NationStates

Insaeldor wrote:

Jerzylvania wrote:
Godzilla, Rodan and Mothra need to step in and conduct the recounts.

They can go back to bed or whatever they do when not wrecking shit, no recount is needed, that just the way it worls over there.

It worls alright.

Painisia wrote:Well, if the Democrats wins a majority, will impeachment processes begin?

Why? If the democrats control both chambers there is no reason to impeach trump. They could make him a lame duck president and run against him with ease

Thermodolia wrote:

Painisia wrote:Well, if the Democrats wins a majority, will impeachment processes begin?

Why? If the democrats control both chambers there is no reason to impeach trump. They could make him a lame duck president and run against him with ease

They could drag out a trial and smear potential challengers, if we're being cynical about it.

Removing Trump could also obliterate the Republican brand in general, too, them being the party that allowed a criminal in office and cooperated with him for petty politics.

Thermodolia wrote:

Painisia wrote:Well, if the Democrats wins a majority, will impeachment processes begin?

Why? If the democrats control both chambers there is no reason to impeach trump. They could make him a lame duck president and run against him with ease

If Mueller gives them a strong enough case, then there would be no reason to leave Trump in office.

Insaeldor wrote:

Jerzylvania wrote:
I don't like their Diet.

Only in Japan can a party that gets 30% of the popular vote win 60% of the seats in parliament.

Um have you heard of a magical place called the United Kingdom?

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Why? If the democrats control both chambers there is no reason to impeach trump. They could make him a lame duck president and run against him with ease

If Mueller gives them a strong enough case, then there would be no reason to leave Trump in office.

True. That's a big if though. In the meantime they need to focus on making Trump a lame duck.

Ifreann wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Why? If the democrats control both chambers there is no reason to impeach trump. They could make him a lame duck president and run against him with ease

If Mueller gives them a strong enough case, then there would be no reason to leave Trump in office.

If.

Thus far the only evidence I've seen points to Clinton's guilt. And some people were fired/resigned.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If Mueller gives them a strong enough case, then there would be no reason to leave Trump in office.

True. That's a big if though. In the meantime they need to focus on making Trump a lame duck.

They passed the tax plan, that was the big one. I'm not seeing the Dems take the Senate. They need the House just to have a say. I doubt they'll win it though.

Shofercia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If Mueller gives them a strong enough case, then there would be no reason to leave Trump in office.

If.

Thus far the only evidence I've seen points to Clinton's guilt. And some people were fired/resigned.

The evidence you've seen in your involvement in the Mueller investigation points to Clinton being guilty of something?

Ifreann wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
If.

Thus far the only evidence I've seen points to Clinton's guilt. And some people were fired/resigned.

The evidence you've seen in your involvement in the Mueller investigation points to Clinton being guilty of something?

He has apparently been hired by Bizarro World POTUS Inc.

Shofercia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If Mueller gives them a strong enough case, then there would be no reason to leave Trump in office.

If.

Thus far the only evidence I've seen points to Clinton's guilt. And some people were fired/resigned.

"the evidence i've seen so far from the investigation into the trump campaign points to hillary having been the one who conspired to push them to victory"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrxCAt5CGp0

Ifreann wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
If.

Thus far the only evidence I've seen points to Clinton's guilt. And some people were fired/resigned.

The evidence you've seen in your involvement in the Mueller investigation points to Clinton being guilty of something?

Yes: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... eless.html

FBI Agent Strzok Changed Comey's Clinton Language From "Grossly Negligent" To "Extremely Careless"

LAURA JARETT, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Jake, sources we have learned from tell us that the electronic records show that Peter Strzok changed former FBI Director James Comey earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions in handling classified materials from, quote, "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless". Now, this entire drafting process was a team effort at the FBI, we're told. As we reported last month, after the news surfaced that the language had, in fact, been softened, that Comey and his colleagues had been playing with the language for some time. But that identity of the person who actually made the change had not been known until now.

Grossly Negligent was a chargeable offense. Extremely Careless wasn't. So we know that according to Comey's initial statement, Clinton was Grossly Negligent.

Now you can view that as a minor offense, and Comey later said that he wouldn't have charged her with it. I never said it was an impeachable offense.

Jerzylvania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The evidence you've seen in your involvement in the Mueller investigation points to Clinton being guilty of something?

He has apparently been hired by Bizarro World POTUS Inc.

Nope.

Senkaku wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
If.

Thus far the only evidence I've seen points to Clinton's guilt. And some people were fired/resigned.

"the evidence i've seen so far from the investigation into the trump campaign points to hillary having been the one who conspired to push them to victory"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrxCAt5CGp0

You do realize that Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, was tangentially related, right? I mean I know that posting emojis is easier than actual reading, but it ain't hard to find: http://www.newsweek.com/tony-podesta-de ... iny-696578

TONY PODESTA, CLINTON CAMPAIGN MANAGER'S BROTHER, QUITS LOBBYING GROUP AMID MUELLER'S RUSSIA PROBE

Liberals found a new weapon versus their political enemies: paying women to invent sexual assaults politicians allegedly have commited. The non-free-thinking majority of public believes it without any proof and thus liberals are more likely to win than their enemies. This fraud is a world-wide phenomenon and started in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, attacking Trump. Thank God he won anyway. I'm sure liberals will once again invent sexual assaults by several Republicans candidating for Congress in 2018. People of America, please don't believe that nonsense! Liberals realized their fate and try their last, honorless weapon. So don't be fools, citizens of America! Those women aren't even very cunning and reveal themselves: they say the identical sentence about several politicians, e.g. "He had his arms everywhere" was told about both Donald Trump and Peter Pilz.

Grossteutschland wrote:Liberals found a new weapon versus their political enemies: paying women to invent sexual assaults politicians allegedly have commited. The non-free-thinking majority of public believes it without any proof and thus liberals are more likely to win than their enemies. This fraud is a world-wide phenomenon and started in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, attacking Trump. Thank God he won anyway. I'm sure liberals will once again invent sexual assaults by several Republicans candidating for Congress in 2018. People of America, please don't believe that nonsense! Liberals realized their fate and try their last, honorless weapon. So don't be fools, citizens of America! Those women aren't even very cunning and reveal themselves: they say the identical sentence about several politicians, e.g. "He had his arms everywhere" was told about both Donald Trump and Peter Pilz.

I mean, it's not like there's evidence proving Trump's crimes. Nope, not like there's a game where he admits to groping women. Must be another evil Liberal lie...

Grossteutschland wrote:Liberals found a new weapon versus their political enemies: paying women to invent sexual assaults politicians allegedly have commited. The non-free-thinking majority of public believes it without any proof and thus liberals are more likely to win than their enemies. This fraud is a world-wide phenomenon and started in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, attacking Trump. Thank God he won anyway. I'm sure liberals will once again invent sexual assaults by several Republicans candidating for Congress in 2018. People of America, please don't believe that nonsense! Liberals realized their fate and try their last, honorless weapon. So don't be fools, citizens of America! Those women aren't even very cunning and reveal themselves: they say the identical sentence about several politicians, e.g. "He had his arms everywhere" was told about both Donald Trump and Peter Pilz.

I like how theres a ton of demonstrated evidence that Russia has fucked around with the election and you people think everybody is a whacky conspiracy theorist for thinking that way, but you also think that theres some organization paying women to make up rape allegations to defame the right wing (even though like Democrats have been accused too, like Al Franken)

Grossteutschland wrote:Liberals found a new weapon versus their political enemies: paying women to invent sexual assaults politicians allegedly have commited. The non-free-thinking majority of public believes it without any proof and thus liberals are more likely to win than their enemies. This fraud is a world-wide phenomenon and started in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, attacking Trump. Thank God he won anyway. I'm sure liberals will once again invent sexual assaults by several Republicans candidating for Congress in 2018. People of America, please don't believe that nonsense! Liberals realized their fate and try their last, honorless weapon. So don't be fools, citizens of America! Those women aren't even very cunning and reveal themselves: they say the identical sentence about several politicians, e.g. "He had his arms everywhere" was told about both Donald Trump and Peter Pilz.

Last I checked it was a conservative intentially spreading fake sexual assault allegations for political gain

If said stories are fake then so be it, but they have t been proven as such at this time. Or at the very least the more credible ones have not. There's no evidence that these allegations are wholly invented constructs for political gain, and if they are then wouldn't both sides be equally guilty since both republicans and democrats have been caught up in sexual assault allegations, or can only liberal do it because you don't like them?

I also mentioned a partial liberal: Peter Pilz. The establishment simply seeks to defame those who're a threat to it. Peter Pilz left the Green Party and founded another Green one (which is partially right-of-center and a bit anti-establishment) and thus divided the green-liberal camp. So the establishment invented Pilz to have done sexual assaults and prevented him to enter parliament again, a successful green revenge. People shouldn't believe automatically such "Me-too"-accusations.

Grossteutschland wrote:I also mentioned a partial liberal: Peter Pilz. The establishment simply seeks to defame those who're a threat to it. Peter Pilz left the Green Party and founded another Green one (which is partially right-of-center and a bit anti-establishment) and thus divided the green-liberal camp. So the establishment invented Pilz to have done sexual assaults and prevented him to enter parliament again, a successful green revenge. People shouldn't believe automatically such "Me-too"-accusations.

>"b-b-it I mention this other guy too!"

Doesn't actually answer any of the criticism leveled against your argument.

Grossteutschland wrote:Liberals found a new weapon versus their political enemies: paying women to invent sexual assaults...

aaaaand we're done here. That didn't take long.

Major-Tom wrote:

Trumptonium wrote:My opinion

75% chance Pennsylvania going GOP
75% chance Wisconsin going GOP
75% chance North Dakota going GOP
50% chance Ohio going GOP
50% chance West Virginia going GOP
50% chance Montana going GOP
50% chance Florida going GOP
25% chance Michigan going GOP
25% chance Indiana going GOP
25% chance Missouri going GOP
15% chance Connecticut going GOP

as for Dems
75% chance Nevada going Dem
50% chance Arizona going Dem
15% chance Tennessee going Dem

rest stays as-is

All in all, my final guess is that GOP increases their majority by 2. 3 is an insurance option.

I think it'll look something like this

(Image)
ignore hawaii, my mistake

....How does PA, WI, places with popular Democratic incumbents have higher chances of takeover than states like Missouri where the Democrats are polling far far behind?

I'm influenced by anecdotes, I don't pay much attention to polls (Especially if close) or American politics in general.

I have family in Morris County NJ and Philly.

As for Wisconsin, I'm going by voter trends over the years tbh, along with some input from news articles and approval ratings. Approval ratings of Trump are higher in Wisconsin than nationwide. They're equivalent to Georgia and Arizona, and higher than Texas, North Carolina, Florida... that's not irrelevant.

I keep to my prediction of Nevada going blue and ND/Florida/Pennsylvania going red.

Shofercia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The evidence you've seen in your involvement in the Mueller investigation points to Clinton being guilty of something?

Yes

Maybe you should read my question again, because I think you've misunderstood it.

Grossteutschland wrote:Liberals found a new weapon versus their political enemies: paying women to invent sexual assaults politicians allegedly have commited. The non-free-thinking majority of public believes it without any proof and thus liberals are more likely to win than their enemies. This fraud is a world-wide phenomenon and started in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, attacking Trump. Thank God he won anyway. I'm sure liberals will once again invent sexual assaults by several Republicans candidating for Congress in 2018. People of America, please don't believe that nonsense! Liberals realized their fate and try their last, honorless weapon. So don't be fools, citizens of America! Those women aren't even very cunning and reveal themselves: they say the identical sentence about several politicians, e.g. "He had his arms everywhere" was told about both Donald Trump and Peter Pilz.

I'd ask for a source for this but fear it would be a clandestine mental hospital.

Arlenton wrote:

Trumptonium wrote:My opinion

75% chance Pennsylvania going GOP
75% chance Wisconsin going GOP
75% chance North Dakota going GOP
50% chance Ohio going GOP
50% chance West Virginia going GOP
50% chance Montana going GOP
50% chance Florida going GOP
25% chance Michigan going GOP
25% chance Indiana going GOP
25% chance Missouri going GOP
15% chance Connecticut going GOP

as for Dems
75% chance Nevada going Dem
50% chance Arizona going Dem
15% chance Tennessee going Dem

rest stays as-is

All in all, my final guess is that GOP increases their majority by 2. 3 is an insurance option.

I think it'll look something like this

(Image)
ignore hawaii, my mistake

I...

My reaction as well, especially to Pennsylvania.

Ngelmish wrote:I really do believe that people here are either underrating Joe Donnelly's political talent (I am myself am not a fervent supporter or admirer of the man, but he threads the needle well and had the right political instincts to see an opening in 2012, even before Lugar was knocked off in the primary) or underestimating his personal brand in the state. His numbers in both parties, for a generic Democrat in a red state are better than they have any right to be, and unlike the Bayh retread effort last year, he's in office right now. He may be at a generic disadvantage, but it's a small handicap.

I agree with this. If I had to bet money right now, I'd bet that Donnelly gets reelected. Still a toss-up, though.

Trumptonium wrote:I'm influenced by anecdotes, I don't pay much attention to polls (Especially if close) or American politics in general.

And that's your first mistake.

Trumptonium wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:

....How does PA, WI, places with popular Democratic incumbents have higher chances of takeover than states like Missouri where the Democrats are polling far far behind?

I'm influenced by anecdotes, I don't pay much attention to polls (Especially if close) or American politics in general.

I have family in Morris County NJ and Philly.

As for Wisconsin, I'm going by voter trends over the years tbh, along with some input from news articles and approval ratings. Approval ratings of Trump are higher in Wisconsin than nationwide. They're equivalent to Georgia and Arizona, and higher than Texas, North Carolina, Florida... that's not irrelevant.

I keep to my prediction of Nevada going blue and ND/Florida/Pennsylvania going red.

I have my doubts but you'd predict a red wave even if polls showed a 20 percent lead they are biased right?

San Lumen wrote:

Trumptonium wrote:
I'm influenced by anecdotes, I don't pay much attention to polls (Especially if close) or American politics in general.

I have family in Morris County NJ and Philly.

As for Wisconsin, I'm going by voter trends over the years tbh, along with some input from news articles and approval ratings. Approval ratings of Trump are higher in Wisconsin than nationwide. They're equivalent to Georgia and Arizona, and higher than Texas, North Carolina, Florida... that's not irrelevant.

I keep to my prediction of Nevada going blue and ND/Florida/Pennsylvania going red.

I have my doubts but you'd predict a red wave even if polls showed a 20 percent lead they are biased right?

Why do you keep saying that to everyone?