|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | I eliminate the quote tree. It was getting to long.
cheflinda wrote:
| Quote: | There is a difference between reading a few paragraphs about the report and seeing live testimony with witnesses and congress people asking pointed questions and laying out the case like a prosecuting attorney.
I know you're old enough to remember the Watergate hearings. It has a completely different effect on the electorate than a newspaper story.
This would take a year to play out after initial congressional hearings. By the time the trial went to the Senate, we'd be in election season. Even if the Senate doesn't convict, Trump is already a lame duck at that point, But now his wrongdoings are all fresh in the voters minds because they've just watched it on TV. If they are outraged that the Senate hasn't convicted, they'd likely be more motivated to go vote the bastard out of office.
Different congressional committees handle different areas. There is no reason you can't hold hearings and make policy at the same time. Democrats aren't like the Republicans. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. Especially Nancy Pelosi. |
Note the bold red Holding hearings is also a good path.
Keeping his misdeeds fresh in the minds of voters in the election year is a good idea.
If impeachment is undertaken timing is of the essence. If you recall Nixon's impeachment hearings were closed door. How long it takes to publicize the hearing and allow the public to opinion is a matter of importance.
if impeached do you think there will be enough time to get the results to the public to make a difference in a election year?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. |
The "Watergate Hearings" lead by Sam Irvin -- which is what lead up to impeachment -- were televised. Remember John Dean recounting telling Nixon there was a cancer on the presidency? Once the smoking gun tape was played, public sentiment shifted against Nixon. I believe the House took up Impeachment discussions very quickly. They used the the roadmap from the special prosecutor's office to very quickly come up with the articles of impeachment. There was never a public trial in the House or Senate because at that point the Republican Senators went to Nixon and told him if there was trial, he would be convicted. So there wasn't anything to televise at that point except Nixon getting in the helicopter.
If you recall Clinton's impeachment, both the debates about articles of impeachment in the House, and the trial in the Senate were televised.
I said a few pages back that the House can call the hearings anything they want. They can call them the "Murller Report" hearings, or "Russian Election Interference." Then when they've gathered enough evidence and public momentum they'll move on to a vote in the House to "take up the discussion" about Impeachment. They will come up with articles of impeachment, they will have public debate about the articles, then they will vote on the articles. Mostly televised. If the majority votes "Yes" to proceed with Impeachment, then it moves over to the Senate where they have a trial, with a prosecutor and a defense attorney and Chief Justice John Roberts playing the judge. At the end the trial (all televised), the Senate holds a vote to convict or not on individual articles. The need 2/3 to convict on each article.
So that's a whole lot of compelling live TV, right? Like the OJ Simpson Trial + Clinton Impeachment + Watergate + Superbowl combined with a world wide audience. It would be HUGE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fwiw, it is politically expedient for Warren to push impeachment, but not very practical for the Dems as a whole.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Fwiw, it is politically expedient for Warren to push impeachment, but not very practical for the Dems as a whole. |
I know it's hard not to be cynical, but I just watched Warren on Maddow and I feel quite certain she did not do this for political reasons. She actually believed after reading the report that it's the right thing to do. She and Rachel had a discussion about it. Now it may turn out the the right thing to do ends up benefiting her politically, but I don't think that was her primary motivation.
Making the Democratic base feel like you are fighting for them is actually good for the Democrats whether they think so at this moment or not. If you could have seen progressive twitter react to Warren's tweet, it was explosive. People felt like someone was finally speaking and fighting for them.
It's Nancy Pelosi's job to manage the House and the committee hearings. That's how she leads. But progressives want to feel like someone will speak truth in the moment. And that's how Warren led in this moment. There's benefit in both voices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Bill Clinton Impeachment proceedings took 14 months. An equivalent with Trump that started in May wouldn't see an end until July 2020 at the soonest. The Republican Senate would never convict, so it would all be a big show just before an election and provide Trump with an endless array of talking points in the leadup to said election (ie, See I told ya'll it was all a baseless witchhunt and that's why the Senate did not convict) Dems need to stay on message, keep healthcare front and center, and lead with positive messages that easily resonate with most voters.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Fwiw, it is politically expedient for Warren to push impeachment, but not very practical for the Dems as a whole. |
I know it's hard not to be cynical, but I just watched Warren on Maddow and I feel quite certain she did not do this for political reasons. She actually believed after reading the report that it's the right thing to do. She and Rachel had a discussion about it. Now it may turn out the the right thing to do ends up benefiting her politically, but I don't think that was her primary motivation.
Making the Democratic base feel like you are fighting for them is actually good for the Democrats whether they think so at this moment or not. If you could have seen progressive twitter react to Warren's tweet, it was explosive. People felt like someone was finally speaking and fighting for them.
It's Nancy Pelosi's job to manage the House and the committee hearings. That's how she leads. But progressives want to feel like someone will speak truth in the moment. And that's how Warren led in this moment. There's benefit in both voices. |
To be clear, I wasn’t accusing Warren of only playing politics, but while I get your feelings about someone saying what you feel, that’s not what I’m looking for in leaders. I’m looking for people to make hard decisions, and that’s why people like Warren aren’t top of the ticket worthy for me. Not because I’m sexist, not because I’m not liberal enough, but because I want to win. Because I know the difference between what I want to hear and what needs to be done.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | The Bill Clinton Impeachment proceedings took 14 months. An equivalent with Trump that started in May wouldn't see an end until July 2020 at the soonest. The Republican Senate would never convict, so it would all be a big show just before an election and provide Trump with an endless array of talking points in the leadup to said election (ie, See I told ya'll it was all a baseless witchhunt and that's why the Senate did not convict) Dems need to stay on message, keep healthcare front and center, and lead with positive messages that easily resonate with most voters. |
Yep. Time for the Dems to run on policy that improves life for Americans as a whole and look forward. There's no point in continuing to get sucked into the back and forth over collusion and obstruction.
I've gone back and forth in my own mind about what I would like too see happen versus what logically should happen. Time to stop running against Trump. It's time to run on returning things to a sense of normalcy and progress. There's really nothing to be done or gained by continuing to hammer away at Trump's indiscretions and doing so actually is more likely to help him than. hurt him.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Fwiw, it is politically expedient for Warren to push impeachment, but not very practical for the Dems as a whole. |
I know it's hard not to be cynical, but I just watched Warren on Maddow and I feel quite certain she did not do this for political reasons. She actually believed after reading the report that it's the right thing to do. She and Rachel had a discussion about it. Now it may turn out the the right thing to do ends up benefiting her politically, but I don't think that was her primary motivation.
Making the Democratic base feel like you are fighting for them is actually good for the Democrats whether they think so at this moment or not. If you could have seen progressive twitter react to Warren's tweet, it was explosive. People felt like someone was finally speaking and fighting for them.
It's Nancy Pelosi's job to manage the House and the committee hearings. That's how she leads. But progressives want to feel like someone will speak truth in the moment. And that's how Warren led in this moment. There's benefit in both voices. |
To be clear, I wasn’t accusing Warren of only playing politics, but while I get your feelings about someone saying what you feel, that’s not what I’m looking for in leaders. I’m looking for people to make hard decisions, and that’s why people like Warren aren’t top of the ticket worthy for me. Not because I’m sexist, not because I’m not liberal enough, but because I want to win. Because I know the difference between what I want to hear and what needs to be done. |
All I can say is watch the interview and evaluate it.
I haven't decided who I'm supporting. I like and respect Warren as my Senator. It's not that she said what I wanted to hear, it's that she takes the rule of law and the constitution seriously and came away from reading the Mueller report with the realization that she would be shirking her Congressional responsibility if she simply stayed quiet or looked the other way -- which would have been the easy thing to do. I respect because she did the hard thing and the ethical thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | The Bill Clinton Impeachment proceedings took 14 months. An equivalent with Trump that started in May wouldn't see an end until July 2020 at the soonest. The Republican Senate would never convict, so it would all be a big show just before an election and provide Trump with an endless array of talking points in the leadup to said election (ie, See I told ya'll it was all a baseless witchhunt and that's why the Senate did not convict) Dems need to stay on message, keep healthcare front and center, and lead with positive messages that easily resonate with most voters. |
Yep. Time for the Dems to run on policy that improves life for Americans as a whole and look forward. There's no point in continuing to get sucked into the back and forth over collusion and obstruction.
I've gone back and forth in my own mind about what I would like too see happen versus what logically should happen. Time to stop running against Trump. It's time to run on returning things to a sense of normalcy and progress. There's really nothing to be done or gained by continuing to hammer away at Trump's indiscretions and doing so actually is more likely to help him than. hurt him. |
So when the next president obstructs justice, and lies and abuses power and knows Congress won't do anything about it and that becomes the new norm?
Congress can do multiple things at once while the candidates are simultaneously running their own campaigns. I don't understand the thinking that this is a binary all or nothing proposition?
Uphold the law. Make policy. Conduct oversight hearings. Write bills. Let candidates run their own campaigns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | Mexican Soldiers Disarm and Detain 2 American Soldiers on US Side of the Border.
| Quote: | Two US soldiers were questioned by Mexican troops earlier this month while conducting a surveillance operation on the US side of the southern border, two US defense officials tell CNN.
"On April 13, 2019, at approximately 2 p.m. CDT, five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations in an unmarked (Customs and Border Protection) vehicle near the southwest border in the vicinity of Clint, Texas," US Northern Command told CNN in a statement.
During the incident, the Mexican soldiers pointed their weapons at the US troops, removing a soldier's sidearm and returning it to the unmarked US vehicle, the officials said.
The Mexican troops were armed with what appeared to be assault rifles, according to one official.
Officials said that the US soldiers allowed the weapon to be taken "in an attempt to de-escalate a potential volatile situation."
The encounter took place south of the border fence in the area but north of the Rio Grande, the officials said.
However, the officials said the river in that area consists of brush-filled and dried-out riverbed, making it "very easy" for people to be confused as to what side of the border they are on.
One of the American soldiers spoke some Spanish and was able to explain the situation to the Mexican forces. The two sides talked the incident over and promised to de-conflict in the future, the officials said. |
Mexican Troops Detain American Troops |
Why are US Military Personnel being used for Border patrol?
I bet the Mexican police were checking to make sure the unmarked wasn't kidnappers
Local Militia has been stalking immigrants on our border
They captured many and we're holding them with guns drawn in their faces | Quote: |
[b]United Constitutional Patriots.
[/b
“I was horrified. I was outraged to see young children being held apparently at gunpoint in the dead of night in a remote part of the desert by people who have unknow
motives,” said Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | Mexican Soldiers Disarm and Detain 2 American Soldiers on US Side of the Border.
| Quote: | Two US soldiers were questioned by Mexican troops earlier this month while conducting a surveillance operation on the US side of the southern border, two US defense officials tell CNN.
"On April 13, 2019, at approximately 2 p.m. CDT, five to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations in an unmarked (Customs and Border Protection) vehicle near the southwest border in the vicinity of Clint, Texas," US Northern Command told CNN in a statement.
During the incident, the Mexican soldiers pointed their weapons at the US troops, removing a soldier's sidearm and returning it to the unmarked US vehicle, the officials said.
The Mexican troops were armed with what appeared to be assault rifles, according to one official.
Officials said that the US soldiers allowed the weapon to be taken "in an attempt to de-escalate a potential volatile situation."
The encounter took place south of the border fence in the area but north of the Rio Grande, the officials said.
However, the officials said the river in that area consists of brush-filled and dried-out riverbed, making it "very easy" for people to be confused as to what side of the border they are on.
One of the American soldiers spoke some Spanish and was able to explain the situation to the Mexican forces. The two sides talked the incident over and promised to de-conflict in the future, the officials said. |
Mexican Troops Detain American Troops |
Why are US Military Personnel being used for Border patrol?
I bet the Mexican police were checking to make sure the unmarked wasn't kidnappers
Local Militia has been stalking immigrants on our border
They captured many and we're holding them with guns drawn in their faces | Quote: |
[b]United Constitutional Patriots.
[/b
“I was horrified. I was outraged to see young children being held apparently at gunpoint in the dead of night in a remote part of the desert by people who have unknow
motives,” said Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/18/new-mexico-migrants-armed-militia-detained
Videos appear to show armed militia detaining migrants at US-Mexico border
The American Civil Liberties Union is calling the actions a ‘kidnapping’ and a flagrant violation of the law |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher AOC wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Not at all. Bernie speaks a lot of feel good buzz words, but when you get down to actual substance, he's not a standout on policy by any means. |
Is that why his 2016 policy platform is now a litmus test for all of the 2020 candidates? If a Democratic candidate doesn't endorse Medicare-For-All or something very similar to it, they don't have a chance. Likewise with raising the minimum wage to at least $15/hour. Likewise with a ban on fracking.
Is leading Congress to put a bill on Trump's desk to end military aid to Saudi Arabia just feel good buzz words? Was using his platform and influence to pressure Disney and Amazon to pay their workers more money not substantive?
| DaMuleRules wrote: | In case any one wondered why Bernie Bros are a problem:
No. 3: 26% of current Bernie Sanders supporters said that they would rather vote for President Donald Trump over Senator Elizabeth Warren, if that were the eventual 2020 matchup.
While many have assumed that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appeal to a similar progressive voter, many apparent Bernie supporters would seem to disagree. More than one-in-four of them say they would rather vote for Donald Trump’s second term instead of voting for Elizabeth Warren. |
25% of Clinton primary voters in 2008 voted for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and 5% chose to sit out the general election. This sort of thing is not as unusual or unique to Sanders supporters as you want to make it out to be. But by all means, smear away. |
In the interest of accuracy, 25% of women who supported Hillary in the primary said they would support McCain in a poll after she lost. There’s no good evidence that they did, and as is typical, a percentage of more conservative Democrats voted for McCain, but democtratic women not so much.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If 4 more years of Trump isn't enough motive to unite Dems. I'm not sure what is.
I guess we should all just be glad Bernie isn't running as an Independent.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher AOC
Sixth Man
Joined: 26 Jun 2018
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Christopher AOC wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Not at all. Bernie speaks a lot of feel good buzz words, but when you get down to actual substance, he's not a standout on policy by any means. |
Is that why his 2016 policy platform is now a litmus test for all of the 2020 candidates? If a Democratic candidate doesn't endorse Medicare-For-All or something very similar to it, they don't have a chance. Likewise with raising the minimum wage to at least $15/hour. Likewise with a ban on fracking.
Is leading Congress to put a bill on Trump's desk to end military aid to Saudi Arabia just feel good buzz words? Was using his platform and influence to pressure Disney and Amazon to pay their workers more money not substantive?
| DaMuleRules wrote: | In case any one wondered why Bernie Bros are a problem:
No. 3: 26% of current Bernie Sanders supporters said that they would rather vote for President Donald Trump over Senator Elizabeth Warren, if that were the eventual 2020 matchup.
While many have assumed that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appeal to a similar progressive voter, many apparent Bernie supporters would seem to disagree. More than one-in-four of them say they would rather vote for Donald Trump’s second term instead of voting for Elizabeth Warren. |
25% of Clinton primary voters in 2008 voted for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and 5% chose to sit out the general election. This sort of thing is not as unusual or unique to Sanders supporters as you want to make it out to be. But by all means, smear away. |
In the interest of accuracy, 25% of women who supported Hillary in the primary said they would support McCain in a poll after she lost. There’s no good evidence that they did, and as is typical, a percentage of more conservative Democrats voted for McCain, but democtratic women not so much. |
If you want to throw out polling data because it's not "good evidence," then you should throw out DaMuleRules's post with it.
DaMuleRules loves to harp on Democratic Party unity, and coming together to defeat Trump. Then he goes on to smear and malign Bernie Sanders and Sanders supporters every chance he gets. That's fine, do what you want to do. But in the future, please don't whine when a leftist posts critically about Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another trump lie laid to rest...
Debunking Mueller’s ‘Conflicts’
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/debunking-muellers-conflicts/
| Quote: | Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told investigators that contrary to Trump’s repeated claims that he interviewed Mueller to be FBI director but turned him down, it was the White House that invited Mueller to the Oval Office to “offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI.” Mueller “did not come in looking for the job,” Bannon said.
The Mueller report also details correspondence between the Mueller family and officials at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. Far from being a “nasty” and “contentious” dispute over membership fees, as the president has repeatedly suggested, the correspondence indicates a routine and drama-free departure from the club
Trump complained to advisers that Muller had conflicts of interest. Trump said those included that “Mueller had interviewed for the FBI Director position shortly before being appointed as Special Counsel, that he had worked for a law firm that represented people affiliated with the President, and that Mueller had disputed certain fees relating to his membership in a Trump golf course in Northern Virginia,” the report reads.
According to the report, the president’s advisers — including then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, then-White House counsel Don McGahn and Bannon — “pushed back on his assertion of conflicts, telling the President they did not count as true conflicts.” Bannon told investigators that he “recalled telling the President that the purported conflicts were ‘ridiculous’ and that none of them was real or could come close to justifying precluding Mueller from serving as Special Counsel.
On May 23, 2017, shortly after Mueller was appointed special counsel, Justice Department ethics officials concluded it was “appropriate” for Mueller to lead the investigation even though his former law firm, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher AOC wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Christopher AOC wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Not at all. Bernie speaks a lot of feel good buzz words, but when you get down to actual substance, he's not a standout on policy by any means. |
Is that why his 2016 policy platform is now a litmus test for all of the 2020 candidates? If a Democratic candidate doesn't endorse Medicare-For-All or something very similar to it, they don't have a chance. Likewise with raising the minimum wage to at least $15/hour. Likewise with a ban on fracking.
Is leading Congress to put a bill on Trump's desk to end military aid to Saudi Arabia just feel good buzz words? Was using his platform and influence to pressure Disney and Amazon to pay their workers more money not substantive?
| DaMuleRules wrote: | In case any one wondered why Bernie Bros are a problem:
No. 3: 26% of current Bernie Sanders supporters said that they would rather vote for President Donald Trump over Senator Elizabeth Warren, if that were the eventual 2020 matchup.
While many have assumed that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appeal to a similar progressive voter, many apparent Bernie supporters would seem to disagree. More than one-in-four of them say they would rather vote for Donald Trump’s second term instead of voting for Elizabeth Warren. |
25% of Clinton primary voters in 2008 voted for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and 5% chose to sit out the general election. This sort of thing is not as unusual or unique to Sanders supporters as you want to make it out to be. But by all means, smear away. |
In the interest of accuracy, 25% of women who supported Hillary in the primary said they would support McCain in a poll after she lost. There’s no good evidence that they did, and as is typical, a percentage of more conservative Democrats voted for McCain, but democtratic women not so much. |
If you want to throw out polling data because it's not "good evidence," then you should throw out DaMuleRules's post with it.
DaMuleRules loves to harp on Democratic Party unity, and coming together to defeat Trump. Then he goes on to smear and malign Bernie Sanders and Sanders supporters every chance he gets. That's fine, do what you want to do. But in the future, please don't whine when a leftist posts critically about Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, etc. |
If you had pointed out the factual information I listed, you’d have a fair rebuttal to his point, and I wouldn’t need to throw out either one. I merely pointed out that rather than a fair rebuttal, you misrepresented the actual data you were using. So you might want to ease up on the victimhood, especially since you also got banned from this forum for posting some pretty vile stuff in this thread that was also not of the fair representation variety.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| paymonM wrote: | | tox wrote: |
Lol the polls were accurate, they had Hillary +3 on election day and she won by 3%. Were they off in some key swing states? Yeah, within standard polling miss. There's a reason 538 only gave Hillary a 70% chance of winning (same percentage as LeBron making a free throw). 70% != 100%. But hey, keep flaunting your innumeracy. |
spot on. I wasn't aware the popular vote elected the president. Thanks for catching my "innumeracy".
Here is some relevant facts that actually determine a presidency for you to innumerate:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/10660/just-how-wrong-were-pollsters-final-polls-vs-final-james-barrett
"On the morning of the election, Real Clear Politics' average of the national polls showed Clinton with a 3.3% national lead over Trump and a projected Electoral College victory of 272 to 266. Instead, Clinton ended up with only a 0.2% popular vote advantage and suffering a devastating 232 to 306 loss. At no point before the election did the state poll averages show Trump winning the necessary 270 electoral votes."
Though the poll averages showed Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Trump ended up winning all three, outperforming projections by 3 points, 4.4 points, and a stunning 7.5 points, respectively. Here is how the electoral map actually shaped up: Trump over Clinton, 306 to 232 (Michigan going to Trump and NH to Clinton): |
Really dude? Fact check yourself, RCP had Clinton up 3.3%? She won by 2.1%, not 0.2%. That's well within standard error.
Did he outperform the midwest by 3, 4.4, and 7.5 points? Guess what? That's within standard polling miss, considering they're all correlated. Only Wisconsin is particularly big for a state-wide election. And here's the thing -- standard error was always high in 2016 because of the large numbers of undecided, particularly after Comey's letter. So while 7.5 points is a big number, it's within polling miss.
Electoral numbers are literally irrelevant, and when you need to add weak evidence like that, you know your arguments are flawed.
Or here's another question -- how did the polls compare to the midterm results in 2018? How come you need to cling to a single result when we have more recent evidence? It's almost like that's the only piece of evidence that remotely fits your worldview (and even then, on further examination it doesn't) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher AOC wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Christopher AOC wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Christopher AOC wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Not at all. Bernie speaks a lot of feel good buzz words, but when you get down to actual substance, he's not a standout on policy by any means. |
Is that why his 2016 policy platform is now a litmus test for all of the 2020 candidates? If a Democratic candidate doesn't endorse Medicare-For-All or something very similar to it, they don't have a chance. Likewise with raising the minimum wage to at least $15/hour. Likewise with a ban on fracking.
Is leading Congress to put a bill on Trump's desk to end military aid to Saudi Arabia just feel good buzz words? Was using his platform and influence to pressure Disney and Amazon to pay their workers more money not substantive?
| DaMuleRules wrote: | In case any one wondered why Bernie Bros are a problem:
No. 3: 26% of current Bernie Sanders supporters said that they would rather vote for President Donald Trump over Senator Elizabeth Warren, if that were the eventual 2020 matchup.
While many have assumed that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren appeal to a similar progressive voter, many apparent Bernie supporters would seem to disagree. More than one-in-four of them say they would rather vote for Donald Trump’s second term instead of voting for Elizabeth Warren. |
25% of Clinton primary voters in 2008 voted for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden, and 5% chose to sit out the general election. This sort of thing is not as unusual or unique to Sanders supporters as you want to make it out to be. But by all means, smear away. |
In the interest of accuracy, 25% of women who supported Hillary in the primary said they would support McCain in a poll after she lost. There’s no good evidence that they did, and as is typical, a percentage of more conservative Democrats voted for McCain, but democtratic women not so much. |
If you want to throw out polling data because it's not "good evidence," then you should throw out DaMuleRules's post with it.
DaMuleRules loves to harp on Democratic Party unity, and coming together to defeat Trump. Then he goes on to smear and malign Bernie Sanders and Sanders supporters every chance he gets. That's fine, do what you want to do. But in the future, please don't whine when a leftist posts critically about Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, etc. |
If you had pointed out the factual information I listed, you’d have a fair rebuttal to his point, and I wouldn’t need to throw out either one. I merely pointed out that rather than a fair rebuttal, you misrepresented the actual data you were using. So you might want to ease up on the victimhood, especially since you also got banned from this forum for posting some pretty vile stuff in this thread that was also not of the fair representation variety. |
As long as we're talking about fair representation, I got banned for sarcastically responding to a moderator who called me a misogynist and sexist. That moderator, who instigated the whole thing with a vile personal attack, not sarcasm, did not face any consequences. That is a fair representation, 24. |
Yeah, that’s another mischaracterization. I’d suggest that be the last one.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | I'd like to start a poll on whether or not Trump should be impeached but it would be deemed political. I think it deserves a thread of it own.
I'm torn. If he's impeached I don't think he'll be removed. The House may indict but the Senate won't convict, it would be a first. It may give Trump some leverage in 2020 a SEE I TOLD YOU talking point! If acquitted he'd still finish his term. Impeachment may hurt his chances in 2020 but that's not a surety.
We know Trump's The Snake the Oscar Brown Jr. song he recited as a poem. His base doesn't care even though they're being hurt, in some case, more than others. I don't think impeachment is the right path. America has to do it at the polls. The election will show what the people feel for real. |
It's unquestionable Trump *should* be peached, it's just politically inexpedient. I'm sympathetic to the argument that political damage is worth it as a reaffirmation of political norms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | The Bill Clinton Impeachment proceedings took 14 months. An equivalent with Trump that started in May wouldn't see an end until July 2020 at the soonest. The Republican Senate would never convict, so it would all be a big show just before an election and provide Trump with an endless array of talking points in the leadup to said election (ie, See I told ya'll it was all a baseless witchhunt and that's why the Senate did not convict) Dems need to stay on message, keep healthcare front and center, and lead with positive messages that easily resonate with most voters. |
Yep. Time for the Dems to run on policy that improves life for Americans as a whole and look forward. There's no point in continuing to get sucked into the back and forth over collusion and obstruction.
I've gone back and forth in my own mind about what I would like too see happen versus what logically should happen. Time to stop running against Trump. It's time to run on returning things to a sense of normalcy and progress. There's really nothing to be done or gained by continuing to hammer away at Trump's indiscretions and doing so actually is more likely to help him than. hurt him. |
So when the next president obstructs justice, and lies and abuses power and knows Congress won't do anything about it and that becomes the new norm?
Congress can do multiple things at once while the candidates are simultaneously running their own campaigns. I don't understand the thinking that this is a binary all or nothing proposition?
Uphold the law. Make policy. Conduct oversight hearings. Write bills. Let candidates run their own campaigns. |
As a practical matter, I'm going to throw this out there.
1) The statute of limitations on an Obstruction of Justice charge is 5 years.
2)Current Dept of Justice position instructs that a sitting President can't be sucessfully prosecuted outside of Impeachment proceedings whilst he's in office.
3) If one attempts to prosecute a sitting President despite this DOJ position, then there is a very real jeopardy of not being able to prosecute after the fact due to individual American citizen protections against Double Jeopardy due to the failed attempt to prosecute in ignorance of current DOJ protocol.
4) The current AG will do everything in his power to prevent successful prosecution whilst the retrobate in question is in office.
5) Under the current circumstance, there is no way THIS Senate will convict THIS President. They've made that abundantly clear. What matters more? A horse and pony show, or the preservation of the ability to convict what will then be a private citizen AFTER he's run from office?
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | The Bill Clinton Impeachment proceedings took 14 months. An equivalent with Trump that started in May wouldn't see an end until July 2020 at the soonest. The Republican Senate would never convict, so it would all be a big show just before an election and provide Trump with an endless array of talking points in the leadup to said election (ie, See I told ya'll it was all a baseless witchhunt and that's why the Senate did not convict) Dems need to stay on message, keep healthcare front and center, and lead with positive messages that easily resonate with most voters. |
Yep. Time for the Dems to run on policy that improves life for Americans as a whole and look forward. There's no point in continuing to get sucked into the back and forth over collusion and obstruction.
I've gone back and forth in my own mind about what I would like too see happen versus what logically should happen. Time to stop running against Trump. It's time to run on returning things to a sense of normalcy and progress. There's really nothing to be done or gained by continuing to hammer away at Trump's indiscretions and doing so actually is more likely to help him than. hurt him. |
So when the next president obstructs justice, and lies and abuses power and knows Congress won't do anything about it and that becomes the new norm?
Congress can do multiple things at once while the candidates are simultaneously running their own campaigns. I don't understand the thinking that this is a binary all or nothing proposition?
Uphold the law. Make policy. Conduct oversight hearings. Write bills. Let candidates run their own campaigns. |
As a practical matter, I'm going to throw this out there.
1) The statute of limitations on an Obstruction of Justice charge is 5 years.
2)Current Dept of Justice position instructs that a sitting President can't be sucessfully prosecuted outside of Impeachment proceedings whilst he's in office.
3) If one attempts to prosecute a sitting President despite this DOJ position, then there is a very real jeopardy of not being able to prosecute after the fact due to individual American citizen protections against Double Jeopardy due to the failed attempt to prosecute in ignorance of current DOJ protocol.
4) The current AG will do everything in his power to prevent successful prosecution whilst the retrobate in question is in office.
5) Under the current circumstance, there is no way THIS Senate will convict THIS President. They've made that abundantly clear. What matters more? A horse and pony show, or the preservation of the ability to convict what will then be a private citizen AFTER he's run from office? |
Impeachment is separate from criminal prosecution. Double-jeopardy doesn't apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | governator wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | Barack received 7,854,285 votes in Cali (60.24%) and 4,485,741 (63.35%), in NY. Hillary, thus far, has received 7,230,669 votes in Cali (61.6%) and 4,143,874 (58.8%), in NY.
Eyeballin', as a percentage, Barack received a slightly higher percentage of votes in those states--somewhere just beyond a point.
Recent totals per Wiki: Trump, Popular vote: 61,958,044 (46.56%); Hillary: 63,640,193 (47.83%)
Hillary's lead is nearly 1.6M.
Trump, thus far, has received 46.56% of the popular vote and 56.88% of the electoral vote. |
Why does it matter? A candidate would run a totally different campaign if the goal was to get the most overall votes. |
Yep. Donald could win more popular votes in some states by changing tactics. That could also affect the popular votes in those states he previously campaigned in. Zero sum gain? Dunno. |
yeah, trump won fair and square (within the game)... move on
focus on what DNC gonna do instead |
Yes, the Donald won fair and square--that is if blatant and repeated lying, having Russia, Wikileaks and the FBI against you is fair and square.
The point is not to belabor who won, but to understand exactly what happened, so as not to overreact and over-correct, to try to figure what is best in order. As this thread shows, Democrats don't seem to agree on that solution.
Oddly, Republicans went through this four years ago and they decided they needed to branch out to recruit minorities, particularly Latinos and Hispanics, yet they did just the opposite, and won "fair and square." |
You called it 3 years ago, the proof is out in the report. I was wrong to say he won fair and square within the game/rule... it was a corrupt campaign thru and thru |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks! She is 100% right.
I would have asked a different question than Maddow asked. I would have asked, “If the house votes for impeachment, and the Senate does not, and if that is enough to enable Trump to win another term, would you still be for it?”
This is a very real possibility. As she so eloquently stated, this isn’t even about Donald Trump. This is about the next President, and the next one. It is the responsibility of Congress to step up and vote to impeach if they deem the President’s behavior to be unacceptable.
This could be a very bitter pill to take. It could backfire horribly. But it’s the principled thing to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12632
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I keep hearing that impeachment tears apart the country.
No, the crimes warranting impeachment tear apart the county.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Impeaching Trump may be one of the ugliest things we have ever seen*
Temper Tantrums from a 70 year old man
Vindictiveness that is off the charts
He really is like an evil character from Marvel
*I think some politicians are afraid to formalize it because they know
They have skeletons in their closet that he will find
But they are also afraid for the country and what he and his minions will do until the impeachment is final..
To see how long Trump has been in office makes me think conspiracy bs is more real than anyone imagines.
We watched Mueller indict many people around Trump
except family
We read and hear his families ignorant statements from their own mouths
Then Mueller completes an incredible amount of man hours on a case..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whitaker
In walks this chump for who knows what reason and with no oversight
Then walks in Barr.. the famous fixer
 That everyone who is a career politician KNEW WHY he was there
It is just not making sense that he would even be allowed there
US Politics needs 10000000000000x better checks and balances ASAP
This is juvenile bs spit in our faces every day and no stopping it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
