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.
The rumor is that Trump is refusing to pay their retainer fees. Which is actually a pretty smart move on Trump's part. What's the point of paying for a bunch of lawyers when you know in advance that the jury is going to acquit you?5 trump lawyers quit.
Might as well save his money for when he gets hauled in to real counts of law in NY. He's going to need lawyers then.
Kind of does make sense. trump has enough Senators in his pocket to be acquitted so why even show up.
It’s because they refuse to turn the trial into a Big Lie event.
Rudy is willing and eager to do it:
Their narrative becomes, "Hey, I voted Not Guilty because I believe the whole trial is unconstitutional, not because I believe the election was stolen."
They won't ask questions. They will congratule him on four great years and blame the Democrats.
If your numbers were right then I think we'd be seeing different behavior from reps right now.
If Trump's base is 30-40% of the overall population, that equates to something like 80-90% of the Republican Party. Any Republican that goes against Trump is in serious danger of losing in a primary.
Self proclaimed independents don't care either. They will not punish their GOP senators.
Well, there's the rub ...the challenge for the Republican party. The base is large enough that it probably can succeed in many primaries. But I believe the base is not large enough to succeed in enough general elections for the Rs to regain control. I can envision a scenario where the Dems gain in numbers in '22 and '24 while the Trump Rs also grow in number and extremism. That doesn't bode well for our future.
I’m already on record here saying Scott and Rubio from Florida will not get my vote, and neither will DeSantis.
They won't get mine either. This past year has really soured me on the Republican party and It'll be a long time before I vote for someone with an R next to their name.
They have to get out of the primary first. I think that narrative is more important to them than trying to appeal to the non-primary voter.
If I"m the R's, I'm internal polling to see how many of the "Trump" voter was a first timer or first time in a long time voter......along with seeing how many R's/Indy leaning R's voted for Biden and then seeing if those people are first time or first time in a long time. Whatever number is higher is the number you'd back....although Trump did lose his two elections by a combined 10+M votes....so it's not like he's a world beater in a general.Well, there's the rub ...the challenge for the Republican party. The base is large enough that it probably can succeed in many primaries. But I believe the base is not large enough to succeed in enough general elections for the Rs to regain control. I can envision a scenario where the Dems gain in numbers in '22 and '24 while the Trump Rs also grow in number and extremism. That doesn't bode well for our future.
Trump's "base" is not 90% of the Republican party, imo. I'd say that there's a faction of approximately 35% within the party who are die hards that won't even consider another candidate but Trump. Beyond that, it's possible to win over the hearts and minds of other Republicans, but only if you bring some quality traits to the table. Jeb Bush ain't cutting it.
Can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not pulling a lever for a GOP state/federal candidate for the foreseeable future...not a chance in hell Rubio or Scott get my vote, nor DeSantis.
I think there is a lot of truth in this assessment, which is why it is important that the country's voters don't do what they usually do leading up to elections - forget about history. This system is designed to function with a conservative party, but it is not designed to function with what that party has become. It's important their power continues to diminish until it's completely eroded away, so it can be rebuilt the right way.
Your proposed strategy makes a ton of sense, but I don't think it is workable. The issue for any Republicans who don't stay all in on Trump is they are likely to lose in primaries.
As a counterpoint, I’d like to see the party actually stand up for a belief system instead of for a person who basically operated on whatever he wanted, and lives a life antithetical to the purported belief system of a large chunk of the party’s members.
That ship has sailed and won't possibly return until after a hypothetical reform. They've had years of opportunities to do anything but decision make based on maximizing power and continue to do the same thing they've done all along. Why? Because they won't be held accountable b their constituents for behaving badly so long as they continue to decision make based on power, but they will be held accountable by doing the right thing. This is what they want - and why Trump was the perfect representative for this party the last 4 years. He's not the disease; he's just a symptom.
I think what was done was far more than just a political speech. And I believe that is very clear.
Cause? Not sure I made such a claim that he “caused it”. But yes I believe he played a large part in it.
Do any politicians have responsibility for their political speeches? If so then we have a lot of impeaching on the menu. There's quite a back log.
His speeches were more than just political speeches though. And since I doubt you will agree with that...not sure there is a point to go any further.
How were they more? Please tell what in them goes beyond what you feel is acceptable.
The end result of the Trump presidency will be increased power of the deep state and its ability to surveil Trump supporters.
January 6 wasn't just about speech, but about the actions that went with it. As President of the country, Trump was in a unique position in which he could combine the power of his speech with the power of his actions (or inactions) -- for example, he could use his power and influence over the National Guard to ensure that what should have been a minor scuffle would turn into a full-fledged riot. No President has ever used his powers in that way before -- largely because it's just so shocking to imagine that a President would deliberately undermine the police just so that he could watch his own supporters attack his political rivals.
Well a) that didn't happen. People have made open ended accusations but no one has officially proposed the idea that Trump refused to send in National guard troops.
This is a fair question and obviously it’s central to the impeachment trial. But it’s one that will be answered at length by the House Managers beginning a week from tomorrow. So rather than rely on short opinions offered here, why not wait until we hear what they have to say? And what Trump’s defense team says in response? I’m sure that afterwards you’ll have definite opinions which I’d very much like to read, and I will of course as well.
This line of discussion deviates from the point. We don't need to talk about "accusations" or "official proposals". We can simply discuss what Trump, as president, failed to do: he failed to take action to try and stop his supporters from killing the police.
I've been pretty consistent with my belief that Trump should not have been impeached for "Incitement". He should have been impeached for being "Unfit For Office". We should not disqualify him for his words alone, but for his words and his actions -- before his speech, and during the riot.
This leaves open the interpretation to whoever is the controlling party. Anyone can be deemed "unfit for office" if they have anough partisan votes to convict. There is nothing tangible that can be pointed to, so the whole process is completely transparent as to why it was done.
So another "we need to read it to find out" moment? You're ok with wasting taxpayer money on a partisan political maneuver on the belief they have any kind of argument that would matter in an impeachment trial? The initial vote showed how this is going to go. Any presentation short of a video or voice recording of Trump planning an attack with the assailants is not going to sway anyone to change their vote. I'd wager the some of 5 Republicans that did vote it was constitutional might vote against impeaching and try stating that they only thought it constitutional and not that they agreed with it to help calm their constituents. In which case it's an even bigger waste of time and money.
Other people have gone into it...including the most recent post by Snorklenson in the Are we already living in a dictatorship thread is a good example.
We definitely view this situation very differently, and you completely misinterpreted my reply to you. I never wrote or implied “we need to find out”; I pointed out that the answer to your question by the House Managers would be more complete, more organized, more free of possible error than any you’ll receive here.
Right, truth seekers don't wishcast based on what fits their bias. They...wait for the truth. Cool concept, huh.
Part of being accused of something is being presented beforehand on the evidence of that accusation so that you can properly defend yourself. We have yet to see the evidence. Just personal opinion being passed off as evidence. Which again is why this whole thing is a farce. The leap made to impeachment was so quick and rash it was comically incompetent.
They tried this route last time - presenting plenty of evidence before the impeachment, and well, we saw where that went. Can't blame them for rushing this through while the video evidence of the Capitol riot is fresh in everyone's minds
