The Democratic Presidential Debates

mrussel1

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

I think I’m about done with all these fucking clowns. Why do dems keep pushing Trump from the right on things like Syria, Russia ect. All this tough talk on Russia is concerning. “What, you gonna start another war?”
Things just seem really hypocritical depending on what party is in office. It’s all about getting elected then re-elected and serving those who bankrolled the campaign. 

Syria and Russia is not a right wing issue.  It's an issue of whether you believe the US 1. Should deploy force for strategic interests 2. Should deploy force for humanitarian issues 3. Believe the US has a leadership role on the world stage.  The opposing view is not left, it's isolationist.  That's really what it's about, internationalism vs isolationist.  

I understand, but still am very conflicted personally, I suppose. So say that the dems do take power, then what?  IDK, probably way to complicated for me. I want to think we are all over the world for the right reasons, which you gave some examples of,  but I think if I’m being honest with myself, it’s all about money and power whatever. IDK, I think I’m really getting frustrated with dem leadership, this impeachment road to nowhere, ect.

I think the impeachment inquiry is moving astonishingly fast.  Morrison resigned today,  the day before he's scheduled to testify. That's bad for the president. 

Hi!

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

I think I’m about done with all these fucking clowns. Why do dems keep pushing Trump from the right on things like Syria, Russia ect. All this tough talk on Russia is concerning. “What, you gonna start another war?”
Things just seem really hypocritical depending on what party is in office. It’s all about getting elected then re-elected and serving those who bankrolled the campaign. 

Syria and Russia is not a right wing issue.  It's an issue of whether you believe the US 1. Should deploy force for strategic interests 2. Should deploy force for humanitarian issues 3. Believe the US has a leadership role on the world stage.  The opposing view is not left, it's isolationist.  That's really what it's about, internationalism vs isolationist.  

I understand, but still am very conflicted personally, I suppose. So say that the dems do take power, then what?  IDK, probably way to complicated for me. I want to think we are all over the world for the right reasons, which you gave some examples of,  but I think if I’m being honest with myself, it’s all about money and power whatever. IDK, I think I’m really getting frustrated with dem leadership, this impeachment road to nowhere, ect.

I think the impeachment inquiry is moving astonishingly fast.  Morrison resigned today,  the day before he's scheduled to testify. That's bad for the president. 

Thanks for responding to some of my concerns. 
How do you think this plays out? I see a few different scenarios happening. I’m worried most about Impeachment with no removal and a re-election. Best case impeached,and removed from office and dems win. I’m skeptical. 

mrussel1

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

I think I’m about done with all these fucking clowns. Why do dems keep pushing Trump from the right on things like Syria, Russia ect. All this tough talk on Russia is concerning. “What, you gonna start another war?”
Things just seem really hypocritical depending on what party is in office. It’s all about getting elected then re-elected and serving those who bankrolled the campaign. 

Syria and Russia is not a right wing issue.  It's an issue of whether you believe the US 1. Should deploy force for strategic interests 2. Should deploy force for humanitarian issues 3. Believe the US has a leadership role on the world stage.  The opposing view is not left, it's isolationist.  That's really what it's about, internationalism vs isolationist.  

I understand, but still am very conflicted personally, I suppose. So say that the dems do take power, then what?  IDK, probably way to complicated for me. I want to think we are all over the world for the right reasons, which you gave some examples of,  but I think if I’m being honest with myself, it’s all about money and power whatever. IDK, I think I’m really getting frustrated with dem leadership, this impeachment road to nowhere, ect.

I think the impeachment inquiry is moving astonishingly fast.  Morrison resigned today,  the day before he's scheduled to testify. That's bad for the president. 

Thanks for responding to some of my concerns. 
How do you think this plays out? I see a few different scenarios happening. I’m worried most about Impeachment with no removal and a re-election. Best case impeached,and removed from office and dems win. I’m skeptical. 

I'd say maybe 20% chance at removal.  But they have to do it.  You can't let this go even if he's not convicted.  Plus maybe it stops him from doing it again for a while 

Hi!

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

I think I’m about done with all these fucking clowns. Why do dems keep pushing Trump from the right on things like Syria, Russia ect. All this tough talk on Russia is concerning. “What, you gonna start another war?”
Things just seem really hypocritical depending on what party is in office. It’s all about getting elected then re-elected and serving those who bankrolled the campaign. 

Syria and Russia is not a right wing issue.  It's an issue of whether you believe the US 1. Should deploy force for strategic interests 2. Should deploy force for humanitarian issues 3. Believe the US has a leadership role on the world stage.  The opposing view is not left, it's isolationist.  That's really what it's about, internationalism vs isolationist.  

I understand, but still am very conflicted personally, I suppose. So say that the dems do take power, then what?  IDK, probably way to complicated for me. I want to think we are all over the world for the right reasons, which you gave some examples of,  but I think if I’m being honest with myself, it’s all about money and power whatever. IDK, I think I’m really getting frustrated with dem leadership, this impeachment road to nowhere, ect.

I think the impeachment inquiry is moving astonishingly fast.  Morrison resigned today,  the day before he's scheduled to testify. That's bad for the president. 

Thanks for responding to some of my concerns. 
How do you think this plays out? I see a few different scenarios happening. I’m worried most about Impeachment with no removal and a re-election. Best case impeached,and removed from office and dems win. I’m skeptical. 

I'd say maybe 20% chance at removal.  But they have to do it.  You can't let this go even if he's not convicted.  Plus maybe it stops him from doing it again for a while 

The timing of all this is very complicated. I see Mitch saying” let the election decide,”just like they stole our Supreme Court pick. I wonder sometimes if impeachment would now be better saved as a tool in the second term if he happens to win, although I’m sure we’ll be having on going investigations regardless. Things could get worse. They are going to get worse. 

mrussel1

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

I think I’m about done with all these fucking clowns. Why do dems keep pushing Trump from the right on things like Syria, Russia ect. All this tough talk on Russia is concerning. “What, you gonna start another war?”
Things just seem really hypocritical depending on what party is in office. It’s all about getting elected then re-elected and serving those who bankrolled the campaign. 

Syria and Russia is not a right wing issue.  It's an issue of whether you believe the US 1. Should deploy force for strategic interests 2. Should deploy force for humanitarian issues 3. Believe the US has a leadership role on the world stage.  The opposing view is not left, it's isolationist.  That's really what it's about, internationalism vs isolationist.  

I understand, but still am very conflicted personally, I suppose. So say that the dems do take power, then what?  IDK, probably way to complicated for me. I want to think we are all over the world for the right reasons, which you gave some examples of,  but I think if I’m being honest with myself, it’s all about money and power whatever. IDK, I think I’m really getting frustrated with dem leadership, this impeachment road to nowhere, ect.

I think the impeachment inquiry is moving astonishingly fast.  Morrison resigned today,  the day before he's scheduled to testify. That's bad for the president. 

Thanks for responding to some of my concerns. 
How do you think this plays out? I see a few different scenarios happening. I’m worried most about Impeachment with no removal and a re-election. Best case impeached,and removed from office and dems win. I’m skeptical. 

I'd say maybe 20% chance at removal.  But they have to do it.  You can't let this go even if he's not convicted.  Plus maybe it stops him from doing it again for a while 

The timing of all this is very complicated. I see Mitch saying” let the election decide,”just like they stole our Supreme Court pick. I wonder sometimes if impeachment would now be better saved as a tool in the second term if he happens to win, although I’m sure we’ll be having on going investigations regardless. Things could get worse. They are going to get worse. 

You can’t wait, not with something so public.  Plus he is out of defenses.  He said he didn’t do it, but clearly he did.  But I think they need to wrap it up early next year.  But I think this damages Trump, if he keeps playing it the same, without a conviction but with a majority.  This is not like Clinton who apologized to the nation.  

dignin

This not only damages Trump, this damages republican senators in possible swing states. There is now a possibility of the democrats taking back senate. Get those senators on record voting to let Trump off the hook.

mrussel1

dignin said:

This not only damages Trump, this damages republican senators in possible swing states. There is now a possibility of the democrats taking back senate. Get those senators on record voting to let Trump off the hook.

Absolutely.  Good call.  50/50 chance right now,  and improving. 

Hi!

If you’re convicted in Senate, is that like being convicted of a crime? It only makes sense that the guilty party would be arrested. They committed a crime, they get arrested. That’s how it works, no? Lol, a guy can dream can’t he?

Halifax2TheMax

Hi! said:

If you’re convicted in Senate, is that like being convicted of a crime? It only makes sense that the guilty party would be arrested. They committed a crime, they get arrested. That’s how it works, no? Lol, a guy can dream can’t he?

No, there would not be criminal charges in the senate. Only whether Team Trump Treason is guilty of the impeachment charges and if so, what should be the penalty, from censure to removal of office. However, there is no double jeopardy so once removed from office or out of office, criminal charges can be filed and Team Trump Treason can be brought to trial. NY State AG and SDNY AGs are still investigating. A lot.

Hi!

We would need like around 20 Republican Senators. Seems unlikely. Trump gonna fight for his life, best scenario would be Nixon route. Resign and let’s have a nice peaceful transition of power and we all hug it out and move on.

benjs

dignin said:

This not only damages Trump, this damages republican senators in possible swing states. There is now a possibility of the democrats taking back senate. Get those senators on record voting to let Trump off the hook.

Agreed. If it becomes politically dangerous enough for the Trump-Republican alliance to exist, I think one by one the lawmakers who previously blindly lent their support to Trump will quietly retreat and he'll be left isolated. Even if not enough Senate seats are won, I'm curious about something that closer poll-watchers may be able to answer better.

I wonder if people do form voting opinions at least to some degree based on the 'surges' and 'dips' they observe. Psychologically it would make sense to me that a candidate's "electability" scores would increase at faster rates when they show recent surges, and decrease at faster rates when they show recent dips (aka the bandwagon effect).

Hi!

I don’t see enough Senators supporting removal from office. We are a year out from the election. They are going to go against Trump in an election year? I doubt it. See Mitt Romney. No way any senator wants to deal with a Trump onslaught during an election year. Maybe safe for a Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, but gonna have a hard time moving a senator in a red state. Let’s say trial gets pushed to his second term. They gonna vote to remove a president after he was just re-elected? 

Hi!

benjs said

I wonder if people do form voting opinions at least to some degree based on the 'surges' and 'dips' they observe. Psychologically it would make sense to me that a candidate's "electability" scores would increase at faster rates when they show recent surges, and decrease at faster rates when they show recent dips (aka the bandwagon effect).

Absolutely this happens. I think we can see some examples of this in Warrens rise, and the rise and fall of Kamala.

Lerxst1992

Hi! said:

I don’t see enough Senators supporting removal from office. We are a year out from the election. They are going to go against Trump in an election year? I doubt it. See Mitt Romney. No way any senator wants to deal with a Trump onslaught during an election year. Maybe safe for a Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, but gonna have a hard time moving a senator in a red state. Let’s say trial gets pushed to his second term. They gonna vote to remove a president after he was just re-elected? 

The trial will be before the election. Most believe that there is no way 67 senators vote to remove. 

But that's before having the evidence presented. It sounds like the dems are doing this smart.  They are giving the minority the right to call witnesses and cross examine. They are not using the standard 5 minute hearing rule. There will be time for extended questioning for key details. They are allowing the trained attorneys on staff have the opportunity to question.

All of this gives the appearance of a trial in the House and gives the president ample opportunity to establish a  defense BEFORE this goes to the Senate. There is talk of having this in prime time so we can all watch live on tv.

Now consider if the evidence is overwhelming, and trump is charged with bribery and extortion (explicitly stated as impeachable per the constitution), and the democrats provide over a  month of sworn testimony and White House documents as evidence 

Are you certain 20 R senators (upwards of 7 in swing states) dont get in a room and say... 

"If we hold hands and vote no together we can end this nightmare and roll our chances with Pence."

 How certain are you that's not realistic?

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

Hi! said:

I don’t see enough Senators supporting removal from office. We are a year out from the election. They are going to go against Trump in an election year? I doubt it. See Mitt Romney. No way any senator wants to deal with a Trump onslaught during an election year. Maybe safe for a Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, but gonna have a hard time moving a senator in a red state. Let’s say trial gets pushed to his second term. They gonna vote to remove a president after he was just re-elected? 

The trial will be before the election. Most believe that there is no way 67 senators vote to remove. 

But that's before having the evidence presented. It sounds like the dems are doing this smart.  They are giving the minority the right to call witnesses and cross examine. They are not using the standard 5 minute hearing rule. There will be time for extended questioning for key details. They are allowing the trained attorneys on staff have the opportunity to question.

All of this gives the appearance of a trial in the House and gives the president ample opportunity to establish a  defense BEFORE this goes to the Senate. There is talk of having this in prime time so we can all watch live on tv.

Now consider if the evidence is overwhelming, and trump is charged with bribery and extortion (explicitly stated as impeachable per the constitution), and the democrats provide over a  month of sworn testimony and White House documents as evidence 

Are you certain 20 R senators (upwards of 7 in swing states) dont get in a room and say... 

"If we hold hands and vote no together we can end this nightmare and roll our chances with Pence."

 How certain are you that's not realistic?

Some thoughts...
1. I would like it if the House was able to hold back the trial past the deadline for primary registration.  This would serve to protect vulnerable senators on the R side from a challenge, perhaps giving them license to vote more freely.  I don't know when the deadlines are, but I also don't think my idea is practical,. because then it drags into Iowa and NH, which hurts Dem senators campaigning. 
2. Trump is tying support to money, smartly.  He's going to juice Gardner, Ernst and others senate coffers which they need.  I think these three are going to be "no".  Interestingly, he's not doing this for Collins and McSalley, both are very vulnerable. 
3. Agree on your point of using trained prosecutors for the House.  I think this helps remove the clown show aspect of hearings.  It will be interesting if the President sends lawyers or if they rely on Meadows, Jordan, Nunes and other hacks to 'cross'. 

Lerxst1992

That's a good point on the primary deadlines. I think they are usually late Feb so it'll be interesting if Pelosi decides if its important enough to delay the House vote as much as possible so the senate does not get the case until Feb.

Then McConnell has an interesting choice as well. Does he rush the vote to occur before primary deadlines to maximize trump's leverage or will he be loyal to senators and help them avoid a tough primary campaign.

There are perhaps 10 GOP senate elections in states where trump is not very popular. It's not the 20 senate votes needed, but if over 55 senators vote to remove that might be a big black stain on trump heading into the general election. 


Edit,

Forgot to mention Iowa.

Trump may want to be be careful with Ernst's seat. Trump is -12 in Iowa. 


 

HughFreakingDillon

saw a clip of booker on the view today, being badgered by that turd megan mccain about mandatory gun buybacks. "are you coming to my brother's house to take his ar-15's? cause i guarantee you he isn't giving them up". booked did well. he called her out for calling beto crazy, and also the hysteria she is spreading about the government coming to your house to take your guns. it is mandatory, but you bring it in and give it up. simple. they did it in the 80's with machine guns, and it worked. no reason it can't work now. 

then she goes on twitter to say he dodged her question, 'at least beto is being honest when he says they are going to come for our guns". he fucking answered it point blank. god that woman is a waste of breath. 

Bentleyspop

Beto just dropped out

Bentleyspop

  

https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1190380118511902720?s=19

darwinstheory

Good. One less person to steal the spotlight from Pete.