***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

1…427428430432433…509

Comments

  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,538
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,647
    2018
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    In other words no witnesses will be called Moscow Mitch will make sure the Baffoon goes on unscathed but but he’s still impeached 2020 and guess what he will still be impeached when he’s swearing to uphold the constitution come 1/21/2021 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • ikiT
    ikiT USA Posts: 11,059
    2018
    Back to Impeachment!

    His actions have spoken.   There's no need for evidence, witnesses, a big fancy time-wastin' trial.   
    Everybody knows what he did and how he acts DAILY. He's literally the WORST elected official in the history of this country.
    He doesn't know what he's doing out there.   OUT WITH HIM.
    Bristow 05132010 to Amsterdam 2 06132018
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,597
    edited January 2020
    2019
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,485
    2018
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,597
    edited January 2020
    2019
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,485
    2018
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    absolutely true. i think one thing we can all agree on, this admin is impossible to predict. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • OnWis97
    OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 5,610
    edited January 2020
    "THE FIELD"
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
    2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,485
    2018
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,597
    edited January 2020
    2019
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    Check the link I posted. Polls specifically ask both questions: impeach / impeach and remove. 

    What's more important than the vote for removal is the vote for calling witnesses. He's highly unlikely to be removed. They'll get enough to call witnesses though...
    Post edited by The Juggler on
    www.myspace.com
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,597
    2019
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him. 
    Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?


    www.myspace.com
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regarding the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    This is why I wanted Pelosi to slow play this a bit, to get past primary season for vulnerable senate republicans, giving them more freedom to vote.  
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,485
    2018
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him. 
    Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?


    of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him. 
    Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?


    of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american. 
    I'm impressed all you Canadians know as much as you do.  There's a shit ton of Americans who don't know the difference that you explained to your father.  
  • darwinstheory
    darwinstheory LaPorte, IN Posts: 7,365
    2019
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    absolutely true. i think one thing we can all agree on, this admin is impossible to predict. 
    It's (the current administration) even more impossible to respect. 
    "A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,485
    2018
    mrussel1 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him. 
    Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?


    of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american. 
    I'm impressed all you Canadians know as much as you do.  There's a shit ton of Americans who don't know the difference that you explained to your father.  
    i knew literally zero until I waded into the AMT years ago. And I still know so little comparably speaking. but now with the 24 hour news cycle, our cable channels being mostly from the US, it's hard to escape. 
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • pjl44
    pjl44 Posts: 10,538
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.

    I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating. 
  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,962
    One can only hope.


    Falling down,...not staying down
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,379
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    mrussel1 said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    OnWis97 said:
    The Juggler said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    The Juggler said:

    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    I don't see really an scenario (besides finding some smocking gun) where they call witnesses. they are hoping to high hell trump just gets reelected and he endorses all his supporting senators. 
    Well most people also thought he would never be impeached. We shall see. 


    They want to get re-elected too and Trump isn't doing so hot in purple states...
    In terms of the general public (as opposed to this board), a shocking number of people conflate "impeach" with "remove."  I don't think those that understand the politics of today are stunned he was impeached (following the Dems taking over the House).  But the Senate is controlled by the Party of Trump.  

    Regard the re-election of senators, even in purple or blue states, they know they have to back Trump because they might even lose their nominations. If they get voted out in purple states for supporting Trump, then it turns out they were screwed either way.  I still take the "under" on 1 GOP senator to vote for removal.
    my whole family, the day he got elected, started a pool about when he'd get impeached (my brother won). up until just about a month ago, my father thought impeachment meant removal. I had to explain the whole process to him. 
    Umm....is your father old enough to remember the late 90's?


    of course. but being canadian, and at the time without internet, he most likely thought clinton not being removed meant he wasn't impeached. he follows canadian politics much more closely than american. 
    I'm impressed all you Canadians know as much as you do.  There's a shit ton of Americans who don't know the difference that you explained to your father.  
    i knew literally zero until I waded into the AMT years ago. And I still know so little comparably speaking. but now with the 24 hour news cycle, our cable channels being mostly from the US, it's hard to escape. 
    Same here. This is the place that got me (and keeps me) excited about politics. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,647
    2018
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    The Juggler said:
    pjl44 said:
    Turns out it's from a Politico article. Similar quotes from several Senate Democrats, including our pal Jon Tester.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224


    I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all. 
    McConnell isn't guaranteeing witnesses will be called. He's saying they'll hear the arguments then decide if they'll call any.
    I know he's not guaranteeing them. If he does he looks weak in comparison to Pelosi. Calling them later makes more sense for him politically than it does now as it would look like he's just giving into whatever Pelosi wants. Given polling, it would also help purple state senators. 

    On a related note, support for impeachment/removal is back over 50%. Combine that with even great numbers calling for witnesses, I just don't see how they get away with having a sham trial. Would only hurt them in November. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
    It's hard to take national polls and apply that to individual Senate races. It also doesn't tell you how important this issue is for a particular voter or block of voters. Sure, an Arizonan could favor removal of Trump, but how much does that factor into their vote for McSally? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Who knows.

    I still wish the House had gone to the courts on Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. Especially since Pelosi is holding the articles and hoping for a break anyway. Was there a need to rush or is there no need to rush? The whole thing feels sloppy to me and it's frustrating. 
    I agree I wish Democrats would of taken all the ones who failed to comply to court no matter how long it took ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....

Categories