point.

No, that is two consecutive events along with other data. Biden himself links the two events as cause and effect of his action.
full member
Activity: 574
Merit: 152
The deflection from the opposition is funny to say the least. Trump's going down for his crimes.

Soon(tm), he'll be impeached in the house. The senate won't convict, but he'll lose the election in 2020. After that, it's open season for all his crimes.

He'll be in courts the rest of his life if he doesn't fake his death like Epstein did.
member
Activity: 189
Merit: 30
Two consecutive events can imply guilt.  Are you saying that they can't?

You mean like Biden's son getting a high paying job at a company being investigated for corruption after his dad threatens to have the lead prosecutor fired and hold back aid if they don't? Good point.

Yeah.  The BS Joe Biden pulled def implies guilt.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Two consecutive events can imply guilt.  Are you saying that they can't?

You mean like Biden's son getting a high paying job at a company being investigated for corruption after his dad threatens to have the lead prosecutor fired and hold back aid if they don't? Good point.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...
Ok.  I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry.  There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.  


Thanks. Earlier I was "defending Trump," when it was suggested two consecutive events implied causality and hence guilt.

Two consecutive events can imply guilt.  Are you saying that they can't?

 Well, read that section and tell us what you think?
member
Activity: 189
Merit: 30
...
Ok.  I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry.  There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.  


Thanks. Earlier I was "defending Trump," when it was suggested two consecutive events implied causality and hence guilt.

Two consecutive events can imply guilt.  Are you saying that they can't?
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...
Ok.  I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry.  There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.  


Thanks. Earlier I was "defending Trump," when it was suggested two consecutive events implied causality and hence guilt.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
One of Taylors aids got deposed today, the guy that told Taylor he overheard a phone call between Trump and Sonland at a restaurant in Ukraine. They talked about how Trump "doesn't give a shit about Ukraine", cares a lot about the Biden investigation, president of Ukraine "loves your ass" (Trumps), Sweden should've let A$AP Rocky out because Trump told them to but at least Kim Kardashian will be happy he tried...lol

Here's his opening statement

I feel like the guy is likely telling the truth, and there were 2 other people at the lunch that might be deposed also, but the whole "I over heard him on the phone thing" is just such an easy target for the GOP I suspect they will probably pass on grilling him publicly.

Sonland is one of the witnesses the Republicans requested and scheduled to testifies next week. He's already had to change his testimony from "there was no quid pro quo" to "oh, now I remember, there was some quid pro quo" after every other witness' testimony was in direct conflict with his.





On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.
It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  
Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Didn't mean to mis-represent.  I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either.  Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like.  Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses.  I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings. ...

"A valid defense"?

Nowhere did I argue that this was a defense.

Descriptive phrases of the political environment are not "defenses". I can't even offer "defenses" because I'm still trying to figure out what impeachable offenses defenses might be required for.

There's zero need for the double talk, but one more time, don't misrepresent my comments. It's unnecessary. Everyone knows that a certain contingent wants Trump out, by any means necessary, including impeachment, for any plausible charge. And everyone knows that another contingent does not. It is what it is.
I hear you, but "sore losers" is descriptive, not "bad things."
Ok.  I won't assume you are defending Trump anymore unless you say so explicitly, sorry.  There wasn't any sort of bad faith argument on my part though, the "descriptive phrases" you used are also being used to argue why Trump shouldn't be impeached, and this is a thread about the Impeachment hearings, so I think my assumption that you were presenting a defense was reasonable.  

member
Activity: 189
Merit: 30
...

What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.....

I really don't care what she went through. I saw a part of it, and saw a bunch of bitching, moaning and complaining.

Didn't see any direct testimony relevant to the subject of the hearings.

The reason they had her there was to explain how Rudy went over there and started going behind everyones back and talking to Ukraine top dogs saying he was there on behalf of the president and leaking fake stories to Hannity about Yovanovitch.  This stuff is all part of the big picture of what happened leading up to Trump asking Ukraine to investigate biden and shows corrupt intent.  I bet Rudy gets kicked to the curb soon and maybe even ends up being roomies with the Lawyer Trump used before him. Notice he isnt on the news anymore or doing interviews?

Its crazy what has happened to Rudy.  Used to be one of the best prosecutors in the country and national hero and now look at him making a fool of himself spreading conspiracy theories.  I think it must be the desire for power.

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.
It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  
Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Didn't mean to mis-represent.  I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either.  Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like.  Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses.  I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings. ...

"A valid defense"?

Nowhere did I argue that this was a defense.

Descriptive phrases of the political environment are not "defenses". I can't even offer "defenses" because I'm still trying to figure out what impeachable offenses defenses might be required for.

There's zero need for the double talk, but one more time, don't misrepresent my comments. It's unnecessary. Everyone knows that a certain contingent wants Trump out, by any means necessary, including impeachment, for any plausible charge. And everyone knows that another contingent does not. It is what it is.
I hear you, but "sore losers" is descriptive, not "bad things."


[/quote]
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
...

What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.....

I really don't care what she went through. I saw a part of it, and saw a bunch of bitching, moaning and complaining.

Didn't see any direct testimony relevant to the subject of the hearings.
legendary
Activity: 2716
Merit: 2093
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.
It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached.  
Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Didn't mean to mis-represent.  I don't think the fact that the Democrats are sore losers is a valid defense either.  Or the fact that the media suggested Obama was looking and acting king-like.  Neither of these things have anything to do with whether or not Trump did what he is being accused, and if he did, whether or not they are impeachable offenses.  I feel like saying bad things about Democrats, past or presently in office is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the impeachment hearings.  I'd feel the same way if someone tried to bring up Stormy Daniels or his Bankrupt Casinos when trying to argue that Trump should be impeached.



Got a chance to watch some today.  Really embarrassing performance by the Republicans who keep arguing things that dont need to be argued.  Like the president has the right to fire the ambassador lady for whatever reason.  Everybody knows this and she done said so herself a whole bunch of times.  Why keep harping on the fact he shouldnt be fired because hes allowed to fire ambassador?

I agree, the Republicans seem to be trying to make it look like the Democrats are arguing things that they're not.  

Democrats: The President had every right to fire the ambassador.
Ambassador:  I served at the pleasure of the president, he had the right to fire me at any time.
Republicans: They're trying to impeach the president for firing the Ambassador, he's allowed to do that!!!

(yes I'm paraphrasing here)

What that woman went through was pretty fucked up though.

Little ironic today, while Trump was attacking the witness on Twitter today, Roger Stone got convicted for witness tampering (and 6 other felonies).

member
Activity: 189
Merit: 30
On break for Day 2 of hearings.  I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony.




It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?

So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.

It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.

Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?

I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached. 
Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

Shouldnt be about either party really. 

I'm a life long consevative, happily voted Republican every election since Raegans second term including Trump.  Dad was a Marine, I'm a Marine, son is a Marine and daughter is about to join the Navy.

Trump is not a conservative.  Hes a god damn disgrace that thinks he can run the country the way he ran his real estate buisness his whole life, whithout having to answer to anyone and just hiring people help you get away with illegal things.  Thats not why I voted for him and I know for a fact im not alone.

Its obvious what the democrats are trying to impeach him for, there is no scraping around as you say required.

He held up foreign aid to try and get it to look like Ukraine opened investigation into Biden all on their own.  He knew it was wrong, so he sent his buddy over to do it for him and keep it off the record.

The worst saddest part about this whole thing is all the actual Republicans who know what's happening is wrong and are keeping quiet because they know he will attack them and maybe just make up some lies about them if they speak out.  This is just wrong, its the behavior of an authoritarian, and should never be ok for an American President to do.  Its fking embarrassing.
Pages:
Jump to: