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

[theresaL 408]

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before it was put to a vote making this moot. Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. Andrew Johnson, the only other President to be impeached was acquitted.

 

Elections are more than just Presidential candidates. You are ignoring the Congressional election results and the significance of those numbers. In every case of actual impeachment the party bringing the action lost seats and the other party gained seats in the next election. Here's the breakdown: 1868 Presidential year-Johnson (D) Rep controlled house, (R) -1 (D) +20;

                      1998 Mid-term year-Clinton (D) Rep controlled House, (R) -4 (D) +5;

                       2020 Presidential year-Trump (R) Dem controlled house, ???????????????????

 

What this is telling you, he may be impeached, but he won't be removed from office, the Dems are going to loose seats in the House, if not the House itself, and Trump will be re-elected. So, to quote Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky?"

 

 

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before it was put to a vote making this moot. Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. Andrew Johnson, the only other President to be impeached was acquitted.

 

Elections are more than just Presidential candidates. You are ignoring the Congressional election results and the significance of those numbers. In every case of actual impeachment the party bringing the action lost seats and the other party gained seats in the next election. Here's the breakdown: 1868 Presidential year-Johnson (D) Rep controlled house, (R) -1 (D) +20;

                      1998 Mid-term year-Clinton (D) Rep controlled House, (R) -4 (D) +5;

                       2020 Presidential year-Trump (R) Dem controlled house, ???????????????????

 

What this is telling you, he may be impeached, but he won't be removed from office, the Dems are going to loose seats in the House, if not the House itself, and Trump will be re-elected. So, to quote Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky?"

 

 

 

 

 

   I guess it hard to tell if you are responding to anyone or just commenting since you don't use the reply button. It looked like you were referring to the question I asked, which was why people are so sure this is going to help get Trump reelected. 

 

  Basically we are still at point A. I'd still like to see how we are getting to point B on this, but I don't think there is really a path. People are just repeating rhetoric. There is no significant historical data to go on. As it pertains to the presidency, nobody really has any idea if this will have any effect on the next election or how much. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

16 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned before it was put to a vote making this moot. Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. Andrew Johnson, the only other President to be impeached was acquitted.

 

Elections are more than just Presidential candidates. You are ignoring the Congressional election results and the significance of those numbers. In every case of actual impeachment the party bringing the action lost seats and the other party gained seats in the next election. Here's the breakdown: 1868 Presidential year-Johnson (D) Rep controlled house, (R) -1 (D) +20;

                      1998 Mid-term year-Clinton (D) Rep controlled House, (R) -4 (D) +5;

                       2020 Presidential year-Trump (R) Dem controlled house, ???????????????????

 

What this is telling you, he may be impeached, but he won't be removed from office, the Dems are going to loose seats in the House, if not the House itself, and Trump will be re-elected. So, to quote Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky?"

 

 

 

 

If it is the right thing to do , it is the right thing to do for the country regardless of the cost.  If you really are a fan of the status quo under Trump, you would let the Democrats sink themselves.  What do you have to loose?

 

I suspect the opposite is going to happen and that by revealing the whole truth to the people the clout of Trump in critical circles will be diminished. This is far closer to the Nixon scenario.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,336]

1 hour 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.  

The Dude that is the subject of the article 

[laylalex 7,268]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

The Dude that is the subject of the article 

Thank you for the clarification, Nature Boy.  Very kind of you. 😘

 

7 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

If it is the right thing to do , it is the right thing to do for the country regardless of the cost.  If you really are a fan of the status quo under Trump, you would let the Democrats sink themselves.  What do you have to loose?

 

I suspect the opposite is going to happen and that by revealing the whole truth to the people the clout of Trump in critical circles will be diminished. This is far closer to the Nixon scenario.

I guess I wonder why if everything was perfect and aboveboard and very legal and very cool, why more information is not disclosed willingly? I mean, being open and honest about even some things instead of stonewalling everything would do a LOT for this administration during this time. Who wants to see things implode at the White House? I don't! I would prefer none of this happen. I'm not happy we are where we are. It's disruptive and destructive. But Congress has a job to do, and that is to hold the executive to account. And the only way to find out whether the executive should be held to account is to investigate, and there are grounds to investigate because there are more than a few people out there with far better reputations for the truth than the President or members of his Cabinet who are saying, weird stuff happened and is happening.

 

You know, it would be awesome if at the end of it all there was NOTHING. I truly believe that. The best possible outcome is the "nothingburger" they keep saying this is. But we can't know that unless there's been an investigation. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

The Dude that is the subject of the article 

[Boris Farage 353]

44 minutes ago, theresaL said:

What this is telling you, he may be impeached, but he won't be removed from office, the Dems are going to loose seats in the House, if not the House itself, and Trump will be re-elected. So, to quote Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky?"

Could not have said this any better myself. The Dems are so smug, high-fiving themselves every single time one of Mr. Trump's disgruntled people turn on him, and they don't seem to realize that all they're doing is digging their own electoral grave.

 

Mark my words: the Dems will lose the House. They will lose seats in the Senate. They will lose the presidency. And by the end of his second term, the Democrat party will be mostly irrelevant.

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, Boris Farage said:

Could not have said this any better myself. The Dems are so smug, high-fiving themselves every single time one of Mr. Trump's disgruntled people turn on him, and they don't seem to realize that all they're doing is digging their own electoral grave.

 

Mark my words: the Dems will lose the House. They will lose seats in the Senate. They will lose the presidency. And by the end of his second term, the Democrat party will be mostly irrelevant.

Words marked

[Boris Farage 353]

28 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

If it is the right thing to do , it is the right thing to do for the country regardless of the cost.  If you really are a fan of the status quo under Trump, you would let the Democrats sink themselves.  What do you have to loose?

 

I suspect the opposite is going to happen and that by revealing the whole truth to the people the clout of Trump in critical circles will be diminished. This is far closer to the Nixon scenario.

I can't speak for @theresaL but I do agree that letting the Democrats sink themselves is a politically wise strategy. Having said that, I believe it is important to continue to resist this sham on principle alone. To play along with this this illicit impeachment is to legitimize it, even if it's politically expedient. The Democrats have abdicated their oaths of office, but the Republicans must not.

 

"The whole truth" is not the truth at all. As Mr. Trump alluded to, the Democrats have had plenty of time behind closed doors to alter the record. Fortunately the people will see through this blatantly obvious deception.

[90DayFinancier 910]

8 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

I can't speak for @theresaL but I do agree that letting the Democrats sink themselves is a politically wise strategy. Having said that, I believe it is important to continue to resist this sham on principle alone. To play along with this this illicit impeachment is to legitimize it, even if it's politically expedient. The Democrats have abdicated their oaths of office, but the Republicans must not.

 

"The whole truth" is not the truth at all. As Mr. Trump alluded to, the Democrats have had plenty of time behind closed doors to alter the record. Fortunately the people will see through this blatantly obvious deception.

Donald "the John" Trump wouldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit him on his grabbing hand.

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Donald "the John" Trump wouldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit him on his grabbing hand.

This is exactly what I speak of. Liberals have no sound argument, so they insult. And then they wonder why they are marginalized by proper society.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 minute ago, Boris Farage said:

This is exactly what I speak of. Liberals have no sound argument, so they insult. And then they wonder why they are marginalized by proper society.

I know die hard Republican women who explained the situation in the same way, they just keep it from their husbands.

[Boris Farage 353]

15 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I know die hard Republican women who explained the situation in the same way, they just keep it from their husbands.

Yes, I'm sure you do.

[90DayFinancier 910]

6 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Yes, I'm sure you do.

I am not Republican or Democrat, not even a lpr. Just a guest with her own opinion. 

[Boris Farage 353]

4 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I am not Republican or Democrat, not even a lpr. Just a guest with her own opinion. 

I'm not attacking your politics, nor your right to an opinion. But I have yet to hear an opinion. An unoriginal attack on Mr. Trump, yes. But not an actual opinion.

 

Whatever you call yourself, it's a shame your lot have pulled the level of discourse down to such levels.