Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Whistleblower case [spntrxi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.

Maybe your funniest to date
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [spntrxi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.


you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.
-
If IG report and/or Barr/Durham drop soon, Trump will get some points...though I don't think he should, that's just the way it will work, and he'll get some sympathy support because of misdeeds by those wishing to harm him.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [dave_w] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dave_w wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.


you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.

-
If IG report and/or Barr/Durham drop soon, Trump will get some points...though I don't think he should, that's just the way it will work, and he'll get some sympathy support because of misdeeds by those wishing to harm him.

I haven't seen anyone on this board "wishing him harm." I have seen many on here wanting him to be held responsible for his actions. I agree with JSA that the Dems should have gone after the obstruction charges of the Mueller report. Hell, I would add those charges to the impeachment inquiry into Ukraine.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [spntrxi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The polls are generally weighted around 2% more for democrats than the GOP at this point, because more people (around 2-3%) identify as democrats than gop members. So makes sense you would apply such weight. I think the numbers are around 35%dem, 33% independent and 32% GOP or something like that. I believe currently independents lean more towards dems now than gop, when polled.

Just in case you were actually curious as to the weightings of polls.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [spntrxi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.


you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.

If you would like to know the reason for that, this article lays out why that makes happens.

If you don't want to read, basically that is the correct number to use for accurate polling, so you shouldn't be changing the polls results in your mind based on that.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah I don’t think it matters either but I’ve also seen 54-44 and 47-47.

What’s really interesting is once it gets to the Senate if just three Republican senators go for the secret ballot. Then the polling won’t matter.

E

patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [spntrxi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.

you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.

Trump is losing in the impeachment polls but he will win the electoral poll college. Thanks

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Amstel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amstel wrote:
The democrats have already leaked every “juicy” tidbit they have. There is nothing there other than some career bureaucrats feeling uncomfortable about Trumps intentions. It is time to put and end to this nonsense. Then we can all sit back and enjoy the democrat primary clown show.

Just another reminder that you will vote for a man who admitted hosting a fake charity event for veterans and diverting the 3 million dollars in funds to his campaign. Oh and to buy a $10k portrait of himself. You should be so proud.

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Amstel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amstel wrote:
The democrats have already leaked every “juicy” tidbit they have. There is nothing there other than some career bureaucrats feeling uncomfortable about Trumps intentions. It is time to put and end to this nonsense. Then we can all sit back and enjoy the democrat primary clown show.

I will humor you and allow that the impeachment inquiry has been staged in an effort to cast the best case against the president. I will further allow that the democratic primaries can seem clownish were one to isolate the "juicy" sound bites and sear them to memory and not dig any deeper than that.

That said, There is the matter of illegality and abuse of power to be resolved by a constitutional process. And then there will be a competition at the ballot box that will resolve who demagogued the best. That OUR Democracy allows both these events fills me with pride.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And now nicki Haley vying for vp spot by lying thru her teeth.....I had hopes for her, not now.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheRef65 wrote:
dave_w wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.


you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.

-
If IG report and/or Barr/Durham drop soon, Trump will get some points...though I don't think he should, that's just the way it will work, and he'll get some sympathy support because of misdeeds by those wishing to harm him.


I haven't seen anyone on this board "wishing him harm." I have seen many on here wanting him to be held responsible for his actions. I agree with JSA that the Dems should have gone after the obstruction charges of the Mueller report. Hell, I would add those charges to the impeachment inquiry into Ukraine.
-
Never said those people were here, and I really don't think anyone here in the LR will be named in any of the forthcoming reports. I think the dems are going for all the Mueller grand jury testimony for precisely that purpose. They want several different articles of impeachment. I'm happy to have Trump pay for anything illegal he has done, and also want anyone on the side out with the long knives for Trump to get hammered (I know libs don't think there are any of those people). My point in the last post was exactly that each side should pay for any misdeeds, regardless of sympathy from voters, media,or other pols. I think it's important for the country going forward that it be so.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
not that this matters too much. But the polls showing impeachment inquiry vs. removal etc. are much much closer than those listed. Impeachment inquiry is close to like 50-47, and removal is pretty much tied now.


you have to factor they always poll dems 7-8% more for some reason.. so it's more likely close but not as close as you hope.


If you would like to know the reason for that, this article lays out why that makes happens.

If you don't want to read, basically that is the correct number to use for accurate polling, so you shouldn't be changing the polls results in your mind based on that.


they only explanation I have heard.. is that dems outnumber repubs by about that much.. so they poll that way.

yeah I'm not reading your link :)
Last edited by: spntrxi: Nov 12, 19 7:41
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tyrod1 wrote:
And now nicki Haley vying for vp spot by lying thru her teeth.....I had hopes for her, not now.

How can any seriously go on television and say trump is truthful? Does she get off on debasing herself on television or something?
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:

Just another reminder that you will vote for a man who admitted hosting a fake charity event for veterans and diverting the 3 million dollars in funds to his campaign. Oh and to buy a $10k portrait of himself. You should be so proud.

Interesting you mention charities..., but since you did I'll just post this to remind people:

https://www.nytimes.com/...uranium-company.html

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Trump is a piece of shit. But then again, so was the other main player.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Culley22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Culley22 wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:


Just another reminder that you will vote for a man who admitted hosting a fake charity event for veterans and diverting the 3 million dollars in funds to his campaign. Oh and to buy a $10k portrait of himself. You should be so proud.


Interesting you mention charities..., but since you did I'll just post this to remind people:

https://www.nytimes.com/...uranium-company.html

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Trump is a piece of shit. But then again, so was the other main player.

Uranium One is not a scandal, stop pretending that it is. On every level it makes no sense and people that push it just show they don't know what they are talking about. Fundamentally there was no reason for the US to stop the sale in the first place, so there was no reason to bribe anyone. CFIUS is there to balance national security and promoting industry in the US, since there was no national security problem with sale, there was no reason to stop the sale. Also, Clinton was not even the person on CFIUS that voted for it, someone else from State did. And every other member of CFIUS also voted for it, were they all bribed? And the CFIUS vote is not even binding, it is just a recommendation. And the way CFIUS is set up half the members (including State) are there to encourage foreign investment and the other half (the national defense reps) are against sales, State was put on the panel to encourage sales. So why of all people on the panel would you bribe State? You would bribe the people from the Nat Sec side, they would be the ones standing in the way of sale.

The whole scandal makes no sense on every fundamental level.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Culley22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trump is a piece of shit. But then again, so was the other main player.


In other words, Trump is a piece of shit (checked to pretend you're not a Trumpster) but everyone else does it too (back to reality).

This is getting very predictable.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Culley22 wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:


Just another reminder that you will vote for a man who admitted hosting a fake charity event for veterans and diverting the 3 million dollars in funds to his campaign. Oh and to buy a $10k portrait of himself. You should be so proud.


Interesting you mention charities..., but since you did I'll just post this to remind people:

https://www.nytimes.com/...uranium-company.html

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Trump is a piece of shit. But then again, so was the other main player.


Uranium One is not a scandal, stop pretending that it is. On every level it makes no sense and people that push it just show they don't know what they are talking about. Fundamentally there was no reason for the US to stop the sale in the first place, so there was no reason to bribe anyone. CFIUS is there to balance national security and promoting industry in the US, since there was no national security problem with sale, there was no reason to stop the sale. Also, Clinton was not even the person on CFIUS that voted for it, someone else from State did. And every other member of CFIUS also voted for it, were they all bribed? And the CFIUS vote is not even binding, it is just a recommendation. And the way CFIUS is set up half the members (including State) are there to encourage foreign investment and the other half (the national defense reps) are against sales, State was put on the panel to encourage sales. So why of all people on the panel would you bribe State? You would bribe the people from the Nat Sec side, they would be the ones standing in the way of sale.

The whole scandal makes no sense on every fundamental level.
hahahahahaha. The mention of charity abuse comes up, I point out to a prime example (please, PLEASE tell me that the entire world didn't know she was the hand picked successor of the Dems for the next shot at Presidency). And you go on some rant about trying to defend the sale of Uranium. I don't have a problem with the sale. But when someone just happens to get a CHUNK of money from the people who are interested in such a deal, that raises eyebrows. Spin it any way you want, but the general public also agreed (hence why the Cheeto is in office).

I never said it was a "scandal". Just like I never thought Trump's was a "scandal". Just like the QPQ isn't a scandal. EVERYONE feels this happens all the time in politics, so they just shrug. We have both Clinton and Trump doing shady shit with their charities. We have Biden in a video saying he wouldn't give money unless they fired the guy, you have Obama saying he'd have more freedom (or whatever it was) after the election was over. And then Trump does the same. (with the difference being it was a "political rival", but that is lost in the shrug to many).

The public sees this, and believes it to be standard practice. That's why no one cares.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Culley22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Culley22 wrote:
hahahahahaha. The mention of charity abuse comes up, I point out to a prime example (please, PLEASE tell me that the entire world didn't know she was the hand picked successor of the Dems for the next shot at Presidency). And you go on some rant about trying to defend the sale of Uranium. I don't have a problem with the sale. But when someone just happens to get a CHUNK of money from the people who are interested in such a deal, that raises eyebrows. Spin it any way you want, but the general public also agreed (hence why the Cheeto is in office).

I never said it was a "scandal". Just like I never thought Trump's was a "scandal". Just like the QPQ isn't a scandal. EVERYONE feels this happens all the time in politics, so they just shrug. We have both Clinton and Trump doing shady shit with their charities. We have Biden in a video saying he wouldn't give money unless they fired the guy, you have Obama saying he'd have more freedom (or whatever it was) after the election was over. And then Trump does the same. (with the difference being it was a "political rival", but that is lost in the shrug to many).

The public sees this, and believes it to be standard practice. That's why no one cares.

Nope this is a trump's extortion is a scandal, not a "scandal."

Sorry, but actual fraud is worse than right wing fever dream accusations that don't make sense. To pretend those are equal is being the worse sort of person.
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Culley22 wrote:

hahahahahaha. The mention of charity abuse comes up, I point out to a prime example (please, PLEASE tell me that the entire world didn't know she was the hand picked successor of the Dems for the next shot at Presidency). And you go on some rant about trying to defend the sale of Uranium. I don't have a problem with the sale. But when someone just happens to get a CHUNK of money from the people who are interested in such a deal, that raises eyebrows. Spin it any way you want, but the general public also agreed (hence why the Cheeto is in office).

I never said it was a "scandal". Just like I never thought Trump's was a "scandal". Just like the QPQ isn't a scandal. EVERYONE feels this happens all the time in politics, so they just shrug. We have both Clinton and Trump doing shady shit with their charities. We have Biden in a video saying he wouldn't give money unless they fired the guy, you have Obama saying he'd have more freedom (or whatever it was) after the election was over. And then Trump does the same. (with the difference being it was a "political rival", but that is lost in the shrug to many).

The public sees this, and believes it to be standard practice. That's why no one cares.


Nope this is a trump's extortion is a scandal, not a "scandal."

Sorry, but actual fraud is worse than right wing fever dream accusations that don't make sense. To pretend those are equal is being the worse sort of person.

You think it’s a scandal. So do most Dems. But using previous polling numbers...it’s a toss up. Why is that? Well I told you why, you don’t agree. Ok. But you just saying “nu-uh” does not a valid reason make. Sorry if you don’t like it, but that IS how many feel.

ETA: I like how “extortion” and “bribery” (you didn’t say this, but I have heard it) are now the new buzz words to use. “Quid pro quo” wasn’t enough because, as I said, everyone figured that happens all the time. But now we use “extortion” and “bribery” to add that extra negative zing. It’s that old saying “ The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” Dems just keep trying the same doom and gloom, and it’s just turning people off and tuning them out.
Last edited by: Culley22: Nov 12, 19 13:44
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Culley22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Culley22 wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:

Just another reminder that you will vote for a man who admitted hosting a fake charity event for veterans and diverting the 3 million dollars in funds to his campaign. Oh and to buy a $10k portrait of himself. You should be so proud.

Interesting you mention charities..., but since you did I'll just post this to remind people:

https://www.nytimes.com/...uranium-company.html

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Trump is a piece of shit. But then again, so was the other main player.

So if I was to go down your rabbit hole and agree that what the Clinton foundation did to get funds for its charity was 100% gospel truth, I will agree that it is a shady, possibly illegal way to get donations.

However, where your analogy fails on an epic level is that the Clinton foundations actually uses donations to do some good.

Let me reiterate... Trump skipped the debates to hold a fundraising event for veterans that raised almost 3 million, none of which went to charity. Funneled into the campaign and into his fat little fingers. Your continued willingness to ignore that or somehow equalize that with Clinton's sins is astounding.

One more time. HE STOLE FROM A VETERANS CHARITY TO BUY A PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF!!!!

If you are not unconditionally angry about that, you are as big of a piece of shit as he is.

No Virginia, not everyone does this.

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada wrote:
Culley22 wrote:
CaptainCanada wrote:


Just another reminder that you will vote for a man who admitted hosting a fake charity event for veterans and diverting the 3 million dollars in funds to his campaign. Oh and to buy a $10k portrait of himself. You should be so proud.


Interesting you mention charities..., but since you did I'll just post this to remind people:

https://www.nytimes.com/...uranium-company.html

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Trump is a piece of shit. But then again, so was the other main player.


So if I was to go down your rabbit hole and agree that what the Clinton foundation did to get funds for its charity was 100% gospel truth, I will agree that it is a shady, possibly illegal way to get donations.

However, where your analogy fails on an epic level is that the Clinton foundations actually uses donations to do some good.

Let me reiterate... Trump skipped the debates to hold a fundraising event for veterans that raised almost 3 million, none of which went to charity. Funneled into the campaign and into his fat little fingers. Your continued willingness to ignore that or somehow equalize that with Clinton's sins is astounding.

One more time. HE STOLE FROM A VETERANS CHARITY TO BUY A PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF!!!!

If you are not unconditionally angry about that, you are as big of a piece of shit as he is.

No Virginia, not everyone does this.

“He stole from Veterans!!” And Hillary killed a few in Benghazi. So the public shrugs.

You’re missing the point. He is a piece of shit. What he did was wrong. People though have heard you (royal “you”) scream the world is ending by this tyrant. Everyone is ready to roast him and impeach him...and then you point to all the things the public thinks has already been happening. So they shrug and say “hypocrites”. That doesn’t mean it’s isn't horrible what he did, but hearing it from the Left doesn’t resonate. And then when the left finally does have a good topic (Russian collusion), nothing came of it. A lot of money and a giant report came out and didn’t say to go after him (yes, yes, we know why, but the average joe public doesn’t). So “nothing” really happened. And now more and more accusations and buzz words. From the very beginning it’s been nothing but mud slinging at Trump (some very warranted). The people see this. It’s been non-stop, even before he was in office. So...now you have something, the public is tuned out. It really isn’t a hard concept to grasp. But by all means continue at him. This is what the Right has said, this is what many of the posters on here have said: you’re ruining your own chances at getting rid of him, but by all means continue on and wonder why nothing changes (re:Einstein’s quote).
Last edited by: Culley22: Nov 12, 19 15:49
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hmm. This liberal Harvard professor was right about the Mueller report. Just maybe he is right about this.




And the not so distant past...

Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Whistleblower case [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It’s so obvious, and yet so many do not see it. Or, they see it and just don’t care. I’m honestly not sure which is worse.
Quote Reply

Prev Next