Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3842076 times)

ilherman · « **Reply #29580 on:** January 22, 2020, 07:53:54 PM »

Am I the only one?

It seems to me that most people have lost patients in watching this impeachment.

I won't be surprised if the News Network ratings won't be some wow numbers.

How long can you sit and watch these managers repeat the same stuff over and over again.

At least if they would have had different rules, like 1 hour rebuttal times continuously, then maybe it would be interesting, but to see Schiff just repeating the same stuff is highly boring.

I am not talking a R or D. I would say the same thing when the Trump team will have their 3 days. I mean, this is not some kind of complicated case where you need hours and hours of deliberations.

Its either you think its a problem what he did or not.

CountValentine · « **Reply #29581 on:** January 22, 2020, 07:56:48 PM »

Only if we get witnesses will it be interesting.

ilherman · « **Reply #29582 on:** January 22, 2020, 08:12:22 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 22, 2020, 07:56:48 PM

Only if we get witnesses will it be interesting.

Indeed.

dealfinder11 · « **Reply #29583 on:** January 22, 2020, 11:36:51 PM »

Bloomberg making slow and steady progress in the polls. A slight stumble by Biden in Iowa can really make things interesting for Mayor Mike. What Bloomberg is doing (by entirely ignoring the early states and zeroed in a Super Tuesday) is unprecedented and makes this even more intriguing .

CountValentine · « **Reply #29584 on:** January 22, 2020, 11:37:59 PM »

He has no one attacking him by staying out of the debates.

dealfinder11 · « **Reply #29585 on:** January 22, 2020, 11:41:37 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 22, 2020, 11:37:59 PM

He has no one attacking him by staying out of the debates.

Exactly . Trying to remember the last candidate to "win" a debate and generate a sustained spike in polling. Harris out of the race and Mayor Pete polling in single digits.

In terms of risk/reward, it seems to me that the reward doesn't justify the risk. Unless you need notoriety or name recognition, which Bloomberg has for a number of reasons including all his spending on ads .

aygart · « **Reply #29586 on:** January 22, 2020, 11:53:21 PM »

Quote from: dealfinder11 on January 22, 2020, 11:36:51 PM

Bloomberg making slow and steady progress in the polls. A slight stumble by Biden in Iowa can really make things interesting for Mayor Mike. What Bloomberg is doing (by entirely ignoring the early states and zeroed in a Super Tuesday) is unprecedented and makes this even more intriguing .

Following the failed strategy of a different former mayor of NYC

dealfinder11 · « **Reply #29587 on:** January 23, 2020, 12:03:26 AM »

Quote from: aygart on January 22, 2020, 11:53:21 PM

Following the failed strategy of a different former mayor of NYC

Seems like an over simplification to compare to Guliani. Guliani was considered a front runner from the early on. Bloomberg only jumped in recently. Additionally, Bloomberg’s (experimental) strategy only works if you don’t need momentum to in order to get funding. Can’t ignore how much money he is spending on ads.

Yammer · « **Reply #29588 on:** January 23, 2020, 02:09:35 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 22, 2020, 03:19:09 PM

Lets make this real simple. Who disagrees with this?
D's want witnesses because they hope a smoking gun will be uncovered.
R's don't want witnesses because they have the votes to shootdown this impeachment without them.
Impartial jurors want witnesses because it will help make an informed decision.

Default is you agree. So if don't respond that will mean you agree.

This entire thing is a political play.

The D's fast tracked it ( no cross examinations/No minority witnesses/no subpoena fights in court, etc ). No Rs voted for it.

This is entirely understood. It's called politics.

The Rs want to fast track it, ( no witnesses/no WH subpoenas/3 days of 12hr shifts per side etc ). No Ds will vote against it. ( Maybe Jones)

This again is entirely understood. It's called politics.

Now if we want a discussion about right & wrong? Impartial jurors? Witnesses? Subpoenas? Real transcripts? Constitution? Founding fathers?

Sure. Let's start a real impeachment hearing in the House...

aygart · « **Reply #29589 on:** January 23, 2020, 08:13:21 AM »

Zelensky, Zlochevsky , all the same. Sort of like let's just call both @ChaimMoskowitz and @CountValentine Mr. C.

Jellybelly · « **Reply #29590 on:** January 23, 2020, 08:38:47 AM »

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/john-solomon-breaking/

zh cohen · « **Reply #29591 on:** January 23, 2020, 08:52:50 AM »

Quote from: aygart on January 23, 2020, 08:13:21 AM

Zelensky, Zlochevsky , all the same. Sort of like let's just call both @ChaimMoskowitz and @CountValentine Mr. C.

All those Ukrainian names sound the same to me anyway...

Anyone understand now why allowing unvetted "evidence" from the House is not a good idea?

dealfinder11 · « **Reply #29592 on:** January 23, 2020, 09:20:09 AM »

on cue

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220336691539599361?s=20

CountValentine · « **Reply #29593 on:** January 23, 2020, 09:48:36 AM »

Quote from: zh cohen on January 23, 2020, 08:52:50 AM

Anyone understand now why allowing unvetted "evidence" from the House is not a good idea?

What evidence you talking about? The R's wont allow any evidence or witnesses. These are opening arguments which are useless.

mercaz1 · « **Reply #29594 on:** January 23, 2020, 10:07:59 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 22, 2020, 06:19:36 PM

R's & D's have their major share as Kool-Aid drinkers. So the I's are the better chance to be impartial.

do you really think people who are registered as Independents dont decide what they are doing till they hear all the information
and that they keep an open mind till they go into the polls
if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you

CountValentine · « **Reply #29595 on:** January 23, 2020, 10:10:05 AM »

Quote from: mercaz1 on January 23, 2020, 10:07:59 AM

do you really think people who are registered as Independents dont decide what they are doing till they hear all the information
and that they keep an open mind till they go into the polls
if you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you

That is not what I's mean but I won't except Kool-Aid drinkers to understand that.

mercaz1 · « **Reply #29596 on:** January 23, 2020, 10:11:26 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 23, 2020, 10:10:05 AM

That is not what I's mean but I won't except Kool-Aid drinkers to understand that.

please explain what I then means

chinagel · « **Reply #29597 on:** January 23, 2020, 10:14:48 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 23, 2020, 10:10:05 AM

That is not what I's mean but I won't except Kool-Aid drinkers to understand that.

Is I someone who just doesn't realize he's biased to one side?

CountValentine · « **Reply #29598 on:** January 23, 2020, 10:25:32 AM »

I have a working theory why so many here have such hard time understand how someone can be impartial/independent.

Yammer · « **Reply #29599 on:** January 23, 2020, 11:10:52 AM »

Quote from: CountValentine on January 23, 2020, 10:25:32 AM

I have a working theory why so many here have such hard time understand how someone can be impartial/independent.

Of course there are people that are Independent thinkers that aren't automatically going to vote one way or the other.

2 points, though.

1. In the age of Trump this has dramatically decreased as he's such a polarizing figure, it's harder to really be impartial.

2. I's can be swayed by politics. That's why each side is trying so hard to get their message out to the media. Their bases+moderates are already with them. It's the fight of the I's.

Topic Wiki

Poll

Who are you voting for?

Author Topic: US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread (Read 3842076 times)