What are the chances of Trump's political survival to 2020?

[_Chap]

"Somehow an example of diversity and independence even thought we have the exact same opinions."

That's a quote shown over a photo of what is, I surmise, a group of newly elected Democrat women Representatives.

Did any of them say that, or was it just stuck on the photo as if it was a real quote, even if it wasn't?

Hmm ...

[_subgenius]

"Somehow an example of diversity and independence even thought we have the exact same opinions."

That's a quote shown over a photo of what is, I surmise, a group of newly elected Democrat women Representatives.

Did any of them say that, or was it just stuck on the photo as if it was a real quote, even if it wasn't?

Hmm ...

Hmmm?
maybe your answer lies in the reason why that picture was taken in the first place?
there ya go big poppy.

[_Chap]

the reason why that picture was taken in the first place?

Gosh, that's really a hard one.

How about "Recent elections to the House of Representatives have included a large number of women, including some quite young ones as well as some from ethnic minorities not much represented in previous elections to that body. While the Republicans remained very largely a bunch of middle-aged to older white males. And that's sort of, you, know, newsworthy to any reasonable person?'

Yup, that would probably be somewhere near it.

[_subgenius]

the reason why that picture was taken in the first place?

Gosh, that's really a hard one.

How about "Recent elections to the House of Representatives have included a large number of women, including some quite young ones as well as some from ethnic minorities not much represented in previous elections to that body. While the Republicans remained very largely a bunch of middle-aged to older white males. And that's sort of, you, know, newsworthy to any reasonable person?'

Yup, that would probably be somewhere near it.

ok... so as an example of "diversity"?

[_MeDotOrg]

Hrm...



- Doc

I'll bet that pretty accurately reflects the demographic differences of Fox and MSNBC.

[_Chap]

the reason why that picture was taken in the first place?

Gosh, that's really a hard one.

How about "Recent elections to the House of Representatives have included a large number of women, including some quite young ones as well as some from ethnic minorities not much represented in previous elections to that body. While the Republicans remained very largely a bunch of middle-aged to older white males. And that's sort of, you, know, newsworthy to any reasonable person?'

Yup, that would probably be somewhere near it.

ok... so as an example of "diversity"?

Nope. It was an example of diversity, plain, simple un-ironic and un-modalised, without quotes. It is striking that the Democratic intake included people like those in the picture. It was worth one picture, on one day, which is what it got. Does the Republican intake include a group like that? Nope.

And if you don't think it is significant that the Democratic intake to the House this time round did a much better job than the the Republican intake in representing the wide range of people who make up the US population, do its work and pay its taxes, then I think you are missing something that will do the GOP no good as the years go by.

[_subgenius]

...

Nope. It was an example of diversity, plain, simple un-ironic and un-modalised, without quotes. It is striking that the Democratic intake included people like those in the picture. It was worth one picture, on one day, which is what it got. Does the Republican intake include a group like that? Nope.

And if you don't think it is significant that the Democratic intake to the House this time round did a much better job than the the Republican intake in representing the wide range of people who make up the US population, do its work and pay its taxes, then I think you are missing something that will do the GOP no good as the years go by.

Umm, the "quote" was in reference to your apparent questioning here: viewtopic.php?p=1163405#p1163405

See the relevance of the image is how you have thusly proposed it...a symbol of "diversity"...yet the only diversity is in their skin color. So inherently a racist position you have found yourself upon. By your own admission these Democrats are being celebrated simply because of the color of their skin - for just about everything else is in lockstep with their old rich white colleagues......or was there something else "striking" about the photo that merits celebration? Did you not want to parade some cripples around as well?

[_canpakes]

See the relevance of the image is how you have thusly proposed it...a symbol of "diversity"...yet the only diversity is in their skin color. So inherently a racist position you have found yourself upon. By your own admission these Democrats are being celebrated simply because of the color of their skin - for just about everything else is in lockstep with their old rich white colleagues......or was there something else "striking" about the photo that merits celebration? Did you not want to parade some cripples around as well?

CFR that Chap states that “these Democrats are being celebrated simply because of the color of their skin”. This is your assertion.

You focus a lot on skin color. In this case, you show a small group of non-white legislators and claim that they don’t represent ‘diversity’ because the folks in that one group have similar skin tones, while ignoring the painfully obvious fact that this small group is part of a much larger group of folks who don’t all share the same backgrounds, ideas or skin color.

Methinks that you have some issues to work through.

[_Chap]

In the Democratic party, some young women of colour can be elected to the House of Representatives (see the photo, exhibit A).

And this is a good thing, for it is a good thing that all significant sections of the US population (which is ethnically and culturally very diverse, as well as being composed of more than one gender) should feel that people whom they see as like themselves can get elected to Congress. Anyone who thinks it is racist, sexist or ageist to be pleased that members of the House of Representatives are not all middle aged white men has their head on back to front.

In the Republican party, not so much.

(And of course the notion that everybody in the Democratic party thinks in an identical fashion is just plain dumb. I suspect it would not be difficult to find quite a few issues on which the young women in the picture would disagree with one another.)

[_MeDotOrg]

Getting back to Trump's chances of survival, with respect to making the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, consider this:

At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason (who introduced the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” into the constitution) maintained that a president who “procured his appointment” by corrupting the “electors” must be impeachable. Governor Morris made the same point.

The principle is the same. One can argue that if the appointment (election) the electors (the voters) was corrupted by the suppression of information relevant to the election: Namely, the affairs that Donald Trump spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to suppress. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make the argument that if knowledge of those affairs was made public prior to the election, it could have swung 30,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and the election would have had a different outcome. You could certainly argue that was Trump's motivation in suppressing the stories.