If the House Voted... on Impeachment Today...(POLL)

[UNI88]

Yes...the preachiness of the left can be unbearable.

So...if we were to make JoltinJoe and UNI88 top dog Democratic Party strategists for a day, what would your prescriptions be to gain favor with the voters? Pivot to the right?

No takers?

Step 1 - put the smackdown on the squad.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

No takers?

Step 1 - put the smackdown on the squad.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Ok...I can see that for optics.

I was thinking more along the lines of policy than uppity females.

[UNI88]

Step 1 - put the smackdown on the squad.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Ok...I can see that for optics.

I was thinking more along the lines of policy than uppity females.

It has nothing to do with them being uppity or female. It's because they would be trying to undermine me from the start.

I wouldn't last a day as a democratic strategist, they wouldn't like what I have to say about a lot of things.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Yes...the preachiness of the left can be unbearable.

So...if we were to make JoltinJoe and UNI88 top dog Democratic Party strategists for a day, what would your prescriptions be to gain favor with the voters? Pivot to the right?

No takers?

Replace the entire DNC should be the first move. Any crowd that loses the most in-the-bag national election in our nation's history to Donald Trump has no business running a political party.

[houndawg]

I could see double digit defectors - the impeachment train is losing steam - especially in the swing states. I still think they'll impeach though - it'd be political suicide for most of the Dems not to at this point.

Just keep dribbling shit out bit by bit and something will hit, it has to - anybody whose entire defense is to refuse to testify and to prevent others from testifying did it. Just keep on drip, drip, dripping..

[UNI88]

I could see double digit defectors - the impeachment train is losing steam - especially in the swing states. I still think they'll impeach though - it'd be political suicide for most of the Dems not to at this point.

Just keep dribbling shit out bit by bit and something will hit, it has to - anybody whose entire defense is to refuse to testify and to prevent others from testifying did it. Just keep on drip, drip, dripping..

It's a good thing Trump is the first POTUS or government official to avoid testimony.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I can't document it but I think some of the people who say they don't want the Democrats to impeach him, including some of the people in swing states, say that because they don't want him to be President again. They think the Democrats could hurt their chances of getting rid of him if they impeach him.

Overall, the majority of Americans still support removing him from office.

[UNI88]

I can't document it but I think some of the people who say they don't want the Democrats to impeach him, including some of the people in swing states, say that because they don't want him to be President again. They think the Democrats could hurt their chances of getting rid of him if they impeach him.

Overall, the majority of Americans still support removing him from office.

So you want people to accept a subjective opinion from you based on your instinct/bias while you dismiss or ignore subjective opinions from AZ, Flaggy, etc. that are based on their extensive experience and business knowledge?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Just keep dribbling shit out bit by bit and something will hit, it has to - anybody whose entire defense is to refuse to testify and to prevent others from testifying did it. Just keep on drip, drip, dripping..

It's a good thing Trump is the first POTUS or government official to avoid testimony.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Does that have something to do with something?

[UNI88]

It's a good thing Trump is the first POTUS or government official to avoid testimony.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Does that have something to do with something?

If you apply your "they refuse to testify so they must be guilty" theory throughout history then Obama was guilty too - Holder, Learner, etc.

Are the Democrats smart enough to "convict" or will it be like the Republicans and Hillary?

Your "theory" is just another ironic example of the left and right trading playbooks in November 2016.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Does that have something to do with something?

If you apply your "they refuse to testify so they must be guilty" theory throughout history then Obama was guilty too - Holder, Learner, etc.

Are the Democrats smart enough to "convict" or will it be like the Republicans and Hillary?

Your "theory" is just another ironic example of the left and right trading playbooks in November 2016.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

OK they were guilty too - that means nothing right now

[UNI88]

If you apply your "they refuse to testify so they must be guilty" theory throughout history then Obama was guilty too - Holder, Learner, etc.

Are the Democrats smart enough to "convict" or will it be like the Republicans and Hillary?

Your "theory" is just another ironic example of the left and right trading playbooks in November 2016.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

OK they were guilty too - that means nothing right now

So we should focus on how inept the Donks must be if they are unable to convict Trump after trying so hard for so long? That was your schtick with the Conks and Hillary.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

OK they were guilty too - that means nothing right now

So we should focus on how inept the Donks must be if they are unable to convict Trump after trying so hard for so long? That was your schtick with the Conks and Hillary.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Yes we should. And it shouldn’t even be political. If he committed a crime, everyone should want him convicted.

Tough on crime, I say!

[SDHornet]

No takers?

Replace the entire DNC should be the first move. Any crowd that loses the most in-the-bag national election in our nation's history to Donald Trump has no business running a political party.

This.

[SDHornet]

OK they were guilty too - that means nothing right now

So we should focus on how inept the Donks must be if they are unable to convict Trump after trying so hard for so long? That was your schtick with the Conks and Hillary.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

You know that type of common sense and reasoning doesn't fly with leftists.

[UNI88]

So we should focus on how inept the Donks must be if they are unable to convict Trump after trying so hard for so long? That was your schtick with the Conks and Hillary.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

You know that type of common sense and reasoning doesn't fly with leftists.

This isn't just on Houndy and the leftists. The rightists are also hypocrites for changing playbooks.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

So...

(Asking for a friend here)

Where’s John Bolton? Why no subpoena for him from the House yet?

If you want to get the goods, why would this guy not have already been front and center?

[houndawg]

OK they were guilty too - that means nothing right now

So we should focus on how inept the Donks must be if they are unable to convict Trump after trying so hard for so long? That was your schtick with the Conks and Hillary.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Sure - I've been advocating firing the entire DNC since back before the primary when I told you that you were wrong about the impact Bernie would have.

[houndawg]

So...

(Asking for a friend here)

Where’s John Bolton? Why no subpoena for him from the House yet?

If you want to get the goods, why would this guy not have already been front and center?

No idea - you're the insider.


Maybe his word is no good?

[CID1990]

So...

(Asking for a friend here)

Where’s John Bolton? Why no subpoena for him from the House yet?

If you want to get the goods, why would this guy not have already been front and center?

No idea - you're the insider.


Maybe his word is no good?

Intel already handed off to Judiciary - where Neckpants will decide whether or not to draw up articles

And Bolton is chomping at the bit to testify.. and he’s even alluded to having even more on Ukraine than the House committees already have

Reek sez the McGahn ruling paves the way for Bolton

So why did Schiff already puny without issuing a subpoena for Bolton?

[JohnStOnge]

I can't document it but I think some of the people who say they don't want the Democrats to impeach him, including some of the people in swing states, say that because they don't want him to be President again. They think the Democrats could hurt their chances of getting rid of him if they impeach him.

Overall, the majority of Americans still support removing him from office.

So you want people to accept a subjective opinion from you based on your instinct/bias while you dismiss or ignore subjective opinions from AZ, Flaggy, etc. that are based on their extensive experience and business knowledge?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

No. I just wrote what I think but can't document. I haven't seen any polling that would get to the question. There is a view that impeaching Trump will increase his chance of getting re-elected. It makes sense, I think, to think that there are people out there who are opposed to trying to impeach him for that reason. But I'm not claiming to have data showing that to be the case.

My own preference would, for instance, be for the Democrats not to impeach him because we know the Senate will not convict. I would like to see the Democrats go through the process then say, "We think we've shown that Trump SHOULD be impeached and removed from office but we know the Republicans in the Senate have no integrity and won't remove him from office no matter what. So we're not going to waste the country's time."

At the same time, as a matter of absolute opinion, I think it's very obvious that he should be both impeached and removed from office. It's obvious that he did what he's accused of and it's just as obvious that it was an offense that SHOULD, if there were any integrity in the Republican Party, be removed from office.

But there is no integrity in the Republican Party right now.

[Ibanez]

So...

(Asking for a friend here)

Where’s John Bolton? Why no subpoena for him from the House yet?

If you want to get the goods, why would this guy not have already been front and center?

Because of law suits and losing momentum.

I’m sure the Senate will get him, Pompeo and Mulvaney on the stands to make sense of what happened. The senate stands for civility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

No idea - you're the insider.


Maybe his word is no good?

Intel already handed off to Judiciary - where Neckpants will decide whether or not to draw up articles

And Bolton is chomping at the bit to testify.. and he’s even alluded to having even more on Ukraine than the House committees already have

Reek sez the McGahn ruling paves the way for Bolton

So why did Schiff already puny without issuing a subpoena for Bolton?

Bolton is an attention whore at the Chuck Schumer level. But he’s politically savvy, or so I thought. If he totally dishes on Trump, he pretty well kisses off any prospect of a future high office (SOS?) in a Republican Administration.

[Winterborn]

Intel already handed off to Judiciary - where Neckpants will decide whether or not to draw up articles

And Bolton is chomping at the bit to testify.. and he’s even alluded to having even more on Ukraine than the House committees already have

Reek sez the McGahn ruling paves the way for Bolton

So why did Schiff already puny without issuing a subpoena for Bolton?

Bolton is an attention whore at the Chuck Schumer level. But he’s politically savvy, or so I thought. If he totally dishes on Trump, he pretty well kisses off any prospect of a future high office (SOS?) in a Republican Administration.

But would make for a hell of a good tell all book.

The question is which one makes him more money in the long run.

[houndawg]

No idea - you're the insider.


Maybe his word is no good?

Intel already handed off to Judiciary - where Neckpants will decide whether or not to draw up articles

And Bolton is chomping at the bit to testify.. and he’s even alluded to having even more on Ukraine than the House committees already have

Reek sez the McGahn ruling paves the way for Bolton

So why did Schiff already puny without issuing a subpoena for Bolton?

Like I said - this is your turf, I'm just guessing.


Maybe Schiff doesn't think he needs Bolton's testimony?