ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Thoughts on ranked-choice voting systems?

Good stuff. Just depends on what system you use. Some give different point values based on where you rank them, and some give your full vote to your highest ranked choice left in the last two candidates standing. So you could vote third party, but if they’re going to finish third or worse, then your full vote goes to the second choice. That way your vote is never wasted.
 
Last edited:

Definitely interesting. Trump should be thankful the Democrats are too stupid to take that tact. The author made a good case for it being the most effective course of action.

The most shocking stat from the polls referenced in that article is that only 53% of Americans believe the impeachment inquiry is politically motivated. Regardless of whether you think Trump did something, or didn't, or it was bad enough to be impeached, or wasn't - how they hell can anyone think it's not politically motivated? If it were a Dem president, the Dems wouldn't be calling for impeachment at all - and all of the GOP absolutely would be. That's the definition of politically motivated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
Good stuff. Just depends on what system you use. Some give different point values based on where you rank them, and some give your full vote to your highest ranked choice left in the last two candidates standing. So you could vote third party, but if they’re going to finish third or worse, then your full vote goes to the second choice. That way your vote is never wasted.

I think the different point values (assuming it's tiered from 1st to last) is pointless. You wouldn't defeat the problem of a 2 party system. Dems would vote the Dem first and the Republican last, and the Republicans would vote the Republican first and the Dem last.

But having the highest ranked choice left out of the last two would definitely give rise to 3rd party and/or neutral candidates actually having a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10
Definitely interesting. Trump should be thankful the Democrats are too stupid to take that tact. The author made a good case for it being the most effective course of action.

The most shocking stat from the polls referenced in that article is that only 53% of Americans believe the impeachment inquiry is politically motivated. Regardless of whether you think Trump did something, or didn't, or it was bad enough to be impeached, or wasn't - how they hell can anyone think it's not politically motivated? If it were a Dem president, the Dems wouldn't be calling for impeachment at all - and all of the GOP absolutely would be. That's the definition of politically motivated.
I think by definition, impeachment is a political act and that the founders would agree. That's why they said a 2/3 majority is needed to throw a president out of office instead of a simple majority. It lessens the chances of it being purely based on politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
Definitely interesting. Trump should be thankful the Democrats are too stupid to take that tact. The author made a good case for it being the most effective course of action.

The most shocking stat from the polls referenced in that article is that only 53% of Americans believe the impeachment inquiry is politically motivated. Regardless of whether you think Trump did something, or didn't, or it was bad enough to be impeached, or wasn't - how they hell can anyone think it's not politically motivated? If it were a Dem president, the Dems wouldn't be calling for impeachment at all - and all of the GOP absolutely would be. That's the definition of politically motivated.
great post. Like you said, regardless of ideology, its 100% pol motivated. Just like WJ Clinton's was - and I was no fan of his. Big mistake by the R's then - and D's are repeating it.

99.9% should think it is politically motivated. How naïve do you have to be to think this is about "rule of law" or some constitutional / national security crisis? A high crime or misdemeanor? Or anything other than OMB (Orange Man Bad)? It's all about them not being able to beat DJT at the ballot box, and they can't get over that.

Again - many parallels between this and Clinton's. Recall - then - many people think he was impeached over a BJ - and allegedly being caught lying on tape - though the lie or any consequences wasn't close to a high crime or misdemeanor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
I'd think that'd be big news. But I went to cnn.com and the lead story is about a Pence aid testifying in the Ukraine thing. Second story was also about the Ukraine thing. Not a mention of the China trade situation anywhere on the page. Similar for WaPo, although they did have mention of it buried deep down on the main page below all the whistleblower stuff.

Odd, they seemed to be covering it so intently before...
 
The deal he got was dropping the tariffs...
Yes, as part of phase one of a larger overall trade deal. I understand you hate the guy, but this is a good accomplishment, assuming China honors the deal. This is something you should be happy about because it will help the US economy.
 
I'd think that'd be big news. But I went to cnn.com and the lead story is about a Pence aid testifying in the Ukraine thing. Second story was also about the Ukraine thing. Not a mention of the China trade situation anywhere on the page. Similar for WaPo, although they did have mention of it buried deep down on the main page below all the whistleblower stuff.

Odd, they seemed to be covering it so intently before...
To be fair, impeachment is a pretty big news story.
 
Yes, as part of phase one of a larger overall trade deal. I understand you hate the guy, but this is a good accomplishment, assuming China honors the deal. This is something you should be happy about because it will help the US economy.
Hope you’re right.
 
I've been too busy to read and really don't care enough to - but why exactly does Trump want a wall in Colorado?
 
I've been too busy to read and really don't care enough to - but why exactly does Trump want a wall in Colorado?
He doesn't want one. He mistakenly said Colorado during a campaign rally and instead of just saying he misspoke, he turned it into this big thing.
 
I dont see anything thats gonna prompt repubs to break support for trump and vote for impeachment. This is a colossal waste of time

They’ve already proven they’re completely spineless with regards to pushing back against trump. But that’s not the point. Expose the truth and force republicans to vote against conviction in the senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
I dont see anything thats gonna prompt repubs to break support for trump and vote for impeachment. This is a colossal waste of time
I think everyone already knew that was going to be the outcome. That's why I think that article I posted a while back about censure was a good idea. We already knew the outcome of the impeachment proceedings. A censure vote would have given dems and moderate republicans cover to vote against Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
Kaep is still trying to make it about race, by rocking a Kunta Kinte shirt to the workout, lol.
I'm not truly convinced he thinks it's about race though. I think he wore that to help with his brand. Regardless, it's solid proof that he doesn't really want to play in the NFL.
 
I'm not truly convinced he thinks it's about race though. I think he wore that to help with his brand. Regardless, it's solid proof that he doesn't really want to play in the NFL.

Ya, he punked everyone for a free publicity stunt. Not unlike Gronk with his teasing of un-retiring just for yet another business endeavor announcement. Neither are interested in ever playing a down again.
 
First, trying to out the whistleblower, then trying to attack the integrity of Lt. Col Vindman and imply he secretly wanted to become the defense minister of Ukraine. Kinda strange that the republican strategy seems to constantly fixate on smearing witnesses and outing whistleblowers.
 
So the whole issue here now that everyone admits the calls demanding ukraine investigate biden took place is what was the motivation. There are two choices.

Trump was concerned about ukrainian internal corruption

Trump wanted help getting reelected in ‘20

Seems impossible to prove either without a smoking gun email or something from trump or guiliani. Its certainly a bad look for trump and i think most people believe he dgaf about corruption in other countries. But theres plenty enough wiggle room for the repubs to vote against impeachment
 
So the whole issue here now that everyone admits the calls demanding ukraine investigate biden took place is what was the motivation. There are two choices.

Trump was concerned about ukrainian internal corruption

Trump wanted help getting reelected in ‘20

Seems impossible to prove either without a smoking gun email or something from trump or guiliani. Its certainly a bad look for trump and i think most people believe he dgaf about corruption in other countries. But theres plenty enough wiggle room for the repubs to vote against impeachment

They don’t need wiggle room. Even with a smoking gun the republicans aren’t going to vote for impeachment. He could “shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue” and they still wouldn’t vote for impeachment.
 
So the whole issue here now that everyone admits the calls demanding ukraine investigate biden took place is what was the motivation. There are two choices.

Trump was concerned about ukrainian internal corruption

Trump wanted help getting reelected in ‘20

Seems impossible to prove either without a smoking gun email or something from trump or guiliani. Its certainly a bad look for trump and i think most people believe he dgaf about corruption in other countries. But theres plenty enough wiggle room for the repubs to vote against impeachment
I think it's pretty obvious to most people that it was about getting reelected. You are right about the GOP having some wiggle room though. I think what ultimately happens is Rudy takes the fall for this and Trump just says he had no idea what was going on behind the scenes.
 
The uphill challenge that Schiff, Democrats, and the mainstream media have - going forward with impeachment (I am sure they still will proceed and vote it forward in House to the Senate) is....
….from hours after DJT was sworn in forward, the result (punishment) for many in The Resistance was a foregone conclusion: "Orange Man Bad, unfit for office, must be removed by any means possible - aka impeachment."

From that point forward everything from Mueller to emoluments to 25th amendment to Ukraine (with terms for the crime changing frequently based on focus group polling from "quid pro quo" now to "bribery" etc)...

has been all about trying to find a crime to fit the premeditated, foregone conclusion punishment (removal from office).

I believe a lot of people in society (voters) now see it through this lens, including voters in states of a lot of the Republican senators. They see it as Schiff et al throwing everything they can at the wall and hoping eventually something will stick. A vast majority of voters / viewers are totally checked out of the impeachment process now, and are more concerned with why nothing else is getting done in congress.

The interest in impeachment and support for impeachment is steadily declining including through the hearings- especially among independents.

Possibly the strongest pro-impeachment witness (Sondland) spoke today. So maybe that will change. But again I think most people are so checked out, it will be hard to move the needle. I can't see something new coming out that will influence enough R senators to vote for removal. If it existed, it seems that high "trump" :) card would've been played by now.

I think with the way Dems have gone about impeachment - purely political - trying to find whatever crime will stick to reach the level of premeditated punishment of impeachment / removal.... you could have found or built up and sold a "high crime and misdemeanor" to remove practically any past president - from DJT to Obama, Clinton, the Bushes, Reagan (Iran Contra), even Carter probably.

A precedent is being set here to make the impeachment process 100% political - not a constitutional, law enforcement process.

...plus - we are under a year from the election. For a lot of people undecided, or wanting to remove DJT from office, it likely just seems like an easier, better solution to just vote him out next November. But the Dems can't leave the fate of the country to the voters - what if somehow the voters chose to keep him in office? That is a risk the country (voters) just cannot take.
 
Last edited:
A vast majority of voters / viewers are totally checked out of the impeachment process now,
"63% of respondents said they are very closely or fairly closely following news about the inquiry."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...yll-change-their-minds-poll-finds/4236535002/

Possibly the strongest pro-impeachment witness (Sondland) spoke today.
Can you clarify what you mean by pro-impeachment? Sondland was a pretty bad witness from what I read. He contradicted himself multiple times and basically threw everyone under the bus.
 
"63% of respondents said they are very closely or fairly closely following news about the inquiry."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...yll-change-their-minds-poll-finds/4236535002/


Can you clarify what you mean by pro-impeachment? Sondland was a pretty bad witness from what I read. He contradicted himself multiple times and basically threw everyone under the bus.
OK - I don't know who gets surveyed about impeachment. It seems rare that people pick up the phone to answer a survey these days on any topic. I assume if you even answer and want to talk about impeachment, that you likely have watched it.
But many more people watched the Sunday Night Football game (Cowboys / Vikings) on NBC than watched the first day of impeachment hearings on all networks combined.

By pro-impeachment - I mean the witness, testifier who seemed most neutral, objective, strongest the Dems had to offer in making their case for impeachment from a non-partisan source. But you could be right about contradiction, etc. I haven't watched a minute of it except on very brief excerpt clips.
 
There’s no evidence that Lt Col Vindman is a partisan actor. He’s a decorated veteran that has served under multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle.

That didn’t stop the right from attacking him and making up conspiracy theories about how he was secretly loyal to Ukraine. They even went after him for wearing his army uniform to the hearings.

Some people will believe anything they hear on Fox News. The whole “never trumper” thing was a low brow talking point that somehow actually caught on.
 
By pro-impeachment - I mean the witness, testifier who seemed most neutral, objective, strongest the Dems had to offer in making their case for impeachment from a non-partisan source. But you could be right about contradiction, etc. I haven't watched a minute of it except on very brief excerpt clips.
He was far from neutral and non-partisan. He was hand picked by Trump to serve as ambassador and is a GOP mega donor. He's even donated around $1 million to Trump. Up until today he was the strongest the GOP had to offer in Trump's defense. He's no longer a strong source for them. He has little to no credibility for either side after today. The most neutral and objective people are the ones that aren't appointed and have a history of serving under multiple political parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT