[POLL] WILL TRUMP BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM?

[Spendulus]

It's not. My Harvard professor is of a more senior ranking than yours, and level of authority is what you are going by, so I win.....

That is a quite fascinating method of winning. I have been around some professors, and yes, some senior professors, and some with more senior rank, and none seem to have been aware of what authority and what win-status they may have had.

And this is a "Harvard professor."

[BADecker]

Trump will be elected to a second term.     

[Subbir]

He will win the election once more if he chooses to corrupt don't suppose he are in power once more if he chooses the legitimate manner Her words area unit thus funny most of the time she says ridiculous things.

[Negotiation]

Yes. He will be reelected for second term. Because of it's a USA. I think the USA administration elected him and blaming Russia for hacking US election. They will help him again for second term and will blame Iran for hacking.😁😁

Yes you are right because they blame someone else if they win This is why I think Poll Trump will be re-elected on a second term because those who are more influenced by the bad side try to win by betraying people Poll Trump will be re-elected if he tries to win a legitimate one.

[Spendulus]

....

Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday, Professor Turley said. “Article I, Section 2 says that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.”....

What's the practical point of this? There has to be one, because these are actually power plays for which absolute legality is not required (neither does it exist).

Maybe to allow arguing on the part of the Dems that an "impeached president" should not be allowed to appoint the successor to Ginsberg?

[TECSHARE]

That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a logical fallacy.

Just following in your footsteps, when you asked me if I knew more than a Harvard law professor. Then unironically, you went and argued with a Harvard law professor of a more senior ranking.

My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.

How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.

None of this has anything to do with anything. It's not a logical argument, just more barking worm tactics.

Just for fun, have some precedent:

"(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225]   that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.html

Not a precedent. As the house never voted on Nixon's articles of impeachment, no precedent could have possibly been set.

From House Resolution 755:

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole scholar invited by Republicans to testify against impeachment at that hearing, also disagreed with Professor Feldman.

Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday, Professor Turley said. “Article I, Section 2 says that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.html

Who Is Jonathan Turley? Republicans’ Lone Expert on Impeachment

The thought of resting your argument on an academic exercise will be finally laid to rest early next year. You're wrong now, and you'll be wrong then, too.

No, a Harvard law professor made an argument and I agree with him. Your entire argument rests on the premise that the man you agree with being more senior automatically makes him more correct, which is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, one that most children understand isn't a legitimate argument.

How can a senate try an impeachment if it didn't happen? We're not talking about a conviction by the senate -- that's not even part of what is being debated.

I know having a knob for a head makes thinking difficult, but this is a bit much. My logic is sound and this is the premise of the entire argument, you just turned it on its side and claimed it was something different. You claim he was impeached. If that is true then The Senate should have been transmitted the articles of impeachment to meet the constitutional standard of The Senate having sole authority to try impeachments. If the articles have not been transmitted then legally he is still not impeached. You can't have it both ways, these are exclusive concepts.

Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.

[Sendoku]

No. He doesn't have a good approval rating at all

Maybe he doesn't but during all this impeachment nonsence democrats lowered themselves even further. And look at the embedded poll, I'm quite surprised by the result

[TECSHARE]

Cool story bro.

Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.

Well?

[TECSHARE]

Cool story bro.

Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.

Well?

I spent zero minutes. OK, so its for an entirely different Nixon.

Obsolutely.

No.

Precedent.

You were wrong yesterday, you're wrong today, and you'll be wrong tomorrow.

How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon? If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.

[TECSHARE]

How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon?

OK, so its for a judge, not a president. That's why it doesn't preside over anything revolving around this matter.

If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president.

Its an entirely different position, therefore it has no bearing on Trump's impeachment.

The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.

What does any of this have to with Trump being impeached?

As you know I already answered this question, which you of course conveniently edited out of your quote of my reply. This is in fact an applicable precedent.

How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon? If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.

[TECSHARE]

The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply.

This point isn't being debated by me, and you didn't need to bring up an irrelevant case to back it up. You could have simply pointed to the text in the constitution that says the same thing.

Its quite possible that the impeachment won't be tried, however, I believe that it will, and when it does it will render this entire debate moot. Regardless, Trump has been impeached.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate...

Your personal opinion doesn't weigh more than a passed, simple resolution by the house. Sorry, it just doesn't.

Yet you are debating it by claiming the precedent doesn't apply. Your entire argument is essentially "no you're wrong I'm right." with no other supporting argument. Once again, this is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of many including well respected legal scholars who served as a witness for the Democrat party for these hearings. I simply agree with his assessment. Speaking of high crimes and misdemeanors, what is the crime exactly he is being accused of? The house can pass a resolution declaring turds as candy canes, it doesn't magically transform a pile of dog shit into peppermint.

[snkneo]

Yes, the whole impeachment proceeding is only unifying his base and turning off the undecided.

I think this is just a conservative talking point. Trump never had very much support. The only reason he won is because Hillary was so despised by both parties. She still managed to win the popular vote, by a lot. I think her problem is unique. As I've said before, you never heard about a "Never Biden" or "Never Bernie" camp.

To get an idea of how out of touch the majority of the forum (P&S, anyway) is with what's actually happening in politics, here are the results from a poll I posted back in October.



The majority of votes went to "He won't be impeached."

The majority of voters in this poll chose "Yes" to the question will Trump win a second term.

Quite frankly, you guys just don't know as much as you think you do.

Right now I'd put "Other" at about 60% and Trump at 40%. Most people here I'm sure are 1o0% TRuMp.

What do you mean by you guys? I'm not a conservative. I don't follow anyone. It's just obvious, they're trying to impeach him over nothing, people are not that naive. It makes the Democrats look like babies.

[BADecker]

Smat Democrats know what is going on, and a few of them are willing to come out and say it.


Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard says impeachment will only 'embolden' Trump and help him win a second term

Hawaii Rep Tulsi Gabbard says she believes impeachment will only 'embolden' President Donald Trump and increase the chances of him being reelected.

Gabbard, a 2020 Democratic candidate for president, voted 'present' on articles of impeachment against Trump on Wednesday, December 18.

She told ABC News that she has 'serious concern' that the president will be acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, and that he will win a second term.

Gabbard said she fears that impeachment proceedings will have 'lasting damage' on the country.

'I think impeachment, unfortunately, will only further embolden Donald Trump,' Gabbard told ABC News on Saturday.

'Increase his support and the likelihood that he'll have a better shot at getting elected while also seeing the likelihood that the House will lose a lot of seats to Republicans.'

[Spendulus]

....I'm not a conservative. I don't follow anyone. It's just obvious, they're trying to impeach him over nothing, people are not that naive. It makes the Democrats look like babies.

It's really quite strange.

[BADecker]

Everybody knows that if things continue generally like they are, Trump will be re-elected.

[Bagaji]

President Donald Trump will be returned elected as the United State of America even with the impeachment by the lower Chamber which I believe the decision of the lower Chamber not hold water in time to come. 

[TwitchySeal]

Trump vs Past 6 Presidents, net approval for first 1,078 days:



Carter and George H lost, the rest won a second term.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Check out that crazy bump Bush got after 911.

[KingScorpio]

Trump vs Past 6 Presidents, net approval for first 1,078 days:



Carter and George H lost, the rest won a second term.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Check out that crazy bump Bush got after 911.

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

[TwitchySeal]

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

fivethirtyeight is extremely transparent about how they build their models and do a good job of explaining it in laymen terms.  
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/

These are data scientists that collect polling data from tons of different independent pollsters every week and then weight each poll based on historical accuracy, collection technique and sample size.

[Spendulus]

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

fivethirtyeight is extremely transparent about how they build their models and do a good job of explaining it in laymen terms.  
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/

These are data scientists ...

... And they are working in a biased environment.

Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?

These assertions you have made are commonly heard, sure. But they are worthless, and we all know it.