Jump to content

Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Let's be real here. He is not a reliable source for what happened on the call. I need second or third-hand information before I can believe anything.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah. Fox News might actually be coming back to reality a little bit and the conspiracy theorists Hannity and Inghram losing some steam with guys like Chris Wallace and Shep Smith getting it back.

 

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

48 dem, 12 ind... 

 

Polls are not used to gauge public opinion.

 

They are a PsyOp used to drive public sentiment.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I read somewhere that amongst Republicans, Trump has a 95% approval rating. Add up the Independents who don't want their healthcare insurance taken away, illegal aliens to get free healthcare and an open border policy and the economy to fall apart and I think Trump wins 2020. Toss in the union democrats who feel Trump is standing up for them and I smell a shellacking. There's one reason and one reason only that the dems and media are fighting so hard for trying to damage Trump through this fake impeachment. They know they can't beat Trump. The opposition can keep making all this noise but I'm sitting back and saying, "we'll see".

 

I saw a statistic yesterday that 32% of black voters would vote Trump over a generic Democrat candidate.

 

If that is even close to being true, it's going to be an annihilation.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KRC said:

 

Let's be real here. He is not a reliable source for what happened on the call. I need second or third-hand information before I can believe anything.

If you want to be really believable you need to confirm your suspicions with a well placed rumor. How can you represent the MSM without confirming the newfound facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It's not oversampling.

 

There's a reason for that number.

 

I'm confident you can figure it out.

 

That might take some independent thought.  Hopefully he's a real independent thinker.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Albwan said:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-results-october-6-8-2019

 

Oversampling democrats.

48% democrats  to 40 % republican.

 

More people lean left than right in this country so it's not oversampling.  A democratic candidate got more votes in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.   The way the electoral college works and voter enthusiasm makes these polls mostly useless though unless it's a large majority.

Edited by Doc Brown
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

If you want to be really believable you need to confirm your suspicions with a well placed rumor. How can you represent the MSM without confirming the newfound facts?

 

Feed the media a story, then use the media story to confirm that you are telling the truth. That is how you prove that you are correct.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

More people lean left than right in this country so it's not oversampling.  A democratic candidate got more votes in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.   The way the electoral college works and voter enthusiasm makes these polls mostly useless though unless it's a large majority.

 

 

FTA:

 

How did the Fox polling unit come up with this number?

The Fox news polling companies interviewed 1,003 registered voters, ostensibly throughout the length and breadth of the United States.  Many polling companies use either all adult Americans (254 million) or registered voters (158 million in 2016) as their universe for polling.  Obviously, the greater the number of potential people to contact and question, the easier a poll is to complete and to skew a result.  In reality, what matters is who votes in an election.  In 2016, 86% (or 136.6 million) of registered voters cast a vote.  A poll of likely voters would inherently be more reliable but more difficult to achieve.  Currently, only Rasmussen among national polls uses exclusively likely voters and they are among the most reliable.

 

 

As the issue of impeachment is overtly political, the political make-up of the respondents in any poll is critical.  In this recent Fox poll, 48% of those polled claimed to be Democrats, 40% Republican, and 12% independent.  However, as Gallup points out in its most recent research, 31% of all Americans identify as Democrats, 29% as Republican and 38% as independent.

 

Ideally, all polls, as does Rasmussen, should strive to reflect that political affiliation dichotomy or as close as possible, considering the difficulty in finding people willing to be polled and be honest in their responses.

 

Therefore, the Fox poll, with its political make-up of respondents, is manipulated to come up with a desired result.  The issue isn't the difference between the number of Democrat and Republican respondents, but the gross undercounting of independents and the massive overcounting of Democrats.

 

Over the past three months to date, in a variety of polls, an average of nearly 84% of all Democrats favored the impeachment of Donald Trump.  Therefore, when Fox uses 48% Democrat registered voters, the poll immediately, before taking into account any other group, will indicate 41% in favor of impeachment and removal.  Thus, to get to 51%, only 20% of those identifying as Republican or independents in this poll would have to be in favor of impeachment.

 

However, if Fox had used the actual political breakdown of 32% of Americans identifying as Democrats, then instead of an immediate impact of 41% in the result, it would have been 27%, or 14 percentage points less.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/what_makes_foxs_trump_impeachment_poll_totally_unrealiable.html

 

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purely anecdotal, but was working from home yesterday and I received 5 freakin' auto-dial calls from "Central Research" asking if they could conduct an opinion poll. Waited for a live person and told them to add us to their 'Do Not Call' list then hung up. I have a sneaking suspicion that they aren't adding my number to the list, rat bastards.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Where is the Federalist Society in all this? Why have they not spoken out for the rule of law and justice? 

 

Shows what a right wing hack job that society is. 

 

The Republicans sold their souls for control of the judicial branch.

 

And ya gotta give it to them. They were organized, smart, and methodical about it.

 

This has been the plan for years and it's the reason sooOOooo many of these guys who "hated" Trump during the primaries and before are some of his strongest backers now.... hellooooo Lindsey Graham!

 

Gotta hope the Democrats learned their lessons.

 

Since McConnell has broken so many precedents and gotten rid of the filibuster, if Dems regain the Senate they might as well increase the Supreme Court by 4 seats (nothing in the Constitution about 9 Justices, afterall) and let the Democratic President appoint them in 2021.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The Republicans sold their souls for control of the judicial branch.

 

And ya gotta give it to them. They were organized, smart, and methodical about it.

 

This has been the plan for years and it's the reason sooOOooo many of these guys who "hated" Trump during the primaries and before are some of his strongest backers now.... hellooooo Lindsey Graham!

 

Gotta hope the Democrats learned their lessons.

 

Since McConnell has broken so many precedents and gotten rid of the filibuster, if Dems regain the Senate they might as well increase the Supreme Court by 4 seats (nothing in the Constitution about 9 Justices, afterall) and let the Democratic President appoint them in 2021.

you're a lunatic.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Gotta hope the Democrats learned their lessons.

 

Well, we know this is never gonna happen.

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Umm... you mean Harry Reid, right? Please tell me you’re not this uninformed. 

 

What, in his posting history, would ever lead you to conclude that transplant's uninformed?

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConnell's refusal to even bring Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland up for 10 full months is unprecedented.

 

And there are examples of Supreme Court nominees in election years being elected to the court by the opposing party.

 

If you guys are referring to Reid getting rid of the Filibuster... well, considering the sheer volume of filibusters (something like half in all of American history... an unprecedented number) used on Obama appointed judges by Republicans, good for Harry.

 

Hopefully the Democrats have the balls to increase the Supreme Court once they regain power. It used to be 10, anyway.

 

Democrats problems with Republicans is that they just don't play nearly as dirty as them.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

If you guys are referring to Reid getting rid of the Filibuster...

 

 

You referred to it and erroneously attributed Reid’s action to Mitch. 

 

At least be honest. 

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

 

Since McConnell has broken so many precedents and gotten rid of the filibuster, 

 

 

The ignorance you’re displaying is staggering. 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

McConnell's refusal to even bring Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland up for 10 full months is unprecedented.

 

And there are examples of Supreme Court nominees in election years being elected to the court by the opposing party.

 

If you guys are referring to Reid getting rid of the Filibuster... well, considering the sheer volume of filibusters (something like half in all of American history... an unprecedented number) used on Obama appointed judges by Republicans, good for Harry.

 

Hopefully the Democrats have the balls to increase the Supreme Court once they regain power. It used to be 10, anyway.

 

Democrats problems with Republicans is that they just don't play nearly as dirty as them.

 

I am no fan of either party, but go ask an independent or some with no political party who the dirty party is and see what they tell you?

 

That is all.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

McConnell's refusal to even bring Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland up for 10 full months is unprecedented.

 

And there are examples of Supreme Court nominees in election years being elected to the court by the opposing party.

 

If you guys are referring to Reid getting rid of the Filibuster... well, considering the sheer volume of filibusters (something like half in all of American history... an unprecedented number) used on Obama appointed judges by Republicans, good for Harry.

 

Hopefully the Democrats have the balls to increase the Supreme Court once they regain power. It used to be 10, anyway.

 

Democrats problems with Republicans is that they just don't play nearly as dirty as them.

 

Well, yeah, Reid eliminated the filibuster, but McConnell refused to allow the Garland nomination into committee, so he started it?

 

Please tell me you're high.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Well, yeah, Reid eliminated the filibuster, but McConnell refused to allow the Garland nomination into committee, so he started it?

 

Please tell me you're high.

 

This is going to hurt, but I'm going to attempt liberal "logic":

 

If McConnell wasn't such a mean poopy head, forcing Reid to go nuclear, then McConnell wouldn't have any precedent to remove the filibuster to allow Adolph Gorsuch and the beer-loving rapist onto the Supreme Court.

 

Therefore, this is all Trump's fault, and he must be immediately impeached at all costs (followed by radical wealth redistribution after Hillary retroactively becomes president for reasons)!

Edited by Koko78
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

This is going to hurt, but I'm going to attempt liberal "logic":

 

If McConnell wasn't such a mean poopy head, forcing Reid to go nuclear, then McConnell wouldn't have any precedent to remove the filibuster to allow Adolph Gorsuch and the beer-loving rapist onto the Supreme Court.

 

Therefore, This is all Trump's fault, and he must be immediately impeached at all costs (followed by radical wealth redistribution after Hillary retroactively becomes president for reasons)!

 

You failed miserably.

 

Liberal logic is "Reid was forced to, by Republican obstructionism.  He just did what was necessary.  McConnell, on the other hand, unconstitutionally withheld the nomination from a floor vote, violating the "advice and consent" clause."

 

Which liberal logic ignores...well, reality.  It's based on the first-grade legal principle of "I want it!  Gimmee!"

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...