Political Discussions for "Adults"

Anteater · 11-16-2019, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

All I'm saying is the farther this goes the more you cross your arms and just go "Nope nope nope never gonna happen".

I'll believe in miracles if they run anyone besides Biden as nominee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

You have weird rules. Also, in my experience, it's possible for two people to be stupid at the same time.

Depends on the ultimate point they're trying to make, no?

Chula Vista · 11-16-2019, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Let me know how your magically going to get 20+ Republicans to bail on Trump when this goes to the Senate.

It's all based on their voting block and when and if their opinions get swayed. Yesterday was a very bad day. GOP or Dem, the female electorate hate when powerful men pick on successful and vulnerable woman.

Saw a group of 6 women being interviewed last night and 3 of them were swayed to a YES on impeachment just based on yesterday.

It's now the weekend. Knitting circles and bridge clubs all over the country are going to be talking about Friday. Worst possible ending to a very bad week for Trump.

Bit of history:

Quote:

In the ensuing national outrage following release of the "smoking gun" transcript Nixon's political support quickly evaporated. Leading GOP supporters now warned Nixon that unless he resigned and handed power to Ford, they would vote to impeach for obstructing justice.

**Frownland** · 11-16-2019, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Here's a hard "fact" for you: Trump had 304 electoral votes in 2016. It literally doesn't matter if he loses one or two battleground states this time around. If everyone else who voted for him without a second thought outside of those flips votes for him again, what the Democratic nominee does is inconsequential. That's why Biden is probably going to get the nomination even if Warren, for example, retains her current trajectory. They want the most highly recognized brand name they can muster to compete with the reality T.V. star.

So you're saying that because Trump won in what wasn't a landslide in 2016, that his numbers will stay the same because the only challenge he's facing is former Trump voters turning on him? I think you're underestimated the voting block who didn't vote in 2016 because they thought that Hillary was a sure thing who are likely to show up in the 2020 election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Depends on the ultimate point they're trying to make, no?

Nope!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Saw a group of 6 women being interviewed last night and 3 of them were swayed to a YES on impeachment just based on yesterday.

Which is an utterly meaningless way to gauge the outcome of the impeachment and public opinion.

Frankly I think the camps are more or less settled. Anyone who would've jumped off of the Trump train because of his actions would've done so a month into his presidency.

Chula Vista · 11-16-2019, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Here's a hard "fact" for you: Trump had 304 electoral votes in 2016.

1. Buyer's remorse.
2. No 'evil Hillary' type opponent this time.
3. He will be impeached well before the elections.

He's toast.

Another note: Since 1900 only 2 presidents have won the electoral but lost the popular.

Gore beat Bush by 540,000 votes.
Clinton beat Trump by 2,870,000 votes.

You really think everything will line up perfectly for Trump in 2020 like it did in 2016???

**Frownland** · 11-16-2019, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

2. No 'evil Hillary' type opponent this time.

The Batlord · 11-16-2019, 11:36 AM

I wish Chula and Ant weren't allowed to vote tbh.

Anteater · 11-16-2019, 11:37 AM

A few things to keep in mind, Chula.

1. Nixon's era wasn't nearly as politically polarized as this one is. There are other factors as well, but history isn't a helpful guide here.

2. The Republicans are going to call their own witnesses. Furthermore, they also have documentation that Burisma appealed to the Obama administration in 2016 with the equivalent of a plea to "not go after us" because they had Hunter Biden on their board, a back and forth that occurred before Joe Biden himself even got over there to potentially pull billions in military aid. So that's going to come up.

3. From Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Foreign Minister - "“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the assistance and the investigations. I do not recall any conversation with me as foreign minister. I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance."

Your welcome. Maybe we should all just vote for Biden.

Chula Vista · 11-16-2019, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Burisma appealed to the Obama administration in 2016.

You do realize that Burisma is going to have NOTHING to do with the impeachment vote, right?

BENGHAZI redux.

**Frownland** · 11-16-2019, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

2. The Republicans are going to call their own witnesses. Furthermore, they also have documentation that Burisma appealed to the Obama administration in 2016 with the equivalent of a plea to "not go after us" because they had Hunter Biden on their board, a back and forth that occurred before Joe Biden himself even got over there to potentially pull billions in military aid. So that's going to come up.

Then when that testimony is introduced into the discussion, all of Congress will stand up and say "well shit, Biden's actually the guilty one! Anything that we've been trying to hold Trump accountable for is now absolved based on the precedent of the Butwudabout Rule."

Maybe you're right after all.

Psy-Fi · 11-16-2019, 12:48 PM