(01-26-2020 07:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know that you put "climate change" above all else. I hope my great-grandkids don't have to slop through sea water on their way to Pike's Peak. If they do, at least they will have the money for a boat. But I also hope they have the money to live a good life and not have to depend on the government. I think what I fear is way more likely than what you fear.

Yeah, it will be warmer in Houston in 20 years. Will Houston in 2040 be warmer than Panama or Ridyah or Lagos or Mexico City or Indonesia now? People live in some mighty hot places. How about Bombay in 1855? Egypt in 1816?

Man adapts. Man adapts better if he has money.

A warmer earth doesn't just mean we need more sunscreen. The threat of rising sea levels will likely cause a crazily underestimated impact. If sea levels rise 3 feet, an estimated 30 million people in Bangladesh would be displaced. That is 30 million climate refugees potentially flooding into other regions of Bangladesh, as well as into India, China, and other areas of southeast asia. Many coastal cities in the US would experience significant flooding issues, particularly areas like Miami and New Orleans. This would likely cause trillions in dollars of damage, though obviously not all at once. Current agricultural areas will dry out affecting food production, causing more refugees. It will be happening to some degree all over the globe at the same time. That will likely cause significant geopolitical strife that your great-grandkids' boats will not be able to wholly avoid.

A man can adapt to such change and can adapt better with more money. But that doesn't help tens of millions across each of the most populous countries.

And on this topic, I do have some minor bonafides, as I graduated from Rice with an environmental engineering sciences degree that included multiple classes touching on climate change, I wrote at least a couple papers on climate change at Rice and one with suggestions for how Rice U could satisfy the Kyoto protocol goals, I worked for a native corporation in alaska one summer in college and spent most of my summer researching carbon sequestration options for their forestland, graduated from Tulane Law with an environmental law certificate, and generally keep an eye on the new developments. Everything climate scientists said was going to happen when I was researching this in more depth from 1997-2001 is happening faster than what was predicted at the time.

(01-27-2020 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:41 PM)mrbig Wrote:  As a side note, purposefully or not, OO seems to have blocked me. He sent me a kind and respectful PM yesterday morning and I couldn't respond because I'm on his block list. So it occurs to me that he isn't seeing any of my responses to his comments.

You are right, I have you on ignore. I did so in response to ...I don't remember.

You are not the first to go my ignore list, nor will you be the first to come back off it.

I open most of your posts anyway, so I will take off my ignore list.

Okey dokey! I haven't used the Ignore feature yet. I've decided to not take anything too personally on the quad, so I doubt I will ever use it. I just won't respond to as much.

(01-27-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election.

There will be a need for another quick impeachment before the midterms in 2022, again for political reasons. It's a dead solid perfectly sure thing if they win the Senate, scaling back to 90% if they don't. The entire Democratic party existence now is based on beating Trump. I don't know if the Dems will let it rest after two failed impeachments They might be willing to let it go because he cannot run again in 2024. Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. But they seem to know nothing else to do.

AOC will be the Dem candidate in 2024. I wonder who the Republicans will run?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with every sentence you wrote. I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't see anything to gain from a back-and-forth about it. As I have said repeatedly, my opinion is that the conservatives on this board have a very poor understanding of how most democrats think, what they want, and how they work. IMHO, you do a lot better job explaining your own opinions that you do explaining what you think democrats want or how democrats think.

Bump, for those of us who have forgotten what is is all about.

support for my first sentence

The article you link to does not support the assertion that "The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election."

(01-27-2020 12:01 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 07:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know that you put "climate change" above all else. I hope my great-grandkids don't have to slop through sea water on their way to Pike's Peak. If they do, at least they will have the money for a boat. But I also hope they have the money to live a good life and not have to depend on the government. I think what I fear is way more likely than what you fear.

Yeah, it will be warmer in Houston in 20 years. Will Houston in 2040 be warmer than Panama or Ridyah or Lagos or Mexico City or Indonesia now? People live in some mighty hot places. How about Bombay in 1855? Egypt in 1816?

Man adapts. Man adapts better if he has money.

A warmer earth doesn't just mean we need more sunscreen. The threat of rising sea levels will likely cause a crazily underestimated impact. If sea levels rise 3 feet, an estimated 30 million people in Bangladesh would be displaced. That is 30 million climate refugees potentially flooding into other regions of Bangladesh, as well as into India, China, and other areas of southeast asia. Many coastal cities in the US would experience significant flooding issues, particularly areas like Miami and New Orleans. This would likely cause trillions in dollars of damage, though obviously not all at once. Current agricultural areas will dry out affecting food production, causing more refugees. It will be happening to some degree all over the globe at the same time. That will likely cause significant geopolitical strife that your great-grandkids' boats will not be able to wholly avoid.

A man can adapt to such change and can adapt better with more money. But that doesn't help tens of millions across each of the most populous countries.

And on this topic, I do have some minor bonafides, as I graduated from Rice with an environmental engineering sciences degree that included multiple classes touching on climate change, I wrote at least a couple papers on climate change at Rice and one with suggestions for how Rice U could use its position to help Houston adapt, I worked for a native corporation in alaska one summer in college and spent most of my summer researching carbon sequestration options for their forestland, graduated from Tulane Law with an environmental law certificate, and generally keep an eye on the new developments. Everything climate scientists said was going to happen when I was researching this in more depth from 1997-2001 is happening faster than what was predicted at the time.

And, you gloss over the absolute massive, wide swath of uncertainty in the issue. The radiative forcing constant estimate (note the term estimate) of CO2 has bounced massively in the last 25 years; to the point that the predictive value of the models is kind of stupid.

Not arguing that anthro CO2 doesnt add to any forcing --- it does. Undoubtedly. But the fact that that parameter alone cannot be reasonably be ascertained throws any predictive value from the bounds of 'not a lot of effect' to 'wildly out of control', and the time estimates on 'lag' dont show any reasonable certainty either.

When you toss in the secondary effects of things like solar radiation of cloud seeding, and enhanced cloud formation in higher temperatures, what little can be gleaned from the raw base model gets pretty much scrapped.

Sorry your entire last sentence as to the certainty and predictability of the AWG models really dont add up to the level that you note.

(01-27-2020 11:37 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I mean, it is election season and they are running against Trump (as well as each other). But for the most part they are not the ones involved in impeachment decisions. If I had to guess, I would guess that Bernie, Warren, and Klobuchar would rather be in Iowa than dealing with impeachment right now.

Let me say it differently...

The part I was responding to was 'I disagree with every word you wrote' to OO... because I don't really think you do.

I disagreed with every sentence of that single post by OO, the comment was limited to that single post of his.

So replacing the word 'entirely' with 'overwhelmingly', you don't think the Democratic Party's overwhelming goal is to defeat Donald Trump?

I think it's so overwhelming that its indistinguishable from 'entirely'... They only differ in who or what replaces him

(01-27-2020 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:37 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The part I was responding to was 'I disagree with every word you wrote' to OO... because I don't really think you do.

I disagreed with every sentence of that single post by OO, the comment was limited to that single post of his.

So replacing the word 'entirely' with 'overwhelmingly', you don't think the Democratic Party's overwhelming goal is to defeat Donald Trump?

I think it's so overwhelming that its indistinguishable from 'entirely'... They only differ in who or what replaces him

I was responding to this post from OO:

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1 The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election.

2 There will be a need for another quick impeachment before the midterms in 2022, again for political reasons. 3 It's a dead solid perfectly sure thing if they win the Senate, scaling back to 90% if they don't. 4 The entire Democratic party existence now is based on beating Trump. 5 I don't know if the Dems will let it rest after two failed impeachments 6 They might be willing to let it go because he cannot run again in 2024. 7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. 8 But they seem to know nothing else to do.

9 AOC will be the Dem candidate in 2024. 10 I wonder who the Republicans will run?

So by sentence:
1 - I don't think the only reason for impeachment is to influence the 2020 election. To the contrary, I think the reason the Dems as a party did not start impeachment over anything until Ukraine is because they did not want impeachment to fire up Trump's base heading into the 2020 election. Sure, there were a few prominent Dem politicians talking about impeachment early and often. I also believe the majority of dem politicians sincerely believe Trump's handling of Ukraine in 2019 was impeachable conduct, which is why they are doing it regardless of whether it helps or hurts politically.
2 - disagree
3 - disagree, unless there is some major development or new thing that they honestly believe a number of republican senators would flip because of
4 - disagree. It is about beating Trump's policies and his attitude toward the rest of the world, which isn't limited to Trump since it has largely been embraced by the Republicans in DC.
5 - completely speculative opinion with which I don't agree because I don't agree with the underlying premise
6 - disagree, I think his inability to run in 2024 has no bearing on a 2nd hypothetical impeachment
7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.
8 - Democrats did well in the 2018 midterms running mostly on healthcare, suggesting they know something else to do
9 - disgree
10 - I guess technically I can't disagree with a question. I am also curious.

(01-27-2020 12:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, you gloss over the absolute massive, wide swath of uncertainty in the issue. The radiative forcing constant estimate (note the term estimate) of CO2 has bounced massively in the last 25 years; to the point that the predictive value of the models is kind of stupid.

Not arguing that anthro CO2 doesnt add to any forcing --- it does. Undoubtedly. But the fact that that parameter alone cannot be reasonably be ascertained throws any predictive value from the bounds of 'not a lot of effect' to 'wildly out of control', and the time estimates on 'lag' dont show any reasonable certainty either.

When you toss in the secondary effects of things like solar radiation of cloud seeding, and enhanced cloud formation in higher temperatures, what little can be gleaned from the raw base model gets pretty much scrapped.

Sorry your entire last sentence as to the certainty and predictability of the AWG models really dont add up to the level that you note.

I would argue that the forecasts had a lot less certainty when I was studying this in more detail 20 years ago and so far things have been on the "worse" end of the bell curve of those models. I don't see any reason to expect differently based on what has happened in the last 20 years.

Yes, there are a ton of variables. Many are negative feedback mechanisms (e.g. increased cloud cover. Many are positive feedback mechanisms (e.g. melting permafrost and thawing peat moss). Based on my studies, on a whole the negative feedback mechanisms struck me as less likely and of smaller scale than the positive feedback mechanisms. I admit I am not and was not an expert, but I would consider myself considerably more informed and knowledgeable than the vast, vast majority of people.

(01-27-2020 12:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry your entire last sentence as to the certainty and predictability of the AWG models really dont add up to the level that you note.

What do average white girl models have to do with climate change? Too much hairspray maybe?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I think you meant "AGW" rather than "AWG". The mental picture of AWG models (average white girl models) just got stuck in my head. When coupled with the rest of that sentence... well I just found it all humorous.

(01-27-2020 01:30 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry your entire last sentence as to the certainty and predictability of the AWG models really dont add up to the level that you note.

What do average white girl models have to do with climate change? Too much hairspray maybe?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I think you meant "AGW" rather than "AWG". The mental picture of AWG models (average white girl models) just got stuck in my head. When coupled with the rest of that sentence... well I just found it all humorous.

Lolz ---- typos can be humorous.

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:37 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-25-2020 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The part I was responding to was 'I disagree with every word you wrote' to OO... because I don't really think you do.

I disagreed with every sentence of that single post by OO, the comment was limited to that single post of his.

So replacing the word 'entirely' with 'overwhelmingly', you don't think the Democratic Party's overwhelming goal is to defeat Donald Trump?

I think it's so overwhelming that its indistinguishable from 'entirely'... They only differ in who or what replaces him

I was responding to this post from OO:

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1 The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election.

2 There will be a need for another quick impeachment before the midterms in 2022, again for political reasons. 3 It's a dead solid perfectly sure thing if they win the Senate, scaling back to 90% if they don't. 4 The entire Democratic party existence now is based on beating Trump. 5 I don't know if the Dems will let it rest after two failed impeachments 6 They might be willing to let it go because he cannot run again in 2024. 7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. 8 But they seem to know nothing else to do.

9 AOC will be the Dem candidate in 2024. 10 I wonder who the Republicans will run?

So by sentence:
1 - I don't think the only reason for impeachment is to influence the 2020 election. To the contrary, I think the reason the Dems as a party did not start impeachment over anything until Ukraine is because they did not want impeachment to fire up Trump's base heading into the 2020 election. Sure, there were a few prominent Dem politicians talking about impeachment early and often. I also believe the majority of dem politicians sincerely believe Trump's handling of Ukraine in 2019 was impeachable conduct, which is why they are doing it regardless of whether it helps or hurts politically.
2 - disagree
3 - disagree, unless there is some major development or new thing that they honestly believe a number of republican senators would flip because of
4 - disagree. It is about beating Trump's policies and his attitude toward the rest of the world, which isn't limited to Trump since it has largely been embraced by the Republicans in DC.
5 - completely speculative opinion with which I don't agree because I don't agree with the underlying premise
6 - disagree, I think his inability to run in 2024 has no bearing on a 2nd hypothetical impeachment
7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.
8 - Democrats did well in the 2018 midterms running mostly on healthcare, suggesting they know something else to do
9 - disgree
10 - I guess technically I can't disagree with a question. I am also curious.

1- If the reason is not remove him, what are the reasons? FTR, I don't believe in the purity of the Democrats.

2. I said before the midterm elections, when they can hope that 2/4 of the Senate and all the House can benefit from a tarring of the President and his supporters.

3. I think they will claim a new thing. They need a reason, no matter how flimsy.

4. I am basing this of the need to beat Trump as evidenced by polls and candidate statements.

5. I guess we shall see.

6. I guess we shall see.

7. Impeaching the winner is not leaving in the hands of the voters.

8. so what else are they doing? Not much

9. JMHO. But with socialist stalwarts like Sanders and Warren aging out of the picture, it is reasonable to suppose a newly eligible AOC will inherit their support.There is 40+% right there.

10. Yes, I wonder.

(01-27-2020 12:12 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election.

There will be a need for another quick impeachment before the midterms in 2022, again for political reasons. It's a dead solid perfectly sure thing if they win the Senate, scaling back to 90% if they don't. The entire Democratic party existence now is based on beating Trump. I don't know if the Dems will let it rest after two failed impeachments They might be willing to let it go because he cannot run again in 2024. Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. But they seem to know nothing else to do.

AOC will be the Dem candidate in 2024. I wonder who the Republicans will run?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with every sentence you wrote. I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't see anything to gain from a back-and-forth about it. As I have said repeatedly, my opinion is that the conservatives on this board have a very poor understanding of how most democrats think, what they want, and how they work. IMHO, you do a lot better job explaining your own opinions that you do explaining what you think democrats want or how democrats think.

Bump, for those of us who have forgotten what is is all about.

support for my first sentence

The article you link to does not support the assertion that "The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election."

I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

Pelosi offers a clue

Democrats strastegy

Democrats strategy

(01-27-2020 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:12 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election.

There will be a need for another quick impeachment before the midterms in 2022, again for political reasons. It's a dead solid perfectly sure thing if they win the Senate, scaling back to 90% if they don't. The entire Democratic party existence now is based on beating Trump. I don't know if the Dems will let it rest after two failed impeachments They might be willing to let it go because he cannot run again in 2024. Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. But they seem to know nothing else to do.

AOC will be the Dem candidate in 2024. I wonder who the Republicans will run?

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with every sentence you wrote. I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't see anything to gain from a back-and-forth about it. As I have said repeatedly, my opinion is that the conservatives on this board have a very poor understanding of how most democrats think, what they want, and how they work. IMHO, you do a lot better job explaining your own opinions that you do explaining what you think democrats want or how democrats think.

Bump, for those of us who have forgotten what is is all about.

support for my first sentence

The article you link to does not support the assertion that "The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election."

I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

Pelosi offers a clue

Still got quibbles. The article also does not support the assertion that "The primary reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election." It's just a few pundits discussing the senate election ramifications of impeachment. It does not offer support to the idea that it is either the only or the primary reason democrats have taken these actions.

In your second article, Pelosi explicitly lays out why she's seeking impeachment:

Quote: ...he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election.

No alternative explanation is offered by the article.

(01-27-2020 02:15 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:12 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with every sentence you wrote. I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't see anything to gain from a back-and-forth about it. As I have said repeatedly, my opinion is that the conservatives on this board have a very poor understanding of how most democrats think, what they want, and how they work. IMHO, you do a lot better job explaining your own opinions that you do explaining what you think democrats want or how democrats think.

Bump, for those of us who have forgotten what is is all about.

support for my first sentence

The article you link to does not support the assertion that "The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election."

I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

Pelosi offers a clue

Still got quibbles. The article also does not support the assertion that "The primary reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election." It's just a few pundits discussing the senate election ramifications of impeachment. It does not offer support to the idea that it is either the only or the primary reason democrats have taken these actions.

In your second article, Pelosi explicitly lays out why she's seeking impeachment:

Quote: ...he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election.

No alternative explanation is offered by the article.

Or, you could use your common sense instead of searching for explicit words. Few people with ulterior motives will explicitly lay those out.

(01-27-2020 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Democrats strategy

This one is a better choice to support your argument, but even it does not suggest that impeachment is primarily a 2020 election move.

I do appreciate this acknowledgement though:

Quote:In the letter, Trump trotted out debunked conspiracy theories about Biden, whom Trump falsely said “used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.”

(01-27-2020 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:15 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:12 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bump, for those of us who have forgotten what is is all about.

support for my first sentence

The article you link to does not support the assertion that "The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election."

I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

Pelosi offers a clue

Still got quibbles. The article also does not support the assertion that "The primary reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election." It's just a few pundits discussing the senate election ramifications of impeachment. It does not offer support to the idea that it is either the only or the primary reason democrats have taken these actions.

In your second article, Pelosi explicitly lays out why she's seeking impeachment:

Quote: ...he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election.

No alternative explanation is offered by the article.

Or, you could use your common sense instead of searching for explicit words. Few people with ulterior motives will explicitly lay those out.

Haven't you argued that Dems have been trying to impeach him since he got elected?

(01-27-2020 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:15 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:12 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The article you link to does not support the assertion that "The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election."

I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

Pelosi offers a clue

Still got quibbles. The article also does not support the assertion that "The primary reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election." It's just a few pundits discussing the senate election ramifications of impeachment. It does not offer support to the idea that it is either the only or the primary reason democrats have taken these actions.

In your second article, Pelosi explicitly lays out why she's seeking impeachment:

Quote: ...he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election.

No alternative explanation is offered by the article.

Or, you could use your common sense instead of searching for explicit words. Few people with ulterior motives will explicitly lay those out.

Haven't you argued that Dems have been trying to impeach him since he got elected?

Yep. Is it untrue?

And now, with the 2020 election looming, they decided on the reason du jour to do it now and went ahead. They could not find a crime, Mueller found no collusion, the economy is good, we are not in WW III as predicted, and they are desperate for something to help them win in 2020, either POTUS, and/or the Senate, and/or the House, or all three.

The goal of the DNC is to win. When it appeared that the obvious shoo-in Hillary might lose the nomination, they cheated to push her over the top. The goal is always to win. Kind of backfired on them in 2016, so that situation needs rectifying.

(01-27-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:15 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

Pelosi offers a clue

Still got quibbles. The article also does not support the assertion that "The primary reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election." It's just a few pundits discussing the senate election ramifications of impeachment. It does not offer support to the idea that it is either the only or the primary reason democrats have taken these actions.

In your second article, Pelosi explicitly lays out why she's seeking impeachment:

Quote: ...he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election.

No alternative explanation is offered by the article.

Or, you could use your common sense instead of searching for explicit words. Few people with ulterior motives will explicitly lay those out.

Haven't you argued that Dems have been trying to impeach him since he got elected?

Yep. Is it untrue?

And now, with the 2020 election looming, they decided on the reason du jour to do it now and went ahead. They could not find a crime, Mueller found no collusion, the economy is good, we are not in WW III as predicted, and they are desperate for something to help them win in 2020, either POTUS, and/or the Senate, and/or the House, or all three.

The goal of the DNC is to win. When it appeared that the obvious shoo-in Hillary might lose the nomination, they cheated to push her over the top. The goal is always to win. Kind of backfired on them in 2016, so that situation needs rectifying.

Well which is it?

Have Dems been trying to impeach Trump since Day 1? Or did this just come up, as a way to influence the 2020 election???