Time to get on the TRUMP train

Couple polls came out, 41%, 47% and 49% Trump approval. All Trump needs is to get to 47% on election day and he wins 300+ electoral votes. Against Liz he will easily get there.

This Impeachment saga is going nowhere, in fact Manchin and the Dem from Alabama will like vote no. It's going to be a massive embarrassment for Pelosi and cost her the Speakership in 2021.

LOL at ever getting to 67 Senators in the Senate. Trump just polled 90% Republican support and 83 support in another. You need to get that number below 50% and that is never happening.

Pelosi caved to AOC, Pelosi is 79 years old, AOC is 29. You see what is happening. A young lioness and her cronies attacking the old lioness. Watch the nature channel you will see what is reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

Couple polls came out, 41%, 47% and 49% Trump approval. All Trump needs is to get to 47% on election day and he wins 300+ electoral votes. Against Liz he will easily get there.

This Impeachment saga is going nowhere, in fact Manchin and the Dem from Alabama will like vote no. It's going to be a massive embarrassment for Pelosi and cost her the Speakership in 2021.

LOL at ever getting to 67 Senators in the Senate. Trump just polled 90% Republican support and 83 support in another. You need to get that number below 50% and that is never happening.

Pelosi caved to AOC, Pelosi is 79 years old, AOC is 29. You see what is happening. A young lioness and her cronies attacking the old lioness. Watch the nature channel you will see what is reality.

---

Trump won't make it to election day instead he'll be removed from the White House kicking and screaming.

https://i0.wp.com/madmikesamerica.co...15%2C480&ssl=1

barr asked foreign agencies to investigate the cia/fbi, if this wapo article is true.

What non history readers have no clue on with regards to Watergate is first there was no impeachment, Nixon resigned.

Second, the reason Nixon resigned was because there was 1) 60 Democratic Senators and 2) Nixon's support fell below the 50% watermark with Republicans nationwide so it was over for him. He had about 8 Senators defect and that was that, he quit

Today, there are 53 Republican Senators. You need 20 Senators to peel away from that margin for a Senate conviction.

You are have Trump hovering in the 80-90% range with Republican voters. Not to mention is he is about 50% with Independents.

The Democrats need to peel away not only moderate Republicans such as Romney, but deep south Red State Republicans, the latter never going to happen.

Another thing people forget is in 1974, there was only the mainstream media who hated Nixon. There was no Rush, Levin, Hannity or especially the Internet. It was just the networks and Washing Post and NYT.

Not going to happen. Look at the fabric of the Senate makeup and see who will defect. You'll stop counting around 7 or 8. Those 7 or 8 will never defect unless they have 20 so the count is 0.

Trump versus Liz in 2020. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

barr asked foreign agencies to investigate the cia/fbi, if this wapo article is true.

---

I see you add the "if this is true". Back a couple years ago you used to post twitter feeds of Russian Collusion messiahs as fact, all of which were eventually disproven, so glad you have disclaimers now. You even posted one nut job back in the day and I was like how did Sonatine fall for that? Can't remember her name but you did not post her again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

What non history readers have no clue on with regards to Watergate is first there was no impeachment, Nixon resigned.

Second, the reason Nixon resigned was because there was 1) 60 Democratic Senators and 2) Nixon's support fell below the 50% watermark with Republicans nationwide so it was over for him. He had about 8 Senators defect and that was that, he quit

Today, there are 53 Republican Senators. You need 20 Senators to peel away from that margin for a Senate conviction.

You are have Trump hovering in the 80-90% range with Republican voters. Not to mention is he is about 50% with Independents.

The Democrats need to peel away not only moderate Republicans such as Romney, but deep south Red State Republicans, the latter never going to happen.

---

sadly, correct all around. trump could admit to holding back military aid to ukraine for the sole purpose of ensuring they investigate biden and trump's approval level among republicans would drop from 99% to 96%.

it's hard to imagine what could get his supporters to sufficiently turn on him that deep south GOP senators would feel safe voting him out of office. people like dish would never ever go against him, and he is 100% representative of trump's base.

that being said, texas will be blue within 10 years so this is a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

What non history readers have no clue on with regards to Watergate is first there was no impeachment, Nixon resigned.

Second, the reason Nixon resigned was because there was 1) 60 Democratic Senators and 2) Nixon's support fell below the 50% watermark with Republicans nationwide so it was over for him. He had about 8 Senators defect and that was that, he quit

Today, there are 53 Republican Senators. You need 20 Senators to peel away from that margin for a Senate conviction.

You are have Trump hovering in the 80-90% range with Republican voters. Not to mention is he is about 50% with Independents.

The Democrats need to peel away not only moderate Republicans such as Romney, but deep south Red State Republicans, the latter never going to happen.

Another thing people forget is in 1974, there was only the mainstream media who hated Nixon. There was no Rush, Levin, Hannity or especially the Internet. It was just the networks and Washing Post and NYT.

Not going to happen. Look at the fabric of the Senate makeup and see who will defect. You'll stop counting around 7 or 8. Those 7 or 8 will never defect unless they have 20 so the count is 0.

Trump versus Liz in 2020. LOL

---

Ok Nostradamus, anyone as confident as you in what's going to happen over the next year is clueless.

This is all uncharted territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

What non history readers have no clue on with regards to Watergate is first there was no impeachment, Nixon resigned.

Second, the reason Nixon resigned was because there was 1) 60 Democratic Senators and 2) Nixon's support fell below the 50% watermark with Republicans nationwide so it was over for him. He had about 8 Senators defect and that was that, he quit

Today, there are 53 Republican Senators. You need 20 Senators to peel away from that margin for a Senate conviction.

You are have Trump hovering in the 80-90% range with Republican voters. Not to mention is he is about 50% with Independents.

The Democrats need to peel away not only moderate Republicans such as Romney, but deep south Red State Republicans, the latter never going to happen.

Another thing people forget is in 1974, there was only the mainstream media who hated Nixon. There was no Rush, Levin, Hannity or especially the Internet. It was just the networks and Washing Post and NYT.

Not going to happen. Look at the fabric of the Senate makeup and see who will defect. You'll stop counting around 7 or 8. Those 7 or 8 will never defect unless they have 20 so the count is 0.

Trump versus Liz in 2020. LOL

---

Ok Nostradamus, anyone as confident as you in what's going to happen over the next year is clueless.

This is all uncharted territory.

---

LOL, its not uncharted territory. We had an impeachment proceeding in 1973/1974 and a full impeachment in 1998. So that is two impeachment processes in less than 50 years. If Iran Contra had happened in Reagan's 1st term it would have been three. You simply don't read history and watch too much CNN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Ok Nostradamus, anyone as confident as you in what's going to happen over the next year is clueless.

This is all uncharted territory.

---

LOL, its not uncharted territory. We had an impeachment proceeding in 1973/1974 and a full impeachment in 1998. So that is two impeachment processes in less than 50 years. If Iran Contra had happened in Reagan's 1st term it would have been three. You simply don't read history and watch too much CNN.

---

I'm not saying that none of your predictions could happen. Just that anyone as confident as you in your absolute predictions is clueless.

Also, I really do think the fact that these impeachment proceeding will happen during Trumps first term is very significant and will likely play a huge roll in the 2020 election - either one way or the other. If it were to happen in his second term, the stakes would be much lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

trump trying to expose and retaliate against the whistleblower is also illegal, and, in and of itself, impeachable

---

I don’t get this. Isn’t the whistleblower irrelevant at this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

trump trying to expose and retaliate against the whistleblower is also illegal, and, in and of itself, impeachable

---

I don’t get this. Isn’t the whistleblower irrelevant at this point?

---

Whistleblower Protection Act

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I don’t get this. Isn’t the whistleblower irrelevant at this point?

---

Whistleblower Protection Act

---

I get that. What I don’t understand is why would it matter who the whistleblower is and why Is Trump focused on him/her. The transcript of the phone call is public so what does the whistleblower bring to the table at this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Whistleblower Protection Act

---

I get that. What I don’t understand is why would it matter who the whistleblower is and why Is Trump focused on him/her. The transcript of the phone call is public so what does the whistleblower bring to the table at this point?

---

it's cause he's an idiot, nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Whistleblower Protection Act

---

I get that. What I don’t understand is why would it matter who the whistleblower is and why Is Trump focused on him/her. The transcript of the phone call is public so what does the whistleblower bring to the table at this point?

---

You bloody moron. The only option for the accused is to make the whistle blower an enemy of the people.

A last ditch effort but what else would you expect?

How fucking dumb are you to ask why Trump is focused on the? You could not be thicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I get that. What I don’t understand is why would it matter who the whistleblower is and why Is Trump focused on him/her. The transcript of the phone call is public so what does the whistleblower bring to the table at this point?

---

it's cause he's an idiot, nightmarefish

---

His base is also full of sidedish's though and plenty of GOPers are following his lead - so it just might work.

the inevitable 12 hour HBO miniseries about the last 4 years is going to be absolutely breath taking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nightmarefish

I get that. What I don’t understand is why would it matter who the whistleblower is and why Is Trump focused on him/her. The transcript of the phone call is public so what does the whistleblower bring to the table at this point?

---

You bloody moron. The only option for the accused is to make the whistle blower an enemy of the people.

A last ditch effort but what else would you expect?

How fucking dumb are you to ask why Trump is focused on the? You could not be thicker

---

Everything you post is completely retarded. The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point IMO. The transcript is public and is what matters. Everyone has their own opinion about the legality of what was said on the call, the whistleblower is just another opinion of thousands. Thus, Trump attacking the whistleblower is pointless to me. If the transcript wasn’t public I could maybe see the angle to try and discredit him/her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

that being said, texas will be blue within 10 years so this is a moot point.

---

This is why I legitimately don’t care if he’s impeached or wins again with the exception of the Supreme Court, which they’ll eventually just end up adding 5 seats to at some point.

I wish I was younger, so that part sucks, and I’d selfishly prefer he go now, but theoretically the Democrats should primarily be concerned with hanging Trump around the GOP forever, and a second term would just amplify that. It would make him the face and spirit of the GOP forever. The last vestige and death rattle of an intellectually bankrupt segment of the demographic that will be increasingly irrelevant and outnumbered moving forward through simple attrition.

It’s why I’m somewhat checked out. The Dems will throw out Biden who is old and not a great candidate or Warren who is an impressive lady, but also a flawed candidate. The party could use a continued reality check and Trump losing would allow the GOP to obfuscate the reality of who they elected and who is at fault when the bill comes due for much of what he’s done. I truly think the dems would benefit long term from Trump winning a second term and having his act wear fully thin and his actions on his tab however bitter the pill. They’ll be countless people who try to run his playbook going forward, but he’s a one off and they’ll fail.

I think he’s a slight dog and will likely lose, but I feel pretty strongly that assuming the country survives, him hovering at 17% approval in 2023 and a party forced to defend him for another four years of absurdity serves the dems better in the long run.

we should hear her out

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3C1V7jBcnb/