The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Deleted member 365]

There's quite a conundrum, though, for Republicans. They can't get out of a Republican primary if they are against Trump.

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?

 

[Deleted member 365]

He won by 12.2% in 2015. He won by 2.6% now. The Jindal and Vitter issues explain all the variance? An 80% reduction in victory margin is a stain on Trump? This sounds like the kind of nuance Locke pumped all day circa 2013 to argue that Corbin was a good coach. It reads more like all of franklin’s pro-Corbin spin that was partial parody. It’s like when someone’s been assigned an argument in debate class, so they’re defending it just because that’s what you do.

I think you’re over complicating things here.

2007-2008: Vitter has a scandal with escorts. It's bad, it alienates large swaths of of the population.

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.

2019: Despite Louisiana still being fairly conservative, they re-elect their Democratic Governor because of his strong support for public education, Medicaid expansion, and balancing the budget. As many of us pointed out at the time Obamcare was being debated, it would end up being popular even in red states as large groups of the population would benefit by it. Even a strong effort by the president couldn’t push the republican candidate over the finish line in a republican state.

Why this matters?

• First, it shows that Trump isn't a magician. His unpopularity among key groups of people have doomed the candidates he's endorsed. Had Trump built bridges with people of color and suburban women, Democrats wouldn't be having near the success that they're having nationwide. Which is something to consider if you're a Republican Senator, no matter what type of state you're in. No Senate seat is safe.
• Secondly, it shows that local politics still matter. The people of Louisiana, while still being quite conservative, do however care about things that matter to them, like Medicaid expansion, public education support, balancing the budget (not giving away handouts to rich people), and not having scandals (remember, Democrats hold theirs accountable far more than Repubs).
• Lastly, attempts by Trump to nationalize local elections are failing. He wanted Louisianians to forget about Edwards' efforts to improve public education and expand Medicaid and give him (Trump) a win. He's tried this several times now, and he's lost.

this article explains some things pretty well. 2010 was an outlier election too, as that was Obama’s first midterms and it was historically good for Repubs. (not sure why it became underlined)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-problem-kill-him-in-2015-and-not-in-2010/

 

[JazzyFresh]

Why must you ignore answers you've been given and repeat the questions again?

Just because you say you answer something doesn't mean you did lol. You have never provided an answer you just make **** up.

But whatever. I can't do this with you guys. Keep living in fantasy land. Trump isn't going away no matter how hard you try. Have fun with that. I'm content and you will continue to not be. None of you will be so enjoy this. That's good enough for me. Trump continues to win and you continue to try but he's just better than you. So suck it.

 

[JazzyFresh]

 

[One Brow]

Just because you say you answer something doesn't mean you did lol.

Just because you don't accept an answer does not mean an answer was not provided.

You have never provided an answer you just make **** up.

You've been given multiple answers, in multiple ways, by different posters, most of which were backed up the first 1-2 times you were given them. Why should anyone waste time giving you more?

None of you will be so enjoy this. That's good enough for me.

Yeah, we know that's the point for you. You seem to think that's a good thing.

 

[Zombie]

This is so sad and desperate

 

[Deleted member 365]

This is so sad and desperate

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.

It can't be both. And either way, this is no way to run a democracy. Labeling people members of the government as "Never Trumper" destroys institutions that serve and protect our country from harm.

Right? I mean, this seems pretty obvious, right? Imagine if Obama had done this...

 

[JazzyFresh]

Just because you don't accept an answer does not mean an answer was not provided.



You've been given multiple answers, in multiple ways, by different posters, most of which were backed up the first 1-2 times you were given them. Why should anyone waste time giving you more?



Yeah, we know that's the point for you. You seem to think that's a good thing.

This is all I heard. Babies

 

[Deleted member 365]

Just because you don't accept an answer does not mean an answer was not provided.



You've been given multiple answers, in multiple ways, by different posters, most of which were backed up the first 1-2 times you were given them. Why should anyone waste time giving you more?



Yeah, we know that's the point for you. You seem to think that's a good thing.

Let me guess, Jazzyfresh demanding proof of something that multiple posters have answered several over the course of the past 20 pages? I wish he'd get a clue and go away. Honestly, he adds nothing to the discussion and merely serves as an annoyance. His trolling went out of style weeks ago. Grow up

 

[infection]

I think you’re over complicating things here.

2007-2008: Vitter has a scandal with escorts. It's bad, it alienates large swaths of of the population.

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.

2019: Despite Louisiana still being fairly conservative, they re-elect their Democratic Governor because of his strong support for public education, Medicaid expansion, and balancing the budget. As many of us pointed out at the time Obamcare was being debated, it would end up being popular even in red states as large groups of the population would benefit by it. Even a strong effort by the president couldn’t push the republican candidate over the finish line in a republican state.

Why this matters?

• First, it shows that Trump isn't a magician. His unpopularity among key groups of people have doomed the candidates he's endorsed. Had Trump built bridges with people of color and suburban women, Democrats wouldn't be having near the success that they're having nationwide. Which is something to consider if you're a Republican Senator, no matter what type of state you're in. No Senate seat is safe.
• Secondly, it shows that local politics still matter. The people of Louisiana, while still being quite conservative, do however care about things that matter to them, like Medicaid expansion, public education support, balancing the budget (not giving away handouts to rich people), and not having scandals (remember, Democrats hold theirs accountable far more than Repubs).
• Lastly, attempts by Trump to nationalize local elections are failing. He wanted Louisianians to forget about Edwards' efforts to improve public education and expand Medicaid and give him (Trump) a win. He's tried this several times now, and he's lost.

this article explains some things pretty well. 2010 was an outlier election too, as that was Obama’s first midterms and it was historically good for Repubs. (not sure why it became underlined)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-problem-kill-him-in-2015-and-not-in-2010/

You’re telling me not to over complicate things, yet you’ve got a narrative that’s proven to be at odd with the facts, so you’ve created a theory to retrofit those facts, but it’s based on a complete guess, yet you think it must be true because it fits your conclusion. I’m not certain I’m the one over complicating this. It’s a demonstration of starting with a conclusion and trying to massage the evidence around it. I think the bigger issue is that you’re completely oblivious to doing it.

In any case, what do you think this means for Trump in Louisiana for 2020? Care to make any concrete statements? Would be fun to bookmark this and see if you’ve got as much impressive spin then.

 

[Deleted member 365]

You’re telling me not to over complicate things, yet you’ve got a narrative that’s proven to be at odd with the facts, so you’ve created a theory to retrofit those facts, but it’s based on nothing. This is quite a demonstration of starting with a conclusion and trying to piece the evidence around it. I think the bigger issue is that you’re completely oblivious to it.

In any case, what do you think this means for Trump in Louisiana for 2020? Care to make any concrete statements? Would be fun to bookmark this and see if you’ve got as much impressive spin then.

1. Tell me which facts I’ve gotten wrong. You criticize yet offer nothing. Of course I’m aware of nuance, this is my profession.

It’s hilarious that you accuse me of spin yet you're the one doing the spinning. Did you mean that I actually know what I’m talking about? You explain why a state that traditionally elected Repubs by margins of victory of 30+ percentage pts has suddenly gone blue.

2. Surely you admit that there’s some nuance between a gubernatorial and presidential election, right? I mean, who the Democrats nominate for 2020 will have an impact on who wins in 2020, right? I have a hard time seeing Warren win Louisiana. I do believe Biden could.

3. You seem to ignore this. Is it on purpose? Trump isn’t doing himself any favors among key constituencies, minorities and suburban voters. It’s why Democrats have flipped so many seats and won so many gubernatorial elections. He has become a liability, not an asset to those seeking re-election.

If and when he fails to get re-elected, the GOP will need to address their issues with these voters. The factors of the 2012 Republican autopsy are still in play. It’s why Republican Senators shouldn’t remain lockstep with Trump and should strongly consider taking advantage of impeachment. The 2012 autopsy:

 

[infection]

1. Tell me which facts I’ve gotten wrong. You criticize yet offer nothing.
2. Surely you admit that there’s some nuance between a gubernatorial and presidential election, right? I mean, who the Democrats nominate for 2020 will have an impact on who wins in 2020, right? I have a hard time seeing Warren win Louisiana. I do believe Biden could.
3. You seem to ignore this. Is it on purpose? Trump isn’t doing himself any favors among key constituencies, minorities and suburban voters. It’s why Democrats have flipped so many seats and won so many gubernatorial elections. If and when he fails to get re-elected, the GOP will need to address these issues. The factors of the 2012 Republican autopsy are still in play. It’s why Republican Senators shouldn’t remain lockstep with Trump and should strongly consider taking advantage of impeachment.

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.