Donald Trump is Unimpeachable. Here’s Why.

Discuss.

Donald Trump is Unimpeachable. Here’s Why.

richard09 wrote:

Discuss.

It seems the sky is on fire, according to this guy.  I'm a little more sanguine.

Yes, the Far Right will get most of what they want in the next couple of years, including a business-friendly SCOTUS.  But doing so will put the economy on a fast slide, and by mid-terms they'll lose their majorities.  Trump (or Pence...) will find himself increasingly emasculated until 2020, when a new Democrat star sweeps into office.

It's a teeter-totter, happens every 4-8 years folks.

What;s happening in Washington now is most assuredly not what happens every four or eight years. Folk.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Yes, the Far Right will get most of what they want in the next couple of years, including a business-friendly SCOTUS.  But doing so will put the economy on a fast slide, and by mid-terms they'll lose their majorities.  Trump (or Pence...) will find himself increasingly emasculated until 2020, when a new Democrat star sweeps into office.

It's a teeter-totter, happens every 4-8 years folks.

I'm not exactly panicking yet, but to say this is the usual back-and-forth of the two-party system seems hopelessly naive. We've just sat through 8 years of one of the parties not only refusing to participate in government but also doing it's absolute best to ensure that the other party couldn't do anything either. Now that they have (apparently) seized control thanks to their own cheating efforts and the help of a foreign power, they are trying to ram through legislation to destroy everything that the US government has achieved since the great depression, plus doing their best to actually destroy the structure of government itself.

The only aspect of that guy's assessment I'm a bit dubious about is the assertion that this is all Putin's plan. And I'm not sure - it might be. But I really think the Republicans mostly did this to themselves over the past 30 years. I think Putin saw the chance to insert his influence over the course of just the last few years.

I don't know how successful DT will be at ramming through legislation, but the executive branch officials he has appointed are doing a bang up job of destroying everything Obama accomplished.

The executive agencies' actions are not getting the amount of coverage that they deserve. Not "sexy" enough for the news broadcasts, I guess. But with the garbage policies they are instituting, we may not recognize this country in a couple of years.

The House passed, and the (gag)president signed a repeal of Obama's regulation preventing ISPs from collecting and selling all of your internet activity. The (gag) made it legal for coal and other companies to dump all their waste in streams and rivers. And, of course, they don't have to pay for any cleanup - we do. The EPA is not allowed to use the term "global warming" and they are not getting funding for studying it and considering methods of amelioration. And there are numerous other actions that have received little coverage.

Of course not. Everybody's too busy chasing his 3:00am tweets.

American voters get what they deserve. I'm done feeling sorry for the fuckers.

Wife had a discussion last night with our foreman, I don't know how it came up but the guy said there was no way he could've voted for Clinton.  He just didn't like or trust her.

I don't think he voted for Trump either.  Probably abstained.

Several of my friends have said the same thing.  If I know that many people -- and I don't have very many friends -- there must be tens of millions who felt the same way in the country.

The Dems got nobody but themselves to blame.  I said it at the beginning, I said it at the end -- Hillary was a *terrible* choice.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ought to have a position in Trump's cabinet.

Anyone who says he didn't vote for Clinton because he didn't like or trust here is someone who fell for the Republicans' bullshit. Clinton has never done anything, of which I am aware, that renders her untrustworthy. Your foreman is not very bright.

NoCo wrote:

American voters get what they deserve. I'm done feeling sorry for the fuckers.

Has it occurred to you that you are one of the American voters? And did you notice that millions more voters preferred Clinton? No one in this country "deserves" the current president, except Putin.

You simply must get over the popular vote count. The elections don't work that way, haven't since 1788. Deal.

'Crooked Hillary' lost, fair and square. Or, at least, she lost with a little Russian botnet fake news help.

I don't have to get over a fucking thing.

Fine. But bitterness is a toxic stew my friend. Embrace your monkey overlords.

I don't need your pretentious advice.

See? What'd I tell you?

NoCoPilot wrote:

You simply must get over the popular vote count.  The elections don't work that way, haven't since 1788.  Deal.

Have you considered enrolling in a refresher course on reading comprehension?

The manner in which the winner of the election is determined was not the point under discussion. You said, "American voters get what they deserve" and I responded with the fact that the majority of the voters did not get whom they voted for. That is undeniable (except by those currently squatting in the White House). Your following caustic - and repetitive -  remark was a non sequitur.

Toxic stew with a nice Italian bread is one of my favorite wintertime meals.

_Howard wrote:

I responded with the fact that the majority of the voters did not get whom they voted for. That is undeniable (except by those currently squatting in the White House).

Neither candidate won a majority. Hillary had a plurality, by 2.1%.

Quote :

With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump’s 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Other candidates took 7,804,213 ballots, or about 5.7 percent of the popular vote.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Neither candidate won a majority.  Hillary had a plurality, by 2.1%.

That is correct. I should have repeated my original statement, which was, "millions more voters preferred Clinton".
Please excuse my semantic error.

Next time you go throwing around "undeniable facts" better make sure they're right.

Trump won the election. That is an undeniable fact.

He's also a narcissistic ego-maniac with serious reality problems. That's also an undeniable fact.

I did not say that Trump did not win the election. I merely stated that Clinton got more votes. Can you not read?

Robert Rich wrote:

Presidents can be impeached for what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The question is no longer whether there are grounds to impeach Trump. The practical question is whether there’s the political will.

As long as Republicans remain in the majority in the House, where a bill of impeachment originates, it’s unlikely. Another reason why it’s critically important to flip the House in 2018.

Listen to the man.  He speaks truth to power.

Trump could still upset the Freedom Caucus enough to install President Pence -- but that would be a Pyrrhic victory.

Wikipedia wrote:

On March 24, 2017, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the House Republican bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, was withdrawn by Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan because it lacked the votes to pass, due in large part to opposition from Freedom Caucus Republicans.[32][33][34]

Two days later, President Donald Trump publicly criticized the Freedom Caucus and other right-wing groups, such as the Club for Growth and Heritage Action, that opposed the bill. Trump tweeted: "Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Obamacare!"[35][36] On the same day, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas resigned from the Freedom Caucus.[37] On March 30, 2017, Trump "declared war" on the Freedom Caucus, sending a tweet urging Republicans to "fight them" in the 2018 midterm elections "if they don't get on the team" (i.e., support Trump's proposals).[38] Vocal Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash responded by accusing Trump of "succumb[ing] to the D.C. Establishment."[39]

The House Freedom Caucus does not disclose the names of its members.[40] In the current (115th) Congress, the group has about three dozen members.[40]

How many votes does it take to initiate impeachment?

It takes a majority of the House to impeach. This is similar to a grand jury determining that there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. The Senate acts as the trial body.

How's his support in the Senate ? Or, more to the point, is there a Freedom Caucus in the Senate?

Now that the Senate has pulled the "nuclear" trigger it should only take 51 votes to toss his orange ass on the street, right?

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist... but I'm starting to wonder if the PNAC and the Cato Institute and AFP and the Koch brothers aren't behind a lot of this maneuvering that will put President Pence in office by the end of the year. He's their man.

Trump wasn't expected to win. But they've done an admirable job of marginalizing him since the win, and all indicators are lining up for a quick removal in favor of their guy.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Now that the Senate has pulled the "nuclear" trigger it should only take 51 votes to toss his orange ass on the street, right?

The rules change that was made only applies to the confirmation of Supreme Court justices.