The Guy Trump Cited as Proof There Wasn’t a Quid Pro Quo Just Said There Was a Quid Pro Quo

[cyclone27 710]

So far the investigation is a farce stating opinions rather than facts. 
 

Like with Clinton this will help the president rather than hurt him.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

28 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I kind of think he's probably seeing he's on a sinking ship and he wants to get off before they slap him with a perjury charge, if I am reading all of this correctly. 

 

What, like Rudy?  Oh wait, he IS running U.S. foreign policy as an unelected person. Whoops!

I am pretty sure the secretary of state is unelected also

[E & J 2018 132]

I can't wait for 2020, when he is re-elected and we get to watch these freak Liberals meltdown on live TV  

[laylalex 7,284]

34 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

So far the investigation is a farce stating opinions rather than facts. 
 

Like with Clinton this will help the president rather than hurt him.

I'm not saying this to be argumentative, really, but could you point me to what you think in particular are opinions rather than facts that have come out so far? And how would you classify a "fact" here -- what makes a fact sufficiently "facty"? 

[cyclone27 710]

Well when a witness says: I think rather than I know.  🤓

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, cyclone27 said:

Sinking ship? Doubtful since the Senate will never convict.

 

An impeachment most likely means re-election. 

 

   What is the basis for that assertion? I have heard it a few times now. Do Democrats give up and stay home after that, or is there that many undecided voters who are going to swing over to Trump after he gets impeached and acquitted?

[laylalex 7,284]

55 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

Well when a witness says: I think rather than I know.  🤓

Could you point me exactly what you're talking about? Like, which people in particular saying they think something rather than know it? Sorry to be an idiot, I just don't know (lol) exactly what you're talking about.

 

 

[theresaL 408]

Who here believes anything in a transcript produced by Schifty and/or anything published in Rolling Stone??? Neither one has any credibility. Schiff destroyed his own with that piece of fiction he wrote and performed of the fake Ukraine/Trump phone transcript and Rolling Stone did themselves no favor with the fake UVA gang rape story. 

 

If history is any indicator, impeachment usually results in an increase in approval ratings for the President and annoys voters to the point of getting off their duffs and actually voting as well as the party bringing the impeachment loses "bigly". Voters don't like bullies.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

If you read what the dude said, he said he personally recalled a one on one HE had with the Ukraine dude.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

21 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Who here believes anything in a transcript produced by Schifty and/or anything published in Rolling Stone??? Neither one has any credibility. Schiff destroyed his own with that piece of fiction he wrote and performed of the fake Ukraine/Trump phone transcript and Rolling Stone did themselves no favor with the fake UVA gang rape story. 

 

If history is any indicator, impeachment usually results in an increase in approval ratings for the President and annoys voters to the point of getting off their duffs and actually voting as well as the party bringing the impeachment loses "bigly". Voters don't like bullies.

 

  Historucally, which impeached president or party did significantly better in the subsequent election?

[laylalex 7,284]

32 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Who here believes anything in a transcript produced by Schifty and/or anything published in Rolling Stone???

Um, because Schiff himself didn't sit down and type up the transcript? There are professional court reporters in the room. What does Rolling Stone have to do with any of this? I feel like there is some subtext I'm missing here.

 

20 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

If you read what the dude said, he said he personally recalled a one on one HE had with the Ukraine dude.

Who is "he"? There are a lot of dudes involved here, because, well, dudes run things in this country.  

 

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Historucally, which impeached president or party did significantly better in the subsequent election?

Also, we don't have a lot of data to work with here. There was one modern era impeachment, because Nixon resigned before he was impeached. So we have a data set of precisely one. I am not the mathematical genius in my relationship, I leave that to the man who has two degrees in the subject who lives in my home, but I would think that working from precisely one data point is not exactly the strongest ground to make predictions from. But then again I am an Art History major from a second-tier Ivy (which is not a big deal anyway, as I have been reminded) and an alimony queen, so what do I know.  

[theresaL 408]

Clinton's approval ratings went up quite a bit after he was impeached. Didn't affect his re-election because he was in his second term when he was impeached. Republicans lost 4 House seats, Dems gained 5 in the 1998 mid-terms. Senate remained unchanged.

[theresaL 408]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Um, because Schiff himself didn't sit down and type up the transcript? There are professional court reporters in the room. What does Rolling Stone have to do with any of this? I feel like there is some subtext I'm missing here.

 

Who is "he"? There are a lot of dudes involved here, because, well, dudes run things in this country.  

 

Also, we don't have a lot of data to work with here. There was one modern era impeachment, because Nixon resigned before he was impeached. So we have a data set of precisely one. I am not the mathematical genius in my relationship, I leave that to the man who has two degrees in the subject who lives in my home, but I would think that working from precisely one data point is not exactly the strongest ground to make predictions from. But then again I am an Art History major from a second-tier Ivy (which is not a big deal anyway, as I have been reminded) and an alimony queen, so what do I know.  

Is everything ALWAYS about you???

 

We only have 2 actual impeachments in the history of the Republic and 1 almost, so the data set is quite significant.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

16 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 

Also, we don't have a lot of data to work with here. There was one modern era impeachment, because Nixon resigned before he was impeached. So we have a data set of precisely one. I am not the mathematical genius in my relationship, I leave that to the man who has two degrees in the subject who lives in my home, but I would think that working from precisely one data point is not exactly the strongest ground to make predictions from. But then again I am an Art History major from a second-tier Ivy (which is not a big deal anyway, as I have been reminded) and an alimony queen, so what do I know.  

 

  I agree. "Historically" has basically never happened. What we have to go on is Nixon won in '72 with 520 electoral votes. After his impeachment, the 1976 election, the Republican (Ford) won with 297 votes. Clinton won with 379 electoral votes in 1996. In 2000 after his impeachment, the Democrats (Gore) lost with 266 votes. In neither case did the party of the impeached candidate do better in the next election. We have nothing to go on.

 

  I would concede that many people believe Trump is being treated unfairly, however those people are also generally Republican or lean that way. They are not switching their vote.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Steeleballz

[laylalex 7,284]

58 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Is everything ALWAYS about you???

 

We only have 2 actual impeachments in the history of the Republic and 1 almost, so the data set is quite significant.

If you don't like me, you can always put me on ignore.  I won't be hurt.

 

And I very politely (because it is in my nature to be polite) disagree that the data set is quite significant. Just because something has happened a grand total of once isn't predictive of whether it will happen again. I mean, if I walk outside my home and there's a pumpkin spice latte (not that I am a huge PSL fan, but whatever) waiting for me on the garden path that I was totally not expecting, that's a subset of one. Should I expect there to be another the next day? (Not that I would drink random garden path PSLs.) Or ever again? Or what if I decide that I want to have a baby, and then another one -- will the fact that I have a boy the first time around mean I'll have another one? Will it mean I'll have a girl? Or to go from the personal to the political, just because we didn't elect a woman as president the one time a woman has been nominated as the candidate for one of the two major political parties, does that mean that we'll never elect a woman?

 

I have reached out to my personal math guru as well for further guidance on this matter. He happens to think it's usually about me, but then he's biased in that way.