Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

US Elections 2020

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Amenhir said:

This used to be entertaining, but now you're boring me.  

If so, why do you keep responding?

19 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

well time for some quirky memes...

this whole Impeachment thing is a huge partisan farce

And the amusing part is that several gullible fools in this forum think otherwise.

19 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

time for the charade to be put to rest...  the fishing expedition is over.

How long do you think it's going to take until the MSM figures out that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot because this impeachment thing is going to cripple a few of their candidates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impeachment trial will be over and done the first week in February.  Done and dusted, regardless of the outcome.  That leaves plenty of time for the Democrats to switch gears and focus on the primary and the election happening nearly 10 months down the road.  The irrefutable fact , however, is that Trump has been impeached.  Period.  If the Senate acquits him--which, they no doubt will, it will place the Republicans on the defensive for the next 10 months.  Not a good place to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Papi said:

The impeachment trial will be over and done the first week in February. 

if the Democrats pursue witnesses beyond the scope of their submitted Impeachment filing...  it could go on much longer.

now who is in the catch 22 situation?

...

who do Pelosi, Schumer & Schiff support or even endorse for the primary?

is it Joe Biden?  Michael Bloomberg?  Tom Sayer?............................        Hillary Clinton?  ?

unironically a short trial only matters for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Saunders, Amy Klobacher & Michael Bennet.  those are the 4 2020 Primary Candidates who are also Senators.

i would not advise making any assumptions how this will play out without knowing the minutia of motivations in the bigger picture.

Mitch McConnell wants a fast process & wants to cut out time wasters of new discovery (further investigation beyond the scope of the impeachment filings) or grandstanding in the form of Senators going beyond the scope of submitted questions...  & Donald Trump is fighting him on that wanting this to be yet another big spectacle, full of witnesses.

are those 4 senators willing to take the hit to battle Trump?

how many times have i heard Democrats say, once we do select a Primary Candidate, we all have to get behind them regardless to beat Trump?  i bet there is even a supercuts vlog of something like that somewhere...  or there will be in the near future.  ;)

and if the goal is to legitimately "REMOVE" him from office...  this will be anything but a short process.

see the game being played.  don't just perspect from a side; rather back way off and look at it like an alien from far above.

...

all of what is happening right now doesn't seem to be hurting Trumps chances for 2020.  & the Democrats still do not have a strong placing candidate...  are they really thinking people will vote for whoever it is regardless?  or has the frenzied mob really taken over the course that cannot be corrected from?

...

aside: can i, or cant i spell malfeasant...  :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is assumed by many and implied even here, by its poster's that a Senator is required to be present. This is not true. Not for an Impeachment of anyone and not for legislation in general. It is however a prerequisite in this Impeachment of the current President by the Democrats, as they don't have a super majority or a majority. This idea of being present goes for another purpose as well. Senator's are not required by any law to be present. It's not even a may, shall, must compliance event. 2/3 is without regard of the total number of Senator's. Only to the number of Senator's present.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/10/10/the-impeachment-loophole-no-ones-talking-about/

This linked article lays out the possibility of how a Senator's vote (or lack of) can change the outcome of any Impeachment trial.

Long shots in any scenario should not be totally dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

see the game being played.  don't just perspect from a side; rather back way off and look at it like an alien from far above.

 

hmm...I'm not looking at it from any one side.  It benefits both parties if this is over and done with quickly.  

The only wild card scenario I see in play would be if the Republicans decided to vote against Trump.  Highly unlikely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Splay said:

It is assumed by many and implied even here, by its poster's that a Senator is required to be present. This is not true. Not for an Impeachment of anyone and not for legislation in general. It is however a prerequisite in this Impeachment of the current President by the Democrats, as they don't have a super majority or a majority. This idea of being present goes for another purpose as well. Senator's are not required by any law to be present. It's not even a may, shall, must compliance event. 2/3 is without regard of the total number of Senator's. Only to the number of Senator's present.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/10/10/the-impeachment-loophole-no-ones-talking-about/

This linked article lays out the possibility of how a Senator's vote (or lack of) can change the outcome of any Impeachment trial.

Long shots in any scenario should not be totally dismissed.

And if a senator tries to campaign instead of doing the impeachment thing, they will get roasted for it on the campaign trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I thought no one from the Republican party was allowed to run against Trump, but it seems there's quite a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Declared_major_candidates

Of the main ones running in the primaries other than Trump, there's Rocky De La Fuente of California, Joe Walsh of Illinois, and Bill Weld of Massachusetts. I've never heard of any of them before. Probably not going to win, though.

The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have had nearly twice as many (though only 12 major candidates).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

What are Yanks currently thinking for best contender? Biden? Bloomberg? I doubt Sanders or Elizabeth "Swift Herring" Warren will succeed this time, even without Clinton's underhanded manipulation against the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this gets even more interesting, as apparrently Giuliani has built up a corruption case against Biden.  No wonder the Democrats have been screeching against the entire Ukraine thing, as it's their pathetic attempt to get out in front of it and save one of their own.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/23/rudy-giuliani-threatens-to-go-public-with-biden-corruption-allegations/

1 hour ago, Doro said:

What are Yanks currently thinking for best contender?

Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Papi said:

If Giuliani had anything he would have released it already.  More bullshit from the wannabe mobster right.

And how do you know he's not sitting on information?

How about we wait and see before jumping to conclusions?

Then again, I am asking a Democrat to behave rationally.........

1 hour ago, Doro said:

He's not a Democrat.

Then don't ask questions if you don't like the answers you're getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

Then don't ask questions if you don't like the answers you're getting.

Doro asked a question and you answered a different question but that Doro's fault.  That is some real Trump logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

Doro asked a question and you answered a different question but that Doro's fault.  That is some real Trump logic

So you're saying that this question:

5 hours ago, Doro said:

What are Yanks currently thinking for best contender?

Can't be answered by:

4 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Papi said:

If Giuliani had anything he would have released it already.  More bullshit from the wannabe mobster right.

I give Giuliani about as much credibility as a televangelist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Splay said:

I give Giuliani about as much credibility as a televangelist.

Both of which have more credibility than anything the Democrats have fielded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Ted Cruz does a mind dump after the impeachment proceedings.

 

More deflection.  Because that is all the Republicans have.  They've stopped actually defending what Trump did (which is obvious because their defense now is...."yeah, but it's not an impeachable offense") and keep going back to Biden and Burisma.  

72% of Americans want to see more witnesses and more documents.  If the Republicans block that from happening and acquit him regardless they will be committing political suicide come November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Then don't ask questions if you don't like the answers you're getting.

I asked who was the best contender for the Democrats. Your answer was not only irrelevant, but retarded, much like everything else you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Doro said:

So I thought no one from the Republican party was allowed to run against Trump, but it seems there's quite a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Declared_major_candidates

Of the main ones running in the primaries other than Trump, there's Rocky De La Fuente of California, Joe Walsh of Illinois, and Bill Weld of Massachusetts. I've never heard of any of them before. Probably not going to win, though.

The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to have had nearly twice as many (though only 12 major candidates).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

What are Yanks currently thinking for best contender? Biden? Bloomberg? I doubt Sanders or Elizabeth "Swift Herring" Warren will succeed this time, even without Clinton's underhanded manipulation against the former.

Biden will get the Democratic nomination. The process to get the nomination is governed (largely) by the democratic national committee. In U.S. politics, once you get the nomination most candidates swing back to the middle, biden can do that quicker than the rest due to his decades in politics. You've got about 30-40% of the electorate (less so now perhaps) that switches parties regularly. As an example I've voted both dem and republican in the past as at various periods I thought the other could do a better job. 

Biden has been near or at the top of polling for democrats since before he declared officially. I dont think its going to make much difference though, I dont see Trump losing. It's been non stop negative press on Trump for 3 years and his approvals ratings still hover 40-45%, any other president in history with this kind of negative press would be in much worse shape. 

If the economy keeps humming along Trump should be okay. I think it will be another case of he wins the electoral college but not the popular vote. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-roars-and-davos-shrugs/ar-BBZdZTW?ocid=msn360

"The big difference was the way most people at Davos, including Americans but especially the non-Americans, were responding to this flamboyant but familiar show. The consensus reaction: Whatever."

"Now, Trump’s style and substance seems to have been factored into people’s expectations already—creating a new normal—that Trump has become something people don’t often associate with him: No longer especially interesting."

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/ap-fact-check-trump-spreads-distortions-at-davos/ar-BBZbJ2d?ocid=msn360

Trump is like a Smurf standing in front the Rocky statue saying he is a champion too. All the while the people at Davos, look at Trump and laugh because they know he is full is lies.

 

TRUMP: “We have the greatest economy we've ever had in the history of our country. And I'm in Europe today because we're bringing a lot of other companies into our country with thousands of jobs -- millions of jobs, in many cases. ”

THE FACTS: His persistent depiction of the U.S. economy as the greatest ever is false. As for jobs pouring into the country, investment by foreign companies has slumped under Trump, according to a report by the Organization for International Investment, a Washington-based association that represents foreign businesses.

Foreign companies directly invested $268 billion into the U.S. economy in 2018, a decrease of nearly $220 billion from its record-breaking level in 2016 when Barack Obama was still president.

On the broader picture, economic growth under Trump is not nearly the greatest ever.

In the late 1990s, growth topped 4% for four straight years, a level it has not reached on an annual basis under Trump. Growth reached 7.2% in 1984. The economy grew 2.9% in 2018 — the same pace it reached in 2015 under Obama — and hasn’t hit historically high growth rates.

The unemployment rate is at a 50-year low of 3.5%, but the proportion of Americans with a job was higher in the late 1990s. Wages were rising at a faster pace back then, too.

This much is true: The Obama-Trump years have yielded the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. But not the greatest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

So you're saying that this question:

Can't be answered by:

Not in the context that it was posted.  The question came after a paragraph on the Democrats and a link to the Democrat nominees, and was following by naming a few.  It was clear that the question was about the Democrats and you choose to ignore that and answer the question you wanted and then claim it is a legitimate answer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are going to be very interesting on Saturday, as that's when the defense finally gets to present their case, as we have ONLY been hearing from the prosecution the entire time.

Also, this makes for a very interesting perspective on the corruption of Burisma, and the Bidens connection to it, which is key to all of this.

19 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Not in the context that it was posted.  The question came after a paragraph on the Democrats and a link to the Democrat nominees, and was following by naming a few.  It was clear that the question was about the Democrats and you choose to ignore that and answer the question you wanted and then claim it is a legitimate answer.  

Wait, you actually read the shit he writes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...