The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[infection]

I agree this doesn't necessarily spell disaster for Trump, at least not on its own. But when taken along with the rest of D victories in Kentucky, Virginia, the retaking of the US house, the losses are piling up. Obviously Trump thinks these races mean something to him, or else he wouldn't be making multiple campaign stops at each one in the weeks before the election.

At a certain point saying these races don't matter, starts to look a little desperate.

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:

Lol



GOP lost again tonight. Democratic governor Edwards wins re-election in uber red state Louisiana. Trump can’t even win in those “liberal” bastions of Kentucky and Louisiana. Repubs, you sure you want 4 more years of this “winning?”

can we get Donald to campaign for mike Lee or Moscow Mitch? I really want them to lose.

This is significant.

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, which it sounds like you’re acknowledging isn’t really the case, at least not the way people are talking about it. I mean, is his win unprecedented? The original tweet references that Trump won by 20%. I suppose that’s relevant, but bringing up the fact that Edwards won by 12.2% a year before needs all kinds of qualifiers, but his current 2.6% win is a huge referendum on Trump. That just doesn’t make sense and requires one to take different sides of the issue in multiple areas to make that narrative consistent. Apparently his big win a year before Trump wasn’t significant, but this one is.

The bigger issue here is that people’s judgement is being clouded. You can despise Trump and see evidence for believing he’s losing support without appealing to every argument that hits the wall. But it’s fairly black and white. So hearing things like this becomes pornography for ones ears when there’s a large element of wishful thinking on board.

 

[One Brow]

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 agree. While flipping Virginia seems legitimate, it was already purple, and we should not put too much emphasis on two races in Kentucky and Louisiana.

 

[Gameface]

Louisiana is a red state, so let’s clear that up first.

Edwards won in 2015 after Bobby Jindal left it in ruins and disgraced ex-senator David Vitter won the republican primary. So Edwards winning in 2015 wasn’t a surprise, it was expected. For those of who who don’t remember David Vitter, google him (but don’t do it at work). So I wouldn’t focus too much on 2015 as 2019 is a better indicator of where things are truly at.

During Edward's governorship, he’s done things that are typically attacked by the right. Things such as raised taxes, increased public education spending, and balanced the budget.

Trump campaigned for the republican too, who’s a much more electable candidate than David Vitter. He visited the state 3 times in 5 weeks. He begged, “like a dog”, for Louisiana to give him a win.

So this time the election truly was a mandate on Democratic governing. Did the people want to continue with this same tax raisin, public education spendin liberal?

Apparently yes!

So here’s why people are talking about it:

1. A red state votes blue once again.
2. Once again traditionally red suburbs voted overwhelmingly blue. Clearly, the college educated and women voters have become alienated by the GOP’s Trumpism. This combined with African Americans is making a formidable coalition for democrats. Maybe repubs shouldn’t have spent the past 3 years alienating these constituencies?
3. Once again Trump puts his own political capital on the line for a Republican candidate for Governor and loses.
4. It shows that Trump isn’t the magician he thinks he is. It shows that local politicians should look out for themselves and not try to nationalize politics with the hopes that Trump’s pixie dust will work in them. If anything, smearing yourself in Trump’s sludge makes you less likely to win.

Edit: it also seems to suggest that if voting to impeach or convict is the right thing to do, do it without hesitation. Trump isn’t superman. Republicans, stop debasing yourselves for the titanic

That’s why.

this article explains things pretty well too:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/poli...iana-governor-republicans-election/index.html

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

 

[silesian]

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

It’s his most famous modus operandi

 

[The Thriller]

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?

 

[The Thriller]

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

 

[The Thriller]

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

 

[The Thriller]

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.

 

[The Thriller]

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.

 

[The Thriller]

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.

 

[The Thriller]

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!