|
Post by lar on Nov 1, 2019 14:03:15 GMT -5
Americans divided 49% to 47% on impeachment, with criticism for both sides: POLLInteresting results, especially some of the numbers behind the numbers. While all of the headlines and attention paid to the impeachment could give one the impression that there is vast support for impeachment and removal the numbers seem to indicate otherwise. It is true that 82% of Democrats support removing Trump from office. But the numbers for independents and Republicans are far lower (47% and 18% respectively). Not exactly a popular mandate either way. What I found most interesting in the polling results is that a majority of the public believes that the primary objective of the Democrats is to hurt Trump politically rather than upholding the Constitution. And a somewhat larger majority feels that the Republicans are more interested in helping Trump politically than they are in upholding the Constitutions. What I find especially distressing about those opinions is that an important part of the oath of office taken by our elected representatives has to do with upholding the Constitution. There is nothing in the oath about supporting political agendas. To me this is just further affirmation that the people we've sent to D.C. have somehow got their job descriptions back-asswards. Regardless of our political leanings, if we've got any sense we ought to be sending the message loud and clear that we're not getting what we're paying for. Other information in the poll indicates that 2/3 of Americans think that Trump has not acted presidential since he took office and 58% say he's been damaging to the presidency. That's not exactly new news. Still, the percentage of people calling for impeachment and dismissal is far lower than those who are bothered by Trump's actions. In my view, those attitudes are a good reminder that quite a number of people are willing to separate personal dislike for Trump from the idea that he ought to be removed from office for primarily political reasons. I've thought all along that if the Democrat's primary objective is to win the presidency in 2020, impeachment is a dangerous way to go about it and that it might end up blowing up in their faces. I think it's too late for the Democrats to back down but it may eventually contribute to their undoing.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 1, 2019 14:10:49 GMT -5
I heard somewhere that over 50% of people think Trump is guilty, but less than 50% think he should be removed thru impeachment. Truly I don't think there's any way that the Senate will vote to remove. But I suppose D strategy in pursuing this is to keep the bad stuff coming in hopes that will influence the electorate for next years election. Will it work? Who knows? Opinions and ass holes and all of that.
We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 1, 2019 14:25:33 GMT -5
I heard somewhere that over 50% of people think Trump is guilty, but less than 50% think he should be removed thru impeachment. Truly I don't think there's any way that the Senate will vote to remove. But I suppose D strategy in pursuing this is to keep the bad stuff coming in hopes that will influence the electorate for next years election. Will it work? Who knows? Opinions and ass holes and all of that. We'll see. It's my opinion that you mispelled assholes.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 1, 2019 14:37:25 GMT -5
I heard somewhere that over 50% of people think Trump is guilty, but less than 50% think he should be removed thru impeachment. This is the Clinton Rule: The way the legislature reigns in the executive is by censure via impeachment-without-conviction.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 1, 2019 15:03:10 GMT -5
I heard somewhere that over 50% of people think Trump is guilty, but less than 50% think he should be removed thru impeachment. This is the Clinton Rule: The way the legislature reigns in the executive is by censure via impeachment-without-conviction. The difference being that in the courts the trial is held and once the jury renders it's verdict everyone goes home. The exception is that a conviction might be later appealed. And even that ends once the courts rule. In this case the jury (senate) will render it's verdict and the case will continue to be tried in the court of public opinion by Trump's opponents through the 2020 elections and then for another 4 years if Trump wins.
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Nov 1, 2019 18:41:15 GMT -5
Americans divided 49% to 47% on impeachment, with criticism for both sides: POLLInteresting results, especially some of the numbers behind the numbers. While all of the headlines and attention paid to the impeachment could give one the impression that there is vast support for impeachment and removal the numbers seem to indicate otherwise. It is true that 82% of Democrats support removing Trump from office. But the numbers for independents and Republicans are far lower (47% and 18% respectively). Not exactly a popular mandate either way. What I found most interesting in the polling results is that a majority of the public believes that the primary objective of the Democrats is to hurt Trump politically rather than upholding the Constitution. And a somewhat larger majority feels that the Republicans are more interested in helping Trump politically than they are in upholding the Constitutions. What I find especially distressing about those opinions is that an important part of the oath of office taken by our elected representatives has to do with upholding the Constitution. There is nothing in the oath about supporting political agendas. To me this is just further affirmation that the people we've sent to D.C. have somehow got their job descriptions back-asswards. Regardless of our political leanings, if we've got any sense we ought to be sending the message loud and clear that we're not getting what we're paying for. Other information in the poll indicates that 2/3 of Americans think that Trump has not acted presidential since he took office and 58% say he's been damaging to the presidency. That's not exactly new news. Still, the percentage of people calling for impeachment and dismissal is far lower than those who are bothered by Trump's actions. In my view, those attitudes are a good reminder that quite a number of people are willing to separate personal dislike for Trump from the idea that he ought to be removed from office for primarily political reasons. I've thought all along that if the Democrat's primary objective is to win the presidency in 2020, impeachment is a dangerous way to go about it and that it might end up blowing up in their faces. I think it's too late for the Democrats to back down but it may eventually contribute to their undoing. I watched Pelosi on Colbert. She made it clear that she was against impeachment for reasons you state. But when Trump literally violated the constitution “in the open,” she was forced to act. I agree it will not help Dems win back the Presidency, but I think Trump forced the House act.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Nov 1, 2019 21:03:20 GMT -5
I think Trump hates the thought of being added to the short list of presidents impeached, even though not removed. Which is why I want to see it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Don Clark on Nov 1, 2019 21:08:29 GMT -5
This is the Clinton Rule: The way the legislature reigns in the executive is by censure via impeachment-without-conviction. The difference being that in the courts the trial is held and once the jury renders it's verdict everyone goes home. The exception is that a conviction might be later appealed. And even that ends once the courts rule. In this case the jury (senate) will render it's verdict and the case will continue to be tried in the court of public opinion by Trump's opponents through the 2020 elections and then for another 4 years if Trump wins. IF
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 1, 2019 22:13:32 GMT -5
"I watched Pelosi on Colbert. She made it clear that she was against impeachment for reasons you state. But when Trump literally violated the constitution “in the open,” she was forced to act. I agree it will not help Dems win back the Presidency, but I think Trump forced the House act."
I didn't see Pelosi on Colbert. Otherwise, ditto. I opposed impeachment until the Ukraine incident but if I were in congress I would now support it. You can't let what Trump did slide, even if you pay a political price for standing up to it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 2, 2019 7:00:10 GMT -5
"I watched Pelosi on Colbert. She made it clear that she was against impeachment for reasons you state. But when Trump literally violated the constitution “in the open,” she was forced to act. I agree it will not help Dems win back the Presidency, but I think Trump forced the House act." I didn't see Pelosi on Colbert. Otherwise, ditto. I opposed impeachment until the Ukraine incident but if I were in congress I would now support it. You can't let what Trump did slide, even if you pay a political price for standing up to it. Unfortunately she's lying. But like the Washington Post stated 19 minutes after the inauguration, the impeachment has begun. And it quite likely will be political suicide. But whatever. Bring it kids.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 2, 2019 7:34:48 GMT -5
I will add my $0.02. We are expecting the IG report any day and from what I'm hearing it will expose the "collusion" investigation for the sham it was (hence the opening of a criminal probe). A long time ago- maybe well over a year- I mentioned that there were questions about the FISA warrant and the whole narrative about the Russians and Trump that seemingly seemed to spring forth fully formed and all pervasive. I was called delusional and lectured about how FISA warrants were obtained, the integrity of the process, what a POS Trump is, blah, blah, blah.
Well here we are now and we have this mystery "whistleblower" who sounds the alarm about the evil DJT once again. This time the D's seem to have gotten traction. They have "secret" meetings where the transcripts are kept under lock and key not accessible to the press or Republicans. Yet somehow WaPo, the NYT, CNN, et al have multiple stories every day that paint the most damming picture of Trump. How could anybody support this vile, evil man? We need to get rid of him for this phone call! He is a threat to everything we hold sacred! On and on and on. If the proceedings are so secret that members on the committees can't even discuss it with other members of Congress who are not on the committees, where are they getting all these details about how damming all these witnesses are to Trump? Do you think it possible that maybe, however remote the chance that it could be "slanted", cherry picked "news" selected to put forth the story they want out there? I'm remembering several years of "treason", "collusion", "Russian agent", "Putin's Patsy". Maybe, just maybe, you are being manipulated?
I think this is just another example of "Get rid of DJT by any means necessary". They have constructed the narrative they want. Aside from Fox and the online right leaning outlets there are no dissenting voices. I believe that their narrative might hold long enough to force him from office or fatally wound him for 2020 but eventually we will learn the the "whistleblower" was actually a Democrat operative. His story was crafted by Schiff and his staff. Same-oh, same-oh.
I know you Trump haters think you are on the side of light and truth.... but you are not. There are no white hats in this story.
Anyway, that's my $0.02
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 2, 2019 8:18:10 GMT -5
I've seen the rumors about who the whistleblower is and the supposed background but haven't heard it from any source I'd trust. We'll see, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Nov 2, 2019 8:28:18 GMT -5
I know you Trump haters think you are on the side of light and truth.... but you are not. There are no white hats in this story.
Anyway, that's my $0.02
[/quote] I disagree completely on who is on the right side of things here. But in the end, I believe he’ll be acquitted. Like a bankruptcy he gets to walk away from. As to whether it caused him to win re-election? I certainly hope not, but it may well happen and I believe the Congress had no choice. Much will depend on who the Dems nominate. If it ends up being Biden, I think he will be toast anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 2, 2019 8:49:28 GMT -5
He convicts himself every time he opens his mouth or tweets. That's the news source I use.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 2, 2019 9:05:50 GMT -5
He convicts himself every time he opens his mouth or tweets. That's the news source I use. I have no problem with detesting him for the things he says and does. I have no problem with impeaching him for high crimes and misdemeanors. I just think this stinks like the "collusion" BS. Here's a thought.... beat him at the ballot box and forget all this backroom skulduggery.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 2, 2019 9:17:04 GMT -5
I know you Trump haters think you are on the side of light and truth.... but you are not. There are no white hats in this story. Anyway, that's my $0.02 I disagree completely on who is on the right side of things here. But in the end, I believe he’ll be acquitted. Like a bankruptcy he gets to walk away from. As to whether it caused him to win re-election? I certainly hope not, but it may well happen and I believe the Congress had no choice. Much will depend on who the Dems nominate. If it ends up being Biden, I think he will be toast anyway.[/quote] I don't think there is a "right side" of anything here.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 2, 2019 9:38:13 GMT -5
He convicts himself every time he opens his mouth or tweets. That's the news source I use. I have no problem with detesting him for the things he says and does. I have no problem with impeaching him for high crimes and misdemeanors. I just think this stinks like the "collusion" BS. Here's a thought.... beat him at the ballot box and forget all this backroom skulduggery. With the clown car of Democratic contenders they've got? Nothing tells you more about the necessity of impeachment than that.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Nov 2, 2019 10:36:13 GMT -5
Looks like the new strategy will be
“OK so maybe he did threaten to withhold aid to a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent and his staff tried to cover it up but hey, nothing illegal about that.”
Or maybe, “yeah he did all that but he is prone to exaggeration and lying, that’s just his style. You don’t ban a winner from the PGA tour because he has a goofy swing.”
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 2, 2019 11:09:05 GMT -5
Looks like the new strategy will be “OK so maybe he did threaten to withhold aid to a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent and his staff tried to cover it up but hey, nothing illegal about that.” Or maybe, “yeah he did all that but he is prone to exaggeration and lying, that’s just his style. You don’t ban a winner from the PGA tour because he has a goofy swing.” How 'bout, it never happened. The quid was the aid, right? The quo was investigating Biden, right? The Ukrainian president didn't investigate Biden but still got the aid, right?
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 2, 2019 11:37:04 GMT -5
Looks like the new strategy will be “OK so maybe he did threaten to withhold aid to a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent and his staff tried to cover it up but hey, nothing illegal about that.” Or maybe, “yeah he did all that but he is prone to exaggeration and lying, that’s just his style. You don’t ban a winner from the PGA tour because he has a goofy swing.” Looks pretty much like the strategy I have seen for the last three years. "We know we can't beat him at the BB so lets drum up investigation after investigation, spy on his administration, lie to a FISA court, gin up a special prosecutor, hold secret closed door hearings, leak what we want to get out to our sycophants at WaPo, on and on and on. Like I said... I don't think there are any white hats in this western.
|
|