people are already dug in. nobody is changing their minds about anything.

at this point in our republic people have already chosen sides and appeals to reason are over.

we're just at the point where we have to count heads to see which side has more.

that is destinctly untrue. this time last month 40% of people were for impeachment, nows its 52, approbal might not be changing but something else is. you are nowhere near the endgame for this, and thinking its over is the fastes way to lose

mr and mrs american aren't looking at the tv scratching their chins wondering what to make of all this. *they have already decided*

people don't vote on impeachment. they vote on representatives.

and they aren't going to pull the lever for the other team over this.

the vote today was purely partisan.

and what do you think happens in the vote in 2020 if 60 or 70% of people were for impeaching trump because the republicans where counting heads instead of beating democrats over the head wit hthier own misdeads?

jesus christ dude. the republicans have been beating the democrats over the head with their misdeeds for the past three years and the needle hasn't fucking moved.

trump has been at ~43% approval for the past two years.

really, i sawy it fluctuate alot in that time

Over and over again low of 38 high of 46, because they were fighting

statistical noise. these polls tend to have an error of +/-3%

noise, yeah. its not like there was asignificant jump after any events. its not like it tends to react to news cycles.

2020, assuming there isn't some black swan event that results in trump's removal, will be a nailbiter just like 2016.

2020 will be a blow out one way or the other.

from your lips to god's ears

if republicans handle this right, they will demolish the democrats for a decade to come. if they don't, the republican party will lose, pretty much forever

legalizing 30Million people tends to til tehe vote a bit

Louie is right the clown decade is upon us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORN19LkcpL8

what the fuck

how is that triggering

I know that the US politics current state might be feeding my paranoia but this Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary scene seems to be a bit too convenient to me.

Is the any chance that Hillary is playing the evil witch of the woods in attempt to make Trump lose? Knowing how much Trump base hates her she has a lot of power over them, she coul push and push making candidate like Gabbard appear to be someone they might consider voting.

possibly, but I personally find that to be unlikely, considering 99% of trump voters are just gonna vote for trump

Maybe but this is early days still on the elections. It would make a very good narrative if she was to 'fight' with Hillary, push forward and get in the primaries and then be a Democratic candidate who would would be votable to Conservatives.

All you would need after that is to tarnish Trump even more while having the Gabbard run 'rogue' and try to call for decency and respect and give Trump some small amounts of respect.

Democrats would be flinging shit at Trump, never trumpers would get annoying and loud and boom Gabbard who was target of no ones flinging emerges victorious.

Best part of this that it does not rely on altruism of Hillary, just her hate of Trump as woman scorned.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1074241
Great job Trump. Very cool!

Your cybersecurity adviser cannot unlock his own phone.

https://uproxx.com/culture/rick-perry-misunderstood-energy-secretary-job/

Great job Trump. Very cool.

Replacing a PhD nuclear scientist with someone with a degree in animal husbandry in the position that oversees American nuclear weapons.

https://usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/19/record-rick-perry-wants-succeed-two-physicists-energy-chief/96762042/

> A nuclear physicist currently holds the role, and a Nobel Prize-winning physicist held the job before that. Perry's background is a bit different: He studied animal husbandry at Texas A&M. He also once frolicked to the “Green Acres” theme on TV's “Dancing with the Stars.”

"Some have pointed out that Perry acknowledged that the Energy Secretary oversees America’s nuclear arsenal in a statement on the day he accepted the job, which would of course dispute the New York Times’ assertion that he didn’t know the full scope of the role.

“It is a tremendous honor to be selected to serve as Secretary of Energy by President-elect Trump. I am deeply humbled by his trust in me,” Perry said that day. “As the former governor of the nation’s largest energy producing state, I know American energy is critical to our economy and our security. I look forward to engaging in a conversation about the development, stewardship and regulation of our energy resources, safeguarding our *nuclear arsenal*, and promoting an American energy policy that creates jobs and puts America first.”"

if only liberals could read to the end of the article LOL

Or read past the headline

or think for themselves

You're missing the main point LOL

> A big chunk of the Energy secretary’s job involves upkeep of America’s nuclear arsenal, as the New York Times reported, a focus requiring two-thirds of the department’s $30 billion budget. A nuclear physicist currently holds the role, and a Nobel Prize-winning physicist held the job before that.

> Perry's background is a bit different: He studied animal husbandry at Texas A&M. He also once frolicked to the “Green Acres” theme on TV's “Dancing with the Stars.”