|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 22 2019 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Granted your concession about the difference between today and after 2 more years of Trump trashing, I don't think it's a viable strategy still. The "independent" voters both parties covet don't want it. Show nested quote +Before Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was concluded, Independent voters supported impeachment by a 46 to 33 percent margin. Those voters now lean against impeachment by 48 to 34 percent. klewtv.comand Trump is also more popular than Pelosi and Schumer.
From left to right highlighted: All voters in Mar, All voters in Apr, Republicans Apr, and Independents Apr.
There's some pretty high numbers indicating people think this fucker broke the law. Doesn't mention impeachment per se, but this metric should be telling for anyone considering it. That article is like a month old. Long before Mueller's actual shit dropped (just that phony Barr memo). Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause. Also, also, it reports that his approval was 45% last month. I would like to point out that it's hovering around 37% right now. That article might as well have been written a year ago for all the good it is now.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IoRhVMf.png)
|
On April 22 2019 03:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 03:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Well they put their election at risk because they’ll be framed as the establishment vs the anti-establishment wave, or be seen as going against the will of the people re the Presidential election Trump’s entire strategy, regardless of how planned or sophisticated it is is to grab a base, galvanise them, and frame attacks on Trump no matter how legitimate as some kid of conspiracy against him and by extension that base. It’s worked in the past, continues to work and trying to impeach him plays right into it. I mean I’d rather it didn’t but it is what it is, to me anyway. If I felt it could either actually impeach him, or be politically shrewd to do against the guy then sure, I don’t think either are the case. How does it continue to work in light of the Democrats success in the mid-terms? Trumps base is not big enough to win a national election and no one else wants to touch him with a 1000 foot pole.
Ding ding ding! And for the 100th time, political expediency is no excuse to not do your fucking constitutional duty. End of story.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25445 Posts
On April 22 2019 03:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 03:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Well they put their election at risk because they’ll be framed as the establishment vs the anti-establishment wave, or be seen as going against the will of the people re the Presidential election Trump’s entire strategy, regardless of how planned or sophisticated it is is to grab a base, galvanise them, and frame attacks on Trump no matter how legitimate as some kid of conspiracy against him and by extension that base. It’s worked in the past, continues to work and trying to impeach him plays right into it. I mean I’d rather it didn’t but it is what it is, to me anyway. If I felt it could either actually impeach him, or be politically shrewd to do against the guy then sure, I don’t think either are the case. How does it continue to work in light of the Democrats success in the mid-terms? Trumps base is not big enough to win a national election and no one else wants to touch him with a 1000 foot pole.
Dems espouse policies that poll more favourably than Trump does unfavourably, they did pretty well they didn’t absolute crush it though.
In a relatively unpartisan time at least with direct comparison to now the Clinton impeachment was a complete shitshow, trying to impeach Trump will be like that on crack cocaine.
Trump is electorally fucked if either the Dems galvanise the non-voters from last time with a decent candidate, or Teump doesn’t somehow add to his base.
The latter I don’t see him doing without some kind of huge gift being given to him, which an impeachment dogfight could at least potentially be.
|
On April 22 2019 03:33 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 03:12 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2019 03:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Well they put their election at risk because they’ll be framed as the establishment vs the anti-establishment wave, or be seen as going against the will of the people re the Presidential election Trump’s entire strategy, regardless of how planned or sophisticated it is is to grab a base, galvanise them, and frame attacks on Trump no matter how legitimate as some kid of conspiracy against him and by extension that base. It’s worked in the past, continues to work and trying to impeach him plays right into it. I mean I’d rather it didn’t but it is what it is, to me anyway. If I felt it could either actually impeach him, or be politically shrewd to do against the guy then sure, I don’t think either are the case. How does it continue to work in light of the Democrats success in the mid-terms? Trumps base is not big enough to win a national election and no one else wants to touch him with a 1000 foot pole. Dems espouse policies that poll more favourably than Trump does unfavourably, they did pretty well they didn’t absolute crush it though. In a relatively unpartisan time at least with direct comparison to now the Clinton impeachment was a complete shitshow, trying to impeach Trump will be like that on crack cocaine. Trump is electorally fucked if either the Dems galvanise the non-voters from last time with a decent candidate, or Teump doesn’t somehow add to his base. The latter I don’t see him doing without some kind of huge gift being given to him, which an impeachment dogfight could at least potentially be. Define abolutely crushing it. Because of the biggest vote margin in mid-term history isn't good enough, what is?
|
On April 22 2019 01:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Post presidency trump is going to be entertaining and a view of the descent into dementia.
You raise another important point. There should be some kind of transparency about his medical status. It's obvious that his physicals have been fraught with lies, and there is no doubt in my mind, and let me be 100% clear on this, I am absolutely certain, that he is suffering from some kind of dementia. This is the kind of shit the 25th amendment was made for.
"We must find the oranges of the investigation" indeed.
|
Northern Ireland25445 Posts
On April 22 2019 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 03:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 22 2019 03:12 Gorsameth wrote:On April 22 2019 03:07 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Well they put their election at risk because they’ll be framed as the establishment vs the anti-establishment wave, or be seen as going against the will of the people re the Presidential election Trump’s entire strategy, regardless of how planned or sophisticated it is is to grab a base, galvanise them, and frame attacks on Trump no matter how legitimate as some kid of conspiracy against him and by extension that base. It’s worked in the past, continues to work and trying to impeach him plays right into it. I mean I’d rather it didn’t but it is what it is, to me anyway. If I felt it could either actually impeach him, or be politically shrewd to do against the guy then sure, I don’t think either are the case. How does it continue to work in light of the Democrats success in the mid-terms? Trumps base is not big enough to win a national election and no one else wants to touch him with a 1000 foot pole. Dems espouse policies that poll more favourably than Trump does unfavourably, they did pretty well they didn’t absolute crush it though. In a relatively unpartisan time at least with direct comparison to now the Clinton impeachment was a complete shitshow, trying to impeach Trump will be like that on crack cocaine. Trump is electorally fucked if either the Dems galvanise the non-voters from last time with a decent candidate, or Teump doesn’t somehow add to his base. The latter I don’t see him doing without some kind of huge gift being given to him, which an impeachment dogfight could at least potentially be. Define abolutely crushing it. Because of the biggest vote margin in mid-term history isn't good enough, what is?
I was under the impression the margin was big in terms of overall votes across everything in play, but partly due to blur states going even more blue, there were some that did almost swung from traditional red to blue, but ultimately didn’t, etc.
I mean this is remembering it from me following it at the time, so probably pretty damn inaccurate
|
This is pretty interesting. It shows how he cherry-picked and spun the report. I'm kind of surprised that other news agencies haven't done this yet.
"Attorney General William Barr released a letter to Congress on March 24, 2019, purporting to summarize the top-line conclusions of the Mueller report. Now that the full report has been made public it’s clear that Barr’s selective, partial quotations from the Mueller text amounted to brazen, dishonest sins of omission.
Barr has revealed himself as a partisan who is not to be trusted. Below, we republish his letter in full, with boldface additions of full sentences and context that Barr sanitized to mislead the public and please the president"
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html
|
On April 22 2019 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote:This is pretty interesting. It shows how he cherry-picked and spun the report. I'm kind of surprised that other news agencies haven't done this yet. "Attorney General William Barr released a letter to Congress on March 24, 2019, purporting to summarize the top-line conclusions of the Mueller report. Now that the full report has been made public it’s clear that Barr’s selective, partial quotations from the Mueller text amounted to brazen, dishonest sins of omission. Barr has revealed himself as a partisan who is not to be trusted. Below, we republish his letter in full, with boldface additions of full sentences and context that Barr sanitized to mislead the public and please the president" https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html Pretty sure it was mentioned after the report released, and heavily suspected before it by many.
|
On April 22 2019 04:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 04:17 Ayaz2810 wrote:This is pretty interesting. It shows how he cherry-picked and spun the report. I'm kind of surprised that other news agencies haven't done this yet. "Attorney General William Barr released a letter to Congress on March 24, 2019, purporting to summarize the top-line conclusions of the Mueller report. Now that the full report has been made public it’s clear that Barr’s selective, partial quotations from the Mueller text amounted to brazen, dishonest sins of omission. Barr has revealed himself as a partisan who is not to be trusted. Below, we republish his letter in full, with boldface additions of full sentences and context that Barr sanitized to mislead the public and please the president" https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html Pretty sure it was mentioned after the report released, and heavily suspected before it by many.
I should have been clearer. I meant I'm surprised that in the past few days, the memo has not been re-written as it has by yahoo. It's a concise and damning handful of additions. That's some shit that is perfect for consumers of news who have short attention spans. Essentially..... everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States24690 Posts
The thesis of that article is that midterm election results are not a good predictor of results of the next presidential election. What this article isn't doing is discussing how the rules/trends have changed for 2018 and 2020. Trump's atypical behavior has driven a lot of voters to similarly behave differently than typically happens every two years. Historical data is not that helpful here.
As an example, I normally vote, but next year I will be voting in the presidential election even if my house is surrounded by rabid bears... I will find a way... not true in 2012... I voted, but only because I didn't have to fight my way through bears.
What would be really nice would be if the popular vote selected the winner, so I wouldn't be in a situation where I already know my State's voting choice ahead of time, but alas, we have a silly system.
|
On April 22 2019 03:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause.
I'd be curious what the mean age of their survey participants is because this explanation would help make sense of why Rasmussen's survey results often seem like outliers compared to the other major surveys done. There's a neat CDC survey from 2017 that indicates what we all expect: landline usage plummets among people under 35 (other than people 18-24 who still live at home), while being quite common among those in their 50s or older. Combining that with older folks tending to be more conservative, and it starts to make sense why Rasmussen skews more conservative in their results than most of the other surveys we see.
More than seven in ten adults aged 25–29 (72.7%) and aged 30-34 (71.0%) lived in households with only wireless telephones. These rates are greater than the rate for those 18–24 (61.7%). The percentage of adults living with only wireless telephones decreased as age increased beyond 35 years: 62.5% for those 35–44; 45.2% for those 45–64; and 23.5% for those 65 and over. Having just taking a stats class on sampling methods where we looked at this type of stuff, this to me seems like it could potentially be a pretty big source of bias.
|
Northern Ireland25445 Posts
That seems pretty plausible, assuming they don’t correct for it
|
On April 22 2019 05:43 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 03:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause.
I'd be curious what the mean age of their survey participants is because this explanation would help make sense of why Rasmussen's survey results often seem like outliers compared to the other major surveys done. There's a neat CDC survey from 2017 that indicates what we all expect: landline usage plummets among people under 35 (other than people 18-24 who still live at home), while being quite common among those in their 50s or older. Combining that with older folks tending to be more conservative, and it starts to make sense why Rasmussen skews more conservative in their results than most of the other surveys we see. Show nested quote +More than seven in ten adults aged 25–29 (72.7%) and aged 30-34 (71.0%) lived in households with only wireless telephones. These rates are greater than the rate for those 18–24 (61.7%). The percentage of adults living with only wireless telephones decreased as age increased beyond 35 years: 62.5% for those 35–44; 45.2% for those 45–64; and 23.5% for those 65 and over. Having just taking a stats class on sampling methods where we looked at this type of stuff, this to me seems like it could potentially be a pretty big source of bias.
Just some tidbits regarding the criticism of polling methods.
"After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model."
"In 2009 Time magazine described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[85] John Zogby said in 2010 that Scott Rasmussen had a "conservative constituency."
"Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Evaluations_of_accuracy_and_performance
|
On April 22 2019 05:49 Wombat_NI wrote:
That seems pretty plausible, assuming they don’t correct for it
Yeah, it all depends on if they correct for it or not. You'd think they would since it seems like such an obvious source of bias. I'd imagine now the proportion of people with a landline is even lower than that survey from 2017 and it would become less and less feasible to continue with landline-only polling while hoping for accurate results. The fact they aren't that far off the other pollsters suggests to me they must do some kind of correction.
On April 22 2019 05:53 Ayaz2810 wrote:Just some tidbits regarding the criticism of polling methods. "After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model." "In 2009 Time magazine described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[85] John Zogby said in 2010 that Scott Rasmussen had a "conservative constituency." "Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Evaluations_of_accuracy_and_performance Those figures Nate Silver gave sound fairly reasonable. Rasmussen is never too far off the rest of the polls, but often their polls skew a few points toward the Republican-leaning options compared to the others, at least from what I've seen anyway.
|
I've been saying this for 3 years and I don't know why it isn't said more.
Tillerson was about to make the biggest deal in history (https://www.ft.com/content/7e6a3212-1d1c-11e8-956a-43db76e69936 "ExxonMobil abandons joint ventures with Russia’s Rosneft") between ExxonMobile and the Russian Government (Rosneft). The few involved in the deal would become the richest/most powerful people overnight.
The deal was to allow ExxonMobile have drilling rights in the North Russia in the Arctic circle.
After the Russian annexation of Crimea the deal wasn't allowed go through because of sanctions.
Tillerson has been trying to reverse this since he was in Trump's admin (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508).
Why do you think he was chosen out of the blue as Secretary of State?
This all has to do with Rosneft becoming incredibly valuable and the sale of 19% of the company (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-privatisation-insight/how-russia-sold-its-oil-jewel-without-saying-who-bought-it-idUSKBN1582OH Interesting that Qatar is involved, no?) in anticipation of sanctions relief and the beginning of exploration/drilling. The Moscow tower was a small part of the broader scheme. I hate to sound like I know more than Mueller does, but that report he issued touches on, in my opinion, probably only 50% of what made up this conspiracy. By not digging into the financial realm, he really only got a part of the puzzle.
The number of people involved in the Trump/Russia scandal number into the hundreds, and if you were to make a graphic connecting them, it would be incomprehensible. That's how big this is. And I didn't even mention the counterintelligence issues around Semion Mogilevich, Bob Levinson, Alexander Litvinenko, Christopher Steele (Codename "Martin"), Rudy Guiliani, and all the people in Trump's admin who have ties to Russia and Russian companies: William Barr, Christopher Wray, Brian Benczkowski, Wilbur Ross, and a whole host of Congresspeople.
I could probably write a book about all the shit that Mueller didn't even mention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
