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.
What will be the result of this impeachment investigation? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TripItUp
- Start date
squistion
Footballguy
If Obama had done this (or Hillary if she had been elected) attacked a witness testifying before Congress against him, in real time, in order to intimidate the witness, would you have had a problem with this and also say it is a nothing burger and no impeachable offense? I doubt that.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, unquestionably (attempted witness intimidation and obstruction of justice not harassment)it is because there is no possibility that she would not hear about it, even if Schiff had not brought it up during the hearing.
You sure?
No way you could have listened to Taylor and Kent and come away thinking this. They were very thorough. There isn't a doubt in anyone's mind trump was asking for QPQ. The Republicans were embarrassing themselves up there ranting instead of questioning.
supermike80
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I watched every second of Taylor and Kent testimony and 100% believe what I said. These guys are testifying on what they "heard" and have no contact with the President at all. Whoever finds them credible as far as impeaching the President reflects poorly on them. Only partisan folks like Schiff think this is an impeachable offense.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
Is this partisan politics? Of course. Were the Presidents actions unacceptable and impeachable? Of course. These two thing aren’t mutually exclusive and are as crystal clear to anyone looking at this rationally as Miles hitting Mason over the head with a helmet is wrong is. The partisan games played by both parties over the last decade plus are sickening and has done irreparable damage to this country.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hypocrisy level has been at maximum for quite some time. It's been that way on just about every. single. issue.
I suppose you buy into the "aid was eventually granted, so no offense was committed" line of thinking, eh? You probably think it is a coincidence that aid was released within 48 hours of trump learning about the whistleblower? You think hiring a hitman to kill someone is not a crime if the hitman fails to perform his task?
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Pure partisan politics for sure. Pelosi stated she didn't want to go through with impeachments proceedings unless bipartisan support. Something that occurred for all prior impeachments. There is no bipartisan support because this is a sham and Pelosi knows it. She let the Schiffs and other far left folks who have been making up stuff about Trump for years trying to impeach him roll over her. I have zero respect for her now. Shameful.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Well, you have to have proof. So far there is none. Impeaching the President is a major thing and you don't do it just because you hate the President.
Last edited by a moderator:
caustic
Footballguy
I think the "Obama hate" hypothesis has some pretty good empirical support, actually. I highly recommend this podcast episode which goes through some of the major public opinion shifts and partisan realignments from 2007-present.
dkp993
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
The problem is young people don't vote. They protest on social media, etc but can't be bothered to actually vote. We would be a very different country if they turned out like they should.
skol asylum
Footballguy
Do you realize how much tangible policy has been passed by the Democratic House and sits on Mitch McConnell's desk untouched? Republican do nothings in the Senate are to blame, not a Democratic House who has been busy passing policy.
No one is impeaching the President because they hate the President, but because the President "may have" abused his position and "may have" obstructed the investigation.
Just like no one impeached President Obama despite say they would and that they hated him.
skol asylum
Footballguy
What do you consider proof because there are multiple witnesses that have the same story. Those that are even closer to the events arent allowed to testify, obstructing justice.
skol asylum
Footballguy
TripItUp
Footballguy
And these investigations(worthless IMHO) have done nothing but exacerbate the polarization(IMHO)
Last edited by a moderator:
From a previous conversation, I believe you said this of your trump supporting friends: they are wealthy and they don't particularly care for him as a person or a president but they were more concerned with getting conservative judges appointed. If that's accurate, that describes a very, very thin slice of red voters in 2016.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's not fun to call it Obama hate, just an attempt to be accurate. Like I said, this is all hindsight research on my part and from the research that seems to have been a serious contributing factor. I know very few people that voted for trump, but the few that did seemed to have an irrational dislike of Obama (FWIW, I didn't vote for him, but think he did a fair job considering the situation he was left with), although I'm not basing my opinion on this tiny, non-random sample of people. There was a decent swath of the population that was angry at Obama for various reasons. These same people were excited about trump.
I'm sorry to make you link that article again, but it's a good article (one I recall reading 3 years ago). It also articulates why his base was energized in 2016. Somehow some way these people that say "We country folk are programmed to hate the prissy elites" and "urban people don't share our values" (quotes from the article) somehow voted for a fake bone spur having, draft dodging, tax dodging, adulterous, contractor stiffing, golf resort owning fake billionaire to stick it to the prissy elites. It doesn't fully compute, but that is indeed what energized them. Rural voting was up, city voting was depressed. But at least a few of these people have seen the light. They have noticed that trump gave the ultra rich a tax cut. He's pissed off farmers. He's pissed off the few minority supporters he had.
Slowly but surely, his base is dwindling. It's been remarkably steady through blunder after blunder, but it has still dipped. Additionally, the people in the middle have chosen a side, thus the larger upward swing from disapproval (41% to 54%) than downward swing in approval (45% to 41%). Adding approve and disapprove from 3 years ago to present, you get 86% to 95%. There were undecided people when he started. Three years later, the majority of the undecided have decided. That doesn't bode well for him, considering how close his victories in some swing states were.
sho nuff
Footballguy
How many convictions out of the Mueller investigation? Doesn't seem worthless there at all.
This one is pointing out abuses of power...again, doesn't seem worthless.
It seems to only polarize those which don't want to accept that Trump and his administration have acted in an improper manner. Pointing that out seems to even embolden some to support him more. I just can't get my head around that type of thought.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Historically, you are correct. But there was a surge in 2018 that will almost certainly carry over into 2020. This is what I meant by trump's base being energized in 2016, but everyone else being energized now. Youths and independents will be taking part in this for sure.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Disagree. When you have no proof but still go forward with impeachment it is pure hate and trying to reverse 2016 election. Very bad look and foolish.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Maybe someone who heard the President directly? I know, crazy thought.
Here is the thing, we have the transcript of the call and there is no impeachable offense there. This is pure crazyness.
Do we? Are you referencing the thing called "not a verbatim transcript of a discussion" of his troubling call or are you referencing the rough transcript of the infinitely less important congratulatory call?
And you still haven't watched this, have you? Because you seem confused on what an impeachable offense is. Just listen to your man Lindsey Graham.
This does not reverse the 2016 Election. Hillary Clinton is not becoming President no matter what happens with President Trump. Well proof seems to be a open ended question depending on where you land. I agree as of today just based on the evidence on the call there is no need to impeach. However, its not the call that is getting the President impeached and more to do with the coverup. If its a perfect call why was it put in a top secret file? If President Trump just came out and said, hey its not a perfect call. I don't think we are here today.
What I said is 100% accurate. How many people are like them is a different question. Not sure you how think you know with such certainty but that's fine.
I think you read that in the wrong tone. I wasn't questioning if what you said was accurate. I was questioning if my recounting of what you had told me was accurate.
Did you think the article you linked was representative of your friends? I thought we both agreed it was a good article and described the majority of trump voters. Your friends clearly didn't fit that description, so I'd think we'd be in agreement that they are not the norm when it comes to trump supporters.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I was trying to think of a way to say it - in the way people say never Trump now there seemed to be a large segment of the country that was never Hillary in 2016 - some on both sides.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Impeached, not removed, re-elected.
skol asylum
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
I thought my man had no chance until about 10:30PM on election night. Now we all believe.
Dickies
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Agreed. I’m as apathetic as they come, and have never voted in any election. If I didn’t live in one of the most democratic states in the country, I’d vote.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Agree with this.
Caveat is, I don’t think he has the diversity of the vote that supported him in 2016. He’s got an energized base, but the moderate republican voters I know and hear about all over are not gonna have any of this. Which I think explains his poll numbers, despite the fact that his tenure has coincided with the strong economy he inherited from Obama.
Add to that, no matter who the Dems put up, it won’t be as bad as Hillary.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Again, I'm unsure how you seem to be so certain of things you don't know. My friends may not be poor, but several very much identify with the Big City Elite vs Small City Underdog argument the article outlines. I don't know enough about things to say they're the "norm" for Trump supporters. They're certainly the norm for the large number of Trump supporters I personally know. That doesn't play as well though to show them as nuclear engineers or stock brokers. Much more convenient if they're portrayed as redneck idiots.
For your original point that Trump voters who were very concerned about Supreme Court Nominees being a "very, very thin slice of red voters in 2016.", I don't know what to tell you there. That was a primary reason that came up repeatedly when I talked to my friends about why they were voting for Trump.
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think it would be interesting to see how opinions have changed with regards to some of this. How many prior to 2016 election put judges in their reasons to support Trump vs people saying that now.
I think were some saying that then...but imo, it seems to have grown as a reason now as popular thought.
Mainly some now that look the other way because of judicial nominations as a reason to support in 2020 bs where that was in polling from 2016
Im going to guess its higher now than it was then.
I think were some saying that then...but imo, it seems to have grown as a reason now as popular thought.
Mainly some now that look the other way because of judicial nominations as a reason to support in 2020 bs where that was in polling from 2016
Im going to guess its higher now than it was then.
I haven't talked to them lately but I'd guess it's still an issue. And to be clear, it's not just Supreme Court Judges
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/05/16/if-donald-trump-gets-another-supreme-court-pick
But I don't expect this to get talked about much. More convenient just to dismiss Trump voters with the snarky insults.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
That isn’t my experience. My circle of friends talks about this a lot — the desire to see conservative judges appointed, who fit the “moral leanings” of a swath of the population......and in tandem, the willingness to turn a blind eye toward a man who appears to be a pretty awful human being. Few of my friends say “Trump voters are horrible human beings.” Many of them are just confused by the willingness to ignore the horrible stuff he says and tweets.
Similar threads
