Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-unemployment–especially among minorities, young people and women–at or near record lows.
-GDP is growing at a 4% clip, which liberal economists deemed impossible in the last administration.
-Wages are rising.
-We are at peace, but at the same time our government is finally taking steps to deal with long-festering problems in Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
If you read the NYTimes, Wapo, Huffington post, and of course city-data, or watch MSNBC, CNN, or network evening news, none of the above is important. what is important is Trump paid two women not to talk about having sex with him. I don't think many voters give a damn about his sex life.
There’s a plausible case that could be made today that there are grounds that wasn’t apparent yesterday.
And what would those "grounds" be? What do we know today that we didn't know yesterday? There has been nothing revealed that we didn't already know, and what has been revealed in no way affects the President, nor has he been implicated in anything illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
The President’s own lawyer said under oath in a Federal Court that Mr. Trump instructed him beforehand to send hush money to two former mistresses to avoid negative publicity prior to his election in violation of Federal Election Law.
These women were not "mistresses," and there is no proof that President Trump ever even met them, let alone had sex with them.
There was no violation of Federal Election Law. You don't know what you're talking about ...you're simply regurgitating the false claims by someone else who doesn't understand Federal Election Law. Mark Levin, a very prominent Constitutional attorney, who was part of the Reagan White House, has clearly explained the law and why no violation of that law exists in this case. The money paid had nothing to do with the campaign, but a candidate may donate as much of his own money to the campaign as he wishes. There is no limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
If corroborated, that by itself is a felony.
No, it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
Will impeachment happen? Of course not, because Trump still has the support of his base and the R’s in Congress will protect him at all cost until if and when it becomes apparent that he is destroying the Republican Party.
Still a long way to go, but Trump is in a much weaker position than he was just 24 hours ago.
As yet. None of us know a single thing about Mueller's evidence or his plans.
If Mueller had evidence of some crime, why is he not revealing it? He has nothing. That's why he went after Manafort and Cohen, in the hope he could (in the judges words) force them to "sing or compose."
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
So for the moment, it's just as foolish to expect impeachment as it is to deny it can happen.
President Trump has committed no impeachable offense thus far. This we know. If he had, the Left would certainly be citing it, and demanding he be impeached. But they are not. They are calling for his impeachment based on nothing other than their dislike for his policies. Disagreement on policy is not impeachable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
I seriously doubt Mueller will release his final report before the election, nor will he bring any charges against Trump if he has them. Mueller doesn't want to cause any interference in any way to the election.
This is laughable. Mueller would like nothing better to bring charges against the President, whom he despises. And Mueller is no choir boy. He doesn't give a damn about interfering with an election. He is part of the cabal that protected Hillary Clinton, and tried to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President. As FBI Director under Clinton, he allowed the Uranium One deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
But there is a time window when Trump could be impeached just after the election. The success of a vote to impeach would depend on quite a few Republicans voting for it, but the lame ducks in the GOP might decide to vote for impeachment after the election, when they have nothing to lose. Or not- a lot will depend on the election.
Again, there must be grounds for impeachment. There are none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
The Democrats don't want impeachment any more than the Republicans this year; it's too much a big hot rock no one wants to pick up until the election is over, but afterwards, there are some who may want to seize the time window and press for it, if nothing else just to see how much attitudes have changed.
Seriously? Ask Maxine Waters. She was ready to impeach the day after the election, with or without cause. There are many Democrats who agree with her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
I still believe Trump will quit before he will allow himself to be impeached. Can't say when it could come, though, but if he does quit, it will be this year. There are some advantages to his quitting just before election day that he may seize.
President Trump isn't a quitter. It isn't going to happen ...ever. You're living in Fantasy Land.
And what would those "grounds" be? What do we know today that we didn't know yesterday? There has been nothing revealed that we didn't already know, and what has been revealed in no way affects the President, nor has he been implicated in anything illegal.
These women were not "mistresses," and there is no proof that President Trump ever even met them, let alone had sex with them.
There was no violation of Federal Election Law. You don't know what you're talking about ...you're simply regurgitating the false claims by someone else who doesn't understand Federal Election Law. Mark Levin, a very prominent Constitutional attorney, who was part of the Reagan White House, has clearly explained the law and why no violation of that law exists in this case. The money paid had nothing to do with the campaign, but a candidate may donate as much of his own money to the campaign as he wishes. There is no limit.
No, it is not.
Because ...? Why?
Mark Levin. Seriously? Levin’s a right wing attorney/talk show host that’s cashed in by telling the right what they want to hear. Do you really believe that Mark Levin is the arbiter of all legal issues and that what he says is the unquestionable legal truth? Get real.
You’re just reciting talking points based on your belief system. I stated my opinion based on what I have learned. I assume you’re just doing the same. We’ll have to leave it to the actual attorneys, and not to Internet trolls and talk show hosts to sort out the truth.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 08-24-2018 at 12:31 PM..
The only question will be, "How big a landslide will he win by?"
I guess if you really believe it, it’s not nonsense
...to you.
What do you consider a “landslide”?
Did Trump win a “landslide” in 2016 when he won 304 electoral votes (which was about the 12th lowest win in the history of the electoral college? It certainly wasn’t a landslide in the popular vote since he lost it by 2 million.
So how big will that “landslide” be in 2020?
Is he growing his coalition? The Republican Party is a lower percentage of registered voters now than it was in 2016. He’s losing Independent voters in virtually every approval poll. The primary group (white non-college) he depends upon has been losing on average 2% of national voting share for the last 20 years. He received 66% of that group nationally and had a big turnout. What extra groups of voters is he winning to power this landslide? Is he just going to get higher and higher percentages from the same group? All those minority voters “walking away”?
He won three states by a total of 77,000 votes in 2016 (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). He also won Florida by 1%.
Unless you consider 2016 a landslide, which historically speaking it certainly wasn’t, where do you see a 2020 landslide developing?
Could Trump win in 2020? Yes
But by a landslide? Unless the definition of a landslide is watered down to a ridiculous level, it’s hard to see. True landslides have been marked by wins in the electoral college of 400 plus electoral votes coupled with wins of above 6-7% in the popular vote. Those levels of victories are rare. Anything below that is an average win, not an historic landslide. I can’t see a candidate like Trump, usually trying to a narrow cast an EC pathway to just get to 270 by appealing solely to his base, ever putting together a broad enough coalition to even approach a legitimate landslide by historic standards.
I’ll start the popcorn.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 08-24-2018 at 04:30 PM..
And then you effectively waste your vote--
Just like Jill Stein siphoned votes from HRC or those who wrote in Sanders name helped Trump to win,
Just like Ralph Nadar ensured Bush's victory (even in that contested result)--because w/o Nadar's siphoning votes from Gore, there would have been no close recount-level vote to start with...
It gets old. Voting for the best candidate is never a wasted vote. It's like a cult with most people. You MUST vote (D) or (R). No you don't.
I don't understand why Democrats are wanting to help the Republicans by impeaching President Trump. Trump won despite the very large Evangelical voting base staying home. They simply couldn't vote for such an immoral person. IF Trump decides not to run, or is impeached, he will throw his support to Vice President Pence, who is as clean and white bread as you can get. And guess what, the Evangelicals will have an orgasm as they run to the polls to vote for Pence. He will retain Trump's former base, plus add in a new group, and wind up with better numbers across the board than Trump. This would put a possible 12 year run for Republicans in the white house.
Go ahead and impeach the man, this is going to be very entertaining.
Before anyone wants to make a statement that Trump's wrongdoings will stick to Pence, get real. That isn't going to happen. You don't hear ANYTHING about Pence in all of this.
The Manafort/Cohen criminal outcomes have permanently damaged Trump. The USS Trump is taking on water and is listing to one side... it greatly increases the chance he won't run for reelection. These convictions have killed any chance for Trump to win in 2020. The stink of corruption is now permanently attached to Trump.
The harsh reality: Trump barely won in 2016 by a razor thin margin of less than 100,000 votes in Penn., Mich. and Wisc. Those were moderate swing voters who took a chance on Trump. Now fast forward to 2020 and imagine the campaign ads showing Manafort and Cohen behind bars, the long list of guilty pleas and convictions, etc. "Trump admin most corrupt since Nixon. You can't trust Donald Trump."
Trump's advisors will tell him he has no chance to win in 2020. Trump hates to lose, so he'll choose to not run. He'll cite a desire to return to the private sector and to make amends with his family. Trump will be a one-term wonder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
