When Bush Jr. was president, the left was consumed by Bush Derangement Syndrome. When Obama was president, the right was consumed by Obama Derangement Syndrome, sometimes with a side order of racism. (I have no doubt there was Clinton Derangement Syndrome; indeed that’s probably when the syndrome started.) Now there’s Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Attacking Trump for things he hasn’t done yet is irrational. If you’re going to impeach him, get him for something he has done or is doing. There’s fertile territory for that. But don’t act as nutty as his supporters.
IME, as someone who lived under Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto, is that eventually the leader’s power is removed and they’re effectively replaced by a more rational person. Ford was effectively replaced by his deputy mayor. Other leaders would pay court to the deputy, not the mayor himself. Unfortunately that took more than a year to happen. Trump is screwing up much faster, having a disastrous first month (publicly, that is; I’m sure Ford was screwing things up just as much behind the scenes from the start).
Just get the money out of the system, you have a bunch of billi/millionaire standing for election and a whole bunch of bought and paid career politicos in Congress.
There’s barely a sincere person anywhere in the political class. No wonder so many couldn’t tolerate Clinton and stayed home, no wonder so many deserted the process for years and decades until their ‘anti-hero’ came along.
Jesus, how tedious. My original claim is absolutely correct as a matter of simple math (Dems don’t need Trump voters to win the House). You’ve attempted to read into a further claim which I have not made (something like “Dems are likely to win the House with only Clinton voters” or “Dems should not court GOP voters”), and then set about demolishing your straw man.
Well, no, since I didn’t make a prediction, so it cannot be proven or disproven by future events. I suspect, like the guy above, you read me to be saying something I didn’t.
Legally, there’s nothing that says a Republican President can’t be impeached by a Republican Congress. Granted it’s unlikely but it seems strange that you’re arguing that the Republicans will ignore any crime committed by one of their own. That seems more like a claim a Democrat would be making.
What “simple math” are you talking about? Is this some stupid claim on the level of ‘If no Republicans show up next election, Dems will win in a landslide’? You appeared to think that flipping the 23 Clinton-Republican districts would be enough, but it’s not. I already explained to you that they need to flip 24 districts.
Every time you type “appear” or “seem,” consider that you’re also interpreting my posts in the least charitable possible way, so you may not be getting results that make sense.
I’m sorry you’re so upset about something. I hope you feel better soon.
I’m not upset about anything (after all, my side’s been winning the House all decade). I’m just trying to understand your claim. You called it both “my simple observation of numerical facts” and “a matter of simple math” but the only number I can find in your posts on the subject is the 23 Clinton-Republican CDs, which doesn’t appear to have any significance at all as it relates to Dems retaking the House. The only other point I’ve been able to deduce is that you may really have intended to make such a vacuous and inane claim along the lines I mentioned previously. I hope that’s not the case, because I had previously thought your posts were generally well-reasoned, but I’m at a loss for what other “simple math” or “numerical fact” you might have been trying to claim. Please, enlighten me.
Sorry to disappoint you. Some of us are* disappointed* that a grossly incompetent buffoon was elected President of the United States. I liked our country before, and I’d like to see it get back to what it was.
Sorry, catching back up. So you say that the investigation won’t be going into these people who surrounded Trump at various times who may have had Russia’s best interests in mind. But the press release says the committee will investigate:
“Counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns;”
That doesn’t address every one of your questions – for example, I don’t think “why did Trump fire Manafort?” is a particularly enlightening question – but I think this inquiry, if it is carried out, seems like it is going into Trump’s associates’ links to Russia.
IANAL, but I don’t see how it would be possible to force Trump to testify under oath. Even if he were to be impeached he doesn’t have to even attend his own trial.
If Trump were to be forced to resigned or outright removed from office over ties to Russia then Pence would likely pursue an extremely hard line on Russia in order to draw as a big a contrast between himself & his predecessor has possible.
Nobody’s ever tried to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment before and it depends on Pence getting majority support from the Cabinet, a group of people handed picked by and serving at Trump’s pleasure. And [del]if[/del] when Trump sends a written objection to it’s invocation to Congress it would take 2/3rds majorities in both chambers; impeachment only takes a majority vote in the House, followed by a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.
Isn’t already the law that a President who’s removed from office (or resigns after being impeached) forfeits his pension and all the other benefits former Presidents get?
What exactly would “a plenary system” be in this context?
Cite? I haven’t seen much sign that Pence is a friend of anyone other than other corrupt politicians, and maybe little old friars in brown robes for some reason.
And who says this isn’t Pence’s foreign policy? Mobster Mike Pence seems like a guy Putin could do business with.
You do realize that doesn’t have to be oral sex, right?
Trump’s administration defied court stays of the travel ban.
Trump actively solicited a delegation from Kuwait to stay at Trump’s hotel.
None of this is even in dispute.
Add to this that Trump’s claim of handing off his business to his sons is non-credible and would be insufficient if true.
We’re way past what Clinton was impeached for.
Now, if Trump’s administration continues to block visas from Iraq, then at some point we can argue he has reneged on promises made to foreign DoD contractors.
DHS is now revoking global entry for Muslim American citizens, which may be religious harassment.
We’re past “policy.” Some of these are high crimes. Some are misdemeanors.
That seems like an absurdly restrictive view of the Logan Act (which is itself probably an unconstitutional law) that makes no logical sense.
In December, 2016, everyone knows that in a month, Obama will be out and Trump will be in. Why should the incoming administration not be permitted to discuss with our neighbors how things will be next month and/or what changes in policy they might expect?
Is it better if he does it on the campaign trail? For example, Trump made it known that he planned to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. If, instead of posting it on his webpage or saying it in a stump speech, he called Netanyahu in December and told him that, should that be different?
I am not a fan of everything that Trump does, and don’t agree with his Russia policy, but I simply cannot see how telling someone what next month’s policy will be is so atrocious. Certainly not impeachable.
The tone of this thread is just dripping with hatred of all things Trump that it is making otherwise intelligent posters post some rather over the top things.
And yet the leading Democrat in the House agrees with me, not you. I wonder why that is. You might want to go back and check your premises. Beginning with the tired old meme you started that post with.
It makes perfectly logical sense. Logan, a private citizen, tried to influence foreign policy in France counter to the goals of the current administration.
The incoming Trump administration, also private citizens at the time, tried to influence foreign policy in Russia counter to the goals of the current administration. It is exactly the kind of activity that the act was intended to criminalize.
That much is very clear. Whether you think it is constitutional or not is another debate but nobody has successfully argued its constitutionality since 1799.
But it’s a lot worse than just that. At the time Russia had just been named by 17 intelligence agencies as the perpetrator of the US election hacks. So they were not only trying to meddle in foreign policy of Russia as private citizens, and not only acting completely contrary to the goal of the current sitting administration which was to punish Russia with sanctions. They also created the appearance that they could be settling a quid pro quo deal with the Russians for helping them win the election.
The intelligence agencies notified the administration they had recorded these calls during routine surveillance but they didn’t do anything at all about it until a whistle blower leaked the information to the public weeks after notifying Trump. So then they threw Flynn under the bus in hopes that would put an end to the controversy. But it hasn’t, and it shouldn’t.
Not exactly. Eliminating Cali which has mostly Dem Congressfolks anyway, Trump got 1.2 million more votes everywhere else. And everywhere else would be where the Dems would need votes.
