More Americans opposed to impeachment

[childeye 2]

The facts always drip out slowly. This is just the tip no doubt. It always goes that way.

I agree with your sentiment. Please try and understand mine. The Trump Tower meeting happened and that's a proven fact. To investigate the investigators to see if they had the just cause and proper motives to find that out, is a question that can only come from a Pro-Russian mindset. But more importantly, those who have pure motives, don't seek to obfuscate nor try to kill the messenger of what is true. The tares seek obfuscation because they don't want to be found. The wheat seek clarity because they do want to be found. The semantics of a person's words reveal all of that, but many cannot discern these implications in the words people say.

That's why I said this so definitively in a prior post in this thread: I think if the facts were known by those against impeachment they would be for impeachment. The polls show two things, the effectiveness of propaganda messaging, and the gullibility of a percentage of the electorate to believe it.

 

[Albion]

Word of caution: The 3% difference between those who oppose (47%) and those in favor (44%) of impeachment is within the margin of polling error.

Looks like this is a non-starter.

Trump's approval rating drops to new low, but most still oppose impeachment, CNBC survey finds

PS: I don't trust polls much.

I don't blame anyone for saying that. It is to be applauded. Let's consider this poll, for example. In the headline and also--repeatedly--in the body of the article we see reference made to the poll having asked about "impeachment hearings."

Why so? It's because the results are then held up as showing about a 50-50 split among the American people as concerns impeachment.

Only it's not asking about their approval or disapproval of impeachment.

They are asked if they approve of there being any "hearings," which implies to many people an investigation into the matter. But that is not what's going on in Washington. What's underway is the start of a de facto trial, the charges having already been determined. Even the Speaker of the House used this subterfuge.

So the question is perceived this way: "Do you think that an investigation is worth doing?" The question is not: "In the absence of any findings, are you in favor of impeaching the President?"

 

[HannahT]

I agree with your sentiment. Please try and understand mine. The Trump Tower meeting happened and that's a fact. To investigate the investigators to see if they had the just cause and proper motives to find that out, is a question that can only come from a Pro-Russian mindset. But more importantly, those who have pure motives don't seek to obfuscate nor try to kill the messenger of what is true. The tares seek obfuscation because they don't want to be found. The wheat seek clarity because they do want to be found. The semantics of a person's words reveal all of that.

I think I misunderstanding you.

I don't know what the Tower meeting has to do with anything. What I have heard Trump say for months now is that he wants to know how this whole thing started, and I would assume prove his innocent also at the same time of what he was accused of outside the Trump meeting. From what I have read he wasn't at the meeting.

Our country isn't suppose to know how and why this whole mess started because that would be considered pro russian?

I think I'm missing something.

 

[childeye 2]

I think I misunderstanding you.

I don't know what the Tower meeting has to do with anything. What I have heard Trump say for months now is that he wants to know how this whole thing started, and I would assume prove his innocent also at the same time of what he was accused of outside the Trump meeting. From what I have read he wasn't at the meeting.

Our country isn't suppose to know how and why this whole mess started because that would be considered pro russian?

I think I'm missing something.

The only significance of the tower meeting is that it shows that Russia was trying to help Trump win. That's a fact. Trump need not have been there to establish that Trump knows it happened, since he dictated to Don jr. what to say after it was reported. The Mueller investigation shows that Russian military used social media to amplify anti-Hillary sentiments in order to help Trump win. That's a fact according to Mueller's report. Also Manafort was Trump's campaign Manager and was shown to have extensive ties to pro-Russian efforts in the Ukraine.

Contrary to those facts, Trump has publicly denied any Russian interference, calling it a "hoax" invented by Democrats with the aid of news networks ("fake news"); And that the scheme began with the DNC and the Ukraine conspiring together to hack the DNC and blame the Russians for it. Hence Trump is trying to prove Russia was not involved in any interference to help him win.

We already know how it started according to Mueller's investigation where it is spelled out in detail with a paper trail of payments and also surveillance of Russian military operations involving companies here in America.

So trying to find out how all this mess started so as to exonerate Russia and Putin and blame the Ukraine, can only exist in a Pro-Russia mindset. And it's an attempt to kill the messenger by discrediting U.S. Intelligence, Mueller, the media, and Democrats. That is what Trump is currently being accused of, which I would articulate as, using his power to dig up dirt on political rivals and risking national strategic security interests to do so.

 

[HannahT]

(Scratches head) huh?

I never heard about Ukraine and DNC agreeing to allow themselves to be hacked, so they can blame Russia. That would be stupid on the part of the DNC. I don't believe they are that dumb personally.

It also would make no sense to allow that, because it wouldn't stop Russia from doing what is claimed - amplify anti-Hillary messages.

Trump's opinion on hoaxes is neither here nor there. I doubt he could have stopped Russia if he wanted too. Obama couldn't either.

Many American people on any side want to know how this whole thing started, and how it happened. That isn't Pro-Russian anything. If you don't know how it went down, and how it allegedly influenced things you can't stop it from happening again.

 

[childeye 2]

(Scratches head) huh?

I never heard about Ukraine and DNC agreeing to allow themselves to be hacked, so they can blame Russia. That would be stupid on the part of the DNC. I don't believe they are that dumb personally.

It also would make no sense to allow that, because it wouldn't stop Russia from doing what is claimed - amplify anti-Hillary messages.

Trump's opinion on hoaxes is neither here nor there. I doubt he could have stopped Russia if he wanted too. Obama couldn't either.

Many American people on any side want to know how this whole thing started, and how it happened. That isn't Pro-Russian anything. If you don't know how it went down, and how it allegedly influenced things you can't stop it from happening again.

This is why I said the facts are already out. The memo transcript says that Trump wants Zelensky to look into the "server" and "crowdstrike". We already know how this whole thing started from the Mueller report and other corroborating facts. The Mueller report says Russia did it. The President doesn't want the public to believe just that, so he is pushing a counter narrative that blames the Democrats the media and the Anti-Russian Ukraine. Hence Trumps narrative is Pro-Russian.

 

[Yarddog]

(Scratches head) huh?

I never heard about Ukraine and DNC agreeing to allow themselves to be hacked, so they can blame Russia. That would be stupid on the part of the DNC. I don't believe they are that dumb personally.

Yes, it would be dumb, IF IT WERE TRUE, but it isn't. A right wing conspiracy theory think tank concocted the notion. Right wing pundits and news sources ran with this notion and spread the theory.

Many American people on any side want to know how this whole thing started, and how it happened. That isn't Pro-Russian anything. If you don't know how it went down, and how it allegedly influenced things you can't stop it from happening again.

"Anyside" would be an incorrect way to put it. The only ones who want it other than what the Mueller report revealed would be right wingers who are trying to defend the right.

 

[Fantine]

At the start of the Nixon impeachment investigation, only 17% of Americans polled approved. We know what happened, and apparently the rush to the doors by Republican Congressmen and Senators didn't occur until near the end of the investigation, when it became an avalanche.

Nixon had more going for him than Trump does. He was a capable administrator and an expert on foreign policy. He had a strong, stable cabinet and advisors--and he actually listened to them. This article enumerates his substantial domestic and foreign policy achievements.
Richard Nixon | Facts, Accomplishments, Watergate, & Resignation

Five polls taken this week show strong and growing support for impeachment.
New polls show impeachment support approaching the danger zone for Trump

If support is this strong today (compared to 17% when the Nixon impeachment investigation began) I feel pretty sure that despite his huge number of reliable enablers and his aggressive pushback from subpoenas the truth will come out and good will triumph.

 

[HannahT]

Yes, it would be dumb, IF IT WERE TRUE, but it isn't. A right wing conspiracy theory think tank concocted the notion. Right wing pundits and news sources ran with this notion and spread the theory.

"Anyside" would be an incorrect way to put it. The only ones who want it other than what the Mueller report revealed would be right wingers who are trying to defend the right.

I guess I read the poster wrong, but I didn't get the impression they were right wing. I have never heard that theory before about the DNC wanting Ukraine to hack them, etc. It must be something brand new.

I have friends from all sides of the political spectrum, and we all agree it would be nice to know how this started. Why wouldn't we? There are many people concerned about this, and then you have the ones that are only concerned about the left or right.

Trump and Barr have been talking about this for months, and now all of a sudden its of big concern that we don't go there. It isn't settled, and it should be. It the Mueller report was all they needed to start some inquiry they would have done this a while back. Conclusions about the transcript haven't been made as much as people want to think it is. We have to do more than speculation - we have to prove that speculation. You need more than a transcript to do that.

I don't care where it lands, because we need to know. SOmething is up, and as much as people seem to think they know it all at this point? They have been so wrong in the past their track record isn't something I want to count on.

 

[Yarddog]

I guess I read the poster wrong, but I didn't get the impression they were right wing. I have never heard that theory before about the DNC wanting Ukraine to hack them, etc. It must be something brand new.

Nope. It's been going around for a couple of years. Trump rehashed it again.

 

[Sparagmos]

Word of caution: The 3% difference between those who oppose (47%) and those in favor (44%) of impeachment is within the margin of polling error.

Looks like this is a non-starter.

Trump's approval rating drops to new low, but most still oppose impeachment, CNBC survey finds

PS: I don't trust polls much.

That poll is pretty damning to Trump. It shows his approval rating at an all time low of 37% and economic approval at 42%, a big drop.

You say you don’t trust polls much so that you can disregard the parts of the poll that don’t support your views, I take it.

 

[Albion]

That poll is pretty damning to Trump. It shows his approval rating at an all time low of 37% and economic approval at 42%, a big drop.

You say you don’t trust polls much so that you can disregard the parts of the poll that don’t support your views, I take it.

It's more a matter of NOT shopping around to find the poll that shows "a big drop" or whatever else the seeker is hoping to find. The only polling service that actually does polling on a daily basis shows his approval rating at 48%, approximately where it has stood throughout recent weeks.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's more a matter of NOT shopping around to find the poll that shows "a big drop" or whatever else the seeker is hoping to find. The only polling service that actually does polling on a daily basis shows his approval rating at 48%, approximately where it has stood throughout recent weeks.

I didn’t pick the poll, the OP, who is a Trump supporter did. Which polling service are you referring to?

 

[Sparagmos]

(Scratches head) huh?

I never heard about Ukraine and DNC agreeing to allow themselves to be hacked, so they can blame Russia. That would be stupid on the part of the DNC. I don't believe they are that dumb personally.

It also would make no sense to allow that, because it wouldn't stop Russia from doing what is claimed - amplify anti-Hillary messages.

Trump's opinion on hoaxes is neither here nor there. I doubt he could have stopped Russia if he wanted too. Obama couldn't either.

Many American people on any side want to know how this whole thing started, and how it happened. That isn't Pro-Russian anything. If you don't know how it went down, and how it allegedly influenced things you can't stop it from happening again.

But - we do know how it started. It has been reported on extensively. Just google it.

 

[Albion]

I didn’t pick the poll, the OP, who is a Trump supporter did.

I was actually speaking generically, but the author of the OP said he didn't put much stock in polls. You wanted to believe the results of that particular poll, however, and recommend it to us.

 

[Sparagmos]

I was actually speaking generically, but the author of the OP said he didn't put much stock in polls. You wanted to believe the results of that particular poll, however, and recommend it to us.

I said nothing about believing or recommending. I said the poll the OP used is damning to Trump. I found it odd that he would post it.

Of course, no poll is showing Trump with a majority approval rating.

 

[notreligus]

I think if the facts were known by those against impeachment they would be for impeachment. The polls show two things, the effectiveness of propaganda messaging, and the gullibility of a percentage of the electorate to believe it.

Trump's loyal supporters are not interested in the facts. If they were they would read the documents supplied by the White House which are in conflict with what Trump is verbally stating. He does this all the time. Time and time again he has said something only to later deny it or contradict what he has said previously. Sadly, this blind man is leading others who are blind. I recall when Christians used to have discernment.