|
0 members (),
7
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,632
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I am a big fan of FiveThirtyEight. They frequently start "projects" following a particular polling trend. They recently did so about Trump's removal. According to FiveThirtyEight, registered voters support removing Trump from office by a +9-10% margin. This is a number I want to track after the holidays. It seems consistent with the polling that indicates a super majority want a fair trial to include witnesses. Most expect fair trial for Trump; 7 in 10 say let aides testify (POLL) (abc). I think that Mitch McConnell has talked himself into a box. A super majority of respondents to the polls expect witnesses at the Senate trial. If he persists in stonewalling that, I think the perception that the outcome was not just fore-ordained but "rigged" will drive anti-Republican turnout. McConnell has been outmaneuvered by Pelosi. If no witnesses are called, the second article of impeachment is proved; if they are, the first will be. If the trial is short-circuited (as it likely will be), Democrats have a strong argument against every Senate candidate that goes along.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I am not a Donald fan, but I will vote for his reelection. Then you are indistinguishable from the yokels wearing their MAGA hats. Especially as he wears one to the rallies...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Ah...but not to worry. Eventually the house will send it to the senate.
They've got a year to decide just when would be the best time. And I'm pretty sure Speaker Pelosi knows the legal ins and outs of this. I'm sure you're right. Now if one was a political strategy advisor to the Democrats, when would be the best time? Right after congress returns after the Christmas recess maybe? That's 7 Jan I think. The primaries start 3 Feb and run through 16 Jun. With a bunch of senators running for the nomination, do we want them off the campaign trail for the trial? The democratic convention is set for 13-16 July. So January is open if the trial can be over in 3 weeks, same for the time period after the primaries and before the convention. Or do we wait until the official general election campaign begins on 1 Sep. Then there's the lame duck session after the election. I'm under the impression the impeachment vote, like legislation doesn't carry over from one session to the next. Now Speaker Pelosi can transmit or send over the articles of impeachment whenever she wants, if she wants. Along those lines, McConnell will determine when the senate holds the trial. He can put it off or immediately schedule it. There's no time frame for either in the Constitution. McConnell can play tit for tat. One last thing, Senator Robert Byrd motioned prior to Bill Clinton's trial that the charges or articles be dismissed. It failed mainly because the Republicans controlled the senate. To dismiss the charges all it takes is a simple majority. Byrd set the precedence for this. Like Pelosi and the democrats setting the rules in the House for impeachment, McConnell and the Republicans will set the rules for the trial in the senate. Interesting times. I think Pelosi is being really smart on this. The Impeachment vote has occurred. Most of the public wants witnesses at trial and expect a fair trial. McConnell's posturing puts that in doubt, and Pelosi had a credible concern - she has to select impeachment managers and reasonably needs to know the procedures to make that selection. The longer McConnell holds out against witnesses, the more the perception of his insincerity gets baked in and the less "fair" the perception of the trial becomes.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
when a grand jury indicts someone and the signed papers do not get to prosecutors office, was that person indicted or not?
reaching the DA's office has nothing to do with the indictment.
Mr Trump was impeached. Okay. Now the process wasn't completed. So using your example the indictment and in this case the impeachment means nothing. No action was or will be taken. Meaning the indictment and the impeachment was a complete waste of time. Especially if neither the prosecutor, the DA or Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have no intention of utilizing the indictment or impeachment. They basically mean nothing. .... I have a basic disagreement with this analysis. Remember Mueller's "speaking indictments" against the Russians? This is more like that. Those Russians are unlikely to ever be tried, just as it is unlikely that Trump will be legitimately "tried" in the Senate. The impeachment is closer to a speaking indictment in this case. The point has been made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 3,022 Likes: 63
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 3,022 Likes: 63 |
Definition of partisan
1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
political partisans who see only one side of the problem
I strongly disagree with the premise that the root problem is hyper partisanship “on both sides”. RR is Exhibit A. I am Exhibit B. I don’t especially like the Democratic party - in my opinion it is not very open to innovation or pragmatic creativity. But I suppose any party needs a certain level of compromising boundaries that shave off the wild hairs in order to achieve a critical mass of votes.
I do think we can label today’s Republican party as Ultra Hyper Partisan (see definition above), though it isn’t devotion to any principles or beneficial political platform. Trump has amassed it all to himself, but it has been coming for decades. There has been an embrace of dishonesty as a prime tool of advancement - as someone put it recently, we are in a post-fact, post-truth, post ethics era. Many Republicans have been forced into complying because if they step out of line, they will be incinerated by a flamethrower of lies. Fear now rules the Republican party, and it is going nowhere good.
It’s not partisanship, it’s corruption. You know when you used to get an error message, “file corrupted”, on your computer? That meant something had gone wrong with the programming that couldn’t be fixed in order to recover the file. That’s a good analogy for what has happened to the Republican party. Being I have never belonged to either major party, I did belong to Ross Perot's Reform Party prior to its extinction. I've never seen the divide between parties as it is today. Believing in a cause or principle, nothing wrong with that. It was the ever rising national debt that Perot talked about all the time that moved me to back him. What bothers me is we have so many party line votes in this polarized world of politics today. That really wasn't the case 20 or so years ago going back to WWII. You had very few and they were very rare. Today, it seems to me if a Democrat proposes something, the Republicans are automatically against it and vice versa. Democrats automatically oppose anything the GOP proposes. No thought to the merit of the proposal, just who proposed it. I'm probably naive, I never could understand the Republicans hatred of Obama, now I can't understand the double hatred shown by democrats toward Trump. I understood the second term dislike of many Democrats showed for G.W. Bush, the wars and then the recession. But that dislike was policy or issue based. Not personality, not the individual per se. Democrats gave G.W. around a 45% approval ratings for his first term, so their dislike wasn't directed at the individual, but his policies. Having viewed politics from Eisenhower on, there were certain things each party stood for. At least through Obama. I do agree with you that the GOP seems to have dropped a lot of their previous core values just to support one individual president. But then it also seems the democrats have put all their effort into their anti Trumpism than in promoting what was once their core values. From my view point, it seems today, we have two cults. The Cult of Trump and the Cult of Anti Trump.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133 |
Today, it seems to me if a Democrat proposes something, the Republicans are automatically against it and vice versa. Democrats automatically oppose anything the GOP proposes. No thought to the merit of the proposal, just who proposed it. I guess you haven't been paying attention to all the bills passed by the House, but sitting in the garage in the Senate, plus a few that have gotten all the way through to become law? I believe it was the Reeps who declared at the beginning of Obama's first term that they would oppose anything he wanted (and followed through on the threat). From my view point, it seems today, we have two cults. The Cult of Trump and the Cult of Anti Trump. The Cult of Trump vs the people who recognize that Trump is a con man? Are you saying that people who oppose dishonesty, lying, and corruption are simply members of a cult? I think that is called a fallacy of false equivalency.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,046 Likes: 98
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,046 Likes: 98 |
After the impeachment the Dems just wanted a deal like the Clinton impeachment. Do Nothing Mitch explained that was not going to happen and ignored that one. Now, a couple of week later, and Mitch wants the Clinton deal but, it seems (rightfully), that the Dems have moved forward, and back to the 'fair' trial with the top tier of the Trump administration, present and past, giving testimony. Apparently all the polls are overwhelmingly supporting the Dem side in all of this.
Mitch isn't going to be given a chance. All the Dems need in the Senate are 4 of the Republicans to back them and, I think, that is getting more and more likely. It was pointed out that, in the last year, the influence of Trump, in elections, is apparently beginning to fail. We all know that the Republican elected class hold one thing as really important to them, more than the welfare of the nation, family, friends or even doing their jobs - KEEPING THEIR JOBS!
Regardless of what happens the Republican do nothing elected class are going, or at least should, have to defend their pretty disgusting behavior in any case.
In the fullness of time.................
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257 |
Today, it seems to me if a Democrat proposes something, the Republicans are automatically against it and vice versa. No, it's actually much worse: Republicans have proposed things that the Democrats thought were a good idea and voted for. Then the Republicans, even the congressman who proposed it!, have all voted against it. Democrats don't play this game, but Republicans seem to be stuck on Coach Pervert's Hasturd's Rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
My wife and I had this discussion yesterday - is the appropriate greeting "Merry Impeachment" or "Happy Impeachment"? We decided to settle for the generic "Treason's Greetings." (Ironically she found this discussion on Facebook right after we had it. I guess it wasn't such an original idea.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I think if Pelosi wants to wait for the Supreme Court to get around to making Trump follow the constitution before tossing the Impeachment into the Senate dumpster, that is fine. It's a perfectly good Impeachment and it really has no "expiration date" until at least 2021. Who knows? With more witnesses and more documentation, there could be more articles of Impeachment. I'm thinking money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud. Why not keep this in the news? There is no shortages of actual crimes Trump has committed and covered up. I think this is actually a viable strategy. A "superceding impeachment".
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
