That might've bene edited in.
Can a mod just highlight the first two paragraphs?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Donald J. Trump has been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives.
- Thread starter hitme
- Start date
Can a mod just highlight the first two paragraphs?
Unfortunately no. The Senate basically decides how they want to handle the whole thing. If 51 of them vote to end it an hour in, it's over.
We always knew that the Senate trial was going to be a sham.
It's hilarious how many people who claim to hate Trump spin entire narratives of propaganda in his favor.
I believe those three were ones in red districts that Dems won in 2018
Two red destricts and one Dem who's a DINO and is in fact switching to republican soon
Exactly. and if you roll over because of that? Get the fuck out of here! You serve no purpose.
But the OP lists only 1 present vote? Or is abstaining different? What does it mean vs voting present?
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Trump bragging about being impeached but not removed for his re-election campaign converts anyone who wasn't already riding the Trump train.
Are you sure? I just checked the vote tally somewhere and the no votes were 197 and 198, and there are 197 Republicans.
Honestly I hope the senate trial is over quick so Bernie and Warren can get back to the campaign trail.
I'm imagining he will focus on the word 'aquital' from the senate trial
Random question, does anyone know what the difference between "aye" and "yea", and "nay" and "no" are?
Because for anyone that votes casually, which is a decent segment of the population, it makes it look like all of the various attempts to paint him as a criminal failed for what must be good reason.
Hmmm, I wonder what can be done if the Senate refuses to give the country an impartial trial? Can McConnell be ripped out of his office if he straight up refuses to hold a fair trial? Republicans have to be scared shitless of actual witnesses during a live presidential trial. Can some sort of negligence/refusal to do this job to the best of their ability, be used as leverage against them and the GOP?
I only saw the results for Article I. Maybe the second one they all voted No?
Yes this was known since before the Dems took the House. And it does mean something because support for impeachment is high and the Dem base wanted this to happen.
So hey everyone, if you *really* wanna make a difference and want him removed you should all be calling up your senators and pleading now to vote for removal, ESPECIALLY if you have a republican senator. If you don't wanna put in some extra effort and do some emergency campaigning thats fine but don't get salty if he remains in office.
I wouldn't bet anything on this answer, but it's effectively nothing and I thiiiiiiiink it has to do with how the votes are formatted in the house computer. The first was a 15 minute vote and the second a 5.
I think it is just historical yes and no. Tradition used to be respected and now that I think about it, could be political signaling.
I swear if half the people who called themselves liberals or progressives actively stamped these narratives out, shitting on Trump in the process, instead of describing their feelings of weakness and powerlessness towards the situation, lamenting how calling fuck face out will successfully be used as ammo against us, then honestly we wouldn't have half the narrative problems.
The reality is that apolitical people and fencesitters are attracted more to assertive narratives than they are to truthful ones. But the truth doesn't hurt either. Truthful and assertive will definitely win the day if our body politic (left wing) could just get there.
He's not going to say he was impeached but not removed. He's going to say he received full exoneration for all his alleged crimes. He'll wrap everything that's ever happened since 2016 up in the Senate's acquittal.
This will then be repeated by the media, which some will accept as fact.
The Republican Senators are literally screaming that they will literally make this a sham trial.
They're not even trying to hide it because they're are obsessed with trying to look like the biggest Trump loyalist. They're not trying to appeal to anyone else because that's what's going to get Trump go after them and force a primary.
Like some 60% of Republican voters want the Senate to trot out witnesses yet the Senate is going to refuse to do this.
"Aquitted" doesn't hold very positive connotations. It's still playing defense. It also directs one's mind to the charges.
How does the word "aquital" actually make him more electable to people who weren't already of the "Dems are destroying the country, don't believe the liberal media" mindset?
It's great that you are explaining to me how polling and percentages work. I appreciate that. I wouldn't be able to read this thread without you explaining how numbers work. I also love that you include "random chance" as if voting uses that as a metric. lmao
Other posters say polls show Biden, a less liked candidate than Clinton, would win today against Trump.
Not sure where that poster is pulling their number from.
CNN says Biden is lower in Nov 2019 than Clinton was in Oct 2016
5 points to Clinton's 12.
Which way is it? Polls matter or they change too much and they don't? Random chance? I honestly can't believe you said "random chance." As if Republicans dont spend millions of dollars to sway stupid people and get them out to vote.
I mean even 30 something years olds here don't get it, lol. I don't expect kids to.
Pleading to republicans senators to do that would be like a teacher asking kids at recess to be quiet.
Some random person calling you vs your donors. Tough choice...
I think "exoneration" is still playing defense too much, his propaganda machine will probably choose weasel words without legal connotations to treat the impeachment process like a personal smear attempt that tries to hide the concept that formal charges were brought against him.
Regardless, I'm not seeing how having a layperson go "well maybe he's not a criminal" helps convert them.
It definitely works wonders on emboldening the existing base. I'm not seeing how it creates new trumpsters.
That's why I think the whole thing has a neutral effect on the election.
No. They set that standard 200 years ago when they didnt impeach a senator to protect themselves. Congress isn't going to impeach their own.
I am attempting to explain a basic principle to you that, frankly, schoolchildren master with little trouble. I could be much more condescending, but for your benefit and perhaps other curious folks, I will explain a bit more.
Let's say there are one thousand people who are absolutely sure how they are going to vote. Because I'm omniscient, I know six hundred of them are going to vote for A, four hundred are going to vote for B. But you don't know that, and you're not sure! You want to know. So you start asking people, but people are busy and you don't have a lot of time. You only get to ask twenty, randomly, from the population.
Now, hopefully, of the twenty, twelve say they are voting for candidate A, and eight say for B. This would be exactly correct (and is technically the most likely outcome), but it is probably not going to happen. In this circumstance, if you were to randomly get 13 for A and then 7 for B...you can see how simple that would be...now we would project our population to be 65 percent for A, and 35 percent for B. And you might even get a crazier result, like 16 versus 4, just by bad luck!
Polls try to sample as many people as they can, and try to get an accurate cross section of the population (if you were to ask only people with landlines, for instance, you would get only older and thus more conservative folk). So because of this uncertainty and, yes, random chance inherent in representative sampling, there is a fairly significant margin of error within every poll.
Now, I feel a little more comfortable in telling you to close your mouth until you understand what I just said.
Eeehhhh, I don't know, if a sizable share of the voters who put said person in office voiced their disdain and threatened their very livelihood of being in office, that would actually do something as has happened before with other issues albeit none quite like this.
Rashida Tlaib helped deliver on what she promised when she was sworn in:
You just love to see it.
You just love to see it.
My senators are Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott. I'm sure I can get through to them.
In almost every single thread about Trump there are "he's only getting stronger" posts that do nothing but spread his propaganda when it's very clear to everybody that he's reached his ceiling three years ago and the only thing the guy can do is entertaining his brainwashed base.
These people were always going to be there for him no matter what because they're in a cult, but whoever wasn't in it in 2016 isn't going to join now, and pretending otherwise is just fueling apathy, the kind that can cause people not to vote because "Trump's gonna win no matter what".
I wish these people would shut the fuck up instead of doing Trump's work for him.
You want Democrats to cater to their voters who most recently put them in control of the House?! You're craaaazy! We should definitely focus all our energy on catering to Trump supporters and uninformed people instead.
So.. didn't Mit Romney say... if Trump gets impeached by the House.. he knows many Republican senators willing to vote him out?
The CNN article is question makes zero mention of Clinton or October 2016. 2016, as a generalisation, is only mentioned because the poll is about battleground states that Trump narrowly won.
What does actually roughly make your point is that Upshot/NYT poll that the CNN article is referring to, which makes the point that Democrats aren't winning back non-college educated white voters, but no one knows what the fuck you're talking about because you're talking about CNN and are basically asking people to hunt the right NYT (probably paywalled) analysis done by Nate Cohn on the 4th of November.
The main thing to get out of all of this is that Warren is not the candidate to choose, especially based off a lot of people's reasoning in that article. One woman states that she's unlikable in the same way Clinton was because of shit like body language. Yeah misogyny is lame but you can't do anything about that within a year.
If you actually want to debate shit, be specific for god's sake.
Last edited: