Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[Subduction Zone]

It’s my opinion that we don’t know what the results would have been? Ludicrous. You don’t have a crystal ball. But I’ll give you a chance, just like I gave the equally obtuse Tom. Tell me, if the 2016 election was to be decided by popular vote, who would have won and why? Good luck.

I know that is your opinion, but it is not supported by evidence. If you want to claim that somehow Trump would have campaigned differently and won over voters you would have to show how. I don't think that his particular brand of politics would work that way. He pandered to the special interests of swing states. That is all but impossible to do on a national level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you realize you’re proving my point? Probably not. So obtuse.

As usual you have it backwards. You do not understand the electoral college and its flaws. How could your lack of understanding prove your point?

 

[fantome profane]

if the 2016 election was to be decided by popular vote, who would have won and why?

The person who got the most votes. Why? Because democracy.

 

[Watchmen]

I know that is your opinion, but it is not supported by evidence. If you want to claim that somehow Trump would have campaigned differently and won over voters you would have to show how. I don't think that his particular brand of politics would work that way. He pandered to the special interests of swing states. That is all but impossible to do on a national level.

It’s common sense. Trump and Hillary both would have campaigned differently. They would have strategized a way to get maximum voters regardless of the source state, and no one knows how that election would have turned out. Do you think Trump would have been in Wisconsin on the eve of the election? Doubtful.

 

[Watchmen]

As usual you have it backwards. You do not understand the electoral college and its flaws. How could your lack of understanding prove your point?

Wrong. You just make these comments about “lack of understanding” because you’re defeated.

You said yourself the candidates don’t campaign in a Texas or California much. If the rules were win by popular vote, don’t you think the candidates would have spent more time in those states?

Like I said, you proved my point.

 

[Watchmen]

The person who got the most votes. Why? Because democracy.

Specifics please.

 

[averageJOE]

She is right. We all knew the ending of this impeachment before it even started. Now, Trump is going to be even harder to defeat, as well as the real possibility of keeping the Senate and winning the House. Then, establishment Democrats and the mainstream media will somehow find a way to blame Russia, Iran, and China. And gullible people will fall for it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No matter how many words you use it was still the procedural equivalent of summary judgment.

It was the procedural equivalent of a cover up.

See? I can repeat a claim without backing it up, too.

 

[dianaiad]

land and cows have a right to equal representation too!!!

Well, the people who own them do, I think.

It is why the Senate and the House were set up so differently, y'know...to ensure that there would be no 'tyranny of the majority' going on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s common sense. Trump and Hillary both would have campaigned differently. They would have strategized a way to get maximum voters regardless of the source state, and no one knows how that election would have turned out. Do you think Trump would have been in Wisconsin on the eve of the election? Doubtful.

"Common sense" is the claim of the person that cannot support themselves. I could just as easily say that it is "common sense" that the gross numbers would not change all that much. Which means that Hillary would still win by roughly 3 million votes.

 

[SoyLeche]

Well, the people who own them do, I think.

It is why the Senate and the House were set up so differently, y'know...to ensure that there would be no 'tyranny of the majority' going on.

We are moving into tyrany of the minority now. Half of the electoral votes are controlled by 18% of the population.

 

[England my lionheart]

Here's the politics.
USA doesn't elect POTUS. POTUS is appointed by state legislatures.
Trump lost the popular vote by millions, but the votes of the American people don't matter. What matters, nowadays, is the partisan goals of state legislatures.
Tom

Thanks Tom,I'm kind of understanding how Trump got the job.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She is right. We all knew the ending of this impeachment before it even started. Now, Trump is going to be even harder to defeat, as well as the real possibility of keeping the Senate and winning the House. Then, establishment Democrats and the mainstream media will somehow find a way to blame Russia, Iran, and China. And gullible people will fall for it.

You have it backwards. You forgot who the gullible people voted for.

 

[England my lionheart]

You're not the one confused.

Maple smoked bacon is easier to understand or even just smoked.

 

[columbus]

Clinton was GUILTY of the crimes for which he was impeached.

Clinton was guilty of banging a secretary.
He got impeached for lying about that under oath.

Trump is guilty of treason.
But he's managed to obstruct investigation and avoid testimony under oath.

Thanks Tom,I'm kind of understanding how Trump got the job.

It is hard to understand when so many people refer to the USA as a democracy, and Trump as being elected.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the people who own them do, I think.

It is why the Senate and the House were set up so differently, y'know...to ensure that there would be no 'tyranny of the majority' going on.

Yes, and no. It was also a compromise to the slave states. The "tyranny of the majority" has never been a thing. The main difference between the House and the Senate are the lengths of terms. The Senate is supposed to work on the long term. It is designed for a more cautious approach. With six year election one does not focus on items that may be a flash in the pan. The House is designed to solve problems more quickly. Either succeed or get out with only two years between elections. It is a very good idea when it works.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yes, and no. It was also a compromise to the slave states. The "tyranny of the majority" has never been a thing. The main difference between the House and the Senate are the lengths of terms. The Senate is supposed to work on the long term. It is designed for a more cautious approach. With six year election one does not focus on items that may be a flash in the pan. The House is designed to solve problems more quickly. Either succeed or get out with only two years between elections. It is a very good idea when it works.

I think you might have that first part backward. The slave states had larger populations at the time and wanted more proportional representation. The states that needed the compromise to get on board were those like Delaware and Rhode Island.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you might have that first part backward. The slave states had larger populations at the time and wanted more proportional representation. The states that needed the compromise to get on board were those like Delaware and Rhode Island.

I may have it backwards, I should check.. I do know that the 3/5 compromise was due to the fact that the North did not want to count slaves at all. Roughly following the idea of "no taxation without representation" If a person was not free they should not count as a "person". In other words the South would have been able to count all of their population if they freed the slaves. African Americans in nonslave states were counted as "whole people". The South of course wanted the slaves to count fully since they would have more political power in the House if that was the case. Most people get the compromise backwards. It was not meant to lower the position of African Americans, but to raise it by making them more important as freed individuals.

Actually I was more or less correct since the 3/5 compromise played an important role in how many electors a state got (the number of Representatives to the House plus the two Senators that each state has). Though much of the South was populous 40% of its population were slaves at the time of the founders. That means the compromise greatly cut their number of electoral votes, or increased them depending upon one's perspective:

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

It was a bit of a messed up system based upon some incorrect assumptions. The first being that the House of Representatives was thought to be the likely decider of the Presidency. If there is no clear cut winner by majority of the electoral votes it was to go to the House. Most thought that there would be many candidates and that none of them wold earn a clear majority. They did not foresee the development of the two party system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clinton was guilty of banging a secretary.
He got impeached for lying about that under oath.

Trump is guilty of treason.
But he's managed to obstruct investigation and avoid testimony under oath.


It is hard to understand when so many people refer to the USA as a democracy, and Trump as being elected.
Tom

I can't remember, did the Senate get to interview witnesses in the Clinton impeachment?

 

[England my lionheart]

Clinton was guilty of banging a secretary.
He got impeached for lying about that under oath.

Trump is guilty of treason.
But he's managed to obstruct investigation and avoid testimony under oath.


It is hard to understand when so many people refer to the USA as a democracy, and Trump as being elected.
Tom

Again as an outsider,Trump has been running at about 40% in popularity which isn't a bragging percentage during his office.

I remember the bush administration,Dick Chaney or slick Dick Chaney as I thought of him,maybe one of the most unliked vice presidents in American history but in terms of dollars made he did pretty good,anyway when he exited he was 13% in popularity,how low would it take for Trump?.