What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (11 Viewers)

Support of impeachment falling out of the sky isn't a good indicator for it helping, imo.  You can't drum up 55% in support even after this side show, in comparison?
Well I think that Emerson poll you posted previously had it at 54% impeach or impeach+remove, just as one example.

Like I said though, I don't think the Dems need 55%, or really even 50. Even in the more recent favorable polling for Trump he still keeps hitting that ceiling in the 40s where he has always been. The Dems need 45-48% plus that extra tier in WI, MI & PA, which can come from Indies or higher turnout from Dems.

 
Well I think that Emerson poll you posted previously had it at 54% impeach or impeach+remove, just as one example.

Like I said though, I don't think the Dems need 55%, or really even 50. Even in the more recent favorable polling for Trump he still keeps hitting that ceiling in the 40s where he has always been. The Dems need 45-48% plus that extra tier in WI, MI & PA, which can come from Indies or higher turnout from Dems.
I know that this independent voter is not voting for Trump or any Republican at the National level at any time for the foreseeable future.

 
The most laughable of the scatter shot defense of Trump here is that he was concerned about corruption.

How do these people stand up there and get that out with their tongue pressed so firmly against their cheek?
He was concerned about corruption, just not concerned about reducing it. 

 
Tony, I think there is another subtext here and that is Trump's win was largely built on: 1. suppression of Dem/Indie votes, and 2. using Hillary as a corruption foil.

Now it's pretty clear to me they are trying to do the same thing with Biden, and I think the thinking goes if it's not Biden then it's someone they can pose as a "socialist" foil, and that also helps with the first issue because inevitably if that happens then progressives and moderates begin the :pokey: all over again. So either it's Biden and he's damaged or it's a progressive and he/she is marginalized. I'm just saying that's the Trump thinking, I don't want to wrestle over this stuff.

Pushing back hard fast and often on the Biden claims is the key to stopping that where it starts. That is true for people who like Biden, other moderates, or any progressive in the field. Now it's true the Dems have not gone to the goal line with the courts or even the red zone, but they have, with the help of the press, used this process to fully out, expose and blow up what Trump is doing. The game is up, it's been stopped dead in its tracks. Doing the opposite, doing nothing, means letting Trump run all over them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I think that Emerson poll you posted previously had it at 54% impeach or impeach+remove, just as one example.

Like I said though, I don't think the Dems need 55%, or really even 50. Even in the more recent favorable polling for Trump he still keeps hitting that ceiling in the 40s where he has always been. The Dems need 45-48% plus that extra tier in WI, MI & PA, which can come from Indies or higher turnout from Dems.
I didn't post about any Emerson poll.  I noted Fox the other day and then CNN yesterday all the way down to 45%.  Think about that, the day they go to vote it's lower than it's ever been since Pelosi announced it.  Great job Dems.

 
I didn't post about any Emerson poll.  I noted Fox the other day and then CNN yesterday all the way down to 45%.  Think about that, the day they go to vote it's lower than it's ever been since Pelosi announced it.  Great job Dems.
As someone who wants to see corruption root out shouldn’t this be independent of the polls?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking of polls: Trump campaign says impeachment backfiring. Not really, polls suggest
 

“Gallup polling at the time showed that Clinton’s popularity grew in a bipartisan fashion during the House proceedings, peaking at 73% at the time of the impeachment vote.

But Americans are reacting much differently in 2019.

Trump's approval rating has hovered around 40% all year, changing little during the past three months. Furthermore, his support has been flat over the past several months among whites without a college degree - his core political base - and he was less popular in rural America in November than he was in June.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also shows that Democrats are even more committed to impeaching Trump now than they were earlier this year and worry less about the impact it may have on the 2020 election.

While total support for impeachment has been steady over the past several weeks at around 45%, it has risen by 12 percentage points among Democrats since late September, with 78% saying in the latest poll on Dec. 9 and 10 that Trump should be impeached.“

 
How is impeachment going to root out corruption when it's dead in the senate?  This isn't rocket science, this is all about 2020.
I would think we’d want all of our representatives to vote without looking at how the issue polls. Thought that was a big complaint of public officials.

 
You may be thinking of the numbers the wrong way. 55% of America voted against Trump. 55%. Now there are Johnson voters, La Riva voters, Constitution Party voters, all kinds of voters in there. But still, 55%. The issue is like 300 precincts in maybe 5 states, maybe roughly 120,000 votes. There is more than one way to skin that cat politically. I don't know that 1% of the 45% needs to be converted to Dem, but 0.05% of Indies converted to Dem in those 5 states, or an extra 3% Dem turnout in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia might do it. Etc. Now the chances with the first group certainly isn't hurt by saying Mean Things about DJT, and the chances with the second group are probably rewarded. Again, etc. I think you're pigeonholing this.
Exactly he won those states by a total of little over 100k votes. There is no overwhelming mandate here. 4 years later many things can change.  People die, people move, new register voters take their place.

 
Don't watch or read CNN. But cool that the president and his kids aren't permitted to have a charity in NY state now. Literally, he cannot be trusted not to rip people off who think they are doing good deeds.


There was also that fake university Trump had.  He was ordered to pay out $25MM in a fraud settlement over that thing.  In 2016.  
Let's add in all the contractors he has refused to pay and the 6 bankruptcys so he can get out of paying his debts. 

 
There was a time when politicians strove for plausible deniability.  Now simply deniability saying that plausible is established if they say it is.  That is of course nonsense, but it is where we are.  This is why trying jury cases is difficult, because every idiot in the world thinks his doubts are reasonable, because, well, they are his. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most laughable of the scatter shot defense of Trump here is that he was concerned about corruption.

How do these people stand up there and get that out with their tongue pressed so firmly against their cheek?
Well you have to remember he was working closely with Interpol on this.  Oh wait, no he wasn't. 

Okay, but surely he mentioned "corruption" a bunch when he was talking to Zelensky...  What?  Dang, that never happened either. 

What about all the other places around the world where he's working to combat corruption?   Huh?  There are none?  That's weird.

So the only incident of "corruption" he was concerned with was one that could be used to damage the Democratic front-runner seeking his job, and rather than it being a stated policy objective carried out by the officials in the appropriate positions it was shadow operation headed by his non-government-official "personal lawyer"?  That's probably a coincidence.  

 
start a thread on that - it isn't what CNN told you it was
Well if had to be a fine right?  Because otherwise it would be a settlement, and the President NEVER settles.  He said so himself.  And specifically said he wouldn't settle this case.    

 
Well you have to remember he was working closely with Interpol on this.  Oh wait, no he wasn't. 

Okay, but surely he mentioned "corruption" a bunch when he was talking to Zelensky...  What?  Dang, that never happened either. 

What about all the other places around the world where he's working to combat corruption?   Huh?  There are none?  That's weird.

So the only incident of "corruption" he was concerned with was one that could be used to damage the Democratic front-runner seeking his job, and rather than it being a stated policy objective carried out by the officials in the appropriate positions it was shadow operation headed by his non-government-official "personal lawyer"?  That's probably a coincidence.  
Yup. The topper is that Trump didn’t care what investigation Ukraine would do, just wanted them to announce they were doing one so he could talk about it at pep rallies.

 
there was a time when politicians strove for plausible deniability.  Now simply deniability saying that plausible is established if they say it is.  That is of course nonsense, but it is where we are.  This is why trying jury cases is difficult, because every idiot in the world thinks his doubts are reasonable, because, well, they are his. 
No joke- I think shows like CSI are at least somewhat to blame for the state we find ourselves in. Not a lot, but some. They convinced a generation of people that what plainly appears to be true is often not true if you look closely enough for even the slightest flaw or gap or uncertainty.  But in the real world, what plainly appears to be true is almost always true, the safeguards of "reasonable doubt" are only useful in the context of criminal judicial proceedings, and even in that context the doubts need to rise to the level of genuinely "reasonable" to be relevant, as you note.

There is no "reasonable" argument that Trump was doing anything other than using the power and influence of the presidency to compel Ukraine to manufacture an investigation to make his potential 2020 opponent look bad. None. That is why all the criticisms have focused either on meaningless process stuff or on the slightest flaw or gap or uncertainty, no matter how unreasonable. Eg the bizarre argument that a man who has never shown even the slightest interest in fighting corruption even in the country he governs was somehow suddenly and passionately concerned about fighting it in Ukraine. It's preposterous, but because we can only say with 99.99999% certainty that it's a blatant lie that somehow gets him off the hook.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top