it is, but when you consider your trying to become leader of the free world, I kinda expect it.
-
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.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT8| WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Forgot to respond earlier, but I would not be shocked if Forma is #1 for fundraising in Q3.
Ah, the bastion of conservative intellectualism, the National Review.
Just shoot these people into the sun. Give them the proper amount of ridicule first...but right into the sun.
In a Senate trial I can't imagine he would be able to get out of it, he's the guy on trial. Obviously they would do everything to avoid it because once he's up there, there's nothing to be done, it's automatically going to be a disaster for him and the GOP.
I mean, they could subpoena him I guess, but he won't appear. There is no mechanism to physically force him to appear. Then we can just add it to the articles.
Last edited:
I feel like "this is terrible and impeachable, but he shouldn't be impeached/removed" is like the worst possible defense you could come up with.
The Bitch and Graham there?
They'd find a way to make sure it didn't happen.
If it was a Democratic President those people would be all in on impeachment. It's just partisan hackery disguised as "restraint" or whatever.
Ah, the "let's just allow Trump to impeach himself with the voters" argument.
That one's old and busted, cons.
It'd be worth it just to see him have to wear reading glasses alone.
Yeah, like hey, let's just let him stay in office for another year-plus, increasingly desperate and agitated by his dropping poll numbers to commit more acts of treason with other countries to keep himself in the running.
Let me get this straight:
Bobo Higgonbottom Chesterton Brooks III is very convinced that we have a traitorous narcissist as POTUS who by all accounts is guilty of at least two instances of electoral crimes, but he wants that same criminal not brought up on charges as is afforded the House in the Constitution, but instead wants him to be allowed to continue to leverage the machinery of State against those who are supposed to rise above the fray, y'know for the good of the nation.
Is that the story from this fucking cretin?
Bobo Brooks should have a fucking seat and ruminate on why he's allowed to have meals in public free of shit and ground glass after decades of leveraging the same fascists, goons and cultists to get his tax cuts and abortion limitations enacted, that he now laments have taken over his beautiful Republican party.
Send this waste of oxygen back to the Canadian shithole he crawled out of.
Bobo Higgonbottom Chesterton Brooks III is very convinced that we have a traitorous narcissist as POTUS who by all accounts is guilty of at least two instances of electoral crimes, but he wants that same criminal not brought up on charges as is afforded the House in the Constitution, but instead wants him to be allowed to continue to leverage the machinery of State against those who are supposed to rise above the fray, y'know for the good of the nation.
Is that the story from this fucking cretin?
Bobo Brooks should have a fucking seat and ruminate on why he's allowed to have meals in public free of shit and ground glass after decades of leveraging the same fascists, goons and cultists to get his tax cuts and abortion limitations enacted, that he now laments have taken over his beautiful Republican party.
Send this waste of oxygen back to the Canadian shithole he crawled out of.
This is actually a good argument as long as you actually come for the King.
In order to get this to where you need it to be, you have to relentlessly hammer in on this to the point it will cost the GOP no matter what they do- pissing off swing voters or demotivating their base.
oh, I forgot this was the argument they were having on CNN or MSNBC last night. They were arguing over whether or not to have Rudy testify and someone quoted, "if you come at the king you best not miss," and I was just dumbfounded.
Rudy is not some brain genius he is a conspiracy theory spouting idiot.
That's pretty good.
Iowa often gets lumped in with Ohio based on Trump's margin in 2016, but I think it's a lot more similar to MN/MI/WI/PA in its politics. If Hubbell had only pulled it off in the governor's race last year I think people would be far more positive about it.
I honestly don't understand why she's still in the race. She needs to throw in the stapler.
So in the minds of opinion writers; Trump deserves a red card, but not be thrown out of the game.
That's just bonkers.
That's just bonkers.
Candidates who qualify for the debates have little reason to drop out unless they run out of money. Not sure that's a good thing. In 2016 the threshold for making a debate basically didn't exist, so you had absolute nobodies like Chafee there. 3 of the 5 candidates from the '16 Dem debates wouldn't even qualify for them at this point. Imagine if in 2016 everyone who thought they could make it to a debate stage had run.
The people who ought to drop immediately are Ryan, Delaney, Williamson, Bullock, etc. Everyone who failed to qualify for the October debate and definitely won't qualify for the November one.
It really isn't a big deal to still have a dozen candidates in the race 3 months before voting begins. Just keep narrowing it down a little bit at a time. And get rid of the <2% crowd.
AOC is area of communism. It's similar.
Edit: It's strong against corrupt capitalists.
I'd like everyone who thinks the final Mueller report did 'nothing' to look at this.
Yes, it didn't get us to start the impeachment process, but it brought us a good step closer.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say that it's a bad idea to impeach a president even when the president has clearly committed high crimes, depending on the situation. That was the position of a lot of posters in this thread, including myself, before the Ukraine stuff, and what changed my mind is that I think this particular high crime is easy enough to message about that impeachment has become a good idea.
But it's one thing to think something or to say it to a small number of people who all agree that the important thing is getting rid of Trump. It seems irresponsible to broadcast it to the world from a position of prominence. And, like, it's David Brooks. He's not someone with any credibility among liberals. The effect of what he's doing is to make impeachment a merely political process, by injecting political concerns into the conversation in a useless way.
But it's one thing to think something or to say it to a small number of people who all agree that the important thing is getting rid of Trump. It seems irresponsible to broadcast it to the world from a position of prominence. And, like, it's David Brooks. He's not someone with any credibility among liberals. The effect of what he's doing is to make impeachment a merely political process, by injecting political concerns into the conversation in a useless way.
This reminds me of something I was going to ask -- is it possible for a Dem next year to lose WI and OH, but win PA, MI, and IA? General thought seems to be that PA and MI are more likely to swing back than WI, but could Iowa be a swing-y enough replacement for it?
It's possible, although I don't think it's very likely. Everyone focuses on the closeness of Walker's race, but Wisconsin's Congressional election results (both House and Senate) were closer to Pennsylvania and Michigan's last year, which is probably a better measuring stick for support of Trump.
Iowa did go for the Democrats in the Congressional vote, although that's likely padded due to Steve King's weaknesses as a candidate. Get a "normal" Republican to run in the 4th district and they would probably do much better. Putting it a shade to the right of the WI/MI/PA trio seems fair, but not to the extent of "it's unwinnable, give up forever" some folks seem to be pushing.
These people get paid by think tanks to persuade public opinion.
obviously online markets can be pretty flawed as evidenced by how high Yang is and has been but I just noticed that Hillary is almost beating Sanders on predictit right now and found it kinda funny:
The only way we get a "secret" vote is if the final impeachment vote is at a time when Trump is down to Nixonian levels with the public, but still high enough w/ the GOP that it'd still cost them primaries to vote for impeachment. OTOH, it's still a long shot, even then.
This is the most baffling defense yet.
Why does it matter what the circumstances for the whistleblower report were when they themselves have released the documentation in the claim?
"How would he know i stole the crown jewels!? He never saw me take them!"
"Okay, but just to be clear, these are the missing jewels that you're handing over?"
"Yes, BUT HE COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW THAT."
Last edited:
Hey guys, I know this OT exists but I'm keen to build an Impeachment OT that will contains timelines, new updates and more for those who may not necessarily visit this OT and want to wrap their heads around it (please bear in mind, not everyone on here is from the US) - I'd love to have the opportunity to build this out - who best to discuss with?
I'd make a post with that information. Given how big impeachment is, and how fast moving it'll likely be, it'll constantly be requiring new threads due to the new news/new thread rule.
If you want to make an informational post with a timeline so people can more easily keep track, then feel free. But it's not really something that should get lost in a big OT, ya know?
- Status