|
Romney is also a good representation of the divisions among Republicans 1. The Vote R no matter what, but I dislike or don't care about Trump wing (I'm looking at you, Utah) 2. The die hard MAGA set 3. The republicans who will actually vote for a democrat sometimes. This is an increasingly small group, but they exist and since every national GOP win is on razor thin margins, they are actually very important. Right now, the only groups to care about are 2 and 3 and given the relative weight in the party, it's not surprising that group 2's agenda is winning for the time being. What republicans have to weigh is increased "gently caress Trump" voter turnout, especially among young and minority voters and the actual independent voters
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:Romney is also a good representation of the divisions among Republicans And Collins has a reason to vote against him, she's teetering on the edge of being unelectable post-Kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I think there's at least 3 who are in for tough re-election fights in 2020 and if they voted to not even have the Senate Trial they'd be ensuring defeat. Yeah they aren't going to dismiss the trial. That would be political suicide more than what they are in already. I still think they are just going to put on a shame trial, use it as an excuse to pull Biden and whatever other conspiracy theories out there on the stage to confuse the public that this is about that not the President committing a crime. Then either vote to not remove or not hold a vote at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:And Collins has a reason to vote against him, she's teetering on the edge of being unelectable post-Kavanaugh. Collins is sunk. She made the wrong choice with Kavanaugh and is going to pay the price with it. I would not count her as a swing anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Collins is sunk. She made the wrong choice with Kavanaugh and is going to pay the price with it. I would not count her as a swing anymore. There's truth to that...but she is going to put polls in the field in her state, and if she gets a boost by sinking the orange man, or even voting against him but failing because still in the minority, she'll do it. She could give a poo poo about Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Don't they have 53 R's and need 51 votes? Who are the R's that will turn? It came out of Cornyn's mouth that they don't have 51 votes to quickie-acquit, whoever those people are probably would also make the procedure fair. The Senate Republicans are craven maniacs, but not to the degree of their house counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Collins is sunk. She made the wrong choice with Kavanaugh and is going to pay the price with it. I would not count her as a swing anymore. Yeah, she is not going to win back the moderates she lost on Kavanaugh, so the only option is to turn out as many chuds as possible. That's the position most of the party is in. They can't swing back to the center, so they have no choice but to tack further to the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Collins is sunk. She made the wrong choice with Kavanaugh and is going to pay the price with it. I would not count her as a swing anymore. Her main mistake was not picking a side early on and drawing so much attention. Being the single person whose opinion mattered was a really stupid place for her to put herself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197870420483026944?s=21 I think this was from his Fox and Friends interview. He’s gonna say it on air at some point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Her main mistake was not picking a side early on and drawing so much attention. Being the single person whose opinion mattered was a really stupid place for her to put herself. yea if she just did the normal ghoul poo poo of 'aw gee maybe SOMETHING happened but I just don't see the proof...' she'd probably be safe but instead she for some bonkers reason made herself this focal point vote and then quickly went 'actually no sorry I am a ghoul'
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197870420483026944?s=21 Twist: the whistleblower was Trump all along. I can picture Nunes furiously calling Trump, begging him to tell him who the whistleblower is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197870420483026944?s=21 I am pretty sure Trump has no idea who it is because he would be screaming it on Twitter everyday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/julianbarnes/status/1197947411915853825
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197870420483026944?s=21 Yeah, of course Trump is going to say the name on TV/Twitter. Then he'll say whatever happens afterward, they were asking for it. The real whistleblower may be getting protection already in anticipation of this, but if Trump only thinks he knows who it was and just starts shouting a wrong name... that person will suddenly be in some deep poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:I am pretty sure Trump has no idea who it is because he would be screaming it on Twitter everyday. Trump is absolutely the kind of idiot to pretend he knows who the whistleblower is in the hopes that they will just go "aw shucks" and out themself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
The alleged whistleblower’s name is pretty well-known at this point. I believe Reddit even has the name on a censor list to prevent people from posting it on r/the_Donald. Makes me wonder if other social media sites have something similar. I think, at the very least, that is the name Trump has, and I’m sure there is a way for the White House to mostly confirm it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Robot Hobo posted:We've had at least seven testimonies that back up what the whistleblower claimed, which makes the actual whistleblower pretty much irrelevant now. The only purpose for announcing the name now would be to cause distress to the whistleblower and their family, and make them an immediate target for death threats from CHUDs. It would serve no purpose besides spite. The real reason to out them is to prevent another one from stepping up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:The alleged whistleblower’s name is pretty well-known at this point. I believe Reddit even has the name on a censor list to prevent people from posting it on r/the_Donald. Makes me wonder if other social media sites have something similar. "Alleged." The name thrown out is a guess, they don't know. It's bait to get the real one to out himself to save the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Her main mistake was not picking a side early on and drawing so much attention. Being the single person whose opinion mattered was a really stupid place for her to put herself. I think she was expecting that she would look like she was a leader and whatnot in the battle. Problem is Flake pulled his stunt and put her in the corner. Whatever the play she was expecting to do became marginalized. From what I have heard the GOP is expecting her to lose that race. They are going all in on Arizona, North Carolina, Alabama and Georgia. They don't feel confident in Colorado or Texas. With the Pompeo stuff now Kansas will likely be an issue. Kentucky is not at all safe right now. I would look at Iowa and Montana as likely losses as well. If the blue wave is massive you could seen Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina as well. Like I said before I expect them GOP to lose between 7-15 seats in 2020 unless some miracle happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think she was expecting that she would look like she was a leader and whatnot in the battle. Problem is Flake pulled his stunt and put her in the corner. Whatever the play she was expecting to do became marginalized. I think that's overly optimistic but it'd be great if it did happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197870420483026944?s=21 If he does it's likely another article of impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I think that's overly optimistic but it'd be great if it did happen. Be the change you wish to see in the world (get your rear end out and volunteer if at all possible)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Nixon resigned because the Senate Majority Leader told him they had to votes to convict him, and if he didn't resign they would remove him. Nixon also knew his poll numbers were in the pooper, so he probably realized that the Senate's outlook was unlikely to change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Unfortunately by agencies in the executive branch. But if we get to a point where the executive refuses and the senate still won't remove, well it's all over at that point anyway, ya'll have fun, feel free to come visit me in Copenhagen or wherever. Jeg bor her i København også lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:The real reason to out them is to prevent another one from stepping up. Robot Hobo fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Robot Hobo posted:Also true. I was thinking in terms of this particular case, which can keep rolling now just fine without the whistleblower needing to be named or involved again. Wrecking someone's life (maybe getting them killed) so their misfortune can be pointed to as an example of what happens when you speak out against dear leader, to discourage the next whistleblower and the next? Trump could do that right now with just a few words on Twitter or Fox news, if he does know the name, and I'm honestly baffled that he has somehow resisted doing it so far. He never shows that kind of restraint, regardless of how many people shout in his ear that it's a bad idea. "The Big Reveal" is his stock in trade. Claiming he knows the name is his way of refocusing all attention on him while we wait, with bated breath, his pronouncement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Jeg bor her i København også lol I don't yet, but it's on our shortlist. My wife has entertained a position in the veterinary faculty at University of Copenhagen, and I'm sure I can find something. Hopefully. I used to joke that a third term was our hard out, but now she says even a second one is too much for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Otteration posted:Nixon also knew his poll numbers were in the pooper, so he probably realized that the Senate's outlook was unlikely to change. nixon also had higher poll numbers in the end than trump currently has i believe. hell, i think trump has had lower poll numbers than nixon had when he resigned through out his term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:nixon also had higher poll numbers in the end than trump currently has i believe. hell, i think trump has had lower poll numbers than nixon had when he resigned through out his term. Nixon was down into the upper 20s by the time he resigned. His poll numbers crashed from the 70s to the 40s between February and March of '73, a year and a half before he resigned and before the impeachment hearings even began.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Nixon was down into the upper 20s by the time he resigned. His poll numbers crashed from the 70s to the 40s between February and March of '73, a year and a half before he resigned and before the impeachment hearings even began. i swore it was in the upper 40s. sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Andronian posted:like i just feel like in almost any other trial there’s some sort of he said she said thing going on, where we don’t have the official transcript public and we kinda have to take the witness’ word on what happened on the call and what words were said Are you kidding? Did you not listen to any number of media figures, the president himself, and members of the HPSCI minority shout, repeatedly, "There was no quid pro quo!" That's the issue here. The right says it was a perfect call, because they're saying it isn't evidence of a quid pro quo, but it absolutely the gently caress is. More importantly, however, is that the call summary is the direct link between Trump and the "unofficial channel" trying to trade a white house visit and the aid release for investigations. Oracle posted:What I want to know is can the Dems subpeona that unredacted transcript that Morrison ordered put in the super-secret server. They already did. The white house is refusing all document requests and subpoenas under blanket executive immunity. Andronian posted:I’d love to see that too, just out of curiosity, but it honestly isn’t relevant, the crimes part is fully public anyway. It only really comes down to whether “hey investigate the Bidens thx” is corrupt or not. And it’s sometimes hard for me to believe that is somehow a question that doesn’t have a 100% definitive answer. That is the republican's strategy in these hearings. To establish the ~possibility~ that Trump wasn't "going after a political opponent" but rather, was pursuing an anti-corruption foreign policy regime with Ukraine. They're basing this ploy on the fact that "none of these people ever met with the president, so how could they know his intent?" The democrats, rather convincingly, undermined that by asking questions of all these NSC staffers, diplomats, and embassy personnel what an actual attempt at anti-corruption regimes would look like, and to put it bluntly, "This ain't it, chief." When that rhetoric fails, they fall back on "Donald Trump is our foreign policy; it's in his authority; he can do what he wants." Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Yeah they aren't going to dismiss the trial. That would be political suicide more than what they are in already. The White House publically stated that they don't want the Senate to dismiss it, as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Can't the whistleblower be forced to testify(therefore revealing himself) during an impeachment trial?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:Can't the whistleblower be forced to testify(therefore revealing himself) during an impeachment trial? The Republicans would ask for a subpoena, the Democrats would protest it as irrelevant, and it would be up to Roberts to decide if he would approve it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think it will be an Option D: GOP makes a sham impeachment trial. Democrats and Media will yell bloody murder but will be unable to do much. They will likely pull in Hunter Biden, the Taco Bell guy, George Soros any whatever other insane conspiracy figure they can in to question. When Democrats rightfully say that none of this has anything to do with what Trump did they will spout out nonsense. The Senate will vote to not convict. Schiff had to interrupt Jordan a few times during his questioning to stop him from digging into the whistlerblower's identity. But there will be no such restraint in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Her main mistake was not picking a side early on and drawing so much attention. Being the single person whose opinion mattered was a really stupid place for her to put herself. She probably used the opportunity to leverage herself up a nice 7 figure no-show job for a think tank somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:
On my way back into the office after lunch this this the angle I heard Limbaugh taking. The framers of the constitution were talking about direct monetary bribery like Benedict Arnold being promised payment by the British to surrender West Point, they only meant treasonous bribery and such, this is all just normal foreign policy and is good and fine and beyond reproach! So now we've moved on apparently to the "fine, he did it but it was actually okay" phase of this. Just keep moving those goalposts, people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:On my way back into the office after lunch this this the angle I heard Limbaugh taking. The framers of the constitution were talking about direct monetary bribery like Benedict Arnold being promised payment by the British to surrender West Point, they only meant treasonous bribery and such, this is all just normal foreign policy and is good and fine and beyond reproach! I mean, as far as arguments go, it's an argument. It's not a great argument, but the President and his defenders have to come up with something, and a lot of the previous justifications they tried to make fell apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think she was expecting that she would look like she was a leader and whatnot in the battle. Problem is Flake pulled his stunt and put her in the corner. Whatever the play she was expecting to do became marginalized. I think this wildly optimistic. Dems will win Colorado and it will be a dogfight in Maine and Arizona. Dems have a shot in NC but will have to be very lucky to win anywhere else. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Republicans would ask for a subpoena, the Democrats would protest it as irrelevant, and it would be up to Roberts to decide if he would approve it. They could also hold a vote where a majority could force the matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 23:03
|
|
