Could the impeachment process cost the Dems among Independents?

[Aldebaran]

Yes, and you've been repeatedly corrected on your misunderstanding. Posting the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Then don't keep doing it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then don't keep doing it.

Well, at least the post isn't a repeat of the falsehood that there were no witnesses requested by the GOP members. I guess that's progress.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, at least the post isn't a repeat of the falsehood that there were no witnesses requested by the GOP members. I guess that's progress.

I hope is was also instructional.

 

[KCfromNC]

I hope is was also instructional.

Nah, I've seen lots of posts attempting to change the subject instead of admitting mistakes before. Nothing new here.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Maybe that's why he was allowed to be called in.

Even then, one out of the four.

Can't wait for the tables to be turned in the Senate trial.

I was noting the irony of the Republicans wanting someone who voted against them to testify. If they call him, he is who they wanted, right? So I am guessing Cpllilns did not know Turley hates Trump.

There is way too much evidence against Trump to guarantee he will be acquitted.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was noting the irony of the Republicans wanting someone who voted against them to testify. If they call him, he is who they wanted, right? So I am guessing Cpllilns did not know Turley hates Trump.

There is way too much evidence against Trump to guarantee he will be acquitted.

Enough evidence is already out there that the Senate vote will be along party lines, and that the Republicans have the majority. Even in the House, the vote was down party lines, with 2 dems crossing over to vote against impeachment.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Enough evidence is already out there that the Senate vote will be along party lines, and that the Republicans have the majority. Even in the House, the vote was down party lines, with 2 Democrats crossing over to vote against impeachment.

Two Democrats does not make it a bipartisan vote against impeachment. Voting against the inquiry is not the same as opposing impeachment. For all we know, both representatives could vote to impeach Trump.

 

[Aldebaran]

Two Democrats does not make it a bipartisan vote against impeachment. Voting against the inquiry is not the same as opposing impeachment. For all we know, both representatives could vote to impeach Trump.

What if it had been 3 democrats? Would that be considered bi-partisan?
But then again, that's beside the point. The point I was making is that the votes to impeach or not impeach, or have the inquiry or not has been along party lines, and the party in control of the Senate is the Republican Party. There's your evidence that Trump will not be impeached. Oh yeah, and they'll be able to call in the witnesses they choose instead of Schiff making all the decisions.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, that is evidence he WILL be impeached. You just said it.

Also, Jerry Nadler is the one calling in witnesses, not Adam Schiff.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, that is evidence he WILL be impeached. You just said it.

Republicans being the majority is evidence that he WILL be impeached??? Ok, whatever. Test votes have already been done, and it never turns out the way you're convinced it will.

 

[Yttrium]

Republicans being the majority is evidence that he WILL be impeached??? Ok, whatever. Test votes have already been done, and it never turns out the way you're convinced it will.

Reminder: The House impeaches, the Senate holds the trial afterwards.

 

[Aldebaran]

Reminder: The House impeaches, the Senate holds the trial afterwards.

True. It's the trial in the Senate I'm referring to.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Republicans being the majority is evidence that he WILL be impeached? OK, whatever. Test votes have already been done, and it never turns out the way you're convinced it will.

You know Democrats have the House of Representatives majority, right?

 

[GodLovesCats]

True. It's the trial in the Senate I'm referring to.

So you should know the Senate does not impeach the President.

 

[Aldebaran]

You know Democrats have the House of Representatives majority, right?

I do. That's why I understand that he'll no doubt be impeached. However, the Republicans have the Senate majority, and therefore Trump will remain as our president. That's the main thing.

 

[GodLovesCats]

As a Christian, I am trying to be more optimistic as more undisputable evidence piles up. Remember this: God is in control. Nobody can be convinced Donald Trump will lose, and that is fine, but I must have faith that God is able to change the minds of at least 20 Republicans because Jesus said, "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself."

 

[A_Thinker]

I do. That's why I understand that he'll no doubt be impeached. However, the Republicans have the Senate majority, and therefore Trump will remain as our president. That's the main thing.

Well ... at least until next November ...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I do. That's why I understand that he'll no doubt be impeached. However, the Republicans have the Senate majority, and therefore Trump will remain as our president. That's the main thing.

*Despite his criminality.

A non-conviction is not the same as being totally innocent. There’s no reason to believe a party-line vote in the senate to exonerate Trump wouldn’t equally be motivated by political considerations.

 

[Bobber]

Well ... at least until next November ...

And at least maybe for the next 4 years after that. And then maybe the President's son will run in 2024?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

And at least maybe for the next 4 years after that. And then maybe the President's son will run in 2024?

My prediction is we will hear very little from the Trumps after daddy’s no longer eligible for office.