Dems: Quid Pro Quo out!
30 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Nov. 11, 2019, 6:46 p.m.

With the impeachment support by the public losing a bit of steam and this being totally about perception, using false narratives and even lies at times(by Schiff), the democrats got together and decided that the term Quid Pro Quo was not hammering home the point that they are trying to make.

The new terms that will be used more frequently are bribery and extortion. Watch. you will see that much more from now on at the public hearings and elsewhere. It won't be your imagination. This is always part of any good battle plan that uses propaganda to influence the way that people think. Controlling language/verbiage and narratives is paramount to winning the battle.

Remember 20 year ago, when global warming was global warming? Things were not going as well as expected and they realized global warming didn't cover extreme cold outbreaks and blizzards.........that we are now being told are caused by the term that they changed it to............climate change.

Climate change covers everything.

But that wasn't scary enough. They tried climate disruption for a short while, then hit the jackpot with climate crisis, which has been the go to term for several years.  Recently, there has been a big push to use climate emergency(Bernie likes that one) and repeat it over and over and over until people think that our current climate optimum is a climate crisis/emergency.

This is propaganda 101. 

Language is everything. 

George Orwell described that in his book 1984 when the government used Newspeak to control the peoples thoughts. 



Comments
By metmike - Nov. 11, 2019, 6:49 p.m.
Like Reply

Here's an interesting article on this topic:

The Language of Propaganda: How Words Can Sway a Nation

https://www.kwintessential.co.uk/blog/general-interest/the-language-of-propaganda-how-words-can-sway-a-nation


"We live in the era of fake news – a term coined not by the man who made it famous, but by anti-misinformation group First Draft. Fake news is the newest form of yellow journalism; malicious propaganda that steers false information through social media, and is periodically picked up by mainstream media.

Propaganda is not a new concept. Equally, it’s not dead. It’s alive and well, possibly in better health than it’s ever been, thanks largely to the internet and advertising.

The rampant digital spread of misinformation is widely thought to have shaped all major political outcomes in the western world over the last few years – but this itself could be misinformation, peddled by those wishing to diminish trust in content providers.

It’s clear that the delivery system of news and popular expression has changed. Print media is working to adapt to a world of screens. TV is evolving to cater to the Netflix and YouTube generation. In spite of the overhaul of the way content is delivered, the mechanisms of political propaganda have not changed since their inception; a mixture subtle and overt language, used to marginalise certain groups, fracture society and segment tribes into ideologies that are fundamentally at odds with each other – irreconcilably so.

Propaganda, used effectively, can be self-perpetuating. It finds scapegoats for problems in a nation and systematically finds ways of blaming them on certain groups, with the intent of stoking unrest and inciting intolerance – eventually amassing to reform by popular demand."

metmike: No truer words have ever been printed.


By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 7:18 p.m.
Like Reply

As mentioned above from  early this week, the dems latest adjustment in their strategy has been to do exactly as predicted in using the new term(s) to replace quid pro quo(which did not happen) with bribery.


Pelosi was busy selling the new term today and pretending like its a new, even worse crime that was uncovered by the benign testimony.  They are using propaganda 101, which is why this was so easy to predict.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/11/8802737/nancy-pelosi-trump-watergate-bribery-ukraine

Last Updated November 14, 2019, 3:32 PM

Nancy Pelosi Says Trump’s Actions Are Worse Than Watergate

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is singing a different tune on impeachment these days.

"Speaking to reporters during her weekly press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi was unsparing in her characterization of the dealings with Ukraine that have landed President Donald Trump in hot water. Following the commencement of a House-led impeachment hearing this week, Pelosi accused Trump of a new illegal action to tack on to his laundry list: bribery."

“The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry and that the president abused power and violated his oath,” Pelosi said in the briefing. "

   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++     +

        Started by metmike - Nov. 11, 2019, 6:46 p.m.            

                                       

"With the impeachment support by the public losing a bit of steam and this being totally about perception, using false narratives and even lies at times(by Schiff), the democrats got together and decided that the term Quid Pro Quo was not hammering home the point that they are trying to make."

"The new terms that will be used more frequently are bribery and extortion. Watch. you will see that much more from now on at the public hearings and elsewhere. It won't be your imagination. This is always part of any good battle plan that uses propaganda to influence the way that people think. Controlling language/verbiage and narratives is paramount to winning the battle."


By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 7:37 p.m.
Like Reply

With an objective mind and doing a bit of homework one can see these partisan charlatans from a mile away.


"When asked about the potential of impeachment proceedings in June, Pelosi responded that "Nothing is as divisive in our country — in my view — than impeachment." And, during Thursday’s press conference, Pelosi seemed to underscore her initial hesitation with the political division wrought by impeachment proceedings.

“This is something we do with a heavy heart,” she said of the inquiry process currently underway. “This is prayerful. Because impeaching is a divisive thing in our country.”


This would be like Charles Manson asking his cult followers to pray as he kills a victim and telling them that this person needed to die because they were evil and it makes him very sad to have to kill them but it has to be done. 

Pelosi has always insisted that she would not go forward with impeachment unless it had bipartisan support.

Nancy Pelosi Said in March She Would Only Consider Impeachment With Bipartisan Support

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-said-in-march-she-would-only-consider-impeachment-with-bipartisan-support/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/



Definition of bipartisan

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan

 : of, relating to, or involving members of two parties                                                                a bipartisan commission specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties bipartisan support for the bill

After all these hearings and testimony as well as having the transcript of the phone call, there are exactly ZERO republicans that voted for the impeachment process. Not just a minority or even a dozen..........ZERO. In fact, they not only did not vote for it, they are raising heck over how partisan and unethical it is.

The exaggerated analogy  with Charles Manson was mine. The words of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff that are lies are theirs. 

Schiff told another impossible to believe whopper yesterday:

Jason Chaffetz: Why Schiff's whistleblower claims at Trump impeachment hearing are impossible to believe

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/schiff-whistleblower-claims-trump-impeachment-jason-chaffetz


By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 8:11 p.m.
Like Reply

There are many people that believe Trump should be impeached of course and agree with everything that Pelosi and Schiff say and are willing to overlook their lies and underhanded tactics.

We should ask this question. If they really had the goods on Trump for committing crimes and really believed themselves that they had the goods based on authentic facts, why in the world do they have to lie about what they really have and use these propaganda strategies, with secret hearings at first to create false narratives in the minds of Americans?

Why not just state the facts and truth without all that?

This is not a real court that has to follow laws and principles which are part of our regular justice system....... so they can get away with it of course. 

This discussion covers the lynching:

                Trump is racist because he used the word "lynching"             

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/41601/

As I stated in another post to Wayne from Canada who is wondering what is going on with here with our country.

The US is one of the worlds most corrupt political systems and the last 3  years have been a quintessential example of that.

Politicians just make stuff up, like the climate crisis and end of the world in 12 years if we don't do what they say under a fairy tale Green New Deal that any person who understands 1 iota about energy, knows they are totally blowing smoke and completely making stuff up.

Anything to get elected to jobs that give them tremendous power and usually ends up with them being wealthy..........as they enrich themselves with self serving interests taking bribes and lobby money at the expense of the American people.

Then they send our children, husbands and fathers to go fight dumb wars on the other side of the planet and get killed, while spending trillions in our tax dollars and have the people in the land we died in hate our guts. 

And the US has interfered in the politics of other countries more than the rest of the world combined.......but we make it appear as if Russia has the franchise on that........part of the propaganda machine.

US Interfered in Elections of at Least 85 Countries Worldwide Since 1945

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-at-least-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481

Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, found that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000.

Comment: That’s just till 2000! The US has gone nuts since then.

By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 8:20 p.m.
Like Reply

Remember Agent Orange during the Vietnam war?

One of the worst atrocities involving chemical weapons in world history.........and nobody in the US was ever held accountable!

Agent Orange

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange


Many(not all) of these people are selfish, cut throat, greedy, unethical, power lusting, dishonest and..................corrupt. Pelosi and Schiff have  proven that their names should go into the hall of fame for corrupt politicians (-:

But we as Americans accept it as normal because this is how its been and they do a marvelous job at spinning situations to make it sound as if they only care about us(Pelosi says that she is praying for Trump and his family).




By metmike - Nov. 16, 2019, 12:11 a.m.
Like Reply


Why not call it a 'bribe'? Democrats have focus group-tested their impeachment strategy for maximum effect

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-not-call-it-a-bribe-democrats-have-focus-group-tested-their-impeachment-strategy-for-maximum-effect


"Democrats have, for example, retired the term "quid pro quo" for the simpler term “bribery,” claiming the latter more accurately conveys the nature of the case against Trump. But there is more to the story, according to the Washington Post. Democrats shelved “quid pro quo” after private polling found “bribery” packed more of a punch with survey respondents.

          

“[T]he Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment,” the Washington Post reports. “Among the questions put to participants was whether ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘extortion’ or ‘bribery’ was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct.”

          

metmike: Bribery and quid pro quo are really the same thing but its hilarious, that the dems are doing polls and research to find out what terms to use and what charges people would be the most impressed with.........in deciding on what they will charge him with. and what to call it.

Theatre.                                                                                                                                                                                

 

Dems Emphasize ‘Bribery’ Talking Point after Focus Group on Impeachment Messaging Strategy

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dems-emphasize-bribery-talking-point-after-focus-group-on-impeachment-messaging-strategy/

metmike: If this continues to fall apart and somehow Trump gets re elected, during his 2nd term, maybe they should ask Americans what they think would be the best way to impeach Trump.........then use that strategy in 2 years.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

By TimNew - Nov. 16, 2019, 7:22 a.m.
Like Reply

But of course,  this is not partisan or political.  The dems are reluctantly pursuing their constitutional duty.</end_sarcasm>  

By metmike - Nov. 19, 2019, 9:54 p.m.
Like Reply

CBS first major TV network to bail on impeachment hearings


November 19, 2019 

https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/cbs-first-major-tv-network-to-bail-on-impeachment-hearings/

Ratings from the first two days of hearings show CBS finished last in the coveted 25 to 54 demographic, behind ABC and NBC, according to media and politics website Mediaite.


CBS Bails on Vindman Testimony, First Network to Abandon Wall-to-Wall Coverage of Impeachment Hearings

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cbs-bails-on-vindman-testimony-first-network-to-abandon-wall-to-wall-coverage-of-impeachment-hearings/


What does this mean?

For sure it means that CBS felt, today at least, that their regular programming was going to generate higher ratings than the impeachment hearings..especially since all the other networks are covering it(they could actually be interested in capturing people NOT interested in watching the boring hearings all day)

It also suggests that they feel the testimony does not rise to an elevated level of importance high enough for them to continue to broadcast wall to wall coverage........after listening to what was being said so far.

One has to assume, that if what was being stated in the testimony qualified as powerful evidence to impeach President Trump there is no way they would stop broadcasting it at any point.

Why would a major news power house NOT broadcast key testimony to impeach a president, a monumental/historic moment in our countries history?

If Trump were to be impeached on legit issues, CBS, deciding to NOT broadcast it would  be subjected to major criticism.............so clearly they felt that the evidence is not there and Trump is not going to be impeached.

Maybe they will be subjected to criticism after todays decision and go back to broadcasting wall to wall coverage. The comments above are only based on what happened today. 

By wglassfo - Nov. 19, 2019, 10:35 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi MM

As I said I don't have a paddle in this water

But you would not know it, listening to our Csnadian coverage

The lead story was todays impeachment proceedings

What I heard on TV wass glowing reports about the testimony etc and the Pubs hardly even mentioned

Rather different fromy reading of social medi comments

Especially the Lt. Col remark

Two polar different takes on the same testimoney

Why our Canadian TV even has to lead with American news is a big baffling to me

You would think our news room can't find any interesting Canadian news

And by the way there is a ton of interesting Canadian news as of now

Perhaps more than usual

We have gov't shake up in gov't cabinet portfolio positions

A minority gov't, so who wields the power??

CNN rail road just went on strike, stranding millions of bu. of Canadian grain that needs to get to the buyers, or in a position to continue to buyers, many of then foreign countries and most of it on contract

That is just off the top of my head for Canadian news

By metmike - Nov. 19, 2019, 11:17 p.m.
Like Reply

Wayne,

This has got to be the most embarrassing thing, at least in my lifetime that I can remember for our country.

If you can think of something that tops this, let me know. 

By wxgrant - Nov. 19, 2019, 11:29 p.m.
Like Reply

I work for a CBS station. I was very surprised and happy that we dumped out of the hearing. 

By mcfarm - Nov. 20, 2019, 5:53 p.m.
Like Reply

well today the old quid was back in vogue. Seems Trump and the Ambassador had a conversation. The ambassador said"what do you want from Ukraine?" Trump replied not one damn thing. Nothing. No quid. Just tell the new President to do what he promised and clean up the corruption over there. And then the ambassador immediately "presumed" there was a quid. He presumes this and that and this again he said. No facts, no first hand knowledge. No nothing just presumed, which the clowns on the left just jumped all over. So I "presume" tomorrow we will be back on bribery. These sickos from the deep state have to go, every damn one of them, hell they do not even know who sets foreign policy, and it sure ain't them.

By GunterK - Nov. 20, 2019, 10 p.m.
Like Reply

yes... but...

Just heard on the car radio that we finally have a quid pro quo. It was suggested that Trump should apologize, and than all would be forgiven and the trial would be ended..... sure!!!!!!!

Listening to the radio, i wondered, how many people in L.A. are listening to the same (very popular) news station, and how many are coming home tonight thinking that they finally got Trump

well, George Orwell wrote about societies such as this....and, quite frankly, it was the same in Germany, when Hitler ruled

By metmike - Nov. 21, 2019, 1:48 a.m.
Like Reply

WATCH: Sondland recalls Trump saying there was ‘no quid pro quo’ | Trump impeachment hearings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJY6iIdR14

metmike: According to today's testimony this is what Trump said: "I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing!"


We should note that  this part of the testimony did not make any of the click bate, yellow journalism headlines telling us today was a game changer and bombshell testimony to prove the quid pro quo....on many of the MSM sources.


The strangest thing to me is that Sondland's extremely long, written opening statement clearly told us that he was certain of a quid pro quo and everybody knew about it......but nobody actually told him about it,  they just all knew and he knew. Trump's words to him actually contradict this but that doesn't matter. He knew.


But it appears as if somebody else wrote much of what was in this  opening statement because key parts of his testimony, like that above was left out of the opening statement and it completely contradicts the opening statement.

If Trump said what he is saying Trump said, why was this not in his written statement? Either he wasn't the one writing it or he intentionally left it out because it is evidence supporting Trumps position.

And this is supposed to be the smoking gun that justifies impeaching President Trump?

What is happening is that most people didn't watch or listen to the actual testimony. This means they missed statements  like that one above and only get the reports from the MSM that leave those parts out and put in descriptions which are meant to convince them that   what happened was powerful testimony to justify impeachment..........which is their objective. Not report the news but to spin the news using their clickbate sensationalism.

One of their favorite words is "bombshell"


Let me show you:

CNN on Oct 13:

Bombshell testimony shows alarm over White House-Ukraine shadow diplomacy was early and deep

CNN on Oct 15:

Bombshell testimony from Fiona Hill

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-fiona-hill-testimony/index.html


CNN on Nov 13:

Toobin calls this testimony (Taylor)moment a 'bombshell' revelation

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/11/13/jeffrey-toobin-bill-taylor-testimony-trump-sondland-call-bombshell-vpx.cnn


CNN on Nov 20:

Five takeaways from Gordon Sondland's bombshell testimony

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/gordon-sondland-hearing-takeaways/index.html

Diplomat who overheard bombshell call between Trump and Sondland set to testify

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/who-is-david-holmes/index.html


Trump Bombshell Compilation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mbLaXCE2Nc


The MSM is totally messed up.  Why in the world do people keep believing this crapola?

After 3+ years of this same stuff, including non stop smearing of Trump for being a traitor and criminal collusion with Russia that never happened, how is it that these sources are being allowed to continue to poison the minds of Americans with hate, fake news and blatant bias from progressive activists imposing their belief system via abusing their rights using freedom of the press?


By wglassfo - Nov. 21, 2019, 9:01 a.m.
Like Reply

Jim Jordon in cross examination asked if there was any quid pro quo

Sondland clearly stated the answer from the president was a "NO' No quid pro quo. But everybody working on the Ukraine desk knew differently even though Sondland asked directly what the president wanted and the answer was no quid pro quo

Sondland went on to say there was too much to say in his opening statement

Jim asked why in 46 pages of opening statement he would not think this mo quid pro quo, important enough to include

Sondland had no answer

This cross examination by Jordan is obviously  all on tape

And yet I have not heard one peep from the MSM

I agree, this sounds as if somebody else had a big part in writing the opening statement

It seems obvious to me all of this is to convince the public Trump is bad and the Dems hope to use this in the 2020 election

Actually that is about all they have in the 2020 election that the public might consider, although a moderate Dem may capture the nomination

And it might just be enough for the Dems to win the WH

By TimNew - Nov. 21, 2019, 9:44 a.m.
Like Reply

This is what passes for "Bombshell" in todays lib world.


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2683846921677246&id=1435071773455316


And yet, Hillary can openly lie to the US and congress, demonstrably mishandle classified info and take sledgehammers and bleachbit software to subpoenaed material, and that's just fine. 

By metmike - Nov. 22, 2019, 1:06 a.m.
Like Reply

Dems plot next move as impeachment hearings fail to sway GOP, public

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/21/democrats-poised-impeachment-vote-after-hearings-f/

Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, an outspoken anti-Trump Republican on the intelligence committee, said he wasn’t convinced.                                                                                                                                                                                    

“An impeachable offense should be compelling. It’s not something to be rushed or taken lightly,” he said. “I have not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion.”


By TimNew - Nov. 22, 2019, 5:11 a.m.
Like Reply

The relevant question....   How compelling should the evidence be before you overturn  the will of 63 million voters? IMO,   hearsay, opinion and impression doesn't make it. And that is all we've seen so far.

By metmike - Nov. 22, 2019, 1:35 p.m.
Like Reply

Tim,

It would be one thing if the impeachment thing came out of nowhere and was based on the circumstances.

But the impeachment thing has DEFINED the dems since Trump took office. Everybody knows that they were in constant impeachment mode from the get go and are/were going to use whatever is their best shot.....and go for it.

Not because its impeachable stuff but because its the best they have.

It used to be the Mueller investigation but that came up empty. It if wasn't this, then would they have tried to revive the Mueller investigation from the dead? Who knows but it would probably have been something.

                

                    Trump impeachment vote fails overwhelmingly                       

                

                        The measure drew the support of 58 House Democrats.

                

                        

        https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888


By metmike - Nov. 22, 2019, 7:53 p.m.
Like Reply

Poll finds sharp swing in opposition to impeachment among independents

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents

 

"A new national survey finds independent voters leading a sharp swing in opposition to impeachment, the second major poll to produce those findings this week.

The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose impeaching President Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That’s a 6-point swing in support from October, when 48 percent of voters supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed.

More importantly, the poll shows more independents now oppose impeachment than support it, a significant change from Emerson's polling in October. The new poll found 49 percent oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of independents polled supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed.

Since October, Emerson has found Trump’s job approval rating jump by 5 points, from 43 percent to 48 percent.

This is the second poll this week to show voters are increasingly likely to oppose impeachment, despite wall-to-wall media coverage of the House hearings that have produced bombshell testimony about how Trump threatened to withhold financial aid to Ukraine if the country did not open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination."

metmike: We just witnessed the best the dems and MSM have got. All day testimony of their witnesses telling stories, then dozens of  interpretations/stories during and later in the day telling us what we should know,  with words like "bombshell"  "smoking gun" "game changer" and so on. 

There were no republicans that changed their mind. In congress, still nobody for impeachment from that side. On the opposite side, almost all the dems  that were already convinced(some for  3 years)  that Trump should be impeached.........have not changed their minds either.

But the group that could actually be affected by the hearings and evidence did change........many in this group are also never Trumpers, we should keep in mind. Despite that, there was a strong shift  against impeachment vs being for it previously(polls are not always reliable though).  There was an increase in support for Trump to be re elected in 2020 also. 

For some time, I have felt that Trump would not be elected again in 2020 because he has so many enemies, including the MSM with their powerful ability to control the narratives and influence minds. He cannot offset this with likeability contributions in those that are on the fence because this is one of his greatest weaknesses.

But the dems and MSM have gotten more and more extreme in their one sided attacks and distorted/exaggerated interpretations. They smelled blood and were going for the kill here. Ruthlessly aiming convincing sounding narrative after narrative  telling us that Trump should be impeached.  

But this tactic caused more people to do the opposite over the past week.........disagree with their position.  

1. Was it because these people saw the actual evidence and don't think it's impeachable stuff after the hearings were open? Which is why they were secret at first.

2. Was it because of his enemies showing their true colors.........trying to destroy Trump at any cost, showing no mercy or fairness or objectivity?  Could some non Trump supporters actually be starting to feel that he is not being treated fairly?

3. Or maybe they are sick and tired of the hatred, divisiveness and attacks on somebody that is doing things for America by those that are doing nothing for Americans, except trying to stop the do something for Americans person.

Maybe a combination of all 3. Regardless, Trumps chances of being elected again in 2020 are going up and apparently, the open impeachment hearings this past week are a big part of that. 

The chances of some brand new game changing revelation that will rescue the case for impeachment at this point is near zero. What WILL happen, is that we will drag this thing on and on and on. The house will vote, then we go to the senate for hearings and a vote.  If people were starting to get sick and tired of this crapola the past week, then another 2-3-4-5 weeks of it is not going to win over anybody new and will turn off more people who are getting increasingly embarrassed at our country's partisan behavior and continuous, disingenuous and deceitful statements gushing from Schiff and Pelosi about how they are doing this because they are patriotic and praying for Trump and they never wanted to impeach him or they are defending the Constitution.

The main, national MSM powers have long ago obliterated their credibility for reporting on this objectively. Only minds that are captured, like in a religious cult actually believe all of it. 

I worked for a local CBS affiliate as the main weather anchor for 11 years and know these were good people. Almost all liberals(as I was) but good people that wanted to make the world a better place and do a good job. What has happened, however on the national stage at places like CNN, CNBC and the NYT's is that they are letting their bias and hatred for Trump........... not just affect their reporting but it defines their reporting. 

This has become the new norm and going on for 3 years. When almost all the sources are doing it, it seems acceptable.  Americans are being subjected to very substandard  unprofessional and sometimes unethical reporting by "some" sources more interested in imposing their personal political belief system on us thru their reporting vs telling us the news. 

Maybe the divisive nature of our politics and this go hand in hand. People like to watch stations that tell the news the way they like to hear it. So if you hate Trump, you will watch CNN/CNBC and if you love Trump, you will watch FOX.  There are so many millions of people in those 2  categories, that these stations can have blockbuster ratings by just spinning the news totally one sided..........and get all the viewers that want to hear their news told that way. 

By TimNew - Nov. 23, 2019, 6:34 a.m.
Like Reply

I heard a comment that this  may end up as "censure" since the additional scrutiny associated with a (majority pub) senate hearing may not go at all well (even worse) for dems.  Let's watch and see  :-)

Meanwhile, Real clear Politics  shows continued improvement in Trump's job approval.

By metmike - Nov. 25, 2019, 8:19 p.m.
Like Reply

The person that wrote this story should have their pay doubled for being so profoundly astute with their analysis, even if they appear to be a never Trumper.........in fact, they are probably  petrified that the battle plan to defeat Donald Trump is backfiring and they are sending out a very wise warning.

Seriously, they nailed the analysis, dead center with their points aimed at the target. 

“It Is Hard to Read This as Anything but a Warning”: New Polling Suggests Democrats’ Impeachment Push Could Alienate Key Voters

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/new-poll-suggests-democrats-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters

"among the 11 issues that Politico and Morning Consult tested, impeachment ranked last, well below the deficit at 74%, health care at 72%, and infrastructure at 70%. Even Trump’s absurd border wall scored as a higher priority for Independents. Fundamentally, most Independents want Congress to focus on the issues that impact their lives. They have not been convinced that curtailing the bad acts of Donald Trump would have any tangible effect.

The second factor is the view among Independents that impeachment reflects the agenda of the political establishment and the media. Regardless of what they think about Trump’s behavior, Independents see impeachment as a continuation of the partisan bickering and media excess that began even before his inauguration. By massive margins, Independents say that the impeachment issue is “more important to politicians than it is to me” (62% to 22%) and “more important to the media than it is to me” (61% to 23%). It is hard to read this as anything but a warning to the Democratic leadership and candidates: Stop talking about issues that matter to you, not to me. Impeachment proceedings are viewed as bread and circuses for the anti-Trump crowd in Washington and the media—or, as Stanford political science professor Morris Fiorina described it to me, “entertainment and confirmation.” That’s a dangerous perception as Democrats approach one of the most consequential and fraught elections of our times."

Third, as other reporting has suggested, Independents suffer from scandal fatigue and overall confusion. They agreed with the statement “[It is] difficult to tell all the investigations in Washington apart” by a roughly two-to-one margin. (Even Democrats concur by a substantial, if somewhat smaller, margin). This no doubt reflects a successful Trump strategy to sow confusion and spread blame. By constantly charging others with acting badly and by creating such a long litany of disputable acts, Trump has in effect led many voters to dismiss the whole mess as the type of bad thing that all politicians do. Confusion has been aggravated by a rating-seeking media, whose credibility has been undermined by the fact that some cable hosts and their guests have consistently predicated, with astonishing stubbornness and inaccuracy, that the next scandal will be the one that topples Trump. It may be that the Democrats finally have the best facts against Trump, and the clearest story line of all. But they face a segment of the public that is jaundiced by what has gone on before."

By GunterK - Nov. 25, 2019, 11:20 p.m.
Like Reply

The Ukraine issue is on the news all day long, on every news station. What surprises me is that nobody talks about the core issue of the Ukraine "scandal". 

At the core of this issue are the activities of Team Biden. As Vice President, he delivered aid to the Ukraine, and in the process, ensured his son a cushy job ($1 million/year) at a gas company... a business his son knew absolutely nothing about, and he didn't even speak the language. Then we read about corrupt politicians in the Ukraine working a huge money-laundering operation, and, what ya know, a company owned by Hunter Biden is part of this operation. 

Quite clearly, there were crimes committed in the Ukraine, but absolutely nobody in Congress is even hinting at an investigation. Instead, total focus is on the POTUS for wanting to have the Ukraine incidents investigated..

We don't want to underestimate the power of the MSM... it's not just the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSMBC etc.... it's also the hundreds of local radio stations we listen to when we drive home from work. Today's impeachment hearings may have been nothing but third-party hearsay, but on the radio, we are being told of another "bombshell", and how the impeachment trial is about to get underway any moment now. The average person in the US must be totally convinced that Trump committed crimes while dealing with the Ukraine..... while in the meantime, the truly guilty people are giving speeches and laughing, and telling us how great a president they would be, when elected.

I keep thinking about Josef Goebbels quite often, when I look at what is going on in our country here.

By TimNew - Nov. 26, 2019, 3:56 a.m.
Like Reply

What is truly  amazing to me. ..    Following Sondland's 'Bombshell" testimony,  he was questioned and forced to admit that no one, not Trump, not anyone even remotely associated with him,  ever told him there were conditions on the military aid. And this is not covered.    You can find it if you look for it,  but there is virtually no mention of it in MSM. 

This invalidates everything he implied  based on his presumptions from 2nd and third hand information. And yet the average guy on the street is lead to believe Sondland gave irrefutable proof.

By mcfarm - Nov. 26, 2019, 6:26 a.m.
Like Reply

polls after the hearings have independents losing 10 points on impeachment......Scihiff promised Pelosi he had the goods. Schiff lied again. Pelosi is now left with the dumpster fire and not happy

By metmike - Nov. 26, 2019, 10:57 a.m.
Like Reply

I have been skeptical about Trumps' chances to be elected again. Too many enemies, too many people that hate him so much that they are never Trumpers and will vote for Bozo the Clown if that was his opponent. And mostly because some of the most powerful MSM has had round the clock coverage dedicated to the sole purpose of destroying him and most of the MSM spinning all their stories to always make him look bad. 

As somebody that was part of the MSM from 1982-93, this has especially turned me off. However, up until this month and this issue, it appeared as if this game plan by the MSM(and Dems) was working(why I was not thinking Trump would not win in 2020-you can't overcome this much negative advertising, worth trillions of dollars).

One particular problem for me was the handling of the massively unethical Mueller investigation. The problem was not just the unscrupulous methods and the fact that they crucified an innocent man for 2+ years but that after this came out, it still got twisted into something different to get Trump and THEN, people still bought the spin. If people were getting led to the land of fake Trump crimes by the gate keepers of news and information and not even aware of their minds having been captured, I figured that Trump was sunk.

 Up until recently, none of this mattered because  the assumption has always been "Trump deserves what he gets because of the way he is".

But they overplayed their cards. They got so blatant/went so overboard and got caught in numerous lies and were so partisan and some of the stuff got so absurd that it is backfiring. Never Trumper dems will never change of course and are cheering this on. 

But independents, as shown in this research are actually thinking that the dems and MSM are worse than Trump on issues that matter to them. Make that MUCH WORSE than Trump. Matters that matter to us determine how we vote. Most importantly, they are fully recognizing the dems and MSM for being purely politically motivated with their actions and biased news reports. This means the brainwashing can no longer work. These particular targets of the brainwashing  have had enough of it and their assumptions are to be skeptical of new Trump condemning information, in fact, not even care about it anymore. The dems and MSM have completely lost their credibility.........while Trump, even with his lies and horrible character/personality traits, appears to be doing one thing that they are not...........working his arse off for them. 

This is the recipe for another 4 years for Trump. In the debates coming up, he can obliterate whoever his opponent is by just sticking to his agenda and comparing it to theirs. But he won't. He'll say some dumb, impulsive, crude things, at least a few that can be shown quickly to be an embellishment of the truth if  not wildly inaccurate.

But this negative part of him may be dialed into the psyche of many independents.....at least that's what this research is clearly showing.

After Trump does this and the MSM relentlessly attacks him, some independents will get MORE turned off because, with the election coming up and them deciding whats most important to them, their lives, their pocketbooks, their country, they will start focusing on more than the character flaws of the president and look at his agenda.............and be bothered by the sources, who they feel are misleading them to do the opposite......which suggest the sources are the enemy of the people......who said that (-:

By metmike - Dec. 1, 2019, 11:15 a.m.
Like Reply

A CNN opinion has a brilliant "save face" plan for the Dems.

Back off the impeachment process and instead, issue a censure for bad behavior with a warning, that "suspends" the impeachment process/vote until later, when they have something better.

If they do the vote now, after the Senate votes not to impeach, it will be over.

Should the dems want to start all over again, the American people are not going to go for this again, unless Trump really did  do something impeachable(what are the chances of that in the last year before the election?  Like .01%).

The way it is now, with people NOT being persuaded by the testimony, the Dems will lose in the Senate, Trump stays in office and this just looks entirely partisan. What people will remember the most is what happened last............Trump wins in the Senate and stays in office. Hard to see this as a victory for the dem impeachment proceedings.

This plan allows them to avoid this defeat while still sending a message. The American people would definately support this over more very divisive impeachment proceedings. 

BTW, they are not suggesting this because they think that its fair for Trump. They want his head on a platter even more today, than a year ago. If they thought they were not losing this battle, no way would they back off to save face. 


Democrats have a better choice than impeachment

Opinion by Charlie Firestone

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/28/opinions/impeachment-alternative-censure-firestone/index.html


This person also raises some great points about what happens after impeachment. The law right now moves Mike Pence up to president but if he too were impeached because he was in cahoots with the impeachable offense, then Nancy Pelosi is president.

That fact by itself might be enough for some republicans to not vote for impeachment. This needs to be changed. 

By TimNew - Dec. 1, 2019, 12:11 p.m.
Like Reply

From my comment in this thread on Nov 23rd.


"I heard a comment that this  may end up as "censure" since the additional scrutiny associated with a (majority pub) senate hearing may not go at all well (even worse) for dems.  Let's watch and see  :-)"


Dems are becoming quite predictable.


By metmike - Dec. 1, 2019, 12:47 p.m.
Like Reply

You were a week ahead of me Tim.

By metmike - Dec. 4, 2019, 10:40 p.m.
Like Reply

9 takeaways from the House Judiciary Committee's first impeachment hearing

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/politics/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-moments-takeaways/index.html


"In his opening statement, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, sought to address the biggest question Democrats face when it comes to the ongoing impeachment process: Why now? Especially when Trump will be up for reelection in less than a year?

"We are all aware that the next election is looming -- but we cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis," Nadler said. "The integrity of that election is the very thing at stake. The President has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check -- now -- President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal, political benefit."

In short: We can't wait because there is every reason to believe that Trump will do what he did with Ukraine again and again before the 2020 election. And such behavior would set a hugely dangerous precedent for how future presidents -- Democrat or Republican -- can and should act. 

Nadler's argument won't change the minds of his Republican colleagues in Congress. But they're not the intended audience. Voters around the country are."

Nadler's own words come back to haunt him

"Nadler was a prominent defender of Bill Clinton during the late 1990s when House Republicans impeached the former President for lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the time, Nadler argued that impeachment should never be pursued if only one party favored it because it would deeply divide the nation.

Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot, in one of the best moments for the GOP in the hearing, reminded Nadler of how much a difference a few decades make. Chabot read a series of Nadler quotes from the late 1990s, noting that he agreed with that version of Nadler and wondering what -- other than the President's party -- had changed.

Nadler chose not to respond."

metmike:  Is this really the United States of America?  Accusing Trump of trying to affect the 2020 election? Nadler makes it clear that what they are accusing Trump of doing is actually what they are doing. That' s what this entire charade is about  doing what they can to make sure Trump does not get elected again. A 100% partisan effort that will be stopped in the Senate.........only because there are not enough democrats to impeach him.