Official 2018 US Voting Discussion!

Started by Surtur17 pages
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Where did I dispute the legitimacy of the claims, you meme loving ****?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Where did I dispute the legitimacy of the claims, you meme loving ****?

Seems like you shit on the video titles to make your point, here:

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Thank you for substituting your argument with this video of a clown. You ****ing animal.

You tried to do the ad hominem logical fallacy. 👆

"I thought it was very close to a complete victory." -Trump, in regards to the elections

Someone should let him know that losing the House and by a large number of seats, is not close to a complete victory. The House was a loss.

Originally posted by Robtard
"I thought it was very close to a complete victory." -Trump, in regards to the elections

Someone should let him know that losing the House and by a large number of seats, is not close to a complete victory. The House was a loss.

lol

He's stupid. He doesn't understand numbers larger than 5.

Oh wow, Tester held Montana, surprised by that, looked like he was going to lose it last night.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

He's stupid. He doesn't understand numbers larger than 5.

You can't blame him he only has 5 fingers.

Also according to exit polling nearly 80% of democratic voters what Trump impeached.

5% of republicans want him impeached.

and 33% of independents want him impeached.

According to these numbers Democrats would be wise not to impeach him without some new, serious revelation. For all the talks about bases and what not, it is the independents who decide elections in this country, and with only 33% of independents supporting impeachment, they would run the risk of alienating the other 66% that do not, possibly pushing them over to Trump when they otherwise may not like him much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like you shit on the video titles to make your point, here:

You tried to do the ad hominem logical fallacy. 👆

I shit on the video titles to point out that he's a shill and to ask why I should give a shit about the opinion video of a shill. If you ask me to back up a claim I'm not going to respond by linking you to a blog that I like.

But thank you for trying to be "above the partisanship" and "the cool head in the room", my contrarian friend.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also according to exit polling nearly 80% of democratic voters what Trump impeached.

5% of republicans want him impeached.

and 33% of independents want him impeached.

According to these numbers Democrats would be wise not to impeach him without some new, serious revelation. For all the talks about bases and what not, it is the independents who decide elections in this country, and with only 33% of independents supporting impeachment, they would run the risk of alienating the other 66% that do not, possibly pushing them over to Trump when they otherwise may not like him much.

Impeachment will never happen. Not only is it a matter of him still being too popular with a large portion of the base, but the truth is that it looks bad for the country overall and no party actually wants him impeached- it sets a bad precedent.

The impeachment rhetoric for democrats is all a pretext for fermenting outrage and keeping the democrat base energized to vote in elections. A logical strategy, but let's call it what it is.

I agree with you.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also according to exit polling nearly 80% of democratic voters what Trump impeached.

5% of republicans want him impeached.

and 33% of independents want him impeached.

According to these numbers Democrats would be wise not to impeach him without some new, serious revelation. For all the talks about bases and what not, it is the independents who decide elections in this country, and with only 33% of independents supporting impeachment, they would run the risk of alienating the other 66% that do not, possibly pushing them over to Trump when they otherwise may not like him much.

I think we can compromise. Let's do a mid-term vote. The vote is simple:

"Do you want to keep the current president of the United States in office?"

Yes
No

If the answer is No, the president gets removed and the VP becomes president when the new terms start. Let's do it. WEEE!

That would be interesting, though what would happen is just the president would be campaigning pretty much non-stop once he came into office to prepare for his referendum, which I guess isn't much different for Trump since he's been campaigning non-stop anyways.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I shit on the video titles to point out that he's a shill

Well, that's where you're wrong, bucko. He's a conservative who shits on the GOP, too. Maybe if you meant he was a conservative shill to try and move the goalposts like you do? Because committing to any strong positions is hard? Maybe? Balls?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
But thank you for trying to be "above the partisanship" and "the cool head in the room", my contrarian friend.

You're very upset. I know, it was probably hard to admit that you're emotional breakdown over those videos was wrong. But you admitted it in your indirect way that you do. And that's what's important. I guess you expected the usual conservative talking heads on this forum to call out your post? It probably stung a lot more when one of the most liberal talking heads called out your tantrum? 🙂

Originally posted by BackFire
That would be interesting, though what would happen is just the president would be campaigning pretty much non-stop once he came into office to prepare for his referendum, which I guess isn't much different for Trump since he's been campaigning non-stop anyways.

Make it law that you cannot campaign while holding public office.

PEWWWW, watch how different America becomes when every single politicians is ineligible to hold consecutive terms in office.

I'm very much in favor of a law prohibiting campaigning until a specific date, maybe a couple months before the election. Also limiting the amount of money each candidate uses as to avoid outside influence.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm very much in favor of a law prohibiting campaigning until a specific date, maybe a couple months before the election. Also limiting the amount of money each candidate uses as to avoid outside influence.
👆

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm very much in favor of a law prohibiting campaigning until a specific date, maybe a couple months before the election. Also limiting the amount of money each candidate uses as to avoid outside influence.

Quan agrees, as well. Since the 3 most important people on this forum agree, it should become law immediately.

Originally posted by Tzeentch

Impeachment will never happen. Not only is it a matter of him still being too popular with a large portion of the base, but the truth is that it looks bad for the country overall and no party actually wants him impeached- it sets a bad precedent.

The impeachment rhetoric for democrats is all a pretext for fermenting outrage and keeping the democrat base energized to vote in elections. A logical strategy, but let's call it what it is.

My mind hasn't changed since Trump took office that he will complete his first term and be a shitty one term president.

But impeachment really depends on what the probe discovers. If it turns out he's been laundering money through his businesses since the the early 90's for Russian mobster-businessmen and therefore he's compromised to them that way, it's going to be hard for either party to look the other way; not that some won't try.

Nixon was about to be impeached for the Watergate scandal and Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and using the office of the POTUS to cover up his affair. It doesn't look good for the country, but there's precedent.

It will be done.

Originally posted by Robtard
My mind hasn't changed since Trump took office that he will complete his first term and be a shitty one term president.

But impeachment really depends on what the probe discovers. If it turns out he's been laundering money through his businesses since the the early 90's for Russian mobster-businessmen and therefore he's compromised to them that way, it's going to be hard for either party to look the other way; not that some won't try.

Nixon was about to be impeached for the Watergate scandal and Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and using the office of the POTUS to cover up his affair. It doesn't look good for the country, but there's precedent.

What if the rabbit hole goes deeper and it turns out the Dems tried to frame Trump?

And then Dem heads start rolling?

Sure then, let the heads roll; I'm not going to defend open corruption either way it falls.

But imo, there's a far greater chance that Trump's been using his businesses to launder cash for foreign entities than the Dems setting him up here.