Exclusive: Less than half of all Americans want Trump ousted post-impeachment - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[thaicurious]

More on recent crack in Trump's base with regard to which "Americans want Trump ousted"...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/us/christianity-today-trump.html

...dissent among the religious conservative base...came at one of the most vulnerable moments of his presidency....

 

...the magazine has long represented more centrist thought...

 

...Opposition to Mr. Trump among white evangelicals remains exceedingly rare....

 

(but)

 

...“That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

Yes, they had to be approved and the rule was fair: only witnesses who could possibly have witnessed something were allowed to testify. Pro-Trump witnesses were welcomed (ex. Sondland).

 

I agree that the same rule should be applied during the Senate trial

So which of the witnesses actually witnessed something? 
 

Oh what a wicked web we weave...

[thaicurious]

10 minutes ago, Monomial said:

I trust the odds makers a lot more. Oddschecker currently shows Trump running better

https://www.oddschecker.com/insight/politics/20161020-has-trump-blown-his-presidential-campaign-once-and-for-all

With only three weeks until polling day in the United States, we here at Oddschecker can’t see Trump clawing his way back.

[blazes]

32 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Why would the Dow collapse if the Chinese announced they would negotiations? 

 

Because every time someone (on either side) makes a positive noise about the negotiations, the markets go up for a while.  A negative remark produces a negative reaction in the markets.  A total suspension would be mega-negative!

[candide]

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So which of the witnesses actually witnessed something? 
 

Oh what a wicked web we weave...

What they witnessed has never been contradicted under oath.

[RideJocky]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

What they witnessed has never been contradicted under oath.

What did they actually witness that (we all know) wasn’t contradicted? 
 

 

[yogi100]

1 hour ago, alanrchase said:

Perhaps you should not have claimed there was never a peep about it before 2016 then? 

Well I hadn't heard of this college electoral system mentioned before and I'm the first to admit it. Neither had most British people. In fact few of them understand what it actually is. Neither probably do most Americans.

 

Do you fully understand it? I had to look it up on the internet and I still don't quite get it.

 

Now it seems most democrats are against it because it's not worked in their interest. Yet it was introduced over 200 years ago to ensure the democracy that the US govt is said to be in favour of remains in place.

 

Trump supporters are constantly referred to as rednecks and racists just like Brexit supporters are in the UK by their betters and are also called bigots and stupid and did not know what they voted for.

 

It would help us immensely if you could explain it briefly in your own words in few sentences rather than referring to some website on the internet.

[candide]

17 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

What did they actually witness that (we all know) wasn’t contradicted? 
 

 

Haven't you watched the testimonies, read the transcripts?

Edited December 20, 2019 by candide

[RideJocky]

1 minute ago, candide said:

Haven't you seen watched the testimonies, read the transcripts?

Yes, the way I understand it, no one that testified actually witnessed anything, that’s why I’m asking.

[candide]

1 minute ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, the way I understand it, no one that testified actually witnessed anything, that’s why I’m asking.

You misunderstood, obviously.

[RideJocky]

17 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Well I hadn't heard of this college electoral system mentioned before and I'm the first to admit it. Neither had most British people. In fact few of them understand what it actually is. Neither probably do most Americans.

 

Do you fully understand it? I had to look it up on the internet and I still don't quite get it.

 

Now it seems most democrats are against it because it's not worked in their interest. Yet it was introduced over 200 years ago to ensure the democracy that the US govt is said to be in favour of remains in place.

 

Trump supporters are constantly referred to as rednecks and racists just like Brexit supporters are in the UK by their betters and are also called bigots and stupid and did not know what they voted for.

 

It would help us immensely if you could explain it briefly in your own words in few sentences rather than referring to some website on the internet.

It’s something like the House of Representatives whereby each state has a number of electors based on population. The electors vote the candidate that wins their state. 
 

It is representative government that gives small states some power, otherwise candidates would only pander to big population centers. 
 

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were not elected by popular vote eitherbut selected by state legislators. This kind of threw a wrench in the system, as Senators should do what’s best for their state as a whole, not just what gives them the most votes. 
 

Om sure someone can provide more.

[RideJocky]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

You misunderstood, obviously.

I guess I did.
 

So what did they actually witness? 

[candide]

3 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I guess I did.
 

So what did they actually witness? 

Read the transcripts

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, natway09 said:

When I suggested on Facebook last year that this piece of rubbish America calls a President 

will divide the country & possibly create a civil war & a war around the world I nearly started one myself.

The sooner he is gone, the happier & better place the world will be

If i'm reading the signs correctly you're gonna be stuck with ol' Liberace for another four years! ????

[riclag]

10 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry, don't understand. 

 

My point is we will never know if he is guilty or not. 

 

We will only know what a political party think he is,

 

and when elections what the majority of voters think he is. 

You obviously don't understand the party system in America .When the current  impeached President of the USA becomes the second President of the USA to get re-elected  in the  2020 presidential election, it will be as a result of the independent voters,not the gop or dem party ! This is when "you" will know that he is not guilty of anything the radical dems claim. Many Americans already know he is the best choice to fill the office again. 

[luckyluke]

"it will be as a result of the independent voters" 

-riclag-

 

So you mean if the independent voters  vote for Mr. Trump it will mean he is not guilty. 

 

According to me it will only shows that they believe he is not guilty. 

 

I am still convinced we will never know if he is guilty or not. 

 

But we will know, if he wins again, that a majority believe he is not guilty, or don't care he may be guilty. 

[Puchaiyank]

The impeachment show was a calculated risk the Dems were forced to take as their field of Presidential candidates are unelectable.

 

The hope is to move enough independents and moderate Republican away from Trump to give them a fighting chance in 2020 elections.

 

At this point...it appears to have backfired.

[yogi100]

12 minutes ago, evadgib said:

If i'm reading the signs correctly you're gonna be stuck with ol' Liberace for another four years! ????

He's not sent young Americans off to die in futile wars or change regimes like his predecessors have.

 

The economy has been doing well under his tenure.

 

He's trying to tackle the immense US immigration problem that plagues many other Western countries.

 

He's taken a firm stand against Islamic terrorism.

 

Every day in the liberal media he's vilified, insulted and called all sorts of names no other POTUS has ever had to contend with. Not even old Tricky Dicky. Even all the Hollywood luvvies who've never had to do a real days work in their lives are queuing to have a pop at him.

 

He's upset the Muslim Mayor of London for some reason so he must be doing something right. That's the twerp who spent 30K of our money having that Trump blimp made in a vain attempt to humiliate him.

 

However what exactly would you like him to do and how would you like him to do it?

[riclag]

15 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

"it will be as a result of the independent voters" 

-riclag-

 

So you mean if the independent voters  vote for Mr. Trump it will mean he is not guilty. 

 

According to me it will only shows that they believe he is not guilty. 

 

I am still convinced we will never know if he is guilty or not. 

 

But we will know, if he wins again, that a majority believe he is not guilty, or don't care he may be guilty. 

"We will only know what a political party think he is",

 

Sorry, I was trying to show you that a political party would not satisfy "your" curiosity! I know I'm (independent )going to cast my opinion,  by voting!

I suppose many people won't vote cause they feel that their opinion doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things! example many minorities stayed home for the 2016 election 

Edited December 20, 2019 by riclag

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Read the transcripts

That’s what I thought, thanks!

[candide]

29 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

That’s what I thought, thanks!

Thought what?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Puchaiyank said:

The impeachment show was a calculated risk the Dems were forced to take as their field of Presidential candidates are unelectable.

 

The hope is to move enough independents and moderate Republican away from Trump to give them a fighting chance in 2020 elections.

 

At this point...it appears to have backfired.

There is no such coordination. Objectively the democrats do have a number of competitive potential nominees for 2020. The basic issue is to go with safer/moderate or go for broke leftist populist. There are good arguments for either lane.

[Skeptic7]

12 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

When he wins the next election the voting public will have shown the answer.

More like a HUGE "IF"...not when. 

[Puchaiyank]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

There is no such coordination. Objectively the democrats do have a number of competitive potential nominees for 2020. The basic issue is to go with safer/moderate or go for broke leftist populist. There are good arguments for either lane.

I always enjoy your comments...thoughtful and well articulated...☺

[choff56]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Democrats were the party of slave owners. The GOP ended slavery.

Excuse me, I thought my response was directed towards the United States  electoral college that was written into the constitution and not the "end to slavery" which happened almost 100 years later.

[metisdead]

An offensive post has been removed. 

[choff56]

6 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Shhhhhhhhhh! 
 

Don’t tell them that! Don’t tell them about more Republicans supporting civil rights laws than Democrats either or they’ll go through the whole “magic switch” lie again. 

 

My response was to the United States electoral college that was written into the constitution in the late 1780's. The civil rights movement happened almost 180 years later. But political parties do change over time as what has become very apparent during the Trump presidency . If this was 46 years earlier like during the Nixon presidency Trump would be removed from office.

[Langkawee]

15 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

The nightmare of more minorities in work than ever before? The nightmare of record employment numbers? The nightmare of a roaring economy? The nightmare of China agreeing to stop thefts of intellectual property and start buying US agriculture products? The nightmare of a lower tax burden for workers? 

 Might I suggest the only "nightmare" you have is the one where Madame President Hillary has her rightful victory snatched away from her by a reality TV host?

 It's been almost 4 years now! 

Yes this is the truth. Democrats have always been the racist scum. And Biden and his Son should be in jail for nepotism, not running for President. It sure is fashionable to be a fascist democrat, the real toxic waste. 

[choff56]

3 hours ago, luckyluke said:

"it will be as a result of the independent voters" 

-riclag-

 

So you mean if the independent voters  vote for Mr. Trump it will mean he is not guilty. 

 

According to me it will only shows that they believe he is not guilty. 

 

I am still convinced we will never know if he is guilty or not. 

 

But we will know, if he wins again, that a majority believe he is not guilty, or don't care he may be guilty. 

I guess you are not aware of the book deal that former national security advisor John Bolton has.

[Jingthing]

24 minutes ago, Langkawee said:

Yes this is the truth. Democrats have always been the racist scum. And Biden and his Son should be in jail for nepotism, not running for President. It sure is fashionable to be a fascist democrat, the real toxic waste. 

I guess someone should tell the core base of the modern democratic party -- African Americans. That vote democratic about 90 percent of the time. Not to mention -- Latinos, Asians, Jews, Arabs, LGBT, etc.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Jingthing