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*** (4 Viewers)

It's almost the opposite. We know we'll move onto the next outrage within days of this trial being over. By next fall, there will be 15-20 controversies or statements made that capture all of the media, not to mention the voting.
Anything he does after this could have been prevented with a vote to convict. Say he does something nutty like bombing a country because another country was going to allow him to build a Trump Tower there. You don’t think people will remember that one time they had a vote to remove him from his office?

 
We all get the political calculus. Trump will be acquitted. Why not use the time to dirty up Joe Biden (and Democrats generally). It’s distasteful, but certainly not unexpected. And as someone who will be tempted to walk into the sea like Kate Chopin heroine if the Democrats run Uncle Joe against Trump, I’m not terribly offended. 

Just don’t start citing a bunch of legal non sequiturs like due process. 
This whole gong show is like running a case against a self-represented litigant.   

With regard to my last post a Democratic senator (not sure who) was asked if the Democrats would publicly urge Roberts to cast a vote in the event of a tie vote. He replied “That’s not our role.” 

This made me wonder, why not? But then it occurred to me that Democrats are not that displeased by a vote against witnesses? 
Given there is no chance he will be removed no matter what happens, I agree that the dems see a vote against witnesses as a decent outcome.  The Bolton book is going to come out in March and the whole world will have confirmed what they already know.  And it will go through the news cycle again.  

I think the stink washes off the GOP by next November though if Bernie wins the nomination.  If it is Biden, they could get punished for their absolute moral cowardice throughout this gong show.

 
Impeachment trial also tells other countries we take this meddling seriously.  They are on notice too.
Definitely a worthwhile and honorable pursuit even though pretty much a fait accompli from the get go.

Hopefully this represents the historical low point of the political polarization era of the last 15-20 years.

 
MA, MD, and good old conservative/Big Sky MT

I thought I was only doing "I's" but I threw Maine in there inexplicably.
Montana didn't really fit with the joke.

To be honest I had figured you left these out as the "easy ones" anyway, but wanted to sneak in the "socialist" bit.  Figured you would snicker a little bit.  (Hopefully?)

 
GOP and Trump will be able to claim victory in terms of outcome. To be weighed against the "we did the right thing" process arguments.
Donald claims victory whenever he gets away with another misdeed. The tactic mostly only works on those people who are likely to attend one of his rallies.
I used to listen to a lot of right wing radio and there's not shortage of curmudgeons complaining about "kids these days" and their fond memories of daddy spanking or flat out beating them for misbehaving.  It made them the man they are today.  An honorable, hardworking, honest, citizen. Yet these same people never want to punish the highest profile petulant child  in the history of this country. 

 
The Senate might have one honorable moment today: Rand Paul is supposedly going to challenge Roberts by asking the identity of the whistleblower again and when Roberts refuses, plans to put it to a vote. If that happens then Republican senators can show a tiny bit of dignity by repudiating Paul and Trump on this one issue. It doesn’t make up for the greater shame but it will at least be a small positive step for them. 
Yeah, I'm sure Republicans will rise to the occasion here.

 
Montana didn't really fit with the joke.

To be honest I had figured you left these out as the "easy ones" anyway, but wanted to sneak in the "socialist" bit.  Figured you would snicker a little bit.  (Hopefully?)
I did get the joke. And I smiled. I remembered the Law & Order in CA when the judge presiding at trial couldn't say Massachusetts without a total snarl. **** Wolf knew, too. Taxachusetts, once called. I got what you were getting at -- I was just going for completionist's sake.

MA and the Massachusetts Bay Colony had a socialist colonial history, to be sure. The churches served as the community's lifeblood, often things were produced and consumed under the auspices of the government. It just worked that way. 

And I lived in MD and certainly felt its tax effects, though Bethesda and Potomac hardly strike me as decaying socialist states.

Nor do Cambridge, Lexington, and Concord in MA.

But yeah, I certainly did smile. Made me think of all those things. 

 
The only sham was the one cooked up by schiff and he's gonna fail miserably. The fact that there will be democrats voting in Trumps favor tells everyone that. The guy should spend more time fixing problems than going on a 3 year witch hunt. He's absolutely no different than Peter Strzok. He's just more sinister and capable of disguising his hate.
Your viewpoint is not representative of the majority. That doesn’t make you wrong, but it does suggest that your predictions about how this will play out might be in some question. 
lod001 may have a few of the details wrong, but in broad strokes, I believe his take is more closely aligned with the smart money than yours is.

Trump's chances of reelection are about at their historical peak right now: https://electionbettingodds.com/

You've expressed your opinion that Trump's victory will be temporary, and that after he's acquitted, that's when public backlash will set in. I appreciate this viewpoint because it's sensible, it aligns with my own hopes, and it appears to be based on your own analysis rather than a repeated talking point taken from elsewhere. This board is at its best when people offer their own original analyses.

But as much as I appreciate your prediction, it appears to be a minority take based on how the betting markets are reacting.

I predict that your reply will be: "Just wait. After the acquittal, that's when the polls and the betting markets will adjust to reflect public disappointment."

While it's possible that such a reply will ultimately prove accurate, it's not really possible that it represents the majority view. Unlike polls, that's not how markets work.

Somebody without inside information might predict that Microsoft's stock will go up by 5%+ a month from now, but that can't be the majority view. If people generally thought that it would go up in a month, it would go up right now instead (because people would seek to buy it before it goes up). There are no predictable delays in price movements. The current price is the best estimation of any future price.

So when the prediction markets are saying, right now, that Trump's chances for reelection are favorable, they are necessarily also saying that, to the best approximation, they will also be favorable in March, and in August, and in November.

Maybe you are right and the prediction markets are wrong. I hope so. But your viewpoint is not representative of the majority.

 
I predict that your reply will be: "Just wait. After the acquittal, that's when the polls and the betting markets will adjust to reflect public disappointment."

While it's possible that such a reply will ultimately prove accurate, it's not really possible that it represents the majority view. Unlike polls, that's not how markets work.

Somebody without inside information might predict that Microsoft's stock will go up by 5%+ a month from now, but that can't be the majority view. If people generally thought that it would go up in a month, it would go up right now instead (because people would seek to buy it before it goes up). There are no predictable delays in price movements. The current price is the best estimation of any future price.

So when the prediction markets are saying, right now, that Trump's chances for reelection are favorable, they are necessarily also saying that, to the best approximation, they will also be favorable in March, and in August, and in November.

Maybe you are right and the prediction markets are wrong. I hope so. But your viewpoint is not representative of the majority.
Aside from the religion topics, I rarely feel over my head, and yet here I am...I won't waste your time and will look it up, but I'm not following the logic of the markets vs. the logic of tim.

 
I would agree that even though the ball wasn't put in the end zone some amount of political yardage was gained by the Democrats. But November is still a long way away. Not sure how much staying power it has.
I don't think the slow drip of Trump corruption news will stop anytime soon.  

 
lod001 may have a few of the details wrong, but in broad strokes, I believe his take is more closely aligned with the smart money than yours is.

Trump's chances of reelection are about at their historical peak right now: https://electionbettingodds.com/

You've expressed your opinion that Trump's victory will be temporary, and that after he's acquitted, that's when public backlash will set in. I appreciate this viewpoint because it's sensible, it aligns with my own hopes, and it appears to be based on your own analysis rather than a repeated talking point taken from elsewhere. This board is at its best when people offer their own original analyses.

But as much as I appreciate your prediction, it appears to be a minority take based on how the betting markets are reacting.

I predict that your reply will be: "Just wait. After the acquittal, that's when the polls and the betting markets will adjust to reflect public disappointment."

While it's possible that such a reply will ultimately prove accurate, it's not really possible that it represents the majority view. Unlike polls, that's not how markets work.

Somebody without inside information might predict that Microsoft's stock will go up by 5%+ a month from now, but that can't be the majority view. If people generally thought that it would go up in a month, it would go up right now instead (because people would seek to buy it before it goes up). There are no predictable delays in price movements. The current price is the best estimation of any future price.

So when the prediction markets are saying, right now, that Trump's chances for reelection are favorable, they are necessarily also saying that, to the best approximation, they will also be favorable in March, and in August, and in November.

Maybe you are right and the prediction markets are wrong. I hope so. But your viewpoint is not representative of the majority.
Not trying to be a jerk cause I really don't know:  what were the oddsmakers saying in 2016?

 
I don't think the slow drip of Trump corruption news will stop anytime soon.  
:goodposting:   Anyone thinking that this all goes away once the impeachment process is over is fooling themselves.   There is going to be more crap coming about Trump between now and the election.   I don't know who the Democrat nominee will be but they will get it too.

And one thing that is truer now than ever:   it doesn't even matter if the mud being slung has any basis of truth or not.

 
lod001 may have a few of the details wrong, but in broad strokes, I believe his take is more closely aligned with the smart money than yours is.

Trump's chances of reelection are about at their historical peak right now: https://electionbettingodds.com/

You've expressed your opinion that Trump's victory will be temporary, and that after he's acquitted, that's when public backlash will set in. I appreciate this viewpoint because it's sensible, it aligns with my own hopes, and it appears to be based on your own analysis rather than a repeated talking point taken from elsewhere. This board is at its best when people offer their own original analyses.

But as much as I appreciate your prediction, it appears to be a minority take based on how the betting markets are reacting.

I predict that your reply will be: "Just wait. After the acquittal, that's when the polls and the betting markets will adjust to reflect public disappointment."

While it's possible that such a reply will ultimately prove accurate, it's not really possible that it represents the majority view. Unlike polls, that's not how markets work.

Somebody without inside information might predict that Microsoft's stock will go up by 5%+ a month from now, but that can't be the majority view. If people generally thought that it would go up in a month, it would go up right now instead (because people would seek to buy it before it goes up). There are no predictable delays in price movements. The current price is the best estimation of any future price.

So when the prediction markets are saying, right now, that Trump's chances for reelection are favorable, they are necessarily also saying that, to the best approximation, they will also be favorable in March, and in August, and in November.

Maybe you are right and the prediction markets are wrong. I hope so. But your viewpoint is not representative of the majority.
Two points:

1. I never stated that my own viewpoint is representative of the majority. In fact it usually isn’t. What I wrote was that the person I was responding to, HIS viewpoint was not representative of the majority- not that Trump would win the election, but specifically that Trump’s popularity would increase as a result of the impeachment and that the Democrats would be crushed because of it, a prediction he has made several times now. 

2. As far as the betting markets go, they do not accurately represent Trump’s chances of re-election against a single candidate- they are rating his chances against the entire field. I believe that so long as the single candidate is not Sanders or Warren, the Democrat will be favored by the betting markets. But we won’t know this until a single candidate has been chosen, so let’s see if I am right about this. 

 
I wonder if this will cause the Democrats to finally realize the game has changed. Trump is about to get carte blanche to do whatever he wants to get re-elected. If the Democrats are not prepared to get seriously dirty, Trump is getting another term. The whole "when they go low, we go high thing" - not sure it every really worked, but I'm certain it won't work now.

China, I hope you're listening...

 
SCHIFF: "While we've been debating whether POTUS can be impeached for bogus claims of privilege, the DOJ is resisting subpoenas in court today... the judge says 'if Congress can't enforce its subpoenas, what remedy is there,' & DOJ's response is impeachment! You can't make it up"

And around and around we go... It's a carnival of obstruction, bad faith arguments and circular logic....Step right up, rubes!

 
Also, I think you're kidding yourselves if you think what's going down now will have a significant impact on perceptions when November comes around. That's 9 months from now. The narratives will be completely different.

 
I wonder if this will cause the Democrats to finally realize the game has changed. Trump is about to get carte blanche to do whatever he wants to get re-elected. If the Democrats are not prepared to get seriously dirty, Trump is getting another term. The whole "when they go low, we go high thing" - not sure it every really worked, but I'm certain it won't work now.

China, I hope you're listening...
I wonder how Republicans will react to this "carte blanche" if a Democrat wins in November.

Just kidding...we know exactly how they would react.

 
Also, I think you're kidding yourselves if you think what's going down now will have a significant impact on perceptions when November comes around. That's 9 months from now. The narratives will be completely different.
Well, it's pretty much guaranteed that Donald will do lots and lots of dumb and mean things in the next nine months. Nobody will be laboring under the impression that he's going to be less crooked, chaotic, underinformed and authoritarian going forward than he has been for four years. But any neutrals out there ought to be terrified about what a Donald Trump unchecked by re-election fears -- and possibly backed by another friendly Senate -- will do to our increasingly archaic democracy.

 
Two points:

1. I never stated that my own viewpoint is representative of the majority. In fact it usually isn’t. What I wrote was that the person I was responding to, HIS viewpoint was not representative of the majority- not that Trump would win the election, but specifically that Trump’s popularity would increase as a result of the impeachment and that the Democrats would be crushed because of it, a prediction he has made several times now. 

2. As far as the betting markets go, they do not accurately represent Trump’s chances of re-election against a single candidate- they are rating his chances against the entire field. I believe that so long as the single candidate is not Sanders or Warren, the Democrat will be favored by the betting markets. But we won’t know this until a single candidate has been chosen, so let’s see if I am right about this. 
I tend to agree with Tim's take here.   It seems likely that Trump's recent recent bump in the betting markets odds has more to do with Bernie's rise in the polls than anything else.

 
Well, it's pretty much guaranteed that Donald will do lots and lots of dumb and mean things in the next nine months. Nobody will be laboring under the impression that he's going to be less crooked, chaotic, underinformed and authoritarian going forward than he has been for four years. But any neutrals out there ought to be terrified about what a Donald Trump unchecked by re-election fears -- and possibly backed by another friendly Senate -- will do to our increasingly archaic democracy.
It's absolutely horrific. The Dems are going to have to do a little evil if they want to do some greater goods. That's where we're at now. Tell me which of the Dem candidates is going to run the most sophisticated machiavellian campaign in the general, and I'll vote for that one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then it shouldn't be admitted at trial.  Period.  Relevance is a very low bar.  And this doesn't meet it.  If you can't even meet relevance, your "evidence" isn't evidence, it is simply intended to create prejudice, confusion, and a waste of time.
If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law.  When you have neither, hire Alan Dershowitz.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top