Jump to content


When will Trump get impeached?


  

47 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Trump represents an existential threat to liberalism. For the first time in a long time, the makers (people who produce wealth and/or income) have a champion in the White House.

This is an existential threat to the takers. The takers have known for a long time, if they are unable to guilt the makers out of their wealth, they could rely on the state to force the makers out of their wealth.

With each passing day that a man like Trump is in the White House, the takers ability to take without resistance becomes less and less. That's what the takers really fear, the day the makers will no longer be guilted, or forced.

 

 

What in bloody hell are you trying to say here?

BigRedBuster reply:

This is why you're seeing such vitriol against Trump. His very existence in the White House is a threat to those who make their living off other people's taxes, and contribute nothing back.

A large segment of the population is now a taker from the public treasury, and a massive bureaucracy has grown to administer this involuntary wealth redistribution. Also, a massive media complex that has become has arisen to assure every taker that their looting of others is somehow moral, at the same time, brow-beat and shame any maker who dares say they wish to not be looted.

These are the people fighting tooth and nail against Trump. This is why the calls for impeachment are so emotion driven.

Ummm.....no.

 

There are lots of fiscal conservatives (like me) who are disgusted this idiot is in office.

Yep, I'm afraid so. Saying "Ummm, no" doesn't change fact. Right now, the western world is divided into Makers, and takers. Unless you have a valid retort, my argument stands.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

Trump represents an existential threat to liberalism. For the first time in a long time, the makers (people who produce wealth and/or income) have a champion in the White House.

This is an existential threat to the takers. The takers have known for a long time, if they are unable to guilt the makers out of their wealth, they could rely on the state to force the makers out of their wealth.

With each passing day that a man like Trump is in the White House, the takers ability to take without resistance becomes less and less. That's what the takers really fear, the day the makers will no longer be guilted, or forced.

 

What in bloody hell are you trying to say here?

BigRedBuster reply:

This is why you're seeing such vitriol against Trump. His very existence in the White House is a threat to those who make their living off other people's taxes, and contribute nothing back.

A large segment of the population is now a taker from the public treasury, and a massive bureaucracy has grown to administer this involuntary wealth redistribution. Also, a massive media complex that has become has arisen to assure every taker that their looting of others is somehow moral, at the same time, brow-beat and shame any maker who dares say they wish to not be looted.

These are the people fighting tooth and nail against Trump. This is why the calls for impeachment are so emotion driven.

Ummm.....no.

 

There are lots of fiscal conservatives (like me) who are disgusted this idiot is in office.

Yep, I'm afraid so. Saying "Ummm, no" doesn't change fact. Right now, the western world is divided into Makers, and takers. Unless you have a valid retort, my argument stands.

 

You are so far off base it's scary.

 

This has been the mantra spewed out by Rush, Hannity, Brietbart, Infowars and their ilk from the beginning. They don't want to talk about the real issues happening so they come up with some ridiculous excuse.

 

Unfortunately, there are lots of people who listen to this crap and actually believe it.

 

This statement is no different than claiming anyone who disagreed with Obama was a racist.

 

It's a form of argument that truly shows your total lack of either understanding of what is going on or how much you have dove into propaganda from one side while shutting the other side completely out.

  • Fire 4
Link to comment

 

 

 

 

Trump represents an existential threat to liberalism. For the first time in a long time, the makers (people who produce wealth and/or income) have a champion in the White House.

This is an existential threat to the takers. The takers have known for a long time, if they are unable to guilt the makers out of their wealth, they could rely on the state to force the makers out of their wealth.

With each passing day that a man like Trump is in the White House, the takers ability to take without resistance becomes less and less. That's what the takers really fear, the day the makers will no longer be guilted, or forced.

 

What in bloody hell are you trying to say here?

BigRedBuster reply:

This is why you're seeing such vitriol against Trump. His very existence in the White House is a threat to those who make their living off other people's taxes, and contribute nothing back.

A large segment of the population is now a taker from the public treasury, and a massive bureaucracy has grown to administer this involuntary wealth redistribution. Also, a massive media complex that has become has arisen to assure every taker that their looting of others is somehow moral, at the same time, brow-beat and shame any maker who dares say they wish to not be looted.

These are the people fighting tooth and nail against Trump. This is why the calls for impeachment are so emotion driven.

Ummm.....no.

 

There are lots of fiscal conservatives (like me) who are disgusted this idiot is in office.

Yep, I'm afraid so. Saying "Ummm, no" doesn't change fact. Right now, the western world is divided into Makers, and takers. Unless you have a valid retort, my argument stands.

 

The old makers vs takers Republican talking point. Even Paul Ryan doesn't subscribe to that one:

"There was a time," Ryan said in an address on Wednesday afternoon, "when I would talk about a difference between 'makers' and 'taker' in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits."
Ryan went on: "As I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. 'Takers' wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don't want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn't castigate a large group of Americans to make a point."

More from that article:

This wasn't just Ryan's mistake. Conservatives broadly have equated low income with dependency. The conservative belief that the market tends to reward skill and diligence often mutates into a belief that poverty reflects some sort of turpitude.
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

On the topic of impeachment: no, I don't trust the Washington Post or the NYT or CNN to give me unbiased news. I don't trust Fox News either. I think arguing over impeachment is a waste of time, because 1) I think it's indicative of the pu&&y, whine-when-I-don't-get-my-way culture spreading in America, 2) I don't think any of his actions to this point are even close to impeachable, and 3) even if they were, like Knapp said, you're silly if you think this Congress is going to do it.

wrong. Not a whine because I don't get my way scenario. The divestment thing is a big issue why does no one see this? This is hugely unprecedented and he has been brokering deals for his family business with his title. That is an impeachable offense. He either divests or should be impeached plain and simple and to disagree with that would be completely ignorant.

He left all of his business to his kids...

and has been using his position to benefit his kids in that role ever since. And as soon as he is no longer President he will be right back at the top of his company that will have likely received direct benefit from his presidency.

 

So?

 

You just said taking was bad. Emoluments are taking.

 

Everyone in a position to help their children does so, this isn't a Trump villainous act.

You do realize that a person in government

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the topic of impeachment: no, I don't trust the Washington Post or the NYT or CNN to give me unbiased news. I don't trust Fox News either. I think arguing over impeachment is a waste of time, because 1) I think it's indicative of the pu&&y, whine-when-I-don't-get-my-way culture spreading in America, 2) I don't think any of his actions to this point are even close to impeachable, and 3) even if they were, like Knapp said, you're silly if you think this Congress is going to do it.

wrong. Not a whine because I don't get my way scenario. The divestment thing is a big issue why does no one see this? This is hugely unprecedented and he has been brokering deals for his family business with his title. That is an impeachable offense. He either divests or should be impeached plain and simple and to disagree with that would be completely ignorant.

He left all of his business to his kids...

and has been using his position to benefit his kids in that role ever since. And as soon as he is no longer President he will be right back at the top of his company that will have likely received direct benefit from his presidency.

 

So?

I'm interested.

 

How did you feel about Hillary receiving donations from world leaders to her personal foundation when she was Secretary of State?

 

Immoral, unethical, shows a lack of principles, but sadly not illegal.

 

The only way to make her pay for it was in the ballot box, and the American people came through!

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the topic of impeachment: no, I don't trust the Washington Post or the NYT or CNN to give me unbiased news. I don't trust Fox News either. I think arguing over impeachment is a waste of time, because 1) I think it's indicative of the pu&&y, whine-when-I-don't-get-my-way culture spreading in America, 2) I don't think any of his actions to this point are even close to impeachable, and 3) even if they were, like Knapp said, you're silly if you think this Congress is going to do it.

wrong. Not a whine because I don't get my way scenario. The divestment thing is a big issue why does no one see this? This is hugely unprecedented and he has been brokering deals for his family business with his title. That is an impeachable offense. He either divests or should be impeached plain and simple and to disagree with that would be completely ignorant.
He left all of his business to his kids...
and has been using his position to benefit his kids in that role ever since. And as soon as he is no longer President he will be right back at the top of his company that will have likely received direct benefit from his presidency.

So?

I'm interested.

 

How did you feel about Hillary receiving donations from world leaders to her personal foundation when she was Secretary of State?

Immoral, unethical, shows a lack of principles, but sadly not illegal.

 

The only way to make her pay for it was in the ballot box, and the American people came through!

 

And, so you feel the same way about Trump and his family financially gaining from being in the positions they are in.....good.

Link to comment

Immoral, unethical, shows a lack of principles, but sadly not illegal.

It's interesting how similar words could be used to describe several professional and presidential decisions made by Trump.

 

Suggesting the American people did the country a service by putting Trump (and Clinton) in a position to become president is an apocalyptic joke.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

Trump represents an existential threat to liberalism. For the first time in a long time, the makers (people who produce wealth and/or income) have a champion in the White House.

This is an existential threat to the takers. The takers have known for a long time, if they are unable to guilt the makers out of their wealth, they could rely on the state to force the makers out of their wealth.

With each passing day that a man like Trump is in the White House, the takers ability to take without resistance becomes less and less. That's what the takers really fear, the day the makers will no longer be guilted, or forced.

 

What in bloody hell are you trying to say here?

BigRedBuster reply:

This is why you're seeing such vitriol against Trump. His very existence in the White House is a threat to those who make their living off other people's taxes, and contribute nothing back.

A large segment of the population is now a taker from the public treasury, and a massive bureaucracy has grown to administer this involuntary wealth redistribution. Also, a massive media complex that has become has arisen to assure every taker that their looting of others is somehow moral, at the same time, brow-beat and shame any maker who dares say they wish to not be looted.

These are the people fighting tooth and nail against Trump. This is why the calls for impeachment are so emotion driven.

Ummm.....no.

 

There are lots of fiscal conservatives (like me) who are disgusted this idiot is in office.

Yep, I'm afraid so. Saying "Ummm, no" doesn't change fact. Right now, the western world is divided into Makers, and takers. Unless you have a valid retort, my argument stands.

 

How do you spell "ironic"?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Reply to BigRedBuster:

 

What exactly is your objection to Trump having his family as his closest advisors? "Financially gaining" is too broad and nebulous a phrase. What is your specific objection to Trump having his family as advisors? In what specific way do you see them gaining financially, and how can you directly attributed that to the president?

 

At what point do you finally admit it's not really a big deal, and you're just looking for an excuse to whine?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Reply to BigRedBuster:

 

What exactly is your objection to Trump having his family as his closest advisors? "Financially gaining" is too broad and nebulous a phrase. What is your specific objection to Trump having his family as advisors? In what specific way do you see them gaining financially, and how can you directly attributed that to the president?

 

At what point do you finally admit it's not really a big deal, and you're just looking for an excuse to whine?

Excuse to whine????

 

So, I take it you actually don't feel the same way about Trump and his family and how they are manipulating their positions to make huge amounts of money.

 

You really are OK with this?

 

Top GOP Senator wants clarity on Kushner family visa pitch

 

Amazingly, Ivanka sits in on meetings with Chinese officials with her father and all while she has business ties to China and things move along just grandly.

 

Ivanka: Trump's secret weapon with China?

 

Not to mention the millions of dollars the federal government has paid directly to his personal properties for meetings and time spent there that he very well could have spent at the Whitehouse....you know...the place we already pay for for him to live and host people????

 

Trump’s style of diplomacy puts his Mar-a-Lago in spotlight

You really haven't been paying attention....have you???

 

Congrats, you have perfected party politics.

 

 

PS....that was with just about a 5 minute google search. I'm sure if you try really hard, you can find even more.

 

 

 

 

Edit.....after I posted this, I remembered these gems.

 

Ivanka Trump company promotes $10,000 bracelet worn on '60 Minutes'

 

I threw one in from Fox News so that you can use a news site that I'm sure you frequent.....just for poops and giggles.

 

State Department promotion of Trump's Mar-a-Lago draws fire
  • Fire 7
Link to comment

 

Trump represents an existential threat to liberalism. For the first time in a long time, the makers (people who produce wealth and/or income) have a champion in the White House.

 

This is an existential threat to the takers. The takers have known for a long time, if they are unable to guilt the makers out of their wealth, they could rely on the state to force the makers out of their wealth.

 

With each passing day that a man like Trump is in the White House, the takers ability to take without resistance becomes less and less. That's what the takers really fear, the day the makers will no longer be guilted, or forced.

 

 

What in bloody hell are you trying to say here?

 

Interpretation: I <3 Ayn Rand. Just a little less elegant than John Galts speech.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

"For the first time in a long time", the wealthy corporate 'job-creating' class has a champion in government?

 

It's funny how the victim complex only increases with already outsize political influence.

 

I do truly appreciate the intellectual honesty, however. Don't even pretend that this is a champion for the little guy. Just come out and celebrate that it's quite the opposite of that. This kind of transparency is a breath of fresh air, so kudos.

  • Fire 4
Link to comment

How dumb can people get? The reason politicians are supposed to divest is so they can't be bought. If Trump is making money off of his presidency he could easily be bought by a foreign country. His damn kids are already offering visas to foreigners in exchange for paying up.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

I think this is a great article by NPR and does a very good job explaining the current situation and just how likely/unlikely impeachment is.

 

But there is a question, even if the Comey memo is proven to be true, of whether Trump's alleged actions meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice. Some legal analysts and professors say yes — "When someone at the White House is telling someone at DOJ or the FBI to soft-pedal or abandon an investigation, that's when people start talking about obstruction," University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck told Politico.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says maybe not. "If it was a polite request saying, 'Oh, you know, he's a good guy, Flynn, I wish you'd back off this thing,' that's not an obstruction of justice," Dershowitz contended on MSNBC on Tuesday. "If it was a command, it would raise stronger problems."

He continued, "I just think it's a very, very high bar to get over obstruction of justice for a president who, in fact, is the head of the unitary executive branch that includes the FBI and the Justice Department."

 

 

And then there's this gem...

Plenty on the left were calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush as the Iraq war was spiraling out of control and over the revelation that that country had no weapons of mass destruction, despite claims of evidence by the U.S. There were "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers in lots of different forms. (You can still buy some for $4.99 on Cafe Press.)

The calls even came from a New York businessman, who flirted with his own runs for president.
"I was surprised that [then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."
That happened to be Donald J. Trump on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...