Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. The long run? If Trump's image improves over time then it is a sure indication that the Republic is lost. The Trump voters were going to vote for Trump regardless. If it was this, it would be some other outrage. They are Trump voters because they are easily outraged. They are victims, looking for an affront. It would have been the "socialism" or Hunter Biden or second amendment or some other complete bullshit thing. Mollify the white suburban voter? Oh, fuck off man. Trump's base of support is white people. Don't characterize this as the Bed, Bath and Beyond of political actions. Race is the single biggest factor of correlation to supporting impeachment - more important than gender, education, age or income. This isn't about "working class whites", it's about "whites."
  2. There is no course of events in which the Republicans are going to say, yeah, that's fair. The Democrats voted for impeachment. The Republicans say the impeachment was rushed. If the Democrats delayed, the Republicans would say, as many are saying currently, "we have an election coming up in x months...let the voters decide." If the Democrats delayed until after the election, the Republicans would say, "the voters have already decided." This is not a discussion on governance that is being held in good faith. It is posturing, and nothing more.
  3. In the meantime, her vote will make it harder for the Dems in swing districts. Fuck her. I get why she did it. She gets attention for it and that will translate to donations. But in doing so she validates the Republican bullshit.
  4. ^^For Sheeit above. Remind me again who the Trumpster party called to testify about Constitutional law and impeachment? They love anyone who is left wing who defends Trump. Because it's only the last three words that matter.
  5. I thought for sure Lincoln's next line was "...so I am going to be neutral on slavery."
  6. Actually, there are a lot Trump supporters who will deflect criticism of Trump by saying how horrible the entire system is. You know, like you.
  7. When a team is down by 14 points with 2 minutes left in the game, they need to throw the ball. It doesn't matter if their strength is running it. It doesn't matter if the opponent is dropping 8. You need to throw the ball. To say it was "safer" to vote in favor of impeachment, is like saying the losing team should run the ball, because the numbers favor it. "Percentage players die broke, too, Fats." She needs to carve out a niche position. She needs attention. She needs people to donate to her. This will get her attention. Her negatives will go through the roof, but there are some Dems - maybe 5% - who will respect it and donate to her. And there will be a lot of Republicans who donate to her. She, like most come-back hopefuls, will lose. But she needed to do something. Maybe long term it nukes her career as a Democrat. Ok. I'm sure, like Liebermann, she may find some safe haven as a pro-Republican moderate in the future.
  8. On the other hand, beating an incumbent President in a hot economy is no easy task. I don't know when the last time it happened. I'm going to working really fucking hard to try to make it happen, but part of meeting a challenge is recognizing it. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with impeachment.
  9. Seems like a full trial in the Senate could help slow things done.
  10. The title of this thread is "Impeachment inquiry hearings thread." Did you click on it by mistake?
  11. Being a disrespectful prick is part of the brand. I don't see how it will suddenly hurt him.
  12. Allowing the President to use his position - an extremely powerful position - to damage his political rivals is a major threat to democracy. That's Democracy 101. Doesn't matter what era, what country, what party. When someone can you their position to increase their power, it's a problem. There needs to be limitations. There needs to be checks.
  13. Forgot one: Q8. Based on what you have heard or read about Trump's interaction with the President of Ukraine, do you believe Trump improperly used the presidency to gain political advantage... 51% used the Presidency improperly. 43% did not use the presidency improperly.
  14. The latest CNN poll has a lot of similar aspects to the latest ABC poll. In the CNN, impeach and remove is -3 with registered voters, as opposed tied on the ABC poll. But, that is just part of the story. Q3: Do you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following is handling the current impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump? The Republicans in Congress: 38% Approve/56% Disapprove The Democrats in Congress: 42% Approve/49% Disapprove Q4 Is there enough evidence for the House to Impeach? (Impeach, but not necessarily remove) 47% yes/48% no Q7 digs into the anti-impeachment responses on why they are against it. 82% of the respondents say one reason is because "Trump has been a victim of an unfair investigation". (16% not a reason) 77% of the respondents say one reason is because "Trump is innocent of the charges" (19% not a reason) 76% of the respondents say one reason is because you don't think "the offenses Democrats say Trump has committed rise to the level of an impeachable offense. (20% not a reason) So, victimhood is a more consistent reason than the law and facts.
  15. Fuck no. Martyrdom would be very messy. The next asshole won’t be as incompetent. This fever needs to run its course.
  16. Kremlin says sanctions won't affect completion of Nord Stream II. US admits defeat.
  17. There is a name I should not google at work.
  18. And it's a lie. The Pentagon announced the plans to provide the aid on June 18. Jennifer Williams was informed of the hold on July 3, per her testimony. Trump released the aid on September 11. Now, the official hold didn't go into effect until July 25, after Mark Sandy filled out the paperwork to inform Congress of the hold, but it was approved and available to be obligated prior to that. Because of the delay, 35M of the 250M of military aid could not be obligated before the fiscal year close on 9/30, and had to be re-allocated by Congress.
  19. That letter. Our President sounds like a 15 year old dweeb who is going through his first big breakup, writing her letters that explain how much he has been hurt and how unfair she’s been.
  20. So, why was Marie Yovanovitch a target for Rudy, Lev, Igor? Looking at timing: She was appointed to the position in Aug of 2016. I'm not really any attacks on her until March 20, 2019. On March 5, 2019, she gave a speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, where she referenced several issues for corruption. One I think is particularly interesting: The Special Anti-corruption prosecutor is a position under the Prosecutor General - (Lutshenko at the time). They are charged with working with the NABU (National Anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine) which is independent of the Prosecutor General. 15 days later, John Solomon is wrote an article where Lutshenko claims that Yovanovitch gave him a "do not prosecute" list, a claim he later recanted on. Less than two months after her speech, she is recalled by Trump.
  21. This was Erdogan's (public) threat: Yeah, no shit. We massacred the Native Americans. We stole their land. We, at least most of us, don't pretend otherwise.
  22. I think what also gets overlooked in the transcript: We do a lot for you (military aid.) You don't reciprocate (investigations). He even contrasts what we do against the European countries, which, when coupled with that he (incorrectly) thought the others weren't providing military aid, makes it pretty clear this is a reference to military aid. It's the set up for "I would like you to do us a favor though." which is the next thing out of his mouth. It's the quid to the quo. And he made it clear that Ukraine was not providing the quid sufficiently.
  23. The energy side of the Ukrainian scandal really needs to be investigated more. You have: - Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, due to his bona fides with O&G lobbyists - Burisma, Ukrainian energy company that produces natural gas -Naftogaz, Ukrainian gas company, that transmits natural gas - mostly Russian natural gas that they get a fee for - about $3B per year. - Firtash, who made his billions on trading Russian natural gas at discounted rates from Putin. He's the money behind Lev and Igor. - Nord Stream II - a gas pipe line from Russia to Germany that will soon be completed. It will allow Russia to bypass Ukraine in transmitting gas to Europe. -Turk Stream - similar to Nordstream, but through Turkey/Black Sea and a ways off. This is a swamp gas soap opera. The US has an interest in stopping the Nordstream 2 because it's a good sanction against Russia, and because it opens up LNG markets to Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Zelensky wants to stop the pipeline because it will take a large chunk of money out of Ukraine, and make Ukraine less important strategically to the rest of Europe. Russia, Germany, and France want it. Trump could have taken action to stop it - or at least slow it - through sanctions. Maybe he wasn't due to his love of Putin or because he was holding it out as leverage on Ukraine. (The last part seems less likely, as his hard-on for Ukraine is relatively recent, while the pipeline has been in the works for years.) Congress attached anti-Nord stream sanctions to the NDAA bill, that was just advanced yesterday.
  24. Sounds like skittish Dem Congressman are falling in line. Honestly, I think the douche from New Jersey may have been good lesson on how to fuck yourself. WOWT
  25. ^^ ABC/Wapo poll The Senate fair trial question is a clunky one. For one, it's long. But, it also asks if Trump will receive something he is entitled to. I think if you asked the same audience: "Will the trial in the Senate be fair, biased against Trump, or biased for Trump?", you'd get different results. I think there are more interesting results, including the next one that highlights what Dems should hammer on: 71% believe he should allow them to testify, versus 22% who say he should not. That result may be indicative of Trumpsters not understanding that Trump is blocking testimony. Or maybe it's a question of "allowed" vs. fighting subpoenas. Question 4 has implications on the fallout from the impeachment, rather than just the impeachment itself. Trump: 39% Approve/53% Disapprove [this is a trend up from end of Oct when Trump was managing the response himself: 34/58] Dems in Congress: 44/50 Republicans in Congress: 41/52 Granted, some of that disapproval for any of those may be because the ITEM didn't handle it the way we thought they should handle it - wasn't aggressive enough, didn't ask the right questions, etc.. Question 5 is weird in that they asked how the HIC treated Trump and how the Judiciary treated Clinton. I have no recollection on how the Judiciary treated Clinton. As far as the HIC, 55% believe Trump was treated fairly by the HIC.
×
×
  • Create New...