EPTthanks Donnie.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3076
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
thanks Donnie. | ||
|
Archeon
3271 Posts
On February 11 2021 18:52 Gorsameth wrote: I don't think such a party would aim to actually win, because as you say its nigh impossible in a FPTP election. This would make more sense to be used as a threat to try and get the GOP to distance itself from Trump. I agree, the threat might actually move the republicans into action to distance themselves and is the first real chance I see for the impeachement. Mitch can't afford to see his party splinter and if he's really forced to he'd guaranteed rather stick with the Republican elements than the right wing crazies. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46233 Posts
On February 11 2021 19:47 Shingi11 wrote: How awkward is it going to be if trump wins the 2024 nomination and the gop has to support him after he nearly got some of there caucus killed. This trial though show how depraved the GOP has become though, colleagues from the there own party faced real harm and they could care less. All has to be given for the power of the party. If Trump decides to run again, there's a very good chance of him winning the 2024 nomination, unless a smarter populist conservative who appeals to both Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters runs against him. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On February 12 2021 01:32 JimmiC wrote: Trump winning the nomination is probably best for the Dems, no one motivates blue voters quite like Trump. To be fair, Im pretty sure they thought Trump winning the nomination was for the best in 2016, lol We shouldn't be playing with this fire, lol | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11929 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3271 Posts
People are a lot more unwilling to make clear cuts when the crazies share a political side with them. Goes for everyone and their crazies in the cellar. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6322 Posts
On February 11 2021 06:57 Gorsameth wrote: For the people still wondering why Republicans refuse to turn on Trump Losing 1/3 of the Party to Trump would be a complete death sentence for the GOP going forward. They would lose every election in all but the most red of districts and even those who would not abandon the GOP still belief Trump should be acquitted. www.usnews.com The word "refuse" is loaded and only fits in the context of your own worldview, they have no positive reason to "turn on" him. On February 11 2021 07:00 Liquid`Drone wrote: Shouldn't successfully impeaching him be in their best interests then, as it'd kill Trump's chances at becoming president for a third party. And there's no way Trump dedicates himself to a party to prop some other guy up to be president - the main package he's selling is himself. (I mean, addressing the Trump's new party part of that poll. I get how the 71/29 is influential either way.) There is no reason for him to actually make a new party, it was a hypothetical question for clicks, it's not a real scenario or threat for them that they would need to preempt by coopting the constitutional process of impeachment for a political end. It was a possible issue in 2016 before he secured that nomination, but whether he would run in 2024 is so open and far away, there would be no reason for the party to machinegun their feet to stop an obscure possibility of splitting the party in 2024 (chance he runs X chance he loses X chance he cares enough to spoil an election at age 78 by breaking off) which is so unlikely given his also reciprocal loyalty to the Republican party. | ||
|
brian
United States9642 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9235 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
If they openly defy Trump, they lose a ton of their party and never win another election. If they defend Trump now, then he doesn't actually end up running in 2024 anyway, everything is great. There were lots of indications Trump may not be super healthy towards the end of his presidency, so its totally possible a very overweight old man isn't running for president 4 years from now. I think Republicans are doing the strategically correct thing by defending Trump. Morally wrong, strategically correct. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On February 12 2021 03:07 Mohdoo wrote: I think the basic idea for republicans is this: If they openly defy Trump, they lose a ton of their party and never win another election. If they defend Trump now, then he doesn't actually end up running in 2024 anyway, everything is great. There were lots of indications Trump may not be super healthy towards the end of his presidency, so its totally possible a very overweight old man isn't running for president 4 years from now. I think Republicans are doing the strategically correct thing by defending Trump. Morally wrong, strategically correct. That's not what they're doing though. Most of them are just trying to pretend it isn't happening. Which is easy if it only lasts for a couple of days. If witnesses get called (and I think they really should be called here) then that gets a lot harder, as they're expected to interact and ask questions. If you ignore the people directly implicated in the attack it's mostly been silence (Hawley and Cruz defending Trump to the bitter end makes sense, as they were implicated in the same way). Also, Trump's defense team has said they're only spending a single day on defense. That's crazy, especially given how awful their performance has been so far. (They're allotted 16 hours and indicate they may not even use 8). Some senators think it'll end by Saturday, which only happens if no witnesses get called. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6322 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On February 12 2021 03:59 Mohdoo wrote: Why would democrats choose to not call witnesses? Main argument is so they can move onto their agenda, in the case that no amount of evidence could ever secure a conviction. I think that's a mistake, obviously. The other argument goes that witnesses are not really necessary since all of the Senate are already witnesses. (Doesn't really work since they didn't see everything, ie, they don't know the national guard situation firsthand) | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
| ||
