• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Arm Van Dam

self-requested ban
Banned
Mar 30, 2019
5,951
Illinois


EOhPLP3XsAELS86
 

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,827
Serious question, give it to me straight:
What if the senate actually votes to remove?

they have to be seeing the same numbers we all see, and that's that trump is definitely losing 2020 and that Dems might even get a 51/49 senate.
Why not just "be the good guys" and end this circus?
This parnas shit is bad
The public's reaction to Iran and Baghadadi was bad
These fuckos have to be thinking beyond 2020
its hard, but understand this is out of touch
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,494
Lmao

The people on twitter making the weak defense "Trump takes pictures with people all the time! This means nothing!"

And then the pictures keep coming. And coming... And seem more and more intimate strangely... For all these guys that dont know each other
 

Deleted member 8561

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
11,284
Serious question, give it to me straight:
What if the senate actually votes to remove?

they have to be seeing the same numbers we all see, and that's that trump is definitely losing 2020 and that Dems might even get a 51/49 senate.
Why not just "be the good guys" and end this circus?
This parnas shit is bad
The public's reaction to Iran and Baghadadi was bad
These fuckos have to be thinking beyond 2020

Well, probably because getting rid of Trump basically kills the GOP in a worse way than keeping him with a 2020 loss.
 

aspiegamer

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,460
ZzzzzzZzzzZzz...
Isn't that Sanders strategy busted if, like, the day's events go over by even a bit? And holy crap that sounds exhausting.

The odds Trump gets removed is what I like to say is technically nonzero. Don't ask for any normal form of odds or predictability, basically, but it's not 100.00000% out of the realm of possibility. In infinite parallel realities there's at least 1 where Trump is thrown out off office.
 

Yung Coconut

Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,267
we've heard those words before. this is actually a screenshot from of an exchange between Hyde and allegedly another Trump weirdo named Anthony deCaluwe; Hyde claimed he wasn't spying on the ambassador but rather forwarding along "copy and paste bullshit" from this other dude to Parnas.



hyde's video from earlier claiming it was copy and paste


That dudes drunk. And why does he want Schiff to turn over material that he is clearly in possession of? Maybe he should turn it over. Really hard to watch...

And yikes at those texts. Got milk assassination plots?
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
I think where we start to get into single digit integer possibilities is simple majority votes to remove.
 
Oct 28, 2017
40
Let me preface this by saying, I absolutely LOATHE caucuses and this is one of the reasons why....

But I've been thinking. We all know Bernie's support is hyper concentrated among the youth. Because of how caucuses work, winning a caucus site by 1 person or 900 people doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I wonder how that's going to cost him (or if it will) overall. I can totally envision him winning some of the college precincts pretty easily, but then getting 3rd or worse in some of the other caucuses where there aren't as many youths.
In 2016 I remember reading that the Sanders campaign sponsored bus trips for Iowa college students to go back to their home districts specifically to mitigate this issue. (I assume they'll do this again)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/...nders-courts-elusive-voters-young-iowans.html

Ahead of Feb. 1, the day Iowa voters finally have their say, the Sanders campaign is activating "Go Home for Bernie," a plan to dispatch a fleet of rental cars, vans and buses, if necessary, to carry students who are from Iowa back to their hometowns, where they will have maximum impact on the caucuses.
...
The campaign has at least one representative, essentially a precinct captain, on 38 Iowa college campuses, where students will spend the final days calling likely voters, holding caucus training camps and figuring out how to get the greatest number of supporters to the largest number of precincts.

College students will be in school, but concentrated in precincts around the universities where he is already expected to do well. The Sanders campaign has to persuade students who come from other parts of Iowa to go back to their home precincts, where a few votes could be the difference.

This year Iowa Dems are also reporting the raw voter numbers (both the initial pre-nonviability culling round and the final count), so I kinda feel like that opens the door for campaigns to spin things positively depending on which result looks best.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
In 2016 I remember reading that the Sanders campaign sponsored bus trips for Iowa college students to go back to their home districts specifically to mitigate this issue. (I assume they'll do this again)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/...nders-courts-elusive-voters-young-iowans.html



This year Iowa Dems are also reporting the raw voter numbers (both the initial pre-nonviability culling round and the final count), so I kinda feel like that opens the door for campaigns to spin things positively depending on which result looks best.
I remember that now.

God I hate caucuses.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927

At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn't believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn't beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work.

But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN's sources could have come from outside the campaign.

In chat groups and in private conversations with people outside the campaign, Warren aides have insisted that they were not the source of the leak, and only learned about it in the midst of debate prep, contributing to the delayed response. The first time the campaign saw Sanders's on-record denial was in print in the CNN story.

I mean, this is coming from The Intercept, a supporter of Sanders...

So there goes that talking point.
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,300
Quick question.
During a senate trial, are witness able to say "I don't recall" or "I believe" before their answers as a way to get out of telling the truth?
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
I mean, this is coming from The Intercept, a supporter of Sanders...

So there goes that talking point.


So Jounalistic integrity only counts when it's convenient:P
Washington Post also corroborated Sanders account, or rather that of the sources they spoke with (two) one said that Sanders had never said that a Woman couldn't be president.
 
Oct 25, 2017
13,128
So Jounalistic integrity only counts when it's convenient:P
Washington Post also corroborated Sanders account, or rather that of the sources they spoke with (two) one said that Sanders had never said that a Woman couldn't be president.
They're talking about the campaign swearing that they didn't leak the story and the Intercept confirming it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
So Jounalistic integrity only counts when it's convenient:P
Washington Post also corroborated Sanders account, or rather that of the sources they spoke with (two) one said that Sanders had never said that a Woman couldn't be president.
I'm specifically mentioning the talking point that was "Warren purposefully leaked it, #snake" and The Intercept of all people saying probably not.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I'm specifically mentioning the talking point that was "Warren purposefully leaked it, #snake" and The Intercept of all people saying probably not.

The story does say she told a dinner full of journalists directly about it but said it was off the record. To be frank, that seems like kind of a dumb thing to do if you don't want the story published because, although they won't publish you saying it at the dinner, eventually some journalist will get enough parallel sources to publish it, which is apparently exactly what happened.

This also helps clarify why Warren's statement reiterated the story and then said to put it behind her — even if she wanted to lie and deny it, she couldn't, because a whole bunch of journalists had already heard it directly from her!
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
The story does say she told a dinner full of journalists directly about it but said it was off the record. To be frank, that seems like kind of a dumb thing to do if you don't want the story published because, although they won't publish you saying it at the dinner, eventually some journalist will get enough parallel sources to publish it, which is apparently exactly what happened.
True.

This also helps clarify why Warren's statement reiterated the story and then said to put it behind her — even if she wanted to lie and deny it, she couldn't, because a whole bunch of journalists had already heard it directly from her!
Which again puts to rest the "Warren was behind the leak, because she's a snake, and she only did it because she anticipated she'd be falling behind Biden and Sanders before Iowa, well over a year ago, as a 'tactical' leak", to rest. Unless she was playing 15-dimensional Sorry! against a game of Candy Land.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,285
Quick question.
During a senate trial, are witness able to say "I don't recall" or "I believe" before their answers as a way to get out of telling the truth?

Of course. I genuinely don't even see how one would be barred from an answer like that. While I acknowledge that most of the time, "I don't recall" is probably BS, there's literally no way to disprove it.
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,300
Of course. I genuinely don't even see how one would be barred from an answer like that. While I acknowledge that most of the time, "I don't recall" is probably BS, there's literally no way to disprove it.

I just think it's foolish when Barr answers Kamala's question like that when we all know the truth. It's just a waste of time
 

Jeffapp

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,248
So we all know at the end of this we are going to get an hbo series of wtf happened in the White House but I just thought how great the trump one is going to be. Where jon voight plays tough unstoppable president trump standing up to corruption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.