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.
I get it...its just hard for me to look away from the rest of what he does. And in the primaries prior to 2016 this wasn't an issue with his hardcore base (meaning not just for him)...as any conservative would have supported conservative justices.
Sorry, just saw this. I know you weren’t exactly watching the boards for politics at the time but there were some very, very high energy Trump supporters on here. And his rallies were packed to the gills in rural areas, with lines to get in that were hours long. Louisiana especially was very very amped for Trump in 2016.
We'll just have to disagree. Sure there of course were rallies but overall the energy was relatively low from what I saw. Most I know expected him to lose. That's cool though, I'm sure lots of people had different experiences.
I’m guessing cobalt was referring to Fox’s main news guy, Wallace, and not the “opinion” talking heads.
He is not main news guy but whatever. Foxnews is still accurately saying hearings going well for Trump so far.
This illustrates a good point where links are super helpful.
This is the effect of supporting a tv celebrity for president. Or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ratings & sizzle are all that matter.
This video clip makes me think that you are underestimating the public's interest.
I respect Wallace and Baier. I am well aware the flip side is opinion commentators are pitching a different story, and that’s what they get paid to do. But, the fact that Fox News has presented the observation—accurately—that testimonies thus far have been damaging is, in fact, notable.
Yup. Add to that the ratings were really strong across all networks. More folks tuned in during the daytime hearings than watched the CMA awards in primetime. I don’t know what average Joe and Sally take away from them, we might get a glimpse in next few rounds of polling, but certainly not a strong argument to suggest folks are ignoring it.
His diehard supporters don't care, or more accurately, it won't change their vote. Everybody else does.Courtjester said:
Based on the numbers we have so far, this statement is simply inaccurate:Courtjester said:
First, I'd like to make sure you saw my clarification on this. I'm not trying to kiss up to the top mod, but I'm not trying to piss him off either with a misunderstanding. You seemed perturbed as if I'd implied you had been misleading. I was actually just trying to be clear that I was paraphrasing a conversation I no longer recalled with clarity.
Of course I can't be certain. But I've done a fair amount of reading about the reasons and psychology behind those that supported trump in 2016 and you were the first person to mention this angle, so it seemed a natural conclusion/assumption to believe this wasn't a notable driving factor for many people. So while I still think it is a selfish and short-sighted reason to support such an unimaginably flawed candidate whose lasting negative impact will be drastic, I'm glad you brought it to my attention. It's another piece to the puzzle. I just think that if this is the first I've heard of it in three years, it's a small piece. But you're right, I'm not certain and I can't be certain of it. However, if there was magically a way to measure it AND bet on it, I'd drop a good chunk of cash on "less than 1% of voters took this into account when voting for trump." And I'd bet the farm on less than 5%. If you're in a sporting mood, would you care to humor me and take a stab at where you'd place the over/under on it?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.
And that also does not count Cspan or streaming it...(now neither did the others as far as comparison...but the total will be far past 13 million people watching).
Not in a sporting mood with you. Sorry. I may not agree with my friends, but it's the opposite of short sighted. Thanks for the feedback.
What? I think you keep reading my replies in the most negative tone possible and it is greatly skewing what you think I'm trying to say. I wasn't calling you short-sighted. I was calling people voting for that reason short-sighted, because if they think they're playing the long game, they should be more worried about climate change and the federal deficit than justices.
I understood what you said. My friends think going for appointed justices is not short sighted.
You phrase that in a way that make it seem like his small group doesn’t care, and EVERYBODY ELSE does. Which isn’t accurate.
Putting this in the record is important historically and to do it to protect constitutional prerogatives. It also forces the Republicans into constantly defending the impossible to defend for 2020. We're also not entirely sure how this ends, we have already seen one 1-1 conversation involving the President emerge. It's not just worth doing it must be done.
I'll grant it's thinking beyond 4 years, but we're irreparably damaging the environment and setting up future generations to fail with this deficit. And the sitting president is a massive contributing factor to both.
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I’m just saying that it’s obvious what is going to happen. Since both sides know that, it’s morphed into a 2020 election event with both sides using the process to try and sway public opinion.
One side seems to be using the process for which it was intended....oversight. Not sure how the both sides just using it for election is true at all.
@Joe Bryant I got a notification you replied to this and the thread was showing you as the last person to reply in it (until shader replied) but I can't see it. I'm a bit
at the moment. Forum glitch?
I know elected officials are keeping this partisan, but I don’t think the general public is. As someone with no party affiliation, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can overlook Trump’s behavior.
That happens when someone hides the post...the new way of deleting. My guess is its time to move on.@Joe Bryant I got a notification you replied to this and the thread was showing you as the last person to reply in it (until shader replied) but I can't see it. I'm a bit
I guess I just have a problem with 'political sideshow'. This is an actual investigation playing out in public in real time.
Shader, have you watched the hearings? This is really not a partisan circus or election event. There are credible professional career foreign policy officers testifying about how dangerous the events that have taken place in Ukraine are to our national security and general ability to carry forward US policy on the world stage. And it's actually pretty somber and frightening from my perspective that this could happen in our government. Things like this are not supposed to happen and this is all really unprecedented. Congress would be defying their oath if they didn't investigate this.
I suppose I’m being a bit too cynical about how the hearings will go. I see the R’s in lockstep with each other and their party laughing the whole thing off so to me it all seems like a fore gone conclusion that he gets impeached and doesn’t get removed.
No worries. I am getting better about managing my time. I wrote something and then realized if a 4 year plus outlook is going to be labeled short term, it probably wasn't something I needed to stay engaged with. All good.@Joe Bryant I got a notification you replied to this and the thread was showing you as the last person to reply in it (until shader replied) but I can't see it. I'm a bit
I can't speak for JB's friends, but when I read his post "single issue voters" sprang to mind, especially anti-abortion voters. Issues that might seem like more long-term problems, like climate change, might not factor into their vote...leaving you with only this:FF Ninja said:
You know, when he first mentioned this to me in another thread, I think I inquired about what effect they were hoping to come from these conservative judges and I think Joe said he didn't know. But yours is a valid hypothesis, as I'm not sure what the other issues are that could be impacted by this. Although I've heard that some will fight the proposed wealth taxes on the grounds such a thing would be unconstitutional.
Of course both sides are using it for election. To try and act like the dems won't politicize the heck out of this is absurd.sho nuff said:
Im not saying they won’t (they will and they should)...Im saying this process is about oversight and Trumps misdeeds.
It doesn't really matter how many people, or who they are, testify along these lines. Those actions are within the bounds of accepted behavior, according to current Republican principles. Job One is stopping the spread of domestic leftism.
138 millon Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election. So less the 10 percent of those who voted in 2016 are watching. I don’t think people really care about this.timschochet said:
on this 4-bet parlay. 
