Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

Half of independent voters do not favor impeachment, according to Quinnipiac.  Republicans up to 7%.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642

American voters are divided on impeaching and removing President Trump from office, 47 - 47 percent - closing a 20 point gap from less than a week ago, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University Poll released today.

[NeedsAdjustments]

USA Today/Ipsos:

Americans support a vote for Impeachment in the House by 45 to 38 percent.

Americans support a vote for Impeachment and removal in the Senate by 44 to 35 percent.

52% of Americans, including 30% of Republicans, said that Trump calling on Ukraine to investigate the Biden family would amount to an abuse of power.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/464158-poll-45-percent-of-americans-support-impeaching-trump

Polling based primarily on the release of one piece of evidence.  There will be more.  And we may even find that the one piece of evidence is worse than we saw:

But the whistleblower complaint that spurred the investigation described an “official word-for-word transcript” of the call — words closely matching the ones used by Trump on Wednesday — creating uncertainty about what was included in the document the White House released last week and what may have been left out.

Current and former U.S. officials studying the document pointed to several elements that, they say, indicate that the document may have been handled in an unusual way.

Those include the use of ellipses — punctuation indicating that information has been deleted for clarity or other reasons — that traditionally have not appeared in summaries of presidential calls with foreign leaders, according to the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the elaborate, non-public process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

[NeedsAdjustments]

The "president's" son posting anti-semitic tropes on twitter.  Strangely, haven't heard the "president" nor any one of his Republican colleagues comment on this.

Sure they are writing up their statements as we speak.  We all know how concerning this type of thing is for them.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Reality  check from William Galston, a liberal columnist for the Wall Street Journal:

...It is possible that not a single House Republican will support any article of impeachment against Mr. Trump. Of the 53 Senate Republicans, 45 hail from solidly red states where the main threat to their re-election would come from a primary contest in which their opponent was backed by Mr. Trump. Of the remaining eight, only four will face the voters in 2020.

The odds are that when Democrats strike at the king, they won’t kill him. Now is the time for them to ask whether this outcome will improve their chances of defeating Mr. Trump in the 2020 election and, if not, whether they should pursue a course more likely to benefit the country and their own prospects.

[Yankguy1]

How come Red quotes William Galston when I've been making the same argument from Day 1?

[Hairy Lime]

How come Red quotes William Galston when I've been making the same argument from Day 1?

You should be happy and surprised he actually sourced the quote.

That was my argument before the Ukraine stuff.

[NeedsAdjustments]

How come Red quotes William Galston when I've been making the same argument from Day 1?

Yea, no kidding. Good thing we all have that "liberal" columnist from the WSJ to provide us all that reality check.  Truly a unique take.

[NeedsAdjustments]

How come Red quotes William Galston when I've been making the same argument from Day 1?

You should be happy and surprised he actually sourced the quote.

That was my argument before the Ukraine stuff.

What I've said is that none of these arguments take into account how Trump's response to the impeachment inquiry might turn off voters.  The Galston piece no different. 

Trump was full on unhinged in his presser yesterday.  Independents may be split on impeachment, but I'd say a pretty solid majority don't want a raving lunatic as President.

Also missing from these arguments; this impeachment investigation concerns the 2020 election.  Whatever the political ramifications now, you have to raise this issue before its too late to, after Trump's tactics have been deployed.

Imagine if we are in the general election, Trump & Co had managed to sit on the whistleblower complaint and it never came to light, and selective releases start coming out of the press casting Biden as corrupt.  It would be the "But her Emails!" all over again, based on info extorted by Trump from Ukraine, but the damage would already be done.

And don't think for a second there aren't other similar schemes in the works as we speak.  We need to do whatever we can to bring them to light.

[josh]

Reality  check from William Galston, a liberal columnist for the Wall Street Journal:

...It is possible that not a single House Republican will support any article of impeachment against Mr. Trump. Of the 53 Senate Republicans, 45 hail from solidly red states where the main threat to their re-election would come from a primary contest in which their opponent was backed by Mr. Trump. Of the remaining eight, only four will face the voters in 2020.

The odds are that when Democrats strike at the king, they won’t kill him. Now is the time for them to ask whether this outcome will improve their chances of defeating Mr. Trump in the 2020 election and, if not, whether they should pursue a course more likely to benefit the country and their own prospects.

But do you think the conduct merits an impeachment inquiry?

[Hairy Lime]

How come Red quotes William Galston when I've been making the same argument from Day 1?

You should be happy and surprised he actually sourced the quote.

That was my argument before the Ukraine stuff.

What I've said is that none of these arguments take into account how Trump's response to the impeachment inquiry might turn off voters.  The Galston piece no different. 

Trump was full on unhinged in his presser yesterday.  Independents may be split on impeachment, but I'd say a pretty solid majority don't want a raving lunatic as President.

Also missing from these arguments; this impeachment investigation concerns the 2020 election.  Whatever the political ramifications now, you have to raise this issue before its too late to, after Trump's tactics have been deployed.

Imagine if we are in the general election, Trump & Co had managed to sit on the whistleblower complaint and it never came to light, and selective releases start coming out of the press casting Biden as corrupt.  It would be the "But her Emails!" all over again, based on info extorted by Trump from Ukraine, but the damage would already be done.

And don't think for a second there aren't other similar schemes in the works as we speak.  We need to do whatever we can to bring them to light.

Yeah, as.Colbert noted, Trump seems to be losing it and he did not have a lot of it to begin with.

[LarryBnDC]

Trump calls on China to investigate the Bidens... China in next week for trade negotiations.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Reality  check from William Galston, a liberal columnist for the Wall Street Journal:

...It is possible that not a single House Republican will support any article of impeachment against Mr. Trump. Of the 53 Senate Republicans, 45 hail from solidly red states where the main threat to their re-election would come from a primary contest in which their opponent was backed by Mr. Trump. Of the remaining eight, only four will face the voters in 2020.

The odds are that when Democrats strike at the king, they won’t kill him. Now is the time for them to ask whether this outcome will improve their chances of defeating Mr. Trump in the 2020 election and, if not, whether they should pursue a course more likely to benefit the country and their own prospects.

But do you think the conduct merits an impeachment inquiry?

There is a memo out there that reportedly describes Trump's telling Russian officials he met with in 2017 that he wasn't concerned about their interference in the 2016 election, and it was buried.

How can any loyal American not be for an inquiry into this?  Lets see the memo.  Maybe it describes an interaction that is not as incriminating as reported.  Maybe its worse. 

Why would you not want to know one way or the other, unless you suspect the answer will not be favorable to the political party that wants to cut taxes on the already rich?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Trump calls on China to investigate the Bidens... China in next week for trade negotiations.

Combination of instinctive lawlessness and stupidity leads Trump to say "yeah, I did it.  And I'll do it again."

But guys, reality check, this might be bad for Democrats politically....right?  The WSJ says so.

[NeedsAdjustments]

I'll say it once more:

What I've said is that none of these arguments take into account how Trump's response to the impeachment inquiry might turn off voters. 

[Hairy Lime]

I'll say it once more:

What I've said is that none of these arguments take into account how Trump's response to the impeachment inquiry might turn off voters. 

Yeah, I mean he could do something really stupid like asking one of the many countries he has provoked into a trade war - say, China - to investigate a political rival ahead of trade negotiations. I mean, given the political firestorm around his asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, could you imagine him becoming unhinged enough to ask CHINA.to do it? He can't be that stupid and off rails... can he?