The Left and the Perversion of the Political Process

  • Thread starter Thread starter abucs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximus1 said:
And here is the omitted fact proving stunt: You don’t have a transcript until after a question is asked and answer given. When that happens, the transcript gets typed after.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on learning that transcripts cannot be made before something is said. I’m not sure what you think stating the obvious is proving in this case but congratulations none the less.
 
Trumps massive rallies are afact there for all to see.Polls are nebulous
 
Ok let me rephrase that. For those who believe in the integrity of our electoral collage and see it as the most equitable way n which to give all voters a voice,then the voting booth is what matters
 
Maximus1 said:
Nobody has transcripts. OTHERWIZE the witness intimidation we already saw would start up again.
Click to expand...
Nope, there are selective leaks of some transcripts, but not all. My experience tells me that the purpose of a selective leak is to support a desired narrative, which may or may not be the truth. I saw the opening statement (photos of it) from one of our diplomats about Ukraine. What was not shown was any of the cross examining.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Trumps massive rallies are afact there for all to see.Polls are nebulous
Click to expand...
Rally numbers are meaningless because they are a self-selected poll, and therefore extremely biased. They mean nothing. You just said that the only poll that matters is on election day. That means rally numbers do not matter.
 
Maximus1 said:
This is noise.
Click to expand...
And in all of the noise, nothing about the content of the testimony.
What is really loud is the deflection from the content.
The testimony is very bad or Trump.
Woodyl57 said:
Will be eagerly awaiting in a few weeks expecting to see just this.
Click to expand...
Does “eagerly” awaiting mean breaking into the SCIF.
KMC said:
Nope, there are selective leaks of some transcripts, but not all.
Click to expand...
What has been leaked?
 
The opening statement I referred to. I tried to find it to post, but CNN moved it. It was literally a photo of each page of a type written statement. I would not have called it a leak had it been a pdf, or a link to an official govt website, or other released doc.
 
What I see is there is no credible defense for the President right now, so the Republicans are attacking the process.

As to the Republicans calling witnesses, they would have to have exculpatory information, and I don’t think there is any. If there is, the Republicans should be demanding they be subpoenaed. Right now, they are just complaining about the ability to subpoena, not that they have a witness that needs to be heard.

Some of the Republicans protesting yesterday, I read, are actually on one of the committees holding the depositions, and did indeed have access to the deposition. Between that, and bringing recording devices into the SCIF, I think the protest was a disaster.
 
PaulinVA said:
What I see is there is no credible defense for the President right now, so the Republicans are attacking the process.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
But not just the process.
In addition, there are rumblings about the witnesses and their lwyers.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Rally numbers are meaningless
Click to expand...
I’d argue that rally numbers are a factor in showing likely voter turnout. Rally numbers are not a poll so your conclusion that rally numbers do not matter based off “the only poll that matters is on election day” is flawed. (yes i know you did not make the claim that “the only poll that matters is on election day” but you did draw conclusions based upon it.)
 
Defense to what? Until there is a credible charge, no defense is necessary.
PaulinVA said:
As to the Republicans calling witnesses, they would have to have exculpatory information, and I don’t think there is any
Click to expand...
Whether you think so or not does not determine whether they do or not. Generally speaking, “exculpatory witnesses” negate what another witness has said. Without having a transcript, it’s difficult to really pick apart testimony of the other party.
 
Xystus said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Rally numbers are meaningless
Click to expand...
I’d argue that rally numbers are a factor in showing likely voter turnout. Rally numbers are not a poll so your conclusion that rally numbers do not matter based off “the only poll that matters is on election day” is flawed. (yes i know you did not make the claim that “the only poll that matters is on election day” but you did draw conclusions based upon it.)
Click to expand...
Rally numbers are one-sided. We do not have a single Democratic candidate like we have a single Republican candidate (practically speaking - I know the Republicans have not had their convention either, but that is a formality at this point.)

I drew conclusions from Jeanne’s claim only as part of a reductio ad absurdum argument. I don’t believe it. I think scientific polls, for all their inaccuracies, and far and away more likely to be accurate than any self-selected numbers like rally attendance.
 
Seeing as how the Dems are found of relying on thirdhand non-eye witness accounts of events, this actually makes sense.
 
Last edited:
If the Democrats lead a process the Republicans feel is unfair, don’t be surprised if the Senate comes up with an invented process to try the impeachment that the Dems don’t like. What goes around…
 
Unless the Senate convicts, the Dems will claim whatever they do is an invented process and Trump is pulling their strings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top