Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

I still don't understand exactly what polls are considered trustworthy and accurate. They all contain some built-in biases, but a recent report by 538 shows the following grades for the three I mentioned in respect for black voter support for Trump

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

 

Rasumssen    C+

Emerson          A-

Marist               A+

 

If minority support is shifting as massively as you suggest via these polls, why are Trump's top line numbers not moving?

 

Rasmussen is basically one of the worst pollsters that they haven't banned yet from their models.  Well done.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

such a comfort to know that of all the "constitutional scholars" available to testify at today's hearings they selected only those with the most noble intentions

 

 

Turley , who voted against Trump mind you, is the only unbiased legal mind up there with integrity in my opinion. I wish they had Dershowitz up there to balance things out or two conservative scholars. This whole politically motivated process is a joke and a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

If minority support is shifting as massively as you suggest via these polls, why are Trump's top line numbers not moving?

 

Rasmussen is basically one of the worst pollsters that they haven't banned yet from their models.  Well done.

Both Rasmussen and Emerson use online polling. That would not be inherently bad but it isn’t the same quality as live polling. That is why i question those pollsters and the fact they always seem way off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shack said:

Turley , who voted against Trump mind you, is the only unbiased legal mind up there with integrity in my opinion. I wish they had Dershowitz up there to balance things out or two conservative scholars. This whole politically motivated process is a joke and a disgrace.

 

it's almost shocking how tone deaf the Democrats are to pick people so openly partisan as these three. I guess they're so driven to get rid of Trump they didn't even consider how bad the optics of their testimony would look to the average voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shack said:

Turley , who voted against Trump mind you, is the only unbiased legal mind up there with integrity in my opinion. I wish they had Dershowitz up there to balance things out or two conservative scholars. This whole politically motivated process is a joke and a disgrace.

 

Lol

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12

 

Quote

While the other witnesses laid out the case that Trump abused his power by trying to strong-arm Ukraine into caving to his personal demands while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting, Turley argued there was no evidence that Trump broke a specific federal statute and that impeaching him would set a dangerous precedent.

 

But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.

 

"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.

 

Quote

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. "Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving 'political crimes and misdemeanors' and resulting in 'political punishments.'"

 

Tell me more about this unbiased mind with integrity.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s impeachment committee hearing is a good run through of all the silly and refutable chaff and spaghetti noodles that the GOP is going to throw on the wall when this gets to the Senate.  

   Obviously the Democrats do not need the votes of the wiley house representatives to move forward in the impeachment.  The beauty is that there will be plenty of fact witnesses during the Senate trial that Turley was whining about not hearing from. 

 

  Why can’t Trump can’t be a witness?  Why can’t Pompeo or Pence be witnesses?  Why can’t Bolton be a witness?  It is all a highly false narrative. 

Edited by audidave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

I love Turley's opinion that people are just "being mad" along with his whining about "but-muh-both sides" and whataboutism. 

 

The Republicans, since 2008 have devolved into a cult of conspiracy. Whether it was a birth certificate, Benghazi or Hunter Biden, they've only gotten worse with time as they replace facts with their own inherent bias and baby-boomer-style "my generation" logic. 

It's time to stop indulging the right's "good faith" act, including from trolls who come here not to discuss, converse, or engage—but to just re-post inflammatory rhetoric they learned from Facebook. 
 

Let's not get into a "generational war" either with the "boomer" stuff. I am pushing 60 and hate Trump and the Republican Cult(I agree with the rest)

And technically, Trump himself is not a boomer-he is at the end of the "silent generation"-too bad he is not silent though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Let's not get into a "generational war" either with the "boomer" stuff. I am pushing 60 and hate Trump and the Republican Cult(I agree with the rest)

And technically, Trump himself is not a boomer-he is at the end of the "silent generation"-too bad he is not silent though.

 

actually Trump is 73, the very oldest age of boomers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

actually Trump is 73, the very oldest age of boomers.

I had always heard that boomers were 47-64. But I see that many definitions are 46-64. Hmmmm. When did it change?  I am also seeing 44-64?

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Let's not get into a "generational war" either with the "boomer" stuff. I am pushing 60 and hate Trump and the Republican Cult(I agree with the rest)

And technically, Trump himself is not a boomer-he is at the end of the "silent generation"-too bad he is not silent though.

 

My thought on generations is that with wealth, one becomes the very leading edge of what generation they are living in. With that, to me Trump is the very essence of being a baby boomer. 

 

Baby boomers were born post WW2 up to 1963 or 1965. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

I still don't understand exactly what polls are considered trustworthy and accurate. They all contain some built-in biases, but a recent report by 538 shows the following grades for the three I mentioned in respect for black voter support for Trump

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

 

Rasumssen    C+

Emerson          A-

Marist               A+

I am asking for a link of the polls. Epoch times doesn't provide one. Please provide a ling to the Emerson poll if you want to discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, audidave said:

My thought on generations is that with wealth, one becomes the very leading edge of what generation they are living in. With that, to me Trump is the very essence of being a baby boomer. 

 

Baby boomers were born post WW2 up to 1963 or 1965. 

I looked it up and Pew Research Center "redefined" the generations in 2018. Anyway he is at the edge of it and really is more defined by his birth class/wealth than anything else. 

 

To say he is the very essence of a baby boomer is to say that a black woman born at the same time in Alabama thinks like him, or a gay man born in Los Angeles at the same time would have the same outlook. It is too judgmental and extremely broad and is, in fact. ageist and discriminatory to do this kind of generational stereotyping. It is no different than saying all Millennials or Post-Millennials "think alike" and all.

 

Would you do this based on race, ethnicity, sex? Why is it ok to do it based on age?

 

Trump is not the leading edge of anything except possible insanity.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it is a broad general brush.  I’m not saying anything of what trump is now is boomer like.   I was mainly referring to how he acted in the 1970s and 1980s in enjoying the good life.  I didn’t mean to imply what he is now has anything to do with being a baby boomer.   Most baby boomers i know are not Russian assets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, audidave said:

Obviously it is a broad general brush.  I’m not saying anything of what trump is now is boomer like.   I was mainly referring to how he acted in the 1970s and 1980s in enjoying the good life.  I didn’t mean to imply what he is now has anything to do with being a baby boomer.   Most baby boomers i know are not Russian assets. 

Quote

Most baby boomers i know are not Russian assets. 

Or facing impeachment or being mocked by World leaders or losing their sanity or...ad nauseum.  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

I love Turley's opinion that people are just "being mad" along with his whining about "but-muh-both sides" and whataboutism. 

 

The Republicans, since 2008 have devolved into a cult of conspiracy. Whether it was a birth certificate, Benghazi or Hunter Biden, they've only gotten worse with time as they replace facts with their own inherent bias and baby-boomer-style "my generation" logic. 

It's time to stop indulging the right's "good faith" act, including from trolls who come here not to discuss, converse, or engage—but to just re-post inflammatory rhetoric they learned from Facebook. 
 

 

That's kind of why I wish there was a more concerted effort across all media forums to fight blatant propaganda and lies, regardless of their source.  It seems most news these days has fully abdicated the duty of defending basic truth.  There should be no reason that there should be such tolerance for debunked lies like the Biden story anywhere, but so many hide behind freedom of speech to undermine the rule of law for political agenda or ratings.  It's gross.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

such a comfort to know that of all the "constitutional scholars" available to testify at today's hearings they selected only those with the most noble intentions

 

 

 

The problem with your view here is that you're not debating the arguments, only their supposed character and liberal biases.  If you can't address their arguments, you are making these posts in bad faith, the same as Pascale and any other Trumper who won't touch the case on its actual merits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shack said:

Turley , who voted against Trump mind you, is the only unbiased legal mind up there with integrity in my opinion. I wish they had Dershowitz up there to balance things out or two conservative scholars. This whole politically motivated process is a joke and a disgrace.

 

"The only viewpoint I'll accept is the one that already supports my position."  

 

The only disgrace here is how many Americans protect Trump more than their country.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the impeachment Judiciary committee finished today. Collins and Jordan and all their goons seem like they are about to lose their minds as they talk louder and faster. 

   I would expect a few fact witnesses will be appearing in front of the judiciary committee.  Lev Parnas anyone? Offer up Bolton or Guiliani who likely will not appear even with a subpoena.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, freefourur said:

 

 

Ah, yes. The Jewish conspiracy to (checks notes) remove the President with a Jewish daughter and son-in-law in order to install a fundamentalist Christian as the new President.


“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

 

Ah, yes. The Jewish conspiracy to (checks notes) remove the President with a Jewish daughter and son-in-law in order to install a fundamentalist Christian as the new President.

That conspiracy theory doesn't hold much water when you have just as many conservative Jews like Sheldon Adelson and US Ambassador David Friedman  fully supportive of this President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The problem with your view here is that you're not debating the arguments, only their supposed character and liberal biases.  If you can't address their arguments, you are making these posts in bad faith, the same as Pascale and any other Trumper who won't touch the case on its actual merits. 

After reading the actual transcript ( https://www.scribd.com/document/427409665/Ukraine-Call-Transcript#from_embed ) I couldn't find any quid pro quo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shack said:

After reading the actual transcript ( https://www.scribd.com/document/427409665/Ukraine-Call-Transcript#from_embed ) I couldn't find any quid pro quo. 


That’s not the actual transcript. We’ve haven't heard the call. A verbatim transcript of the call hasn’t been released.  We do have a lot testimony from Trump appointees about quid pro quo. I think Trump’s chief of staff even admitted it on TV. 

Edited by Sir2geez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shack said:

After reading the actual transcript ( https://www.scribd.com/document/427409665/Ukraine-Call-Transcript#from_embed ) I couldn't find any quid pro quo. 

 

Except everyone confessed to it already and we have the transcript.  If you can't find it, you're really not looking for it.  And the only reason to not be looking for it is because you believe Trump is above the law and that his actions should not have any consequences.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nearly-700-000-will-lose-food-stamps-usda-work-requirement-n1095726

 

 

This...is literally the point of a program like SNAP.  People who can't find work can't afford food for themselves or their families.

 

The cruelty is the point.  **** all these amoral conservative a*******.

 

Not a single person wants to defend this ghoulishness?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir2geez said:


That’s not the actual transcript. We’ve haven't heard the call. A verbatim transcript of the call hasn’t been released.  We do have a lot testimony from Trump appointees about quid pro quo. I think Trump’s chief of staff even admitted it on TV. 

Both Zalinsky and Trump said there was no quid pro quo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

This is a ridiculous defense.

Those are two of the most important factual witnesses. Everything else is peripheral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shack said:

Those are two of the most important factual witnesses. Everything else is peripheral.

One is the suspect who has a history of lying about everything. The other is the person who lead a country that depends on us for protection from Russia. Your argument is not in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shack said:

Those are two of the most important factual witnesses. Everything else is peripheral.

Every dude in prison swears “I didn’t do it”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Except everyone confessed to it already and we have the transcript.  If you can't find it, you're really not looking for it.  And the only reason to not be looking for it is because you believe Trump is above the law and that his actions should not have any consequences.

You'll see what you want to see if you look to hard for it, including the face of Jesus or the virgin Marry as a kind of "miraculous" revelation if you're not too careful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCOV said:

Every dude in prison swears “I didn’t do it”. 

But if the "victim" denies it as well you don't have a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, shack said:

But if the "victim" denies it as well you don't have a case.

This was the argument a Republican trial court lawyer was trying to make today. The problem is the president is not committing a crime as there are no legal statutes to argue that he broke in Ukraine. That is why Zelensky is not the “victim”. 

    A better analogy to make it more understandable is if the president is a mayor and there is a street project that council has awarded a firm. The mayor decides for a kickback and withholds the project money until the contractor does him a favor.  He needs to hire the mayor’s deadbeat brother as a foreman on the project.  So its a personal benefit for a public good, which is an abuse of power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shack said:

You'll see what you want to see if you look to hard for it, including the face of Jesus or the virgin Marry as a kind of "miraculous" revelation if you're not too careful. 

 

I don't have to create a false reality here to protect someone, that's what Trumpers do.  There is overwhelming evidence.  Witness testimony, Mulvaney's admission, Guiliani, the partial transcript with Trump's own words, text messages, the fact that aid was actually held until it became clear Trump was caught in the act, the literal definition of bribery...  Again, you don't want to believe it because Trump has become the messiah to his supporters.  The entire world can see what he is except you.  A man who has spent his entire life cheating and lying and surrounding himself with criminals is your go-to source for integrity.  That's either spectacularly bad character judgement on the Trump supporter part, or none of you actually care.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...