add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

The Impeachment

JCMsergox

1 month ago

Well, this is interesting.

As I'm sure you all heard by now, an Inquiry for Impeachment has been called against President Donald Trump by Speaker Pelosi. I don't want to take sides on this discussion here in particular, since this is quite the big happening.

According to the transcripts, it appears that the President did in fact ask the Ukrainian President to collude with the Attorney General in investigating Joe Biden. I'm no expert on the Oath or the laws the President has to follow regarding interaction with Foreign leaders, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is a crossed line.

Well, discuss. And please, for the sake of ThoughtA and Manirelli's sanity, please keep it civil.

obligatory popcorn grabbing, help yourselves!

Comments

  • 1 month ago
  • 21 points

I'm ready PCPartPicker Part List

Type Item Price
Food Cloverdale Fresh Whole Rabbit Food -
Food Doritos Flavored Tortilla Chips, Party Size Nacho Cheese Food -
Food PepsiCo Mountain Dew Cans (36 Count) Food $30.75 @ Amazon
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total $30.75
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-09-26 08:47 EDT-0400
  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Thank you eesti, very cool

  • 1 month ago
  • 6 points

Have to save up on provisions for the flame war that is bound to happen

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

My question is why a case of Mountain Dew is $30. Seems overpriced considering you can get 2-Litre bottles at a Dollar Store. Much more sugary-piss-water per dollar.

  • 1 month ago
  • 7 points

PCPP needs to reinvigorate the food department tbh, it isn't even with the rest of the tabs. Also PCPP thinks Pop-tarts aren't finger food

  • 1 month ago
  • 6 points

We need Pizza! #PizzaPartPicker

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Very legal & very cool

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

IDK what this video has to do with my comment here but it's a very good video.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Sorry, my bad. Just thought it would be a good contrast to show what a good president could actually look like and your very legal & very cool seemed to to fit, plus I thought you'd like it :)

  • 1 month ago
  • 7 points

I'll be the first to bite. It is honestly not the least surprising that this has happened to him. He is a embarrassment to our nation.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

May I ask why he is an embarrassment? I mean, we are all still alive, and the government is running just fine, so he can't be doing too bad. No better or worse than other presidents if you look at it that way.

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

Keeping us alive and the government running is the minimum required for a presidency. Every president in history has been able to do that. Vagabond states it well, not a high bar.

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

debatable, a few bad presidents in a row dragged us into civil war

  • 1 month ago
  • -3 points

The issue of the Civil War can be pegged only on Slavery.

  • 1 month ago
  • 6 points

It wasn't just slavery, there was also the problem of the vastly different demographics

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I'd disagree. That was definitely helpful to it but the inaction of Pierce and Buchanan were also to blame.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Sure if you look at that way but that isn't exactly a high bar to set. There is the whole twitter and him essentially **** posting on it, serving fast food at the white house, the Russian situation, the Ukraine situation, the various sexual misconduct allegations/situations he got himself into, etc.

  • 1 month ago
  • -3 points

(alright, I’m not getting flamed enough on my own comment)

“There is the whole twitter”

Oh, wow! Wouldn’t want a man to have a social media account!

“serving fast food at the white house”

I’d argue that McDonalds is a fine example of an American meal. Why wouldn’t the American President want to show pride in his culture and country?

“the Russian situation”

I’m sorry, you’re going to have to explain to me what this is.

“the Ukraine situation,”

I’d like more explanation here as well, please. What exactly did he do wrong?

“the various sexual misconduct allegations/situations he got himself into, etc.”

I’d say maybe that’s fair. I don’t have enough information about it, but these do seem like things he might do.

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

I’d argue that McDonalds is a fine example of an American meal. Why wouldn’t the American President want to show pride in his culture and country?

LMAO

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Oh, wow! Wouldn’t want a man to have a social media account!

And not be a absolute idiot on it like he is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trumptweets/top/

I’d argue that McDonalds is a fine example of an American meal. Why wouldn’t the American President want to show pride in his culture and country?

You don't serve cold fast food to white house guests. There is food that isn't slop and represents america culture.

I’m sorry, you’re going to have to explain to me what this is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)

I’d like more explanation here as well, please. What exactly did he do wrong?

Treason against our country, surely you have had heard of it given that this is the topic of this thread.

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

Well, it can never be said I didn’t try.

One thing though: I’m not truly getting the Ukraine thing I don’t think. I read the transcript and it seemed fairly good to me, but everyone’s in a big fuss. Could you please show me in more detail?

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Ok, I'll bite. I'll probably get downvoted for this but here we go.

Oh, wow! Wouldn’t want a man to have a social media account!

Trump is nothing but a tool who harasses others. If he wasn't famous, Twitter probably would have removed his account long ago.

I’d argue that McDonalds is a fine example of an American meal. Why wouldn’t the American President want to show pride in his culture and country?

LMAO surely you're joking. Serving Burger King (or McDonalds, I remember it being Burger King but it really doesn't matter) to a winning team invited to the white house by the president is an embarrassment. Doing so says to the team members that Trump doesn't give a flying **** about a single one of them (He doesn't, but that's not the point). Even basic catering would have been a step up. You don't serve the team, or any white house guest for that matter, the fast food they could have just gone down the street to get.

I’d say maybe that’s fair. I don’t have enough information about it, but these do seem like things he might do.

There have been several recordings of his sexual harassment and assault. He is an all-around terrible human being, and is among other things misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, racist, and xenophobic. He absolutely would and has done these things.

He cannot think clearly and does not deserve the position of power he has been given.

But hey, a good chunk of this country wanted him, and they got what they wanted, so what do I know? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  • 1 month ago
  • -1 points

“Ok, I'll bite. I'll probably get downvoted for this but here we go.”

It’s actually looking to be the reverse. Second comment I’ve ever had that has to be hidden due to downvotes.

“ Twitter probably would have removed his account long ago”

Sad isn’t it? I’ll never really understand why they have to go banning people. Especially comedic users.

“LMAO surely you're joking.”

Mostly, yes. I also believe that everyone is entitled to a defense, and that joke was the best I could come up with. (kind of says a lot about what’s being defended, tbh)

“among other things misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, racist, and xenophobic”

They keep making this list harder to follow. I’m going to wake up one day to having people accuse politicians of being arachnophobic. I swear I’m even becoming deaf to these insults; it needs to just stop.

“But hey, a good chunk of this country wanted him, and they got what they wanted, so what do I know? ¯(ツ)/¯”

I wanted him back a few years ago, and his policies haven’t really been that bad. The main hesitation I had with him was his character; never really seemed quite like what I wanted. Recent months, however, have seen a development in me being pretty disappointed. He seems to have had major defeats in policy across his term as well. I’ve been looking pretty solidly at a lot of the democrat candidates; not a fan of most any of them (except Bernie, which seems a bit ironic). Half of the major ones are literal snakes, Biden’s body seems about ready to just not anymore, and Yang’s campaign is honestly too reminiscent of Trump’s. I think I’d prefer to just look at Trump for another four years, or maybe even Pence.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

May I ask why he is an embarrassment?

Well it's been non-stop antics for two years in a way that's not been precedented. A few years before the election I knew some people who entertained the idea of Trump being President being a great thing and even then I stated that after it was said and done both Republicans and Democrats would rather have had George W. Bush for a third term, and I'm not sure if you recall how much we on the left disliked George W. Bush. In 2019 I don't think my statement has turned out to be hyperbole...

I mean, we are all still alive, and the government is running just fine, so he can't be doing too bad. No better or worse than other presidents if you look at it that way.

Other people have mentioned this is a pretty low bar. And our whole government and continued existence doesn't hinge on the President. And it doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in resignation or turn a blind eye to some very obvious problems with his behavior and his administration. It's just been a circus the whole time and he's just been like so "what", and seems to lack the self awareness to acknowledge any of it which seems to enable him to do the next thing he obviously shouldn't do and then act shocked when people have something to say about it.

All the being said, Trump really does prove the axiom, "Love looks through a telescope, malice through a microscope."

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Even being 14 at the time of his election, I knew it was only a matter of time until someone called for impeachment.

  • 1 month ago
  • 6 points

I can't imagine that this would turn out in any way but poorly for the Democrats. Even if impeachment can somehow make it through the House, there is no way it will clear the Senate.

Polling has long shown impeachment to be largely unpopular with the American people and swing voters. This decision will ultimately work out poorly for Democrats in the House who are in highly contested districts in 2020.

Furthermore, don't expect Trump to necessarily take a hit to his approval of popularity just because there are impeachment proceedings against him. When Bill Clinton was impeached, his approval rating actually increased. Bill Clinton's absurd defense was that he did not consider oral sex to be "sexual relations" and the American people still largely stood by him.

If you're a Democrat who despises Trump I'd can understand why you might be excited by impeachment, but it will almost certainly be worse for the Democrats than for Republicans and Trump.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

That can be true. However, Watergate did show that at a certain point, you can cross the line. Politicians have to walk a fine line between supporting the rightful officeholder and someone who's clearly a criminal running amok. People largely didn't support early impeachment of Nixon, but as the story unfolded feelings did shift quite a bit.

Impeachment is a risk. And politics are so polarized right now that I expect everything to fall along party lines. Democrats and anyone who is not a Trump supporter will feel like they've done everything they can given the current makeup of government. And Republicans and/or Trump supporters will pat themselves on the back for thwarting the process and then spend the next few decades crying about it, and engaging in whataboutism every chance they can get (like why won't obstructionist democrats let them impeach everyone they want to). Trump is such a polarizing figure it may not be as unpopular with moderates and Never Trump conservatives as Trump supporters want to imagine.

Or it really is as black and white unpopular in all possible cases.

I am curious to see how things play out.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Can someone explain what's going on in dummy terms? idk much about politics or current events, kinda tried to avoid it.

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript/index.html

"The fact is that the President of the United States, in breach of his constitutional responsibilities, has asked a foreign government to help him in his political campaign at the expense of our national security, as well as undermining the integrity of our elections," Pelosi said after the transcript was released Wednesday. "That cannot stand. He will be held accountable. No one is above the law."

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Very simply put, the Congress is trying to get rid of the current president.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

the Congress is trying to get rid of the current president.

the Congress is Democrats in Congress are trying to get rid of the current president.

It shouldn't be construed that there is a consensus among Congress as a whole.

This will inevitably go nowhere. Just another shot in the foot for Democrats looking towards the 2020 cycle.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Oh I know, I was putting it in the most basic terms I could.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I get that. I just think it wise to elaborate a bit on the divide in the desire for impeachment.

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

Just so you know, I think you have someone on here selectively downvoting your comments. I don’t even think anything in this comment is particularly controversial.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

I've been downvoting tragik, though not this comment in particular. But it's because he's been super duper dead wrong and spreading false information.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I can definitely accept that, just seems a little odd that particular comment would be downvoted. If you take a look, I’ve even been downvoted just for saying Tragik got downvoted; seems quite strange to me.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Would you care to quote a statement that I made which was definitively incorrect?

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Politics are generally discussed relatively civilly here; let's keep it up by leaving namecalling out of it.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

No problemo! I just feel that people might get the wrong idea if there’s an imbalance in votes.

  • 1 month ago
  • -2 points

They been trying to impeach him before he was elected, he has to be the most investigated world leader ever....and guess what, they all (the entire US government run by democrats) came up with nothing. The democrats are still fighting the 2016 election, plus he is brash and they don't like him. He wont come into the club, he has no reason to, he has made his money its just a challenging job for him to do. He gives away every paycheck. Personally I dislike most all politicians because they rarely do anything for the people, except Trump has. The democrats can't handle failure so all they have left is character assassination, so they hover on every word, every thing he does, looking for one tiny mistake the media can turn into a mountain. They have tried a hundred times and keep getting it wrong so its really debatable if this story is another nothing-burger or not. At least he didn't brag about holding back funds on TV like Biden has, I mean really. They all look like a pack of angry 5th graders most of the time, but that could be a mean thing to say about 5th graders so I'm sorry about that. And this could be a democrat trying to get rid of Biden, they had no problem tossing Hillary under the bus to bring in Obama. Zero trust with those people. Could be someone embellishing to catch a leaker since its all 3rd party. In the end its another day at the DC circus and means much of nothing to normal people. Schiff had the goods on Trump long ago he told everyone on TV over and over, maybe he is protecting him because he has never let it out. Circus.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

The basics:

  1. Joe Biden was the frontrunner and most likely candidate for the next election. Democrats don't like Trump and there have been talks of impeachment for a long time, but it didn't gain enough traction especially as Pelosi stonewalled the chance of a formal inquiry.

  2. Trump restricted aid to Ukraine. Ukraine is important since a former prosecutor believed to be corrupt had been investigating a business involving Joe Biden's son. The prosecutor was sacked for being corrupt, but Joe Biden was involved in the situation.

  3. Trump speaks with the Ukrainian president. Speaks of the relationship between the Ukraine and US, including aid. He asks for a favour- essentially work with Trump's people to dig up dirt from that investigation and the sacking of the prosecutor. This ostensibly is for political purposes with the upcoming 2020 election.

  4. Trump releases aid back to the Ukraine.

  5. With this potential criminal activity (working with foreign governments for domestic political purposes), the last resistance to impeachment fell away and Pelosi made the call for a formal inquiry.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Will it even get to the point of impeachment? I mean, as much as I don't think he was the best option for president 3 years ago, he's still got to get through the R-controlled Senate (and they won't do it)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it works.

  • 1 month ago
  • 9 points

The Senate will decide your fate.

  • 1 month ago
  • 8 points

I AM The Senate!

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Not yet.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

It’s treason then.

REEEEEE

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

He'll get impeached by the Democratic controlled House, but it's not likely he'll be found guilty during the Senate trial.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Agreed. No president has been removed from office as a result of impeachment. It’s more than likely the senate won’t have it.

Trump is far too egotistical to resign if **** really hits the fan. If it all goes through, he will be the first president to be removed from office via impeachment. I couldn’t see him resigning like Nixon did, he’d think of that as cowardly.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

No president has been removed from office as a result of impeachment

Well, Nixon could have been the only one, but, ya know, he also knew it so... he quit

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Yeah, he knew he was done for so he just saved the time and just got outta there. Smart if you ask me, dude's saving a lot of time by just accepting that he got caught rather than play it off and go through the trial.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

He did good things, though

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I agree, he wouldn't resign. When the House impeaches him, he'll just laugh in their faces and be like "yeah right, like that'll do anything".

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

As I wrote elsewhere, impeachment is likely cause it only needs a simple majority by the House. But that just charges him. He then has to be tried by the Senate; this likely won't go anywhere.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

There is a low low probability he will get impeached by the senate.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

The only way that it will happen is if he royally screws up between now and the trial that even those who agree with him politically can't ignore.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Well... this is DJT. A person who clearly seems to have issues with impulse control. A man who seems so consequence oblivious would read your statement and declare, "Challenge accepted!"

Considering the topic that the last half of his campaign and the first half of his presidency was mired in, to engage in that exact sort of behavior before the dust even settled is just astounding.

If one man can self-sabotage himself and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory through an unlimited supply of hubris, it might prove to be DJT.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Considering the topic that the last half of his campaign and the first half of his presidency was mired in, to engage in that exact sort of behavior before the dust even settled is just astounding.

That topic was? And, what came of it? Convictions?

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Clearly you already know so I don't need to explain it. But it's obvious you have a much different take on the situation based on your other posts. The current scandal is par for the course though, except for anyone who is wholly convinced otherwise.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Chances that President Trump will be impeached is ofcourse close to 0 because the republicans have a majority in the senate.

Most lawyers i have seen have said that Trump didn't put any pressure on the Ukranian president (according to the transcripts) nor threatent to stop funding (unlike what Biden did).

DOJ has concluded that trump asked for nothing of value from the Ukrainian President, Nor did the POTUS pressure the President of the Ukraine to open an investigation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764164340/trump-asked-ukrainian-president-for-a-favor-on-biden-doj-says-no-charges?t=1569503229211

Impeachment is a great gift for Trump.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

DOJ also declared that the Mueller report exonerated Trump when in fact it did exactly not that, so, anything coming from Barr's office should be scrutinized intensely.

Also because lots of people are using it wrong, impeachment is just the act of leveling charges. The House does this. There's a decent chance of Trump getting impeached, they just need a simple majority. Removal from office would only occur if the Senate then convicted the president on those charges. This has close to 0 chance of happening, like you were indicating.

  • 1 month ago
  • -3 points

The Mueller report was an absolute failure and was fueled by misinformation and lies. If anything, it embarrassed the few insane Democrats who had been saying that Trump was guilty of collusion for the last 2+ years and that he was going to get completely destroyed when the MR was finished. Mueller's findings were a blessing for Trump and the Republicans since everyone thought it was going to be MUCH worse based on Schiff and the other clowns who wouldn't stop talking.

Though AG Barr did leave out some important information, he was only summarizing the main findings of the MR, and didn't necessary 'lie.'

IMO this is probably the stupidest basis of impeachment there has ever been, and it is bound to fail. If Pelosi thought that she could impeach Trump then she would have the HOR vote on it, but she isn't. She is just trying to stir up controversy to align herself with all of the extreme liberals that are somehow getting elected to office these days...

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

"absolute failure", "insane Democrats", "the other clowns", etc. You're wearing your vitriol and tribalism on your sleeve. You're clearly not here to talk, you just want to bark at the libtards on the internet. Have fun, I don't have time.

  • 1 month ago
  • -1 points

Thanks for insulting me! Your comment was incredibly informative and helpful, and truly contributed to the discussion.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Ive been enjoying this thread with plenty of popcorn in hand but i thought id chime in eventually...

I think you’re the only one who insulted anyone in your statement, Gork is just stating the obvious.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

The behavior you have displayed will not get you anywhere quickly in life, and you certainly won't be making any friends if you continue. I suggest you take a break from your computer and sip some hot chocolate or other warm beverage of your choice to calm down. Please come back when you are ready to add something to the conversation.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I've left plenty of informative comments throughout the thread that you might find more helpful.

  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Gotta use a throwaway in case things get heated

Now, I'm no government expert or anything and not trying to say anything, but why tf would Trump call other countries to investigate candidates? (I think thats whats happening) Wouldn't that be something you would do in the US?

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Now, I'm no government expert or anything and not trying to say anything, but why tf would Trump call other countries to investigate candidates? (I think thats whats happening) Wouldn't that be something you would do in the US?

Trump can exert pressure on foreign countries via his control of international (economic) relations with the USA. He can't explicitly call on our own law enforcement to undermine his political enemies because they'll report it if they value country over president (as they're supposed to as public servants). You've highlighted exactly why the idea that this is just some routine corruption crackdown is a farce. This is why they're using an extremely classified server to house records of his calls with foreign leaders, and why he is now trying to trim his national security team. Less opportunities for whistleblowing.

Also don't use a throwaway, just absorb the heat. =)

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Hi Gorkti200, you sure seem to be an expert on all things, why didn't it get reported when Obama used our law enforcement agencies to spy on the Trump campaign? I'll tell you why, Obama loaded up these agencies with like minded individuals that could keep it on the down low. Problem with that kind of secrecy is it will only last a short time and he (they) used it just a smidge too long. The WH uses an extremely classified server because of all the "leakers" (left over dems from the Obama administration). Its not a secret unsecured server like the one Hillary Clinton had in her closet at home that had 30,000 emails bleached from the memory. Did you explain to throwaway-pol111 that the whistle blower has direct ties to a 2020 democratic candidate?

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

why didn't it get reported when Obama used our law enforcement agencies to spy on the Trump campaign?

Because it wasn't Obama personally calling up the FBI and saying "hey dig some dirt on Trump". AKA, because what you are saying here is not the truth. It is a fabrication based extremely-loosely on some truth (that the FBI did investigate the Trump campaign). This might surprise you but the job of the president isn't to sit around and personally dictate what the DOJ, CIA, etc, should specifically do each and every day. The FBI investigated the Trump campaign because they did indeed have tons of contacts with foreign entities, including lots of Russians, and Russia was attempting to influence the election at the same time.

The rest of what you wrote here is largely conspiracy nonsense. Obama didn't hire everyone who works at the FBI and DOJ lol. It doesn't work like that. Obama did appoint Comey to head the FBI though, but Comey is really not like Obama at all, in fact they had pointed differences shortly before all the 2016 election ******** made Comey a household name. Comey was also Deputy Attorney General under Bush, and was a lifelong Republican. And you might recall, Trump eagerly asked Comey to stay on as FBI director.

If you acknowledge for a moment (even just as a thought exercise) that the entire federal government isn't staffed by the figurehead from a specific political party, you can then ask yourself honestly why there would be so many "leakers", and why Trump and his inner circle would want to hide routine conversations on a server intended for the highest of classification material.

Did you explain to throwaway-pol111 that the whistle blower has direct ties to a 2020 democratic candidate?

The whistleblower also has "direct ties" to a 2020 Republican candidate. AKA, Trump. *gasp*

Seriously you're spinning the spin even further. What was said was "The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates". Well, no ****, if they work in the intelligence community and with National Security Council members, they've undoubtedly come into contact with candidates. Biden was Vice President; he would be involved with NSC members. Michael Bennett and Kamala Harris are both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren are all on committees relating to foreign affairs and/or the armed forces.

Now if we get more info and it says something like this person was directly employed privately by one of those candidates, that would be different.

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

Because it wasn't Obama personally calling up the FBI and saying "hey dig some dirt on Trump"

How could you possibly know this? The FISA warrants were granted because of the Russian generated dossier. A fabrication of complete ******** James (Tool) Comey used to get the warrants. I guess it was used several times and not once was the FISA judge informed of it origins or at least told the truth about. I'm just saying this whole thing just stinks and our own government created it. Not President Trump. He's the reason all these skeletons are coming out. And some are his. The media spins it to make it look like Trump is always the bad guy but each time it blows up in their face. They don't even dust off. They just move to next thing to try and keep focus off the successes he is having. Its only going to get worse as the election gets closer. I could understand if there was something but it's always nothing. The money they are spending to keep the circus Titanic afloat is ridiculous. Why don't we ever hear about that on CNN? Trump wants a parade and CNN looses it's **** about the cost. I would like to thank you for keeping our discussion civil, you're a smart guy, too bad your parents messed you up, university professors in California I assume lol. Just kidding. Peace!!

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Lol, you can't say Trump can't touch a Presidential hopeful by withholding supposedly before the phone call, while Biden bragged about doing it on TV. I'm not sure how you tell a President what he can/can't say to anyone. Politicians lie to me every day, what makes Trump so special he can't? Shiff has had PROOF since day one and never comes out with it, he lies! Or protects Trump. You can't say Pres can't use law on anyone when Obama had the entire US govt investigating Trump before/during/after his election??? Are you serious? Then a special council shoved in by the same people...who again came up with nothing. Talk about using the law. What about Obama unmasking hundreds of Americans? You say he didn't do it? Makes one wonder if they knew they would lose the election, otherwise why were they on him like flies on...? I mean Hillary spent more to Russia or Russian agents, and she got more back in her foundation from Russia, so whos friends with Russia? The whole thing stinks, if you can't admit some democrats got caught with their pants down you are hopeless. If you want to support democrat policy that's fine, but don't tell us how TERRIBLE Trump is compared to the DNC, he hasn't even scratched the surface and he probably never will because he does not need to become a millionaire in DC like everyone else, he is one. All this stuff going on, it sure isn't about us! Its about money/power/reelection/wasting time. Its about them, screw us, that is last thing they care about. In some ways that is good, less chance they mess things up worse.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

How could you possibly know this?

Because we would have had whistleblowers out the wazoo. I know you've swallowed the conspiracy that the entire federal government is staffed with Obama appointed zombie Communists, but I can assure you that's not true.

The media spins it to make it look like Trump is always the bad guy

Trump is virtually always the bad guy. The media can just quote him verbatim and his fans will say it's fake news. He's objectively a bad guy, who does bad things for bad reasons. This is his one consistency.

too bad your parents messed you up, university professors in California I assume lol. Just kidding. Peace!!

Lol they're republicans, though my mother isn't really into politics. You'd probably get along with my dad. I don't speak with him these days. I personally disengage with people who support what this administration is all about.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

He can't explicitly call on our own law enforcement to undermine his political enemies because they'll report it if they value country over president (as they're supposed to as public servants).

Wait, what would police, and law enforcement would do? I guess you're talking about courts and stuff. That would make more sense lol.

Also don't use a throwaway, just absorb the heat. =)

lol no I'm to much of a wimp to do so lol, I value internet points to much.

But pressuring countries to investigate candidates seems like a yikes to me tbh. idk if it's against the law or if this is like normal and we just don't know about it (which seems very,very,very,very unlikely).

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Wait, what would police, and law enforcement would do? I guess you're talking about courts and stuff. That would make more sense lol.

What I meant by law enforcement is federal level, AKA, the Justice Department. Or Intelligence agencies outside of it. To make an obvious example, if Trump personally went to the FBI with a "give me everything you can find on Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Buttigieg", and does so without a solid justification for starting investigations of each, he'd get whistleblowers out the wazoo saying he's abusing his power.

But pressuring countries to investigate candidates seems like a yikes to me tbh. idk if it's against the law or if this is like normal and we just don't know about it (which seems very,very,very,very unlikely).

Trump has done us a service in highlighting how a great deal of the presidency (and government at large) has been predicated on the assumption of good-faith by those elected. An assumption that you're going to follow some precedents, maintain dignity and respect for your role and other institutions, act in the best interest of the country over yourself, etc. There aren't as many restraints as we may have assumed pre-2016.

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

Read the transcript and judge for yourself. Don't let the left wingers spin for you. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Also read the released text messages while you're at it. And the background info such as the fact that the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma that Biden supposedly wanted squashed, was already closed prior to Biden's involvement in Ukraine. And that Biden was acting in concert with other diplomats from the UK and elsewhere to pressure Ukraine into investigating corruption in their country, completely the opposite of what Trump has been spinning.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Also read the released text messages while you're at it.

Link?

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Maybe the truth will come out during the impeachment.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Now I just want to go back to not giving a frick about politics

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

Too late you're stuck now. This is your main now.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

"You're trapped!"

-Dr. Doofenshmirtz

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

"Ah, Perry the Platypus!" -Dr. Doofenshmirtz

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

I just like how Adam Schiff presented his "parody" of the Ukraine transcripts... He should be ashamed, man...

  • 1 month ago
  • 6 points

Yeah that was a pretty **** opening statement.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

God, please forgive me for wading into this swamp.

When President Trump was elected into office, I was NOT happy. However, up to the inauguration I said, I will give him a chance to see if he will be a president for all Americans, and not just his base. Then there was the Inauguration and all the "fake news" that was attributed to that. 2.5 years later...

I think this article says a lot. The Netherlands are bypassing the federal government to work directly with state governments in order to to get answers needed to complete business deals. When the US government is considered a joke by the Netherlanders, we really need to rethink whether we are taken seriously by the rest of the International community. Please read the whole article, right to the last line.

"The former Dutch ambassador to the US has given an interview to the NRC in which he describes the ‘absolute mess’ in Washington under the presidency of Donald Trump. Henne Schuwer, who retired this summer, was appointed to the US job in 2015 and told the paper that Trump is ‘sawing away’ at the fundamentals of society. ‘Of course he has done good things. More money is going to NATO and he has reformed the 1986 tax system,’ said Schuwer. ‘But he has done nothing, absolutely nothing to become president of all Americans. Only that of his own supporters. And that is why the country has been completely torn apart.’"

Read more at DutchNews.nl:Washington is an ‘absolute mess’ under Trump, says former Dutch ambassador

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

He won't get impeached. The action of impeaching is just so he will have less followers in 2020.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

According to the call summary, Mr. Trump told Zelensky, "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me."

I’m going to preface this by saying I don’t believe we have enough evidence to form complete opinions on the Ukraine thing, but it sounds to me like Trump is just trying to carry through with justice. I don’t think we should allow any sorts of crimes to go on when our people go to other countries. It would then be even more terrible if one of our politicians strong armed a foreign government into stopping the investigation of justice in their country. Look, I’m not entirely sure if this is what is being used for grounds of impeachment, but it shouldn’t be.

However, this impeachment thing probably isn’t going to go much of anywhere. Firstly, this is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment charge. Secondly, I seriously doubt that the impeachment will successfully pass through the senate. So, who really cares? I kind of don’t, but I get the suspicion that this inquiry was launched at this time for a reason.

Is Trump a good president? He’s not really the worst out there, and I’d rather it be him than Hillary or any of the dems currently running (except maybe Bernie or Yang). Trump is awfully disappointing though. I have to wonder where all the good men have gone.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

What can happen next?

  1. The house can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the republicans and refer to the senate for a trial.

  2. The senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of demoncrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.

  3. However, during the trial, and this is what nobody in the media is telling you or thinking about, the president's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE they want. This is alot different then the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So during the impeachment trial we could be hearing testimony from Donna Brazille, JAmes Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, John Brennan and a whhole host of other participants in the whole affair and the ensuing coverup activities. A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly people will start being charged and going to prison.

  4. Enjoy the show.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

However, during the trial, and this is what nobody in the media is telling you or thinking about, the president's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question ANYONE they want.

No they don't. The Senate holds the impeachment trial, but it is not the same as a criminal trial. the Senate trial can't send anyone to prison.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

This is literally a chain letter/post. You copied parts of it nearly verbatim.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Jeff Flake has apparently said there would be 35 Republicans in the Senate willing to vote in favour of impeachment if it is a secret ballot.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I'm just going to point out that if Congress votes to impeach the president and the Senate votes to acquit him he will still technically be considered impeached, it just doesn't have any practical effect but to make him look bad.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I could care less about people making him look bad. He’s done that plenty enough by himself already.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

On my Arak email signature it states " I may not agree with you but I will fight to the death , your right to say it" and an extension of that is "I don't care who you vote for , just as long as you get out there and vote" Well as a veteran I would like to add something. I cant speak on any of the above. I don't tweet, what I can whole hardheartedly testify to are some results. the current administration has improved the quality of care for myself and my brethren at the V.A. I mean measurable improvements. I personally now have 1/3 titanium in my right leg. and no pain.It was so bad 4 years ago .. lots of guys were just checking out.. they felt abandoned. I have seen lots of quality care in the last couple of years. less soldiers are killing themselves today then 3 years ago. more programs helping to readjust to civilian life. more jobs . at least at my level, blue collar. we have more money and I haven't received a raise in several years. So if all the guys in my group did nothing but look at results .. no news hype, no social media. they don't care about all the window dressing. not to live in pain, have a roof over their heads and food on the table . Most of them have been privy to the inner workings and/or decision making of politicians and concluded that it doesn't matter one iota what is said or streamed ,promised...only results....keeping in mind that perception is reality. each of us has a moment when we lost our innocence if you will. our nativity , that awakening to the way things really work. I still remember mine. I think I was 18 when president Reagan said we needed to invade Grenada "operation urgent fury" it was a hell of a weekend. HUGE BONUS Points to anyone that knows why we did it :) oh ! and one last thing... I wasn't going to slam anyone but I did hear something funny from Dennis Miller, " That Nancy Pelosi must sleep hanging upside down, cause that woman is bat **** crazy " lmao Ya'll have great evening

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I would imagine that many Democrats don't actually believe the President will be impeached in the Senate, yet I don't think that's their primary objective.

  • Surely their first priority is to draw a line in the sand sending the message that nobody is above the law, with consequences for committing crimes, even for a President.

  • Another of their goals is surely exposing all the other crimes they believe the President has committed, including:

1.) Not returning all the children who were separated from their families at the border to their parents despite court orders ordering the children should be returned.

2.) Running a sham university.

3.) Using his charity, the now defunct Trump Foundation as his personal cheque book.

4.) Campaign finance violations Michael Cohen confessed being a part of including making payments to adult industry performers.

5.) Violations of the emoluments' clause & enriching himself.

6.) 10 counts of obstruction of justice as detailed in the Mueller report.

7.) Multiple sexual assault allegations.

8.) Trump Organization tax fraud.

  • Getting Republicans on record for condoning Presidential crimes should they vote against impeachment will also surely be high on their agenda, thus gimping Republican ability to successfully criticize the actions of any future Democratic President.

  • Preventing the President setting his own narrative for the 2020 election. The President was extremely successful at crafting the narrative of the 2016 Presidential Election, the Democrats could turn the tables and release controversial information on their own timeline controlling the narrative and focus of the next Presidential Election.

  • Putting pressure on the President's staff & government officials not to break the law or cross lines for fear of their own complicity being exposed.

  • Gathering information on how government departments and agencies have been directed to act and for what purpose.

  • Who has profited, how have they done so and what have been the consequences etc.

Meeting any one of these objectives would surely be a victory for the Democrats and help fire up their base to come out and vote.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Whenever I see/read/hear about people wanting to impeach Trump, my first thought is Pence will then be president and wonder if people realize that or don't think that far in advance.

Also, I'm thinking that all this will take a long time, and go past the inauguration date of the next 4 yr period.

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

Having Mike Pence as President would be a huge setup from Trump. Even as a life long Democrat, I rather have a man like Pence as the President.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I've just heard/read so many people not liking him because of his strong religious beliefs.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Well it's not ideal for secularists, atheists, non-religious people, or religious people who strongly believe in the separation of church and state. But on the other hand having the current POTUS running amok is less than ideal too. And even if Trump was removed from office, not a guarantee even with impeachment, Pence having only half a presidency and the remnants of a colossal scandal would probably limit his effectiveness and limit his chances at re-election.

Although nothing makes us miss the devil we knew, than a new devil it turns out we didn't know that well...

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I thought it was because he prides himself on his more conservative beliefs than Trump.

Although I guess they are the same thing.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

That’s more than likely the case. But this is the hot topic right now and I like triggering the righties on here (/s) so I decided to post about it

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

Not really triggering many of us righty tighties. Considering most of us just see this as the latest blunder the Democrats are running themselves into. Really, of all approaches before the 2020 cycle this is one of the riskiest for them. Because, you know, nothing has come of all of their other efforts for the last three years. So, if nothing comes of this either it's going to be just another piece to point at as an obvious campaign to defame the president. It's like the boy who cried wolf. The only hope for them is that most people just see the original accusation and not the following 'exoneration' so that the idea will be sowed in the minds of a lot of 2020 voters. It's a deceptive and clearly malice driven tactic.

Personally, I see this as a huge boon for Trump in 2020, not a detriment.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

100% agree. The best part to me is that Dems don't seem to realize that Mike Pence would be WORSE for them... He is FAR more conservative. Oh, well... A Dem is what a Dem does.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

The best part to me is that Dems don't seem to realize that Mike Pence would be WORSE for them

I don't think they fail to realize it. It's just not very likely Republicans will vote to trade Trump for Pence if it means giving Democrats a win.

The house votes for impeachment, and the Senate doesn't convict. That's the one detail people seem to miss. Impeachment doesn't guarantee removal and it's not quite an all or nothing. Trump can be impeached, and still serve his full term.

The ideal situation for Republicans is to not have an administration mired in perpetual scandal, even if they get to decide the ultimate outcome it would still be much better to have a President that didn't have the House vote for articles of Impeachment.

And arguably even if Republicans did throw a curve and had Trump removed. We're two years into the presidency. Pence being re-elected is not a guarantee. And a half term presidency cleaning up this scandal and trying to get up to speed is going to limit some of the administrations effectiveness. So maybe not exactly a liberal's nightmare scenario.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I see what you mean.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

He is but, I have no idea what he would actually do as POTUS or how effective. I would be far more worried if the dems were successful in tossing Trump out for no real reason, things could get really ugly on the streets. Flipping an election is serious business, we could see bullets a flying.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I usually don't see those on the right get too upset/triggered about things, here or on other sites. Youtube for one. The comments!

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

Such is the situation, the mass media has outed itself as the DNC. Why would people with an opposing view bother interacting with them, all you get is play ground bully name calling headed your way. You can't talk to these people, its like a religion for them. I don't see hardly anyone in govt wanting to help me or the masses, both parties are worthless imo and consistently run away from current problems in this country. Perfect example is the vaping bans that somehow after 20 years use a few deaths just started with the popularity of thc vaping. Yet the 60K/yr or whatever opioid deaths well, we aint gonna ban that lol! Too much money for pharma, too much money for states to sue for right? More cops in Chicago/etc to stop shootings, well we don't care about all those thousands of deaths....better to ban vaping and continue to not do our jobs. It will only change when people get tired of it, and that is how Trump was elected be it good or bad. All this impeachment stuff, its just another distraction so they don't have to do real work for the US people.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I don't see hardly anyone in govt wanting to help me or the masses,

Just wondering what help you need or expect?

Perfect example is the vaping bans that somehow after 20 years use a few deaths just started with the popularity of thc vaping.

More like the massive increase in Vaping overall, but reports of deaths should be concerning.

Yet the 60K/yr or whatever opioid deaths well, we aint gonna ban that lol!

Not that simple as opioids are still important and needed for treatment of chronic pain.

More cops in Chicago/etc to stop shootings, well we don't care about all those thousands of deaths....better to ban vaping and continue to not do our jobs.

These two things are not mutually exclusive. For one the ban on Vaping flavors does not even need congressional approval, since that is under the FDA. Getting more federal money for Chicago would have to come through Congress, but this is more a state, county and local issue.

  • 1 month ago
  • -2 points

I don't really care how simple it is, 60,000 deaths every year compared to 10 (whatever the number is now) in one year might be a tad more important to address. How did people survive before pharma spent millions to make opioids legal? Did any of my health insurance pay for these addicts drugs? In contrast vaping is probably the safest thing people can do, excepting other drugs and the huge cloud making units that are both relatively new. Some states are banning it and shutting down chains of vape stores, but the good doctors and pharma are still raking in the money. We can see what is more important here. And states hate vaping, it took away a good chunk of that yummy tobacco revenue and so they have good reason to stop it. At the same time lets make weed legal, we can get revenue off that, go ahead smoke it because its good for you? Just saying these items are treated very differently and it does not look fair at all, it looks corrupt.

I happen to know a lot of people in manufacturing, which has been negatively affected by govt policy for 20 years. When you trash a segment of your economy you are only hurting all the people in it, you apparently do not care about those people. Kind of like Clinton and the coal miners. If you care about your people you find a different way. Even if you are not in manufacturing, you should have wondered why a country would get rid of something that made so much income/revenue.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Can someone explain this in basketball terms

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

You should have ordered 1000 cans of Garrett's popcorn.

Such popcorn is inadequate as a connoisseur of fine American food.

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

Not so much impeachment oriented, more a question about modern politics. Am I the only person to get a bit nervous when a lawyer has a lawyer?

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 4 points

Bro, you just posted some serious cringe.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I would say that he would lose subscriber but we don't have those here.

He lost karma though.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Really? Karma? lol. Maybe you'd like to delete my post huh?

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

I mean, all you're doing is being unnecessarily aggressive and said something both contradictory and something that people don't agree with.

Say something bad? You'll get downvoted by someone. That's how the karma system works.

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

What did I say that made you feel I was being aggressive? Having an opinion that differs from yours is aggressive? My contradictory statement was made on purpose to show that I and a lot of conservatives understand what President Trump is. The thing about that is we don't care that he is a butthead. We like that he doesn't take any crap from anyone. I read through most of this thread and all I saw was people talking about what a terrible President Trump is and when anyone grew a pair and spoke any support for him they were down voted and attempts were made to discredit what they said. Kind of like what happens in the living world. I'm sorry I was so late to the party lol. Not that I'm winning any hearts and minds but this forum needs a little more of the other side.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I think if you really wish to understand what he has been doing during in this time you should read these excellent articles detailing some of the reasons why so many have the opinion that they do about him: (https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-1-to-112), (https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-113-197), (https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-198-to-291)

  • 1 month ago
  • 0 points

You might be surprised by the number of people that have this opinion of him. The main stream media has this thing they do, they like to make things appear as if the whole world is of their opinion. McSweeney's list is just a list of the terrible things President Trump has said and done. Funny thing is not a single mention of the good things he has said and done. Why do think that is? I could put a list of things Obama has said and done and a huge freaking list of what the Clintons have said and done. I would not do that because no one would care just like no one cares about McSweeney's list.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

OK, fair enough I accept that most of us never get to hear any good things the President has done. Perhaps you could just list the top 5 good things you think he has done, so at least we might think to ourselves he's not all bad.

I also accept that other Presidents have been far from perfect and that all things considered Trump has actually amazingly still been better than Bush Junior, at least in terms of the numbers of people who have died from his actions. As for Clinton, he got impeached for lying to Congress over the Monica Lewinsky scandal (though not removed from office), yet Trump has been recorded as telling over 12,000 lies since he took office!

  • 1 month ago
  • -1 points

Your first sentence says so much Robert. It really does. The fact that the main stream media has a bug up their butts about President Trump is reflected in their reporting. Why would CNN say or report anything good that the man has done? They along with most of the main stream media hate President Trump. Its a vicious circle between them. They report something stupid and responds with fake news or witch hunt. They are not news reporters, they are opinion journalists. They get paid based on ratings not accuracy of the news. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and hundreds of others are now all opinion journalists. FOX to a lessor extent but they are also opinion journalists. The days of Walter Cronkite and Ted Koppel are gone forever alone with the trust we used to have. There is a guy, Ben Shapiro that I have started to listen to more and more. He's not pro Trump or a Trump hater. He is certainly conservative but his opinions are backed up by facts. If you don't know him do a google search and watch the fun. As far as the lies, how many lies did Obama tell? Bill Clinton? Hillary? Who knows, their lies weren't being counted. I would say all are pretty similar. If you really want to learn about the good stuff President Trump has done look at the unemployment numbers. Record lows since the 50's... This doesn't happen by being hated by the media. Imagine if the main stream media got behind him. He's no angel but he's doing what MOST Americans have wanted for decades. Taking on the deep state of our government.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Strangely enough for someone with left learning views I don't dislike Ben Shapiro. But please don't mistake this for actually agreeing with him on every point. Not everything he says is wrong in my opinion, but often, because of the way he forms his conclusions. I'll give you some concrete examples here.

Ben recently complained that leftists were exercising influence over corporations over their social policy. He's completely correct on this, but let's look at what this actually means if you break it down. What he's actually saying is that people with left learning views should ignore their principles and continue to buy products and services from companies promoting right-wing views, values and attitudes to help keep them in business, rather than support or favour companies that are actually catering to their own views & wishes. Though what he is complaining about is correct, it is happening, the reasoning behind his complaint is faulty. We've seen extremely wealthy people using their money for years to exert influence in favour of right-wing views, yet strangely Ben and most right-wingers appear to believe this is perfectly fine.

Another example would be the 2017 debate with Cenk Uygur at Politicon. Ben spent significant time pointing out the value of medical professionals who have had to spend years training to get qualified and successfully making the point that they deserve suitable financial compensation. On the surface this seems both logical and reasonable, but the problem with Ben's solution of just taking a capitalist approach to healthcare and letting the markets dictate the costs, is as Cenk Uygur pointed out. It's not like buying furniture, if people can't afford healthcare and are thus denied it then they can die. Ben's position makes no account for the fact that people will die if they can't get treatment because they can't afford it.

However there are times when I do agree with him. More recently he had a debate with Tucker Carlson in which Tucker suggested, that to solve the problem of the impact on jobs of millions of truck & delivery drivers that automation & driverless technology will bring, he would ban such technology. Ben clearly didn't think this was a viable approach to the problem, for which I'm in full agreement with him.

In general, I think much of his logic lacks understanding of the situations of others. He's intelligent and successful and thus most of his thinking appears restricted to this premise, he has no solutions for the vast majority of the population who are never going to be in his position.

Over time I think he will change & evolve but at the moment it comes across at times as being naive & selfish, it lacks the deeper depth of empathy for others, until he grows up a bit I think most of his appeal will be largely restricted to younger audiences.

OK, now what about these 5 wonderful things the President has done that will help us all see him in a new light?

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Why are you describing him like a horrible person and politician and yet a good president?

  • 1 month ago
  • -1 points

Was anything I said wrong? All of it boiled down to the truth. President Trump is just as I described and much more to his enemies and critics. Doesn't make him a horrible person. You need all those personality traits to do what he does. We don't need polite nice guy for president at present. We need a swamp dwelling mofo to get down in it and pull the drain plug. He will be remembered as a great president that fought off the socialist communist invasion. Don't let Trump hate blind you from the real truth. We are living in historical times.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Doesn't mean anything if you're good at your job; if you're a jerk as well, no one will like you.

Antonio Brown was a great wide receiver. He did his job--he caught footballs--but we look at him from a human perspective as well, and he's a scumbag. His football skills don't change that.

Same with the President. I'd rather have a good President that's a nice and genuine guy than a supposedly good one that's also a horrible person.

[comment deleted]
  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

He was elected because of the promises he made during the campaign. And if you cared you would know he has kept those promises.

Trump promised to totally ban Muslims from entering the US on the campaign trail. Aside from the fact that this was flatly unconstitutional, and therefore any support of Trump from the get-go was support of someone fundamentally opposed to the Constitution of the United States of America, he failed to achieve this.

He also failed to build a border wall that was financed by Mexico.

He also failed to repeal Obamacare, and failed to replace it with healthcare law that would make insurance cheaper and universal for everyone, and paid for by the government. He promised all those things. In fact he made sweeping promises about healthcare that he never actually cared about, he just knew he had to say it on the campaign trail. He ended up endorsing failed Republican legislation that would have cut tons of coverage.

No doubt he has kept some promises. He promised not to take a salary, and he's been donating it. He promised to fix the Iran deal... I'm sure in his eyes he did that. He promised to take on China, and he's certainly done things. He promised to scuttle the TPP, and he did that. He promised to pressure NATO to raise their spending, and he's done so. But he's also catastrophically failed some of his highest profile promises.

the democrat's are so blinded by their hate they can't or refuse to focus on the issues.

You should expand your sources if you think Democrats aren't talking about issues outsides of Trump. That's quite wrong.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Not sure how the quote system works so please forgive me.

Trump promised to totally ban Muslims from entering the US on the campaign trail. Aside from the fact that this was flatly unconstitutional, and therefore any support of Trump from the get-go was support of someone fundamentally opposed to the Constitution of the United States of America, he failed to achieve this

It was a temporary travel ban from eight countries six of which were Muslim countries. These countries needed to tighten up their security processes to meet certain standards. The 1st ban was shot down but a 2nd and 3rd ban did go into effect and lasted 180 days in total.

He also failed to repeal Obamacare

The mandate was eliminated essentially nullifying Obamacare. Healthcare will never be perfect. There will always be problems. Universal healthcare is not the answer.

No doubt he has kept some promises. He promised not to take a salary, and he's been donating it. He promised to fix the Iran deal... I'm sure in his eyes he did that. He promised to take on China, and he's certainly done things. He promised to scuttle the TPP, and he did that. He promised to pressure NATO to raise their spending, and he's done so.

I would like to thank you listing these accomplishments. RobertL90 wanted me to list 5 Trump accomplishments, I hope you don't mind if I use your list. : )

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube