Let them speak: Most Americans want witnesses in Trump impeachment trial - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling representation of the Democrat party has been removed.

 

A post containing a screenshot of unattributed content has been removed. 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Well I think polls still have value. Yes 45's win in 2016 was a shock but in general the national polls got it amazingly correct. They predicted the popular vote win quite well down the number of millions margin. What they failed at was much much harder to predict. A historic black swan almost fluke that won based on a tiny number of votes (about 70,000) in only four states. To expect polling organizations to have predicted that would be entirely unreasonable. 

I totally agree,  I also think the 2016 polls were spot on and had no way of factoring in the Comey surprise. 

But this is a totally different environment, both politically and socially.

 

Not all republicans are idiots or bad people, not even all trump supporters are bad people, You are not here, you do not know what is going on in the "heartland"  these people need viable real solutions not to be called "deplorables" they saw trump as their only option, what hillary offered was much of the same that got the heartland where it was, Perhaps she had real solutions, but she failed to communicate them.  

 So the people made an investment on trump. Now many of them don't want to admit they were wrong, their investment failed, and are throwing good money after bad, good political capital after bad, 

I believe that privately they know their investment is failing and they are trying to decide if they should give it some more time or look for other options.

 We need to give them other options. I believe Andrew Yang can be a unifying influence  Take a look at Andrew Yang , listen to his Interview on YouTube, tell me what you think.  I know you don't think he has a chance. But it is early in the proces, At this juncture no one thought Bill Clinton had a chance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, DLock said:

The only EV I can see for sale are Tesla, Nissan Leaf, Jaguar-IPace, Hyundai Ioniq...and the cheapest seems to be the Leaf at just under 2million baht.

 

...so hard to see 1,572 EV cars sold...but even if they did sell that many, it's pitiful.

 

Drop the 300% tax and sell EV cars at close to US/UK prices and get realistic.

 

Fail.

 

[TKDfella]

I'm an Englishman with next to little knowledge of American politics...hmmm, maybe British politics too. But my comment here is not political...well that is to say I'm not choosing this or that side. Nevertheless, just out of pure interest I have been watching the debate up to day 3 and I have to say...what a load of waffle. And if the British government does the same, that's waffle too. However, the systems are different so it isn't right to make a comparison. For example, in the Tony Blair Impeachment case (over Iraq 2003) a team was was given something like 6 weeks to gather info then submit it to house. I can't remember the reason but the motion for it to be discussed was never ratified by the MP's and therefore no action was taken.

The problem I have with President's Trump's case that there seems to be a lot 'swinging pendulum' with no real advance one way or the other. Arguments seem to repetitive with no one saying 'you've said that already...move on.'

Oh well, the American members here I'm sure will correct me in my ignorance.

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Not entirely true, My neighbor in NY (before i sold my house there) and good friend (i stay at their house when ever in NY) is a Republican  Orange county  legislator, her Mom was a long time, now retired, republican county commissioner.  I disagree with their politics, as I am sure they disagree with mine, but we like and respect each other. 

When trump was first elected, a Trump flag flew in their front lawn , the flag has since then come down , and the only way I have heard them describe trump is  "embarrassing".

A lot of these "trump supporters" at this point do not support trump, they are unwilling to admit that they were had.

As far as politicians are concerned , like everyone else , have a front stage persona and a backstage persona, to do the things they want to do they need to be invited to the dance and  they have to survive within the environment they live in.

True as he stated ... a significant number ... he did not say all, allowing for your experience. On the point at issue, I suspect the three of us find more agreement than disagreement.

Edited January 23, 2020 by wwest5829

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

No one is stopping the witness testimony that the House used to impeach him. 

What crucial evidence is missing? Did the House not have an overwhelming amount of iron-clad evidence when they impeached him? All of that is admissible, yes? 

 

Seems you guys have all known the “truth” for the three years you’ve been calling for his impeachment, certainly long before this phone call debacle. 
 

This whole thing is I big nothing burger that the left wants to propagandize using their media. 

The evidence which could be testified to by those closest to the President’s actions. That is why he stonewalled any from testifying without a court order. The witnesses that the jury (Senate) should be hearing before they find their decision. We all know how this will be decided in the end but there will remain the question in history as to why Trump blocked all requested testimony by the House. The left? No, there have not been meetings of the party leadership stating that they would oppose anything Trump did, that is the documented history of Obama’s first won election. Rather I and others looked at Trump’s history and saw a man wholly unprepared and unfit to be POTUS. I understand why many in the working  middle class wanted what he was promising but they did not look at his history and were given no hope of the needed changes in the other candidate.

Edited January 23, 2020 by wwest5829

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Some have been calling for impeachment for a long time. NOT all. If memory serves there was a minor figure on the Dem side...maybe you've heard her name...Nancy Pelosi?...that was against impeachment longer than almost anyone. There were others too.

 

And if it's such a "nothing burger" as you so astutely put it...then a "nothing burger" to worry about. No wrong doing...then nothing to hide and no witnesses can change that. 

 

The people want witnesses. The US Government is (supposed to be) of, by and for The People. Let's give the People what they want and get on with it. 

Seems most every lefty on this board have been calling for his impeachment for years. 
 

That it’s a nothing burger does not mean the the President has nothing to worry about. 
 

Once the left gets a the first witness it will go on forever and ever bit of correspondence, tax return and business deal will be drug out and leaked to the press.

 

It really has nothing to do with Trump, it would be the same for any non leftist. 

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, wwest5829 said:

The evidence which could be testified to by those closest to the President’s actions. That is why he stonewalled any from testifying without a court order. The witnesses that the jury (Senate) should be hearing before they find their decision. We all know how this will be decided in the end but there will remain the question in history as to why Trump blocked all requested testimony by the House.

The House had the chance to hear the witnesses and decided not to. 
 

Why? Because they know they have nothing and just want to generate a lot of negative press. 
 

No matter what happens, virtually no one here calling for additional witnesses has any chance of believing Trump is not guilty, much left vote for him. To them, he has been guilty since the election. 
 

But-but-but no one seemed to give a whit when Obama refused to provide documents or allow his staff to testify before Congress, or when the GAO said he broke the law several times or when he asked the Russians for help with his reelection. 

[wwest5829]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

The House had the chance to hear the witnesses and decided not to. 
 

Why? Because they know they have nothing and just want to generate a lot of negative press. 
 

No matter what happens, virtually no one here calling for additional witnesses has any chance of believing Trump is not guilty, much left vote for him. To them, he has been guilty since the election. 
 

But-but-but no one seemed to give a whit when Obama refused to provide documents or allow his staff to testify before Congress, or when the GAO said he broke the law several times or when he asked the Russians for help with his reelection. 

Try to stay on the topic which is that Donald Trump is the 3rd US POTUS to be Impeached. President Obama’s two terms without being Impeached is not the issue, it is deflection away from the topic.

[mogandave]

17 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Try to stay on the topic which is that Donald Trump is the 3rd US POTUS to be Impeached. President Obama’s two terms without being Impeached is not the issue, it is deflection away from the topic.

Sorry. 
 

The House had the chance to hear the witnesses and decided not to. 
 

Why? Because they know they have nothing and just want to generate a lot of negative press. 
 

No matter what happens, virtually no one here calling for additional witnesses has any chance of believing Trump is not guilty, much left vote for him. To them, he has been guilty since the election. 

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

It is my opinion that poles only reflect what people are willing to publicly admit, I believe  and I am sure that in the privacy of the polling booth, if given a viable option they will react differently.

More importantly, poles only show what the people funding the pole want them to show.
 

If they don’t like the results, they can not publish the results, reconfigure the parameters to show better results or just do the pole over with a new batch of participants. 
 

 

 

[wwest5829]

7 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Sorry. 
 

The House had the chance to hear the witnesses and decided not to. 
 

Why? Because they know they have nothing and just want to generate a lot of negative press. 
 

No matter what happens, virtually no one here calling for additional witnesses has any chance of believing Trump is not guilty, much left vote for him. To them, he has been guilty since the election. 

Speaking for myself, The Donald is held accountable for his own words, his own policies and his own actions during his adult lifetime history. This is a man wholly unfit to be POTUS. That said, I understand why many voted for the hope in what he promised as the opposition within the Republican and Democratic Parties failed to give a viable alternative addressing the justified frustrations/anger within the working middle class.

[ThreeEyedRaven]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

No matter what happens, virtually no one here calling for additional witnesses has any chance of believing Trump is not guilty, much left vote for him. To them, he has been guilty since the election. 

And virtually no one supporting Trump has any chance of believing he is guilty. It really depresses me to see the two extremes in this write utter twaddle, twisting facts, putting things out of context and ignoring facts. The worst thing to my mind is Senators who are sworn to honour and respect the TRUTH, who seem to have made up their minds before hearing the evidence available. Evidence I might add, which would be substantially larger were actions not being taken to prevent some of it being heard, an action in itself which seems highly questionable.

Any calls of innocence or guilt before a full hearing of the accusations and supporting evidence are partisan speculation. 

I can love someone to bits but if there is sufficient evidence that person is a monster, like the dog who killed three people at the Thai gold robbery,as a reasonable person I would have to accept it. It seems the Republicans don't want to listen in case they hear something they don't like. If Trump is innocent then all pertinent evidence (and I use the word pertinent, as suggesting bringing in the Bidens who are a sideline at best in the Presidents actions is pure stupidity, again only being suggested for political reasons, not in a quest for the truth), should be listened to, weighed and considered purely on its merits. If that can't be done, you need 100 new Senators.

[candide]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

More importantly, poles only show what the people funding the pole want them to show.
 

If they don’t like the results, they can not publish the results, reconfigure the parameters to show better results or just do the pole over with a new batch of participants. 

 

In this case there would not be any convergence between different polls. Most polls, whoever funds them, show the same trends. The poll results in the OP, the Morning Consult poll results, the CNN poll results, etc.. all show that a large majority wants witnesses.

 

Same for the Rassmussen and MSN daily polls. Rassmussen usually shows a bit higher level of positive opinion about Trump than MSN, but they are both following the same trends and the curves usually go up or down at about the same time.

[mogandave]

7 minutes ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

And virtually no one supporting Trump has any chance of believing he is guilty. It really depresses me to see the two extremes in this write utter twaddle, twisting facts, putting things out of context and ignoring facts.

 

I could be convinced he’s guilty pretty easy. 
 

 

7 minutes ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

 

The worst thing to my mind is Senators who are sworn to honour and respect the TRUTH, who seem to have made up their minds before hearing the evidence available. Evidence I might add, which would be substantially larger were actions not being taken to prevent some of it being heard, an action in itself which seems highly questionable.

Yet you don’t seem concerned about the members of the house refusing to do their duty of collecting the all the evidence and hearing all the witnesses. Why is that? 

 

7 minutes ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

Any calls of innocence or guilt before a full hearing of the accusations and supporting evidence are partisan speculation. 

I can love someone to bits but if there is sufficient evidence that person is a monster, like the dog who killed three people at the Thai gold robbery,as a reasonable person I would have to accept it. It seems the Republicans don't want to listen in case they hear something they don't like. If Trump is innocent then all pertinent evidence (and I use the word pertinent, as suggesting bringing in the Bidens who are a sideline at best in the Presidents actions is pure stupidity, again only being suggested for political reasons, not in a quest for the truth), should be listened to, weighed and considered purely on its merits. If that can't be done, you need 100 new Senators.

Again, you blame the Senate when it was the House that refused to compete the investigation they were responsible for. 
 

 

 

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I could be convinced he’s guilty pretty easy. 
 

 

Yet you don’t seem concerned about the members of the house refusing to do their duty of collecting the all the evidence and hearing all the witnesses. Why is that? 

 

Again, you blame the Senate when it was the House that refused to compete the investigation they were responsible for. 
 

 

 

1.  I doubt it, you dont want to hear evidence.

 

2. An investigation does not need to hear all evidence, especially when the defendant will not allow it. What an investigation does is look at the evidence provided then decide if it if can charge. Then at the trial defence can provide witnesses if needed but also prosecution can compel witnesses to testify.

 

3.The senate takes an oath. They must comply with that oarh regardless of what you think of congress.

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

In this case there would not be any convergence between different polls. Most polls, whoever funds them, show the same trends. The poll results in the OP, the Morning Consult poll results, the CNN poll results, etc.. all show that a large majority wants witnesses.

 

Same for the Rassmussen and MSN daily polls. Rassmussen usually shows a bit higher level of positive opinion about Trump than MSN, but they are both following the same trends and the curves usually go up or down at about the same time.

I was talking about polls generally, not these pools specifically. 
 

That they all show that the majority of people want more witnesses is not surprising. Everyone funding the  polls stands to gain financially from a long drawn out trial with a lot of witnesses, and most stand to gain ideologically. 
 

In any event, what the public wants should not be a consideration when deciding whether or not to call additional witnesses. 
 

Why do none of you guys seem to be concerned that the House did not complete the investigation? 
 

Please don’t regurgitate the Trump wouldn’t let them nonsense. If you just don’t care, and you think anything they do is okay as long as they get him out of office that’s fine, but whole farce that it’s somehow the Trump of the Senate’s fault is tiresome. 
 

The same guys that are calling for additional witnesses now swore the case against Trump was iron-clad and that the evidence was overwhelming. Why the flip-flop? 

[darksidedog]

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I could be convinced he’s guilty pretty easy. 
 

 

Yet you don’t seem concerned about the members of the house refusing to do their duty of collecting the all the evidence and hearing all the witnesses. Why is that? 

 

Again, you blame the Senate when it was the House that refused to compete the investigation they were responsible for. 
 

 

 

You could be convinced pretty easy before hearing the evidence huh? Wow! Lucky for the world you aren't on this panel then.

I seem to recall the house being obstructed when trying to gather all the evidence, but that doesn't concern you either? Wow again.

I don't see the poster you quoted blaming the Senate of anything other than hypothesizing they could potentially break their sacred vows to hear everything pertinent and subsequently make a judgment based on truth not political affiliation. Your problem with that would be what exactly?

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

1.  I doubt it, you dont want to hear evidence.

 

2. An investigation does not need to hear all evidence, especially when the defendant will not allow it. What an investigation does is look at the evidence provided then decide if it if can charge. Then at the trial defence can provide witnesses if needed but also prosecution can compel witnesses to testify.

 

3.The senate takes an oath. They must comply with that oarh regardless of what you think of congress.

1. What does that have to do with what I said? 
 

2. This wasn’t just an investigation, it was an impeachment.

 

3. What does that have to do with anything?

[AlexRich]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes.

Actually a significant portion of 45 fans well understand what 45 has done but sadly they don't care and are still standing by their man. 

 

Poll evidence in link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/22/sizable-chunk-trumps-base-thinks-he-has-broken-law-many-those-people-remain-his-corner/

The problem of course is when the law is broken without any repercussions to the President there might come a day when a new one comes in and harms Trump supporters. They will only have themselves to blame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, mogandave said:

1. What does that have to do with what I said? 
 

2. This wasn’t just an investigation, it was an impeachment.

 

3. What does that have to do with anything?

1. You said you could easily be convinced but you dont want the senate to call evidence. If i am mistaken i apologise.

 

2. Impeachment is indeed the investigation, impeachment is their is evidence to charge. Congress found evidence to charge. Senate is the trial where all evidence, new and old is called.

 

3. Really you need to ask that? All senators take an oath to be fair and impartial prior to to trial. So tell me how can they do that without witnesses. Name me a trial that had no witnesses or documents.

 

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

The problem of course is when the law is broken without any repercussions to the President there might come a day when a new one comes in and harms Trump supporters. They will only have themselves to blame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh but then it will be obamas fault.

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

More importantly, poles only show what the people funding the pole want them to show.
 

If they don’t like the results, they can not publish the results, reconfigure the parameters to show better results or just do the pole over with a new batch of participants. 
 

 

 

If that is true then it must also be true about your polls.

[bendejo]

13 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

That’s funny, because I thought America, and Trump in particular, had become the laughing stock and international pariah that no one trusts anymore.

As one television commentator said "Being laughed at by Boris Johnson, imagine that!"

 

Quote of the day (Wednesday edition):

"Wednesday, at the Davos conference [...] President Trump boasted about his successful obstruction of the House’s investigation of his Ukraine shakedown. Speaking of the impeachment trial, he declared: “Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-opening-20200123-wn5qhl4pzrbnbivar2cy7jxtaa-story.html

 

This is like a kidnapper telling the press "they can't prove he was kidnapped until they find his body, but they can't find it and they never will because we have it -- they have no case!"

 

If this current impeachment trial doesn't remove him, they could start all over again on an obstruction charge based on this statement alone.

Cue Kellyanne saying “Remember, people who go on TV are never under oath.”

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by bendejo

[bendejo]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't share your ill wishes for the USA, but I think your wish has already been fulfilled to a great degree and will be cast in stone if 45 is reelected. 

The moral degradation is already in play.  The middle-school bully sees a grandfather-aged president pulling the same stunts he does, well, that kid is going to laugh in your face when you refer to "when you grow up."

The whole "the truth is what I say is the truth" attitude, cheating on your wife with a pornstar in the light of day without apology, blatantly denying you said something even in the face of recordings of you doing so, telling the Boy Scouts about orgies on a yacht, all in front of the impressionable young minds.  No more stories about George Washington admitting he chopped down the cherry tree, Lincoln walking xx miles to school, or JFK swimming xx miles with X wounded shipmates strung together by their belts with him holding the strap in his teeth.  "Study hard and someday you could be president."  Not any more.  The 2024 GOP primary is going to resemble the Big Brother tv show, maybe they'll even have call-in eliminations.

My late mother-in-law, who was in Germany through WWII and for 10 years afterward, told me about boys born during the Hitler years, most of whom were named Adolf.  Well, after 1945 that name was not to be spoken, and those kids were displaying the behaviors of their namesake and his cadre.  The were called Bidolfs (B follows A, get it?). 

 

IMO, he got a lot of encouragement from the birther thing, 2 things in particular: "my people in Hawaii are turning up incredible stuff" was a hoax (an actual one!) and no one succeeded in holding his feet to the fire on that; Obama eventually gave in and released that long-form certificate, which sent the message that he succeeded at getting into Obama's head.

 

 

[mogandave]

10 hours ago, AlexRich said:

The problem of course is when the law is broken without any repercussions to the President there might come a day when a new one comes in and harms Trump supporters. They will only have themselves to blame.

It could also be argued that Trump coming in and hurting the left is a result of Obama not being held accountable for the laws he broke.

[Berkshire]

11 minutes ago, mogandave said:

It could also be argued that Trump coming in and hurting the left is a result of Obama not being held accountable for the laws he broke.

The GOP had both houses of Congress when Obama was President.  So you're blaming the Republicans for not holding Obama accountable?  Of course, it would have been difficult to impeach President Obama using imaginary accusations.

[mogandave]

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

You could be convinced pretty easy before hearing the evidence huh? Wow! Lucky for the world you aren't on this panel then.

 

Please don’t lie about what I say. I never said I could be convinced before hearing the evidence. You just made that up. 
 

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I seem to recall the house being obstructed when trying to gather all the evidence, but that doesn't concern you either? Wow again.

 

Yeah, a lot of guys here have the same incorrect recollection. While it’s true Trump used Executive Privilege to block testimony (the same as Obama did), the House chose not to take him to court (unlike when the House took Obama to court) and compel the testimony. 
 

But that the House did not complete their case doesn’t concern you does it?

 

Wow

 

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

I don't see the poster you quoted blaming the Senate of anything other than hypothesizing they could potentially break their sacred vows to hear everything pertinent and subsequently make a judgment based on truth not political affiliation. Your problem with that would be what exactly?

House members also swear a sacred oath yet they refused to do their job and then they stand up and lie in front of Congress while the clapping seals on the left applaud. 
 

But that doesn’t concern you either, right? 
 

Wow indeed

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

The GOP had both houses of Congress when Obama was President.  So you're blaming the Republicans for not holding Obama accountable?  Of course, it would have been difficult to impeach President Obama using imaginary accusations.

No. 
 

While clearly Obama broke some laws, I don’t think he should have been impeached.

I don’t doubt Joe Binden has broken a few laws and he has five family members that have gotten rich as a result of him having been Vice President, but I don’t want to see him prosecuted. 

 

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

No. 
 

While clearly Obama broke some laws, I don’t think he should have been impeached.

I don’t doubt Joe Binden has broken a few laws and he has five family members that have gotten rich as a result of him having been Vice President, but I don’t want to see him prosecuted. 

 

Come on.  The GOP congress had no qualms about impeaching Clinton for....lying about a BJ?  If they had anything on President Obama, they would have gone after him.  But they had nothing.  Obama was squeaky clean. 

[Saint Nick]

16 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I’m looking forward to the day when America can no longer claim to be a beacon of democracy. 

...yesterday...?!