Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

theprestige said:
Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump".
Click to expand...

According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure.

As I just posted, if those non-Trump supporters of the GOP have a problem with it, they should take it up with him.
 
theprestige said:
There's a difference between Senators overseeing foreign policy by consensus of the Senate, and the Senators conducting diplomacy themselves as individuals.
Click to expand...

It depends. US Congressmen are diplomats representing this nation. As long as they are staying true to stated national policy and goals, they are good to go. Congressional leaders often meet with Heads of State and foreign government representatives abroad. It's part of their oversight responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
They're on break and PBS is interviewing Senators.

Rick Scott, FL Republican: Just keep lying. Keep lying the Democrats have no case. Keep lying they've proved nothing. Keep lying there was something suspicious about Hunter Biden getting hired.

It's maddening.
 
pgwenthold said:
According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure.

As I just posted, if those non-Trump supporters of the GOP have a problem with it, they should take it up with him.
Click to expand...

"According to Trump."

LOL.
 
I've bought very few books related to Trump directly. I looked at the election itself and have a book on the media effects happening then. I don't really need to waste my reading time with Trump, I can read all his tweets and other similar things on line.

I'm not reading Comey book, Woodward book, not Stable Genius. BUT, if Parnas comes out out with a book (get help from Rachel Maddow, Lev) I will get that. Almost like watching one of them crime series on TV.
 
theprestige said:
According to Trump, that "faction" is the largest faction of the GOP that has ever supported a President ever, so "the GOP has been taken over by Trump" seems a fair characterization, for sure.
Click to expand...
"According to Trump."
LOL.
Click to expand...
I am assuming your complaint is that we are basing things on Trump's claims of support.

It is true... Trump is an untrustworthy source of information. He regularly regularly takes numbers out of context and cherry-picks (at best), and outright lies (at worst.) His '95% support' from the republicans should be viewed with some skepticism.

However, even less favorable polls suggest that the vast majority of Republicans support Trump. For example:
Ipsos (January 2020): 84% approval from registered republicans
Emmerson poll (December 2019): 90% support in GOP Primary

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/reuters-ipsos-data-core-political-2020-01-22
https://emersonpolling.reportablene...nders-pull-away-from-the-pack-as-warren-falls

So even if Trump is over-stating his current support level among Republicans, it is not a stretch to say that he still enjoys a majority support among GOP voters.

The man who called Neo-Nazis fine people and who insinuated Mexicans were a bunch of violent rapists. The man who has seen multiple cabinet members and other associates get arrested.The man who has lied about things like "Mexicans will pay for a wall". The man who sat out Vietnam due to 'bone spurs', and who has taken money from military families, yet claims to "love the military". And still roughly 4 out of 5 republicans at least say "Yup he's our man".
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They're on break and PBS is interviewing Senators.

Rick Scott, FL Republican: Just keep lying. Keep lying the Democrats have no case. Keep lying they've proved nothing. Keep lying there was something suspicious about Hunter Biden getting hired.

It's maddening.
Click to expand...

The GOP is dedicated to the theory “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”.

There is absolutely no doubt that Trump did what the Dems say he did. That is why the GOP can't...not won't...can't disprove it. That's why they are fighting testimony from Mulvaney, Bolton, etc. They know it's true. Instead, the just repeat the lie it's not an impeachable offense, the Dems are trying to overturn the election, etc. But it's the only defense they've got...as pathetic as it is. But the saddest part is that their overriding concern for their own political self-preservation takes precedence over the good of the country.
 
Remember Jonathan Turley? He is the constitutional expert who the Republicans called as their witness at the house impeachment hearings. (He claimed that the Democrat's case was basically not strong enough.)

Well, now here what he has to say:

From: https://www.axios.com/gop-impeachme...nse-af4ad8b5-f40c-4da3-874d-4a0f78275fe5.html
"The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution."

Yup... the guy who the Republicans thought "This is our expert!" is basically saying one of the main defenses of Trump and the republican party is bunk.
 
theprestige said:
Not complaint. Amusement that Trump was your knee-jerk cite, as if either of us give a ****.
Click to expand...


"...as if either of us give a ****"??


With all due respect, you actually voted for him, so it seems you do indeed at least give enough of a **** to vote for him.
 
Trump’s 95% claim is bogus, or at least dated.

Still, an admittedly large or even growing percentage of a group that is dwindling is not necessarily a good thing. If and when Republicans represent 20% of the population, it will be small comfort to even reach 100% approval in that dying group of stalwarts.

There was a time I could be counted as one of the alleged 5% of Republicans not supporting Trump. In that respect I probably boosted his support when I left the party.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Remember Jonathan Turley? He is the constitutional expert who the Republicans called as their witness at the house impeachment hearings. (He claimed that the Democrat's case was basically not strong enough.)

Well, now here what he has to say:

From: https://www.axios.com/gop-impeachme...nse-af4ad8b5-f40c-4da3-874d-4a0f78275fe5.html
"The White House is arguing that you cannot impeach a president without a crime. It is a view that is at odds with history and the purpose of the Constitution."

Yup... the guy who the Republicans thought "This is our expert!" is basically saying one of the main defenses of Trump and the republican party is bunk.
Click to expand...
Turley still can't admit the House is putting on the opposite of a thin case.

Interesting he chose to do penance bashing Dershy's ludicrous position instead of admitting being wrong.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Sure. Doesn't mean I'm impressed when you cite him as an authority. Are you impressed?
Click to expand...


Of course I'm not impressed. To the contrary, I'm wondering what kind of logical hoops you must jump through to justify voting for a president that you don't even trust as a cited source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom