WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Then on 8 Oct 2019, a week later to the same question, 36% independents said the senate should remove Trump, 36% said the senate should not. Question 20.
Actually, question 20 said 45% of independents said Trump should be removed, not 36%. The independents moved 9% in favor of removal from office in one week.
I beg your pardon. I looked again, under independents 36% for, 36% against, 29% not sure.
Your 45% is the total nationwide, everyone including Democrats, independents and Republicans. Nationwide is 45% for, 39% against, 16% not sure. Please look again if you would be so kind. Look under the column IND which stands for independents.
Last edited by perotista; 10/12/1908:37 PM.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
Post ALL the facts and I will analyze in the most objective manner possible. It is the way I operate. Just because you don't like my conclusions does not mean my conclusions are biased.
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
Not to step on Rick commenting but perhaps you can expand your imagination for a second.
In a summary of a call Mr Trump said (and I paraphrase) I got aid but I want a favor in return. Mr Trump later admitted it was a perfect call and he said perfect things.
It is an obvious quid pro quo in my opinion. O but not only in my opinion but apparently almost everyone who heard the call "knew" it was a quid pro quo as aides went scurrying around looking for attorneys and they went around covering it up. Not only them but people at State who were aware of the efforts of Giuliani et al "knew" it was a quid pro quo and said so in texts.
Now just because Mr Trump says it was not quid pro quo does not make it so. He lies so much nothing he says is credible.
So when someone says Mr Trump admitted he committed crimes, what is meant (can't you read the subtext?) is Mr Trump admitted he said what was in the summary which was the same as admitting, as almost everyone privy to the call understood, he committed crimes.
Geeeez
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
Post ALL the facts and I will analyze in the most objective manner possible. It is the way I operate. Just because you don't like my conclusions does not mean my conclusions are biased.
Would that be like this objective comment?
Originally Posted by rporter314
If you do not believe that is a real crisis, then you have slept through the Trump occupation of the WH.
The Trump occupation of the WH? With your own words rporter314 I have shown that you are not the objective person you claim to be. So do not complain about my biased comments until you have the honesty to admit your comments are also biased.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
Are you saying my description of a real Constitutional crisis is inaccurate and therefore I am biased or do you dispute my use of language that while Mr Trump does sleep in the WH he therefore occupies the residence?
So how exactly am I biased???
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
Not to step on Rick commenting but perhaps you can expand your imagination for a second.
In a summary of a call Mr Trump said (and I paraphrase) I got aid but I want a favor in return. Mr Trump later admitted it was a perfect call and he said perfect things.
It is an obvious quid pro quo in my opinion. O but not only in my opinion but apparently almost everyone who heard the call "knew" it was a quid pro quo as aides went scurrying around looking for attorneys and they went around covering it up. Not only them but people at State who were aware of the efforts of Giuliani et al "knew" it was a quid pro quo and said so in texts.
Now just because Mr Trump says it was not quid pro quo does not make it so. He lies so much nothing he says is credible.
So when someone says Mr Trump admitted he committed crimes, what is meant (can't you read the subtext?) is Mr Trump admitted he said what was in the summary which was the same as admitting, as almost everyone privy to the call understood, he committed crimes.
Geeeez
Indeed. "Do us a favor, though..." is English for quid pro quo.
Originally Posted by rporter314
...just because Mr Trump says it was not quid pro quo does not make it so. He lies so much nothing he says is credible
Everything that Trump says, if you take the opposite, then you'll have reality .
