The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Deleted member 365]

You suggest Edwards went from a 12.2% victory to a 2.6% victory because his original election success was artificially inflated because Vitter was a flawed candidate. So that means that the 2.6% election is actually much more impressive than the 12.2% win. Except the idea of Vitter being considered a “flawed candidate” doesn’t hold water because the reasons you suggest he was flawed were known in 2010 when he received 57% of the vote for the Senate. Obviously that’s in stark contrast to your flawed candidate theory, so rather than recognizing “damn, maybe I’m off base on this one,” you push it further and concoct a theory of why he was a flawed candidate in 2015 but not 2010, which includes the republican constituents apparently shifting gear and deciding “wow, look at that stuff he did that we already knew about in 2010 when we elected him at 57%.”

Like I said, it’s still possible to not like Trump, to think he’s losing ground, and to want him out of office, without accepting this nonsense theory. One Brow has already voiced this, and it’s not like he’s some Trumper. Accepting this requires being so intoxicated by Trump exit fantasies that this kind of thinking has become erotica and impossible to resist.

that’s a laughable summary of what I’ve written and completely inaccurate. You should go back and reread my previous post, 5790. If you’re unwilling to read and honestly attempt to refute what I’ve written then we’re done here.

Discussing politics on this board should be more than incorrectly representing what someone has written and making bad faith arguments. It takes time to write posts. It just feels like such a waste when posters clearly don’t read these posts and then make inaccurate statements about was written.

 

[infection]

that’s a laughable summary of what I’ve written and completely inaccurate. You should go back and reread my previous post, 5790. If you’re unwilling to read and honestly attempt to refute what I’ve written then we’re done here.

Ok, then:

2010: Since Louisiana is a conservative place and 2010 is a historically good year for Republicans, voters overlook his scandals and he wins 57 percent of the vote to be re-elected Senate.

In his time as a senator he campaigns bigly against Obamacare. This is a long-term blunder as large constituencies in his state support Obamacare and will greatly benefit from Medicaid expansion. This will hurt him bigly in the next state-wide election because...

2015: He wins the GOP nomination because of his conservative views. However, because of his scandals and position against Obamacare and Medicaid expansion (popular among even repubs) it dooms him against a conservative Democrat who doesn’t have scandals and who supports Medicaid expansion, investing in public education, etc.

If you want to go down the policy avenue of the electorate wising up between 2010 and 2015, then why does the democrat governor win by 12+% in 2015 but then the republican presidential candidate carries Louisiana by 20% the next year?

If it’s because the democrat governor is more conservative, then I’d bring this back around to why his current victory means what you suggest it means.

 

[babe]

I deny you have brought forward any real evidence of misconduct. The Federalist article sure didn't have any. There may have been misconduct; it happens all the time, it's just the wealthy and middle class don't get to experience it as often.

Ostrich diagnosis confirmed.



If by "entire system", you mean Durham and Barr, I agree.

Barr and Durham are considered by Republicans at least of being reputable. However, anybody in government very long has got to roll in the **** somehow. I view them as having the sense of duty to preserve the status quo and direction of movement embraced by RINOs.



I really got a laugh out of this part:

you need to think it over before rolling in the aisles being so sure of what you already "know".


This is standard FBI operating procedure. It's part of their everyday, every case routine. It's partly why you never talk to the FBI without your lawyer. There is nothing "striking" about it, unless you think treating Flynn like any other criminal is somehow "striking". If this is the type of thing Flynn is paying Powell for, Flynn is throwing his money away.

Pretty sure Flynn has agreed with you on this by now. However, the planning for entrapping Flynn was quite elaborate, and determined. He was target #1. The exchanged plans are criminal, and some FBI and CIA folks should be in jail for what they did.

Americans have in large numbers signed on to this campaign to vindicate Flynn and put the conspirators in jail.

But "Establishment" folks may mount a really serious counterattack, anything they can invent or throw up to confuse the public. Like I said, seriously corrupt. And if we let entrenched federal officers do this sort of thing to any American, we can have no rule of law. We will lose all our fundamental rights. But you are a SICK man with a vision of "facts" of your own choosing, and world of your own imagination, while asserting or claiming yourself to be literally the grand phoo baa of objectivity.

There is quite a lot of information on this that is available. Pretty useless to cut and paste it in here.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Ok, then:

If you want to go down the policy avenue of the electorate wising up between 2010 and 2015, then why does the democrat governor win by 12+% in 2015 but then the republican presidential candidate carries Louisiana by 20% the next year?

If it’s because the democrat governor is more conservative, then I’d bring this back around to why his current victory means what you suggest it means.

Honestly, I feel like I’ve wasted enough time on this board today. Your last post really pissed me off. It took me a while to retype things as my phone died and the post wasn’t saved very well. I later got on my desktop, retyped it, and then you clearly didn’t even read it.

I’ve provided you with enough posts and articles to the Wash post (have you read them yet?). I’m not interested in continuing this discussion. At this point it feels like a lost cause/waste of time. And for those who are familiar with my posting over the years, I usually don’t say that. I have a good book I need to finish tonight and intend to waste my time on that. Night!

 

[colton]

I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that I’ve said any of those races don’t matter, because I haven’t. The two posts that got me in to this discussion are below:




Thriller says Trump can’t even win in “uber red state.” colton quotes someone who points out that Trump carried Louisiana in 2016 by 20 points but now his backed candidate loses and colton says, “this is significant.”

My questions are whether this is “significant” and whether this is a huge stain on Trump...

You're not really addressing me but since you quoted my post I'll respond.

I think it's significant that a state that voted for Trump by 20 percentage points just elected a Democrat for governor despite Trump campaigning vigorously for the other candidate, and pleading to his base to vote against the Democrat. If you don't see that as significant, that's your right but I don't understand why. I don't think it's a "huge stain," just significant.

 

[One Brow]

Ostrich diagnosis confirmed.

You diagnosing me is not evidence.

you need to think it over before rolling in the aisles being so sure of what you already "know".

Yet, you agreed with me.

Pretty sure Flynn has agreed with you on this by now. However, the planning for entrapping Flynn was quite elaborate, and determined.

Most of these FBI schemes are.

He was target #1. The exchanged plans are criminal, and some FBI and CIA folks should be in jail for what they did.

I'm not disagreeing. One of the specialties is taking disgruntled people, pretending to enable them into terrorism, and then arresting them. The only thing we seem to disagree on is that you think Flynn somehow was treated worse than other people. He was treated just the same. Everyone gets railroaded like that.

And if we let entrenched federal officers do this sort of thing to any American, we can have no rule of law. We will lose all our fundamental rights.

Exactly.

But you are a SICK man with a vision of "facts" of your own choosing, and world of your own imagination, while asserting or claiming yourself to be literally the grand phoo baa of objectivity.

You say that while agreeing with my position. It's pretty amusing.

There is quite a lot of information on this that is available. Pretty useless to cut and paste it in here.

Links can be used, as well. In fact,I'd prefer that.

 

[One Brow]

This is all I heard.

I believe you.

 

[One Brow]

Trumpers can't have it both ways.

1. Either these people aren't "Never Trumpers" and Trump is labeling anyone who disagrees with him as "Never Trumpers." Such labeling is destructive and warrants impeachment.

Or

2. He has the worst judgement of anyone, keeps hiring Never Trumpers, and needs to be impeached.

I agree that either Trump is just labeling what he doesn't like or is exhibiting bad judgment, but neither of those is impeachable. However, plenty of his other stuff is.

 

[infection]

You're not really addressing me but since you quoted my post I'll respond.

I think it's significant that a state that voted for Trump by 20 percentage points just elected a Democrat for governor despite Trump campaigning vigorously for the other candidate, and pleading to his base to vote against the Democrat. If you don't see that as significant, that's your right but I don't understand why. I don't think it's a "huge stain," just significant.

Yeah, but I think it’s really hard to separate from the context of the same governor winning in a landslide the year before Trump took Louisiana by 20 points, yet a narrow victory this time. We can nuance this, but it’s hard to explain such a massive variance, to the point that it makes any pontificating on this election as some generalization the equivalent of homeytennis just suggesting that if you put Tony Bradley’s per minute numbers to scale on Gobert, that they’re fairly similar.

 

[colton]

It is.

But what other choice does the GOP have? Continue down this white nationalist path?

@colton may have some thoughts on this. But there’s quite a constituency of conservative Never Trumpers out there. People who are both educated, religious, believe in laws but also don’t believe immigrants should be treated like crap, doesn’t believe that political candidates should degrade women (she was bleeding from her eyes and wherever), and can engage in rational discussion that involves compromise.

Personally, I’d love for people of like @colton to join our side. Right now we’re all part of the Never Trump resistance. But I understand if conservatives don’t join the Democratic Party and bring greater balance there. But that means a new Conservative party must take the GOP’s place or return the GOP to sanity. Right?

For me the sticking point is abortion. While I don't see it as equivalent to murder I do believe the unborn deserve some rights and see the abortion anytime culture as a huge blight on our nation. If there were a Democratic candidate that supported any sort of limitations on abortion I would likely vote for him or her. But none believe in any limitations at all, as far as I can tell. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) The rest of my moderate to conservative views I could set aside and possibly even register as a Democrat, but not that.

 

[silesian]

It’s almost like trump supporters have embraced the postmodern relativism that they so despise from coastal elites.

I think we should just agree, smile, and agree with them as they shout “winning!”

yes, you are a winner!

 

[gandalfe]

Did our new trolling alt, porcupinetree, get banned yet?