Jump to content
mrandyk

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

 

 

 

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...

 

 

Very srs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Holy sh#t.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

You think it's legal to benefit from the presidency as long as you're doing it to help your children?

 

Just trying to understand your thought process here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think its worth reminding people that while "impeachment" sounds great - it doesn't mean a president necessarily leaves office.

No it means the Congress grows a spine and decides to call Trump forward to defend his bullsh#t. I don't see that going well for Trump, so while impeachment doesn't mean Trump out of office, it might as well mean as much.

I want him to exeroence the embarrassment of public testimony for sure, but want him and his cohorts to be legally held accountable as well. He belongs in prison. #FreeMelania

 

(Can you imagine what he would try to do and the damage he would make for us internationally if he was impeached but remained in office?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just because his kids are in control of the business, does that also means Trump is receiving no funds whatsoever from the Trump empire? I highly doubt that personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just because his kids are in control of the business, does that also means Trump is receiving no funds whatsoever from the Trump empire? I highly doubt that personally.

After the big "look at all theses folders" press conference didnt he make an amendment to that "im giving my kids the business" contract that said he could withdrawl/obtain funds from his businesses at amytime? One of those things that got lost in all the other bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think its worth reminding people that while "impeachment" sounds great - it doesn't mean a president necessarily leaves office.

No it means the Congress grows a spine and decides to call Trump forward to defend his bullsh#t. I don't see that going well for Trump, so while impeachment doesn't mean Trump out of office, it might as well mean as much.
I want him to exeroence the embarrassment of public testimony for sure, but want him and his cohorts to be legally held accountable as well. He belongs in prison. #FreeMelania

 

(Can you imagine what he would try to do and the damage he would make for us internationally if he was impeached but remained in office?)

I agree before we proceed with an impeachment we need to be sure he can be removed from office nearly immediately, or extreme chaos that makes his presidency thus far seem like a well organized outfit will ensue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that if you asked Trump to candidly list the top reasons why he does anything... his children would not be among them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 power using that power to help their children gain power is the very definition of an aristocracy, right? Are you advocating for a ruling class or even a monarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is free to pursue life as a private citizen rather than as a public servant if he wants to do that. There's this thing called government ethics that I would expect conservatives of all people to hold in high esteem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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"?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

I believe the proof in the difference would be did the request come with negative ramifications if Comey didn't abide by the request.

 

Well....Since Comey has time now to watch Judge Judy, I'm assuming the proof of that would be pretty easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Trump represents an existential threat to liberalism.

Then why are conservatives on this board calling for his impeachment?

 

 

They were persuaded by the echo chamber.

 

I'm not persuaded by an echo chamber. I was hoping he would grow in the office and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Ask Knapp, I'm a pretty conservative guy & a registered Republican. As a student of history, and presidential history in particular, I find Trump to be incapable of fulfilling the role of his job. He does not measure up in so many ways. The argument of temperament during the campaign has been proven true. But it goes far beyond temperament - it goes to his very character. He is not a leader and he most certainly has personality disorders that make him incapable of fulfilling his duties. I had many issues with the previous democratic president but I would not be a man of character if I turned a blind eye towards this republican president. Trump fades in comparison to Ronald Reagan - don't mention them in the same sentence. My issue with Trump isn't totally on policy - there are some I like (which many he has back peddled on) and some I don't like. My issue is his fitness for the office. He has been weighed in the scales and been found wanting as far as I'm concerned.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

You think it's legal to benefit from the presidency as long as you're doing it to help your children?

 

Just trying to understand your thought process here.

 

 

Rotsa ruck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why nobody should get their hopes up for an impeachment, or the 25th Amendment. Republicans are in power, and if they aren't threatened by bad polling, they're sticking to the party line that there's nothing wrong.

Analysis: Controversy aside, GOP sticking with Trump

But ask some GOP lawmakers, particularly House members from conservative districts or senators from GOP-leaning states, and they don’t need an investigation to tell you there’s no there there.

“At this point I have not seen anything that is that alarming,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama.

“I’m convinced that the president did nothing that he thought was outside the best interest of the country,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

“A lot of times he’s the victim of not being a career politician,” Rep. James Comer of Kentucky said of Trump.

“You guys are barking up the wrong tree,” Sen. James Risch of Idaho told a group of reporters asking about the various controversies.

Risch insisted the “real story” is leaks coming out of the administration. And citing a Washington Post story about Trump revealing classified information to Russian diplomats in the Oval Office a day after firing Comey, Risch said it had been disclosed by “a weasel ... a traitor. They’ve committed treason and ought to go to prison.”

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

LMAO.

Somebody had to have hacked his twitter. Didn't they?

 

 

It's from 2014.

 

The hilarious thing about Trump is, for nearly everything that happens, he's made a tweet about it sometime in the past that says the exact opposite.

 

It's remarkable, really.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

LMAO.

Somebody had to have hacked his twitter. Didn't they?

 

 

It's from 2014.

 

The hilarious thing about Trump is, for nearly everything that happens, he's made a tweet about it sometime in the past that says the exact opposite.

 

It's remarkable, really.

 

Projecting. Trump thought the other side was doing what he'd do. Now he's doing it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

LMAO.

Somebody had to have hacked his twitter. Didn't they?

 

 

It's from 2014.

 

The hilarious thing about Trump is, for nearly everything that happens, he's made a tweet about it sometime in the past that says the exact opposite.

 

It's remarkable, really.

 

Ahhhh. I didn't notice the date. I just figured he was getting really brazen and admitting he was incompetent and basically saying "so whatcha gonna do about it?"

 

But, since it's from 2014, it's just another in an embarrassingly long line of him being even worse than what he disparaged Obama for.

 

It was much more fun thinking he tweeted that this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

In addition:

 

Chinese government grants rights to 35 long-sought trademarks to Trump businesses (March)

 

Trump doubles membership fee to Mar-A-Lago from $100K to $200K (January)

 

Documents confirm Donald Trump benefits from his business (February)

 

Rusty being honest about his opinion. What we want here is honest discussion about how people really feel.

 

But he's absolutely blinding himself to Trump's conflicts of interest and ability to profit from his decisions. As is Atbone, if he thinks Trump's kids running his company is acceptable. His tax plan is basically a huge giveaway to himself.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd wager 90% of the people posting in this topic would be saying the same things if this was Clinton. BRB and ED and TGHusker are ex-Republicans or reluctant Republicans. They're all conservative. knapp is an independent (I think). I'm an independent. It's safe to say that at the very least the 5 of us would have had similar posts if it was Clinton doing these same things.

 

No offense to zoogs but he might have tried a little harder to defend Clinton than he did Trump.

 

 

So if I sound condescending in my response to someone who says "Trump hasn't done anything illegal," that's why. If you think he hasn't done anything illegal you either haven't been paying attention and/or you would have been pissing and moaning if Clinton had done the exact same stuff.

 

It's possible I confused you with Dewiz, Atbone, but you need to open your eyes. An independent FBI protects us. Having three branches of government protects us. What if the president could just pressure the FBI director into stopping any investigation? That would allow the president to get away with all sorts of things. Do you want that to be the case when a non-Republican is president? If not, you shouldn't want Trump to get away with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely an independent, and I don't want Hillary as president. We do not need dynasties in American politics. We kicked out the King over 200 years ago and we don't need to go back. So no to more Clintons, no to more Bushes, no to Michelle Obama or anyone else who might run because their family member was once president.

 

 

I can guarantee you I'd be posting about Hillary exactly the same way as I'm posting about Trump if she was doing the things Trump is doing.

 

 

I believe in objective right and wrong. Doesn't matter to me if they're an R or a D (or, like Donald or Bernie, someone pretending to be an R or D), if they're wrong, they deserve to be called on it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary wouldn't be doing what Trump is doing.

 

If we somehow switched the entire persons and party names, then, yeah. Of course I would find a Hillary who behaves in the manner of Trump to be distasteful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst job in Washington right now: Working for Trump

 

But his team is growing increasingly weary. Privately, they say, the problem is not an incompetent communications shop, as the president sometimes gripes, or an ineffectual chief of staff, as friends and outside operatives repeatedly warn, but the man in the Oval Office, whose preferred management style is one of competing factions and organized chaos.

 

One West Wing official recently stopped defending Trump or trying to explain away his more controversial behavior. Another characterized the operation as “trudging along,” with aides trying to focus their attention on Trump’s upcoming foreign trip and the budget landing next week.

 

For many White House staffers, impromptu support groups of friends, confidants and acquaintances have materialized, calling and texting to check in, inquiring about their mental state and urging them to take care of themselves.

 

One Republican operative in frequent contact with White House officials described them as “going through the stages of grief.” Another said some aides have “moved to angry,” frustrated with a president who demands absolute loyalty but in recent days has publicly tarnished the credibility of his team by sending them out with one message, only to personally undercut it later with a contradicting tweet or public comment.

 

And a third said that others are now sticking around purely for self-interest, hoping to juice their future earning potential. This Republican added that any savvy White House staffer should be keeping a diary. “The real question is: How long do you put up with it?,” this person said. “Every one of those people could get a better paying job and work less hours.”

 

The Trump White House has always been full of leaks to the news media. But the latest waves of anonymous griping have subtly shifted from warring aides bickering among themselves to staffers training their frustrations on the president, as well. Those who remain fully loyal to Trump report a growing sense of isolation.

 

Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency,” said the most important duty of a chief of staff is to prevent “end runs” — including the situation in which Trump allegedly asked to meet privately with the head of the FBI, which is investigating his campaign.

 

“The White House staff system is completely broken, maybe beyond repair. It is inconceivable that something like that could have happened on James Baker or Leon Panetta’s watch,” Whipple said, referring to chiefs of staff under previous presidents. “The problem with this White House is that there is no one, including Priebus, who is able to tell the president what he doesn’t want to hear and until there is, this White House will be broken, will be dysfunctional and so will Trump’s presidency.”

 

 

Maybe we'll have to see. If this is correct, and people are this upset & frustrated and being counseled to "keep a diary," maybe there'll be enough information that comes out in the aftermath of this thing to prosecute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we do go down the road to impeachment, I expect there'll be a good deal of people doing their utmost to claim the moral high ground. They're going to sell Trump out in the hopes we'll all forget the extent to which (some of them) signed on to implement his agenda. It's not surprising that Trump is making enemies of his own, but not all enemies of enemies are friends.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure which thread to put this in, so I'll just put it here. I've been thinking about why Putin would offer "transcripts" of the meeting between his spies ambassadors and Trump, and it occurs to me that maybe Putin is better served if Trump gets impeached. If Putin's goal is to tear down the US and he's shown a desire to create maximum chaos with his foes, then maybe Russia releases information that implicates Trump. Think of the maelstrom that would create, especially if a few other key figures like Pence, Bannon, Priebus, etc. were also implicated (even falsely implicated).

 

This looks even more likely an outcome given that GOP leadership suspected Trump was on Putin's payroll last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×