Ratings for impeachment trial lower than soap ratings

[dochawk]

How can it be a calculated move by each party when
the White House and the presidency have been under daily attack by the democrats since the 2016 election
4 years ago.

Much of the Republican leadership, including the president, flat-out taunted the other side and dared them to do it, calculating that the process would hurt the Democrats more than it would damage themselves. (I’m inclined to think that they’re right, given the old maxim that once you draw your sword, you had better kill the king . . . )

Why be deprived of knowing the cases presented by both sides?

But that wasn’t a consequence of not watching. We knew what each side was going to say on every detail, and have for a very long time. The only “news” in the whole thing was stuff like the fidget spinners, who drank milk, and what mocking gestures were made or who dashed past who to reach the podium . . .

 

[tomarin]

I watched a little of the Trump legal team’s arguments and it wasn’t exactly what I would call riveting: more like an endless rhetorical exercise that had me wondering what relevance the lawyer’s comments had to the case at hand. I’m sure the other side’s presentations would be no less tedious.

 

[Dovekin]

I was going to say these ratings could explain all the uninformed opinions and shoddy logic from people.

Then I realized they might be copying the uninformed opinions and shoddy logic on display in the Senate trial.

So my first reaction, that the interpretation of the ratings is probably way off base, is probably the right one.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes, I guess listening to the truth and the facts by Trump’s defense team must be tedious for some.
So much easier on the brain cells to listen to emotional
character defaming remarks by the prosecuters. Their case was based purely on their dislike for President
Trump. They had no case. The House failed.

 

[tomarin]

I didn’t feel like I was getting the truth, mire like a rhetorical argument from a lawyer (which is what it was). I’m sure I would have felt the same if I heard the other side, it just so happened when I tuned it it was President Trump’s lawyers’ turn. My point is it was a lawyerly affair, full of rhetoric or persuasive argumentation like what you would see in a movie about a trial (not my favorite kind of movie).

 

[7_Sorrows]

I didn’t feel like I was getting the truth, mire like a rhetorical argument from a lawyer (which is what it was). I’m sure I would have felt the same if I heard the other side, it just so happened when I tuned it it was President Trump’s lawyers’ turn. My point is it was a lawyerly affair, full of rhetoric or persuasive argumentation like what you would see in a movie about a trial (not my favorite kind of movie).

This is an impeachment trial so they were addressing
the facts about how unjust the House proceedings were and the very good arguments about why he should not be impeached. It is not a murder trial.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Their case was based purely on their dislike for President

But he did attempt to use a foreign nation to interfere with the sovereign US election process didn’t he? Surely you would agree that that happened. It’s just that many no longer are bothered by that in the US.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t disagree just think that that doesn’t make for very interesting television necessarily, which could explain the low ratings. Of course the value of it as a civics exercise probably outweighs any value it has as compelling television.

 

[7_Sorrows]

7_Sorrows:

Their case was based purely on their dislike for President

But he did attempt to use a foreign nation to interfere with the sovereign US election process didn’t he? Surely you would agree that that happened. It’s just that many no longer are bothered by that in the US.

No!! He actually didn’t!

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t disagree just think that that doesn’t make for very interesting television necessarily, which could explain the low ratings. Of course the value of it as a civics exercise probably outweighs any value it has as compelling television.

You are very correct. It has been a great value as a civics lesson. Not compelling television for those who prefer only soundbites and really don’t want the whole
picture or all the facts.

I found it very compelling and frightening. I watched some of the House proceedings and all of the Senate
hearings. This was definitely political, partisan and a waste of time and money. I have seen the true face of the democrat party and it is not pretty.

 

[tomarin]

I was more frightened (and outraged) by the behavior of the Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearings.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I was more frightened (and outraged) by the behavior of the Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearings.

Actually, this impeachment trial should make you equally as frightened and outraged if not more.

 

[otjm]

The individual you reference is not a Congressman. The one I reference is the one who said within about a week or two ago that the decision to impeach Trump started after Trump became the Republican candidate for President. Not a few Democrats were upset with his comment (as it was true).

 

[otjm]

Which foreign nation, and which election? If you are referring to Russia and 2016, that was not shown.

If you are referring to the Ukraine and 2020, he already know about Joe and Hunter as it was public information; he did not need and has not received any help from them, nor is there any indication that the Ukraine could do anything.

And for that matter, what Hunter was receiving from the Ukraine is small potatoes to what he received from China. To suggest that China had no intention of leaning on Joe when he went there to try to negotiate anything (and get him to pull his punches) is to ignore how China reacted to nothing more that a tweet or so from the General Manager of the Houston Rockets. China came unglued, demanded that the manager be fired, and made a not so veiled hint that the broadcasting of the NBA games in China were on the table for revocation should their demands not be met. Never mind free speech in the US over the Hong Kong protesters; we re talking about more than chump change the NBA and teams could lose. Just as more than chump change could be at risk with Hunter, should Joe get too “out of line”.

Did Joe ever bend to any pressure? No one will ever be able to prove that, but there was a reason the Obama administration was less than joyous over both matters. One does not have to be corrupt; one only has to be put in a compromising situation. And both of those were ample both for corruption, and/or the implication of corruption.

 

[otjm]

That was slightly more brazen and blatant. Slightly.

And if there is any lesson within the matter, it may be that truth can be the first victim in a political fight; it was a bit amusing to see, near the end of the process, the short clips of various Democratic managers statements from the Clinton impeachment stridently against an impeachment process, and their current complete, absolute about-face in the current one.

And the pure, unadulterated fabrications (“troops were dying in the Ukraine because of the delay” - they might have been dying, but the release of the money was not the same as the delivery of the money - which was in the the future even had he released it the day after the phone call), and the demand that John Bolton be called - since he would be such a strong witness - and that, in spite of the facts that in the past the Democrats had painted him a liar. And that is not to say that some of the same could not be said of the other side.

Putting the whole thing in perspective, let’s go back to the beginning: somewhere between 17 and 20 minutes after the President was sworn in, WaPo came out with a headline that the impeachment process was beginning. it has been an accident looking for a place to happen ever since then. And the rhetoric out of the Democratic side, including outright implications that the Senate was colluding in a cover-up have reduced this to a partisan circus complete with clowns, clown cars, outright lies and exaggerations on the level of a high school sophomore. “Elections cannot be trusted!” “He will corrupt the next election too!” (ah, y’all might want to read Mueller, since obviously you haven’t done so yet, folks).

Chicken Little was right.

I don’t like Trump.

But I hate socialism. And secularism. And I am not real big on emotionalism as a basis for making choices.