Trump is going to win in a landslide...
- Thread starter Original TULSAFAN
- Start date
We seem to want to hurry this election cycle. November is not tomorrow. This whole thing has been crazy. I wouldn't want to bet more than 50 cents on Trump winning or loosing, the Democrat winning or loosing, or who the Democrat will be. We've had one caucus state and the results are still only about 70% in.
My favorite Mencken quote: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
This is why we're going to get a Trump vs. Bernie election
Long way to go. Trump didn’t win or lose the election with the SOTU. That said, it was a great speech according to those who watched it. Anytime 82% of Independents approve of anything it’s impressive
https://theweek.com/speedreads/822173/trump-earns-high-marks-state-union-cbs-cnn-polls
https://theweek.com/speedreads/822173/trump-earns-high-marks-state-union-cbs-cnn-polls
I think one of the problems is, the people who watched his SOTU were already people that were inclined to support him. I honestly couldn't watch more than a couple minutes of it because it was so one sided. It was all cherry picking of good and bad things. It didn't address any substantive issues that we're seeing.
Except 30% of Dems who watched approved of the speech. That’s a very high number considering the current state of partisanship in this country.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/state-of-the-union-poll/index.html
Except it was the most partisan viewership since 2001 (when Bush had just narrowly come into office)
Not sure why you’re focusing on very positive and not simply positive reactions (other than to try to diminish the overall reaction). Those figures show me the Independents weren’t necessarily pro-Trump . 82% positive from Independents is very good number for any President. Especially this one
If you look back at the statistics for past state of the Unions, this one isn't a large outlier for positive feelings. The only thing its an outlier for is the demographics that watched it (which were 17 points more likely to be Republicans than the general populous) and the fact that 8% of respondents had no feelings towards it.... that number is usually around 1%.
As I said, it was a speech that cherry picked examples and statistics from around the country for Trump's benefit without acknowledging real problems. "This granny would have lived without a sanctuary city policy"... my response is... "how people would have lived in a place like El Paso, if a wacko wasn't allowed a gun?"
Not only that, but a lot of the stuff he was saying is just outright lies... you know the congressman a couple years ago that said "you lie" to Obama? Trump deserved about 50 of those in his first 3 paragraphs. "Our economy is the best it's ever been" That's friggin B.S. and we all know it.
You’re trying to hard here imo. The SOTU is always watched more by his party than the opposition party. In Obama’s last SOTU Dems outnumbered Pubs 42% to 24% and Independents who watched also leaned left. Obama’s speech has a very positive rating of 53% (since that’s the number you want to use). Trump was at 59% last night. Similar demographics but reversed. Any way you look at it this was a well received speech given it’s the President’s final one of his elected term.
All I'm saying, is that it wasn't a speech that was greatly out of the norm as far as SOTU's go... besides the whole.... you know.... persistently lying thing.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ck-trump-distorted-facts-gdp-jobs/4665383002/
People believing the outright lies you're saying over a microphone will do that.
We'll see how he does when he's pounded throughout the campaign for obstructing his impeachment hearing with the help of Mitch and friends.
Most people simply don’t care at this point. He will win or lose based on economic numbers and his opponent. If the Dems become a socialist party they will be a minority party despite demographic advantages.
Oh, you’re right, HE WAS convicted of those two articles of impeachment in the Senate...
WAIT, that as a dream!! Sorry, I don’t sell wolf tickets, BUT YOUR PARTY SURE DOES!!! LOL
Democracy is an element of our republican government. But you know that of course because you're so very smart
Which is why I'm not in favor of Bernie. He has too much socialist baggage. I do think it's ironic that people are willing to allow the country to drift so far right-wing just to prevent it from going left-wing. If the climate of the Democratic candidates was more like 2008, I think Trump would be in huge trouble.
I guess that's what the cold war got us.
No, but he did his best to prevent relevant evidence / witnesses from becoming public, because he knew if he did, then he would be the first president ever removed from office.
Trump proved a good student of the Roy Cohn school for accused mobsters. He stonewalled the House so the Senate could claim it was the House's fault for not interviewing witness. The vote proves Trump was right, he could shoot someone on Senate floor and not be arrested.
Maybe, but that was 12 years ago. But you have to play with the hand you are dealt. I'm not saying Trump will win, and remember as I said above, a lot can happen in nine months.
The Pelosi stonewalled the House. She skipped some steps. At the time people were saying she had to have a vote for subpoenas. She said she could just tell the two chairmen to write the subpoenas. (Is that abuse of power?) Nancy is long on confidence but I think she has lost a step down the first base line.
It's been consistent in his SOU's. Here's the Fact Check from 2018. Many are the same this year. As for this year, here's a Fact Check on last night's claims.
Meanwhile his administration is in court trying to get rid of pre-existing conditions and his low premium insurance plans are junk: huge deductibles, limited coverage, and no pre-existing condition coverage. Sure the premiums are lower. And a Yugo costs less than a Buick.
Hook, line and sinker.
QUOTE="TUMe, post: 285806, member: 164"]The Pelosi stonewalled the House. She skipped some steps. At the time people were saying she had to have a vote for subpoenas. She said she could just tell the two chairmen to write the subpoenas. (Is that abuse of power?) Nancy is long on confidence but I think she has lost a step down the first base line.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE="TUMe, post: 285806, member: 164"]The Pelosi stonewalled the House. She skipped some steps. At the time people were saying she had to have a vote for subpoenas. She said she could just tell the two chairmen to write the subpoenas. (Is that abuse of power?) Nancy is long on confidence but I think she has lost a step down the first base line.[/QUOTE]
Pelosi took the Bolton subpoena to Court but dismissed the case because she was in a rush to complete the hearings in the House...until she wasn’t in rush of course. It was the first of many missteps by the House. In the end the Dems could produce zero admissible direct evidence implicating Trump. In hindsight, she would have been better to allow the subpoena to make its way through the court process in hopes of getting some evidence of guilt which complied with the rules of evidence. Pelosi got played culminating with her immature actions last night. Assume out of frustration.
I don't like the state of the Democrats, I think the far left wing of the party is hurting their party's chances of getting rid of Trump.
These are same people I argued with in 2016. I would tell them, "The power to assign liberal SC judges is too important to not vote against Trump just because you got your feelings hurt by however you think the DNC slighted Bernie." I think we're still feeling the effects of the DNC hacks to this day, and it's among the Bernie base of the Democratic Party. They feel like the DNC screwed them over in 2016 and they're angry about it. People need to get over it and let him fade into memory. We can't keep allowing the corruption and deception by the right wing.
It's not the House's job to produce ALL the evidence though. Just like it's not a police officer's job to produce ALL the evidence. That's why DA's have subpoena power in court cases.
The House acts as a detective. They determine if there is a preponderance of evidence that a crime could have been committed. It's up to the people in the trial to come to the final conclusion and admit some pertinent evidence.
I was really surprised you knew that much about Rush Limburger. I listened to him a couple of times about 30 years ago and decided I
had better things to do with my time. Turn the radio off quick.
I did see the press conference where Nancy told the chairmen to draft subpoenas. The rules say that the House can issue them, but not that the Speaker can give off hand instructions to Schiff and Nadler on a TV spot. The Speaker is the highest paid member of Congress but she isnot royal. She does what she accuses Trump of doing, makes her own rules. Then is fake surprised when the Senate doesn't make everything right that she has messed up.
The House has subpoena power. Comparing them to a detective is misguided. They are much more like the DA as they have similar powers. As such, when they fail to gather admissible evidence to present to the trial court the likely outcome is almost always a dismissal. In fact, a case would have never had charges filed without such evidence.
I said during the House proceeding that the Senate would repay the favor and not assist the Dems in their efforts to call additional witnesses. If some idiot attorney in Tulsa knows this then surely the Speaker of the House realizes the lay of the land. This is entirely on Pelosi for failing to provide admissible evidence of guilt
Last edited:
There should have been documents and witnesses. What kind of trial has no witnesses?
Weird world. The Republicans have become sycophants to the Great Leader and the Democrats want a socialist revolution. A pox on both your houses I say.
Weird world. The Republicans have become sycophants to the Great Leader and the Democrats want a socialist revolution. A pox on both your houses I say.
The only plans which pre-existing conditions are being looked at are short term temporary gap plans. Please be honest with your posts.
The type of trial where the DA doesn’t have sufficient admissible evidence to warrant the charges and the case is dismissed via a pre trial motion made by the accused.
I’m on record as supporting witnesses who could provide admissible evidence btw. I saw very few of these in the House. Not sure why they weren’t called or judicially forced to testify if they in fact they existed.
Their evidence was circumstantial but sufficient in my mind for an indictment.
And there was not a neutral arbiter to decide the charge was spurious.
Our politics are 100% effed up right now. The Republicans are embarrassing to watch and I was a Republican until the day after Trump won the primary. The Democrats are loony and want to spread money around like never before. Nobody remaining for a logical, thoughtful person to support unfortunately. Klobuchar seems reasonable but the Democrats don't seem to want her.
And there was not a neutral arbiter to decide the charge was spurious.
Our politics are 100% effed up right now. The Republicans are embarrassing to watch and I was a Republican until the day after Trump won the primary. The Democrats are loony and want to spread money around like never before. Nobody remaining for a logical, thoughtful person to support unfortunately. Klobuchar seems reasonable but the Democrats don't seem to want her.
