It still amazes me how split our country is over impeachment.
The latest polls I saw on the news say 49% of Americans approve of impeachment and 49% disapprove. 2% are undecided / have no opinion.
Of registered democrat voters, 89% say the approve of Impeachment where as of registered republican voters 92% oppose impeachment.
Do registered republican voters oppose of impeachment because they believe Trump did nothing wrong? Or do they just love him and feel like supporting their guy?
It still amazes me how split our country is over impeachment.
The latest polls I saw on the news say 49% of Americans approve of impeachment and 49% disapprove. 2% are undecided / have no opinion.
Of registered democrat voters, 89% say the approve of Impeachment where as of registered republican voters 92% oppose impeachment.
Do registered republican voters oppose of impeachment because they believe Trump did nothing wrong? Or do they just love him and feel like supporting their guy?
What does he say about all the testimonies that confirm quid pro quo?I have a friend who is a leans heavily conservative and is a huge American history buff. He believes that nothing released so far is a smoking gun for impeachment and that the democrats set a dangerous precedent by opening up the inquiry.
I have a friend who is a leans heavily conservative and is a huge American history buff. He believes that nothing released so far is a smoking gun for impeachment and that the democrats set a dangerous precedent by opening up the inquiry.
Do registered republican voters oppose of impeachment because they believe Trump did nothing wrong? Or do they just love him and feel like supporting their guy?
Sounds like your friend is letting his own personal biases cloud the obvious.I have a friend who is a leans heavily conservative and is a huge American history buff. He believes that nothing released so far is a smoking gun for impeachment and that the democrats set a dangerous precedent by opening up the inquiry.
I have a friend who is a leans heavily conservative and is a huge American history buff. He believes that nothing released so far is a smoking gun for impeachment and that the democrats set a dangerous precedent by opening up the inquiry.
What does he say about all the testimonies that confirm quid pro quo?
So what would a smoking gun be?
There definitely has been collusion, quid pro quo and obstruction of justice. Not to mention ethical violations.
What does he say about all the testimonies that confirm quid pro quo?
So what would a smoking gun be?
There definitely has been collusion, quid pro quo and obstruction of justice. Not to mention ethical violations.
As expected. If they try that shit, I'm burning the capital building down.Also, a pro education Dem (who refers to healthcare as a basic human right) just won the governor race in Kentucky against a guy that Trump put a ton of energy into backing.
But the race was close, so Republicans are being predictably difficult.
Kentucky Gov. Bevin calls for vote recanvass as he refuses to concede
The governor insisted, without evidence, that "irregularities" had made a recount necessary.www.google.com
Senate president: Kentucky governor's race could be decided by state legislature
After Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin refused to concede to Andy Beshear, Senate President Robert Stivers said the GOP-held legislature may get the final saywww.courier-journal.com
Really. I don't see Pence firing up a base to win an election.Impeachment isn't a criminal offense. Whether there is obvious quid pro quo or not (there is), the move to impeach (which isn't going to happen in the senate regardless) is ultimately about putting a stain on Trump.
I personally doubt that stain will sway many if any voters (see my post above).
Given yesterday's results I'm curious if the Reds abandon Trump for Pence - a much more dangerous person. If they end up promoting Pence over Trump in the 2020 election I don't see any Blue beating him
Really. I don't see Pence firing up a base to win an election.
Really. I don't see Pence firing up a base to win an election.
I mean, this has been an ongoing question in cities around the country, especially any that are part of a "tech boom."Just read a disturbing article about the effects of Job Booms.
This one article focused on Midland Texas and the fracking industry. Fracking brought in jobs, good paying middle wage jobs. However, as result of increased jobs in the area rent and housing prices soared pasts the costs rent/housing and Dallas, Fort Worth and Huston resulting and in locals being priced out. Those living in the area already who are not part of the fracking industry could no longer afford their rent nor could they afford to buy any homes on the market. They were forced to relocate or go homeless.
Sure demand for housing in a rural area went up as jobs were created faster than new housing. However, should housing costs be allowed to increase to the extent that only those working the new jobs can afford them? Should everyone already living in the area see their rent triple within a year or two when they renew their leases and be forced out for those who can afford that rent?