Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

50,230 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Probably around the time the report came out where it outlined he obstructed justice multiple times, among other issues with his administration ranging from the concentration camps to blatant corruption. But, no, just proclamations that Trump is a criminal and announcements that despite those crimes they're not going to impeach him. They're unsubtly attempting to use this as electoral posturing which is why no one will care about it by November 2020. Seriously doubt anyone outside of pundit circles will be talking about these hearings by the time debates start next week.

Finally, you keep bringing up poll numbers for impeachment. The impeachment proceedings against Nixon also had very low approval numbers to start off with. It isn't a good argument like you seem to think it is.

You’re missing the point.  What would the hearings consist of?  Who would be the witnesses?  What would it look like, logistically speaking?

If they started it when the Mueller report came out, they would not have Mueller as a witness and wouldn’t have had anyone else either.  So what does that look like, specifically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

I mean, he has pretty good instincts in terms of keeping his base riled up a constant fever pitch.

Doing that in order to derail Mueller's testimony? Nah. Dems derailed that. Everyone knows it's not going anywhere. Pure theater.

Thank God in this country when "someone" Is inner cent of all charges, it doesn't go anywhere. 

In this case the lesson is it caused the Dems to lose the House and Presidency in 2020...a small price to pay wouldn't you say?:D;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

You’re missing the point.  What would the hearings consist of?  Who would be the witnesses?  What would it look like, logistically speaking?

If they started it when the Mueller report came out, they would not have Mueller as a witness and wouldn’t have had anyone else either.  So what does that look like, specifically?

You asked this before and I'll give you the same answer: I dunno, I'm not a Congressman or lawyer involved with that stuff.

I do know if you make stuff like this into pure theater, as they are presently doing, then no one is going to care about it. If everyone knows this is going nowhere then why would they bother to pay attention to it?

Share this post


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

I'm not saying he was trying to derail Mueller's testimony, I'm saying he wanted the left spitting mad at Pelosi right before she told them Mueller's testimony wasn't enough to start impeachment proceedings.

They were already mad at her for her own actions against the left that preceded the racist tweets. She already stated months ago that she wasn't going to impeach Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this is a really good article about Trump, identity politics, and the idea about him being strategic...

Another explanation for Trump’s victory is that it was largely because of factors that had little to do with his campaign approach. For instance, some election models that ignored the two candidates and instead focused on factors like the economy and Obama’s approval rating predicted that Republicans would win. Whatever the merits of Trump (and Clinton’s strategies), the overwhelming majority of 2016 voters backed the same party as they did in 2012. By far the most important factor in Trump’s victory in 2016 was that he was the GOP nominee for president and millions of Republican-leaning voters likely backed him simply because they are Republicans.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-trumps-use-of-white-identity-politics-strategic/

And below is another article about one of the election models used that predicted Trump’s success.  My own model that I referred to on the boards combined Abramowitz’s “time for a change’ model with the traditional economy and approval models (mostly by Campbell).  Except my model allows the effect of those variables to differ depending on the type of election.  My model shows that the economy and approval ratings are really good predictors during a reelection year (like 2020) and that Abramowitz’s “time for a change” are better in open seat elections, especially after one party has held control for 8+ years (like 2016).  

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/14/11854512/trump-election-models-political-science

This is why I keep saying that I don’t think Trump is somehow immune to the regular dynamics of normal politics.  The stuff all of y’all are talking about does help Trump among GOP voters in the primary, but doesn’t really help him in the general election.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

They were already mad at her for her own actions against the left that preceded the racist tweets. She already stated months ago that she wasn't going to impeach Trump.

All the more reason for him to foment more conflict within the party.

Share this post


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

You asked this before and I'll give you the same answer: I dunno, I'm not a Congressman or lawyer involved with that stuff.

I do know if you make stuff like this into pure theater, as they are presently doing, then no one is going to care about it. If everyone knows this is going nowhere then why would they bother to pay attention to it?

So basically it’s “I’m going to criticize but have no credible alternative suggestions”.  

I think people who endlessly complain about things but don’t have a clue how they would do things differently — or have even bothered to think through how things might work differently — are just bomb throwers who do more harm than good.  

Twitter snark and dunking doesn’t translate well to actual governing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

So basically it’s “I’m going to criticize but have no credible alternative suggestions”.  

I think people who endlessly complain about things but don’t have a clue how they would do things differently — or have even bothered to think through how things might work differently — are just bomb throwers who do more harm than good.  

Twitter snark and dunking doesn’t translate well to actual governing.  

You're asking me for specific witnesses, hearings, and other details which I wouldn't know where to begin with. I can barely describe regular trials, let alone impeachment proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**racist man with history of tweeting/saying/doing racist things tweets something racist**

People: man, that racist dude's at it again.

Serge: nah, well thought out ploy to split libs and leftists before crucial hearing.

 

**man with no impulse control who has exceptionally long history of firing off tweets/at the mouth any time he sees something on tv fires off tweet parroting Fox host immediately after seeing it**

People: man, that dude just can't stop himself.

Serge: nah, savvy political instinct to distract from his real agenda.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

You're asking me for specific witnesses, hearings, and other details which I wouldn't know where to begin with. I can barely describe regular trials, let alone impeachment proceedings.

You don’t know who the major witnesses should be at an impeachment inquiry?  Really?

Hope Hicks.  Don McGahn.  Corey Lewindowski.  Paul Manafort.  Michael Cohen.  

Those are five very obvious witnesses that I could name at the top of my head.  This isn’t difficult.  You just have to step away from the twitter snark for a few minutes and think through the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, it’s really simple.

An impeachment inquiry has to involve analysis of documents and other evidence.

An impeachment inquiry must have witnesses who can publicly testify about the facts and evidence.

So what documents?  First, the full unredacted Mueller report.  Second, the accompanying transcripts from their testimony to Mueller’s team and possibly grand jury.  Third, the accompanying evidence like phone records and emails and so forth.

So which witnesses?  I listed five obvious ones above.  

That’s what will be required.  Can you see the problem with starting that right now?

But nope...let’s not ponder those obvious questions.  Let’s just sit back and throw peanuts from the bleachers and complain without offering any viable or credible alternatives.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mdrake34 said:

At least it doesn’t affect Steve personally

 

I believe his preferred defense to that one is, "they were going to get their weapons from someone, may as well be us".

Door Gunner and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


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

**racist man with history of tweeting/saying/doing racist things tweets something racist**

People: man, that racist dude's at it again.

Serge: nah, well thought out ploy to split libs and leftists before crucial hearing.

 

**man with no impulse control who has exceptionally long history of firing off tweets/at the mouth any time he sees something on tv fires off tweet parroting Fox host immediately after seeing it**

People: man, that dude just can't stop himself.

Serge: nah, savvy political instinct to distract from his real agenda.

 

 

1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Like, it’s really simple.

An impeachment inquiry has to involve analysis of documents and other evidence.

An impeachment inquiry must have witnesses who can publicly testify about the facts and evidence.

So what documents?  First, the full unredacted Mueller report.  Second, the accompanying transcripts from their testimony to Mueller’s team and possibly grand jury.  Third, the accompanying evidence like phone records and emails and so forth.

So which witnesses?  I listed five obvious ones above.  

That’s what will be required.  Can you see the problem with starting that right now?

But nope...let’s not ponder those obvious questions.  Let’s just sit back and throw peanuts from the bleachers and complain without offering any viable or credible alternatives.  

 

It does seem like the left increasingly thinks you're just not supposed to be thinking about any of this too hard past maximum outrage at Orange man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He wouldn't have thought to do that; it wasn't obvious to me that that'd work the way it did, and I pay very close attention.

BTW, Pelosi is a Republican bootlicker now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

It does seem like the left increasingly thinks you're just not supposed to be thinking about any of this too hard past maximum outrage at Orange man.

I'm far from maximum outrage.  I just think you are giving him way more credit than his history indicates he deserves.  It is possible that in these weird times (and yes, they are strange), things that would previously hurt political candidates just don't hurt him.  That his actions have the effect they do regardless of his intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything be lamented on over the 24 hours are things our resident Dems are inadvertently/indirectly giving WFW credit for saying these things well before the events took place...so I got that going for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WhenFalconsWin said:

I told everyone two years ago that Nadler would hold the Mueller hearings on July 24th, 2019 at 8:30AM.  I’m a political genius!  :slick:

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Like, it’s really simple.

An impeachment inquiry has to involve analysis of documents and other evidence.

An impeachment inquiry must have witnesses who can publicly testify about the facts and evidence.

So what documents?  First, the full unredacted Mueller report.  Second, the accompanying transcripts from their testimony to Mueller’s team and possibly grand jury.  Third, the accompanying evidence like phone records and emails and so forth.

So which witnesses?  I listed five obvious ones above.  

That’s what will be required.  Can you see the problem with starting that right now?

But nope...let’s not ponder those obvious questions.  Let’s just sit back and throw peanuts from the bleachers and complain without offering any viable or credible alternatives.  

 

I get it, you want every duck in order first. Not going to fault you for that.

However, the minutia of an impeachment proceeding is not the obvious question, at least not in a grand scheme of things sort of way I'm talking about... Rather, that is whether or not it resonates with the public. Hyping up an investigation into a president for 2+, up to proclaiming that it will take him down, and then following up its release, in which crimes are pointed out, with an announcement that impeachment is off the table is bad strategy. It tells the public that no matter how many hearings you have, no matter how many times you say he's a criminal, that this has no end goal. That is when they start losing interest altogether which is obviously bad for a plethora of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now