Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[phiwum]

We need a poll. Maybe when it gets closer so people know what the evidence is.

Or we could have one poll now and one later to see who changed their minds.

PhantomWolf was just pointing out your terminology error. The House impeaches, the Senate tries.

 

[cullennz]

That doesn't explain how he would win though, all you are saying is that those that will vote for him regardless already, will still vote for him after impeachment. The problem he has though is that his base currently isn't large enough to get him reelected.

So how exactly would impeachment change those numbers?

Just think it will further entrench his current voters, add a few more who fall for his **** and a lot of people are too embarrassed to say they support Trump in polls, so say, undecided or hang up, then rock up and vote for him.

A kind of uber version of Winston Peters.

 

[acbytesla]

I can say with 100% certainty that no Senator on either side of the aisle will vote to Impeach him.

We need a poll. Maybe when it gets closer so people know what the evidence is.

Or we could have one poll now and one later to see who changed their minds.

He's playing you here Ginger. The Senate DOESN'T impeach. Impeach is what the House does. The Senate convicts removes and disqualifies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

PhantomWolf was just pointing out your terminology error. The House impeaches, the Senate tries.

And I was ignoring it because my other option was to express disgust at the pedantry. We all know that. Gawd, how many times does it need to be explained?

Sorry, PW. I was holding my tongue but phiwum broke it loose.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He's playing you here Ginger. The Senate DOESN'T impeach. Impeach is what the House does. The Senate convicts removes and disqualifies.

Yeah because none of us have heard that crap repeated a thousand times in this thread alone.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Just think it will further entrench his current voters, add a few more who fall for his **** and a lot of people are too embarrassed to say they support Trump in polls, so say, undecided or hang up, then rock up and vote for him.

A kind of uber version of Winston Peters.

The problem is that the polls are already showing that 52% of voters are saying that they will not vote for him, and with ~50% supporting impeachment and removal, if they see that the Senate won't do their job, they are just as likely, if not more likely, to be energized into voting to remove him themselves.

Likewise there are probably those that would have voted for him that on seeing the evidence will change their minds and simply not vote at all.

I also know that there are people that regardless of Impeachment, voted for him last time, or didn't vote "because Clinton" who are determined to vote against him this time.

So you are again left with the problem of where are these people who will be boosting his vote enough to win going to come from?

 

[PhantomWolf]

And I was ignoring it because my other option was to express disgust at the pedantry. We all know that. Gawd, how many times does it need to be explained?

Sorry, PW. I was holding my tongue but phiwum broke it loose.

If you know it, why are you still getting it wrong?

 

[Stacyhs]

Just think it will further entrench his current voters, add a few more who fall for his **** and a lot of people are too embarrassed to say they support Trump in polls, so say, undecided or hang up, then rock up and vote for him.
A kind of uber version of Winston Peters.

If someone is too embarrassed to say they support Trump in polls, they should be asking themselves why. I've never been embarrassed by for whom I've voted and have had no problem saying so when asked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you know it, why are you still getting it wrong?

Because it's tedious to constantly worry about it.

Does it bother you? Think people are all stupid and you have to constantly police them?

This is PART 2 of the House Impeachment thread. Do you honestly think you need to make sure everyone understands because I can't imagine there is a single person in this thread that doesn't get it yet.

 

[phiwum]

And I was ignoring it because my other option was to express disgust at the pedantry. We all know that. Gawd, how many times does it need to be explained?

Sorry, PW. I was holding my tongue but phiwum broke it loose.

Uh huh.

 

[WilliamSeger]

"We can give a pass on Republican hypocrisy because Democrats might employ the exact same hypocrisy 30 years from now"


LOL!



That's some nuclear grade whataboutism there, bro.

Tu quoque imaginarium

 

[cullennz]

If someone is too embarrassed to say they support Trump in polls, they should be asking themselves why. I've never been embarrassed by for whom I've voted and have had no problem saying so when asked.

Totally agree

In an ideal world that is how people like you and me work.

We have a piddly party here called NZ First, run by one bloke called Winston Peters that decided the govt last time (we have a system where this can happen)

They poll in the 3%s or 4s for years and then the election happens and they get about 6 or 7s

They come across as a bunch of xenophobes to play to weird old people.

 

[Lurch]

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

And in this hypothetical logic *not* doing anything would still have Trump win. Not least because he's doing the very thing he should be impeached for; tilting his chances by engaging in scumbaggery. And so if the Dems are gonna lose anyway, why not engrave into the historical record what the scumbag has done? And at least tarnish the POS for all time with the qualifier, "impeached."

 

[cullennz]

And in this hypothetical logic *not* doing anything would still have Trump win. Not least because he's doing the very thing he should be impeached for; tilting his chances by engaging in scumbaggery. And so if the Dems are gonna lose anyway, why not engrave into the historical record what the scumbag has done? And at least tarnish the POS for all time with the qualifier, "impeached."

If you just left him to be embarrassing your entire country by himself the left press and potiticians wouldn't look so obviously handwringingly whingey.

 

[Lurch]

If you just left him to be embarrassing your entire country by himself the left press and potiticians wouldn't look so obviously handwringingly whingey.

So what are these whingey politicians to do? You seem to think that a proper and fair process laid out in the Constitution is for wimps. Do they round up the offender and put him before a firing squad? Something in between?

By the way, I've pointed out a few times at least that I'm a Canuck. I watch these shenanigans going on to my south a lot more closely than for previous US administrations because of their gravity.

 

[Cabbage]

If you just left him to be embarrassing your entire country by himself the left press and potiticians wouldn't look so obviously handwringingly whingey.

Oh sure, giving a corrupt president free rein to do as he pleases is a perfectly sound strategy.

 

[cullennz]

A bit of reality

The agenda against the idiot was going on long before the impeachment prospects

 

[Cabbage]

A bit of reality

The agenda against the idiot was going on long before the impeachment prospects

That's nice, but it doesn't imply he shouldn't be impeached.

 

[smartcooky]

A bit of reality

The agenda against the idiot was going on long before the impeachment prospects

The idiot's criminal wrongdoing was going on long before he became president, and that criminal wrongdoing is ongoing!

 

[cullennz]

That's nice, but it doesn't imply he shouldn't be impeached.

All good

I apologise and acquiesce.

It is an utter waste of time that will backfire, when they could be actually showing a difference, but I genuinely do apologise.