The Ultimate Decision

Gophers_4life

Active member
Which option do you choose??

a) Trump is impeached. But, the replacement Republican candidate goes on to win 2020. Impossible to say who such a replacement would be. Pence? Someone more like Trump? Someone more establishment?

b) Trump is NOT impeached. The Democrat candidate goes on to win 2020. Impossible to say who the candidate is, at this point. Biden? Someone more extreme? Someone more establishment?


These are he only choices allowed, in this hypothetical scenario.
 

justthefacts

Active member
Assuming you mean not only impeached, but also removed from office.

In A) we know who the replacement candidate would be: Pence. When was the last time a party chose someone other than the incumbent President to represent them in the election.

At 16 months out from the next election I'd choose B. If you'd have asked in early 2018 I'd have chosen A.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
This is painful for me. Because I firmly believe that Trump absolutely deserves to have his name scorched in the history books forever, with the stain of impeachment, for the way he has acted and the choices he has made.

But I also badly want a reasonable Democratic candidate to win in 2020. Practically, it doesn’t do much good to get Trump out if someone just like him comes in right behind.

If it were a reasonable Republican candidate, like a McCain or Romney, then I absolutely go A. Impeach the bejesus out of him.

But I’m just not sure someone like that can win anymore. The base has been ruined with filthy folks, out of their woodworks slinging their muck.
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life

Active member
Assuming you mean not only impeached, but also removed from office.

In A) we know who the replacement candidate would be: Pence. When was the last time a party chose someone other than the incumbent President to represent them in the election.

At 16 months out from the next election I'd choose B. If you'd have asked in early 2018 I'd have chosen A.
Pence would at least act like a president is supposed to act.

The horrible, misspelled tweets would go away. The literal laugh-out-loud gaffes during unscripted spoken responses would go away.

But the rest would be the same. Barr still there. Pro-pollution EPA. Pro-private schools, anti-research DoEd, etc etc etc. The filth.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Trump will not be impeached - because the Senate will not vote to convict. I think that is what Pelosi understands - that any effort at Impeachment in the House would be a waste of time, because it will result in nothing, and make Trump look more like a martyr to his base.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I have accepted that Trump is Rollo Tomasi. He's the guy who gets away with it.

The smartest thing the Dems could do is just forget about Trump, and focus on running the best campaign they can muster for 2020.

Because - and I say this as a Democrat - if the election was held Today, I think Trump would be re-elected.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Which option do you choose??

a) Trump is impeached. But, the replacement Republican candidate goes on to win 2020. Impossible to say who such a replacement would be. Pence? Someone more like Trump? Someone more establishment?

b) Trump is NOT impeached. The Democrat candidate goes on to win 2020. Impossible to say who the candidate is, at this point. Biden? Someone more extreme? Someone more establishment?


These are he only choices allowed, in this hypothetical scenario.
He won't be removed. The House impeaching him is the right thing to do for history's sake, but not if it means him being re-elected. That being said, I think the Dems are being cowards and miscalculating the risk. Trump's base will have steam coming out of their ears, but their vote still only counts once. Who cares if it "riles them up?" They're going to vote anyway.

The question is whether it will turn off moderates. There's no way to know. As long as they don't make it about personal matters (Stormy Daniels) and keep it on obstruction and his corrupt financial dealings, I don't think it will be a Clinton repeat. But they need to decide one way or the other and get on with it. If it drags to close to the election it will look bad.

Also, there is risk on the other side. If they do nothing, how many Dems will stay home/write in Bernie out of spite?
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Trump will not be impeached - because the Senate will not vote to convict. I think that is what Pelosi understands - that any effort at Impeachment in the House would be a waste of time, because it will result in nothing, and make Trump look more like a martyr to his base.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I have accepted that Trump is Rollo Tomasi. He's the guy who gets away with it.

The smartest thing the Dems could do is just forget about Trump, and focus on running the best campaign they can muster for 2020.

Because - and I say this as a Democrat - if the election was held Today, I think Trump would be re-elected.
Why does it matter if he's a martyr to his base?

Whether they impeach or not, forgetting about him won't happen. This election will a referendum on him. Period.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Pence would at least act like a president is supposed to act.

The horrible, misspelled tweets would go away. The literal laugh-out-loud gaffes during unscripted spoken responses would go away.

But the rest would be the same. Barr still there. Pro-pollution EPA. Pro-private schools, anti-research DoEd, etc etc etc. The filth.
As long as the Dems keep the House, Pence is far preferable. He's not an incompetent, ignorant fool. He would be far more effective at getting bad GOP legislation passed though, since he actually understands how government works.
 

Gopherguy0723

Active member
Trump will not be impeached - because the Senate will not vote to convict. I think that is what Pelosi understands - that any effort at Impeachment in the House would be a waste of time, because it will result in nothing, and make Trump look more like a martyr to his base.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I have accepted that Trump is Rollo Tomasi. He's the guy who gets away with it.

The smartest thing the Dems could do is just forget about Trump, and focus on running the best campaign they can muster for 2020.

Because - and I say this as a Democrat - if the election was held Today, I think Trump would be re-elected.
Except Rollo Tomassi got it in the end.


Great movie.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Which option do you choose??

a) Trump is impeached. But, the replacement Republican candidate goes on to win 2020. Impossible to say who such a replacement would be. Pence? Someone more like Trump? Someone more establishment?

b) Trump is NOT impeached. The Democrat candidate goes on to win 2020. Impossible to say who the candidate is, at this point. Biden? Someone more extreme? Someone more establishment?


These are he only choices allowed, in this hypothetical scenario.
What on earth would he be impeached for? Not colluding with Russia? Not being charged with obstruction of a case that was never legitimate in the first place.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Are people really that masochistic?? How much pleasure can be gleaned from watching your country burn to the ground??
Not much- I saw Obama attempt to do it for 8 straight years- thank God the clock ran out on him, everything he did got reversed and the economy is roaring. #resistance and the Squid are in existence but they are just burning down the Dem party. LOL!!
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
As long as the Dems keep the House, Pence is far preferable. He's not an incompetent, ignorant fool. He would be far more effective at getting bad GOP legislation passed though, since he actually understands how government works.
Only preferable in that he wouldn’t be a public baffoon.

All else, ie policy, would be just as bad.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
What on earth would he be impeached for? Not colluding with Russia? Not being charged with obstruction of a case that was never legitimate in the first place.
This will be a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. He obstructed Meuller's investigation in multiple ways. He's obstructing Congress's oversight function almost daily. And on and on.
 

bga1

Well-known member
This will be a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. He obstructed Meuller's investigation in multiple ways. He's obstructing Congress's oversight function almost daily. And on and on.
You are nuts.

Q- Mr. Mueller- did anyone stop you from having anything you needed to complete your investigation or impede it in any way?
Answer- No.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
You are nuts.

Q- Mr. Mueller- did anyone stop you from having anything you needed to complete your investigation or impede it in any way?
Answer- No.
Just because McGhan didn't follow orders doesn't change the fact that Trump ordered him to stop the investigation. Stop playing dumb.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Just because McGhan didn't follow orders doesn't change the fact that Trump ordered him to stop the investigation. Stop playing dumb.
Howie, you don’t know what happened in the McGahn testimony or the exchange between Trump and McGahn.

There is no way of concluding this without some context for Trump’s position.

And we’ve already found out that it’s unwise to trust the left’s characterization of events.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Q- Mr. Mueller- did anyone stop you from having anything you needed to complete your investigation or impede it in any way?
Answer- No.
Obstruction of justice can still be charged if the person didn’t carry out the order.

Mueller said so. Said Trump would be charged if he wasn’t POTUS.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Just because McGhan didn't follow orders doesn't change the fact that Trump ordered him to stop the investigation. Stop playing dumb.
Trump was not required to go through McGhan to fire Mueller. He could have done it at any time through anyone or directly. It was his emotions at the time. Anyone would feel the same way, being threatened for two years by the hoax (no sane person can now deny that the investigation was a hoax -nobody).

So if Trump were indicted now or later for obstruction it would have to be because of his thoughts. A thought crime- the dream of the leftists. Not legal but a dreamy way to get rid of the bad orangeman.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Obstruction of justice can still be charged if the person didn’t carry out the order.

Mueller said so. Actually no he did not say it in response to the scenario you gave. Said Trump would be charged if he wasn’t POTUS.
Yeah he said so until he sort of took it back.

The most affirmative answer Mueller gave to the question was when it was asked in a broad general sense. Could Trump be charged with obstruction after he leaves office? Yes. Well of course he could. He could be charged with anything any citizen could be charged with. But he hasn't done anything yet.

One more thing- if there was obstruction, there would have been co-conspirators with Trump. Why wasn't anyone else charged to then lock in the case so, if the OLC were the barrier (it wasn't) then they could charge Trump later based on the previous case.

Finally, you still (incredibly) miss the point. It is obvious to all but the blind that the Mueller investigation was a hit job on one man- Trump. All other things were outside of his purview. Fusion GPS? Who are they? See no evil. Dossier? What? Russian hacking? Took Crowdstrike's word. Mifsud? He didn't know a thing. So whatever is said in the obstruction narrative section- has no legal validity. You are seriously going to sit here and say "Well Mueller said..." after that hideous performance? Really?
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
The massive irony here is that the OP doesn't even realize that they are the joke of both lefties and righties alike here on the board and that is no small feat.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
This Democrat impeachment internal fight has the potential to really undermine the Democrats prospects for President and the House in 2020.

After the disastrous Mueller hearing, several more congressmen/women have moved over to the ‘impeach’ column, making it about a 40/60 percent split. Really dumb.

Pelosi knows it is certain electoral self-destruction for the Dems if the House proceeds to impeach Trump, so she’s walking the line of keeping impeachment in the discussion only as a way of disparaging Trump going into the election.

The problem is that the public doesn’t generally look at impeachment as a thing Trump has brought on as much as it is the Democrats have b/c of their Trump hatred. You shouldn’t try to impeach a President b/c you don’t like him and he openly and adamantly defended himself.

It may help those Dem Congressional reps in the solid blue districts, but it is going to cost the moderate districts votes and seats. How many may depend on how aggressively the House Dems pursue impeachment investigations while ignoring public sentiment.

And, Dem presidential candidates aren’t helping themselves in a general election if they keep suggesting that they support impeachment.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Howie, you don’t know what happened in the McGahn testimony or the exchange between Trump and McGahn.

There is no way of concluding this without some context for Trump’s position.

And we’ve already found out that it’s unwise to trust the left’s characterization of events.
Of course we do. McGahn testified to Mueller and it's right in the report. Which you didn't read.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Trump was not required to go through McGhan to fire Mueller. He could have done it at any time through anyone or directly. It was his emotions at the time. Anyone would feel the same way, being threatened for two years by the hoax (no sane person can now deny that the investigation was a hoax -nobody).

So if Trump were indicted now or later for obstruction it would have to be because of his thoughts. A thought crime- the dream of the leftists. Not legal but a dreamy way to get rid of the bad orangeman.
His thoughts. Please. Under your theory, no one can ever be charged with intent to distribute drugs, or commit robbery or murder because nothing counts if you don't follow through. BS.That was obstruction. So were the other 9 instances Mueller laid out. All of them certainly more blatant than lying about a blow job.

The 35% who worship him don't care. We know. But many others do.
 
Last edited:



Top Bottom