House Democrats launch official impeachment i

[Gwynbleidd]

On 8/2/2019 at 12:04 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

It should be noted that the number of Dems who support Impeachment has now reached over 100.

How many do they have to get and is it worth it?  If he ends up impeached, what happens? 

Wouldn't he still be in charge anyway? 

Clinton was impeached but still remained as President.

Is it simply the first step in ousting a President?  

Edited August 3, 2019 by pixiii

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

After Muellers testimony I’d say that Trumps protestations have blown up in his face.

After Mueller's testimony I'd say that Mueller's credibility has blown up in his face. 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, pixiii said:

How many do they have to get and is it worth it?  If he ends up impeached, what happens? 

they put him in stocks and throw soggy peaches at him. I believe.

At least, that's what I think impeachment ought to consist of. It'd be good television, if nothing else.

[ExpandMyMind]

8 hours ago, OverSword said:

They didn't win nearly as many seats as usually happens after a the first two years of a new presidency.  So.....fail.

 

Quote

Cox's victory combined with other election results means that Democrats have picked up a net gain of 40 seats.

As has oft been repeated, this is the largest Democratic House gain since 1974. It's a larger gain than Democrats had in the wave elections of both 1982 and 2006.

We can go back even further and see how unusual it is that Democrats picked up this many seats. If you go back all the way to first election of the post-World War II era (1946), there have only been three elections in which Democrats net gained more seats than they did in 2018. Put another way, this was the fourth best performance for Democrats in the 37 general House elections since President Donald Trump was born.

----------------------

This year's 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. This dates all the way back to 1942, when the Clerk of the House started listing the House popular vote in its after-election statistics document. That is, the Democratic performance this year was better than the minority party's in the previous 38 elections.

The Democrats won by a wider margin this year than Democrats did in 2006 or Republicans did in 1994 or 2010. They beat the previous record of 8.5 points Republicans won by in 1946. (Note: I'm assigning the Democrats and Republicans the votes for their candidates on other lines via electoral fusion.)

Importantly, Democrats didn't just win because Republicans turnout was low. This year had the highest turnout for any midterm election at 50.1% in the last 100 years. Turnout was about 35 million more people than it was four years ago, when Republicans expanded their House majority.

The 2018 large turnout allowed House Democrats to win about 10 million more votes than House Republicans. That's the largest raw vote margin in a House midterm election ever.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/latest-house-vote-blue-wave/index.html

 

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, pixiii said:

How many do they have to get and is it worth it?  If he ends up impeached, what happens? 

Wouldn't he still be in charge anyway? 

Clinton was impeached but still remained as President.

Is it simply the first step in ousting a President?  

Truth is I don't know, not being an American.

But will persons who were able or forced to stay away from committee hearings be forced to participate. i.e. give evidence?

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by RAyMO

[ExpandMyMind]

7 hours ago, F3SS said:

So if we are going by historical statistics based on the first midterms of an incumbent Republican... Ouch. What a landslide.

The Senate seats up for grabs were almost all in Republican strongholds. The Senate elections went as predicted by just about everyone.

[ExpandMyMind]

2 hours ago, pixiii said:

How many do they have to get and is it worth it?  If he ends up impeached, what happens? 

Wouldn't he still be in charge anyway? 

Clinton was impeached but still remained as President.

Is it simply the first step in ousting a President?  

It's about holding him accountable for breaking the law and showing the American people that Senate Republicans are unwilling to do anything about a corrupt President who abused his power.

It's also in no small part about using the constant negative press that Trump will receive from testimony and evidence revealed during their Inquiry, in order to influence public opinion on Trump in the run up to the election. Nixon had a higher approval rating than Trump before his Impeachment Inquiry began, for reference. Of course, Nixon's supporters weren't anywhere near as fanatical as Trump's, since the Fairness Doctrine didn't allow outlets to publish and air outright propaganda, such as we see with Fox News and right wing extremist talk radio. It'll be a lot more difficult to sway the minds of the (literally) brainwashed cult of 45. Luckily all they need to do is galvanise enough of those who voted in 2008 to vote Dem again (70m people).

[Space Commander Travis]

So it's all about the sacred rule of Law^(TM), is it. Nothing at all to do with a very long-lasting case of sour grapes that the one that should have won didn't? You don't honestly believe that the Demiocrats, any more than any other gang of politicians, give two flying hoots for the sacred rule of Law^(TM), do you? :baffled: 

[Space Commander Travis]

And you don't believe that people should be inspired to vote for anything, by inspirational candidates or inspirational policies, just that they should be galvanised by hate? 

[Space Commander Travis]

Actually galvanised by hate would be a great name for a band. I'll get working on it. 

[Gwynbleidd]

46 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It's about holding him accountable for breaking the law and showing the American people that Senate Republicans are unwilling to do anything about a corrupt President who abused his power.

It's also in no small part about using the constant negative press that Trump will receive from testimony and evidence revealed during their Inquiry, in order to influence public opinion on Trump in the run up to the election. Nixon had a higher approval rating than Trump before his Impeachment Inquiry began, for reference. Of course, Nixon's supporters weren't anywhere near as fanatical as Trump's, since the Fairness Doctrine didn't allow outlets to publish and air outright propaganda, such as we see with Fox News and right wing extremist talk radio. It'll be a lot more difficult to sway the minds of the (literally) brainwashed cult of 45. Luckily all they need to do is galvanise enough of those who voted in 2008 to vote Dem again (70m people).

In relation to him breaking the law - sorry, which part of the law in particular do you mean?   This isn't still related to the Mueller inquiry is it? Or perhaps the issue of not showing his tax returns?  The alleged obstruction of justice?  Sometimes it's impossible to keep up with this all of this  

Personally I think both sides consider the other to be brainwashed at this point.  There doesn't appear to be any middle ground anymore.  I have my doubts that they'll galvanise enough people to swing the votes around to Dem again...although, crazier things have happened....    

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by pixiii

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

After Mueller's testimony I'd say that Mueller's credibility has blown up in his face. 

How so?

[Space Commander Travis]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

How so?

oh come on, he didn't exactly inspire the Great Anti-Trump Resistance to make the final effort to rise up and overthrow the Tyrant, did it? he just came across as a bumbling old dodderer who proved once and for all that he had no evidence to use to get rid of the Tyrant. 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

oh come on, he didn't exactly inspire the Great Anti-Trump Resistance to make the final effort to rise up and overthrow the Tyrant, did it? he just came across as a bumbling old dodderer who proved once and for all that he had no evidence to use to get rid of the Tyrant. 

Hang on the facts are that Russia used social media and technology to influence the election, Trump had meetings with ex Russian intelligence types, Trump publicity called on Russia to help his campaign, instructed his people to hinder and lie to the investigators and if that wasn’t enough Trump has been towing a Russian foreign policy as his own. Now your argument is that Mueller didn’t find anything connecting Trump to Russia so Trump has done nothing wrong and Mueller wasted his time?

 

 

[+susieice]

Now we'll hear about nuclear war.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html

[Space Commander Travis]

37 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump publicity called on Russia to help his campaign,

Joke! You know about jokes, do you? he was mocking the Democrat's fixation with the R*sskies!  the "social media to influence the election" was just so small-scale and trivial no one would even have noticed it. 

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, pixiii said:

How many do they have to get and is it worth it?  If he ends up impeached, what happens? 

Wouldn't he still be in charge anyway? 

Clinton was impeached but still remained as President.

Is it simply the first step in ousting a President?  

Impeachment is part of a  political means of removing a president.  It is the equivalent of a legal indictment where charges are officially filed.  By itself, it is simply a formal accusation.  A trial in the Senate must follow and the Senators have to vote to remove the president by a 2/3 majority.  That's 67 of 100 that must vote guilty.  With the current makeup of the Senate, it would require all Democrats and about 15+ Republicans to vote to remove him.  It just isn't going to happen.

[Unusual Tournament]

24 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Joke! You know about jokes, do you? he was mocking the Democrat's fixation with the R*sskies!  the "social media to influence the election" was just so small-scale and trivial no one would even have noticed it. 

So I take it everything else I said was okay?

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Trump has been towing a Russian foreign policy as his own.

He has hammered Putin with more sanctions than any president before him.  How has he "towed" Russian foreign policy?  The so-called evidence that you list is what we call a "spurious correlation".  As in "Icecream consumption increases in summer.  Pregnancy increases in summer, therefore ice cream causes pregnancy."

[Unusual Tournament]

29 minutes ago, susieice said:

Now we'll hear about nuclear war.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html

 Trump the tool wants to include China into a new nuclear treaty. China has 5% of the nuclear warheads Russia and the U.S. have. So does this mean that the Chinese get more weapons? 

[Space Commander Travis]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

So I take it everything else I said was okay?

all of it was too unimportant to really waste much time on. It is hard to know what you mean by this. 

Quote

if that wasn’t enough Trump has been towing a Russian foreign policy as his own.

The US's foreign policy lately has rarely coincided with that of Russia.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, and then said:

He has hammered Putin with more sanctions than any president before him.  How has he "towed" Russian foreign policy?  The so-called evidence that you list is what we call a "spurious correlation".  As in "Icecream consumption increases in summer.  Pregnancy increases in summer, therefore ice cream causes pregnancy."

Ice cream? He has let him off the hook In Ukraine, given him Syria allowed him to destroy CAATSA via Turkey and now he wants to “re-negotiate” the nuclear arms treaty by giving Russian ally, China a seat at the table. 

[+susieice]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

 Trump the tool wants to include China into a new nuclear treaty. China has 5% of the nuclear warheads Russia and the U.S. have. So does this mean that the Chinese get more weapons? 

I don't know Risky. We keep hearing about how buddy buddy they are and I just heard about this. I didn't think he liked China all that much either. I know N Korea just fired off a third test rocket yesterday. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-confirms-test-firing-of-rocket-launcher-system-third-weapons-test-in-just-over-a-week-today-2019-08-03/

[+susieice]

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Ice cream? He has let him off the hook In Ukraine, given him Syria allowed him to destroy CAATSA via Turkey and now he wants to “re-negotiate” the nuclear arms treaty by giving Russian ally, China a seat at the table. 

No. Trump just withdrew from the treaty with Russia unless he plans to draw up another one. The news said the US is going to test a new missile.

Edited August 3, 2019 by susieice

[Space Commander Travis]

 

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Ice cream? He has let him off the hook In Ukraine, given him Syria allowed him to destroy CAATSA via Turkey and now he wants to “re-negotiate” the nuclear arms treaty by giving Russian ally, China a seat at the table. 

**** me, he's not being aggressive and confrontational enough? you want him in military confrontation with Russia? you must be bloody mad. 

What the hell is CAATSA, apart from a not very good acronym? 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome