The Impeachment of Trump?

[Delta1212]

James Comey: The President told me that he hoped I could let Michael Flynn go, which in the context of the President calling me in to a private meeting with him in order to say that, I took as an order to do so, although I did not comply.

 

Trump's lawyer: Comey lied about the content of his conversations with the President and "the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey 'let Flynn go.'"

 

Donald Trump, Jr: Yeah, plus he only said he hoped Comey could let Flynn go.

 

 

*paraphrased where not in quotes

Edited June 11, 2017 by Delta1212

[Airbrush]

Who grades the prospective candidates?

 

They were already graded by their college professors. The candidate selection panel search all the universities in the nation for the best and brightest based on their college grades in relevant subjects, like economics, political science, history, etc.

[KipIngram]

 

They were already graded by their college professors. The candidate selection panel search all the universities in the nation for the best and brightest based on their college grades in relevant subjects, like economics, political science, history, etc.

 

And you consider currently sitting university administrations politically unbiased?

[Delta1212]

 

And you consider currently sitting university administrations politically unbiased?

Forget currently sitting, what happens when everyone knows that professors are effectively responsible for choosing presidential candidates? You think the hiring process for professors is going to remain the same?

 

Look at how many universities already treat grading of athletes and tell me there aren't going to be politically focused schools the same way there are high level sports schools.

[KipIngram]

Yes, excellent point.

 

I just generally don't believe in having any single group wield so much power.

[Ten oz]

James Comey: The President told me that he hoped I could let Michael Flynn go, which in the context of the President calling me in to a private meeting with him in order to say that, I took as an order to do so, although I did not comply.

 

Trump's lawyer: Comey lied about the content of his conversations with the President and "the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that Mr. Comey 'let Flynn go.'"

 

Donald Trump, Jr: Yeah, plus he only said he hoped Comey could let Flynn go.

 

 

*paraphrased where not in quotes

This has become the standard defense for all manner of things. Argue that it never happened while also arguing that it is no big deal that it happened. The other game being played is to raise the bar for what's considered proof. That unless there is a recording of what transpired we can never know. The under oath testimony of a FBI director who took notes in real time just doesn't cut it in our current political climate.

 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Why work so hard to prevent, weaken, stop, or otherwise block an investigation into a matter if you're innocent? Why did Trump continue to deny it was Russia and muddy the waters by blaming China even after receiving intel briefs that it was Russia, why did Sessions lie under oath to the Senate. why did Kushner lie on his security clearance paperwork, why did Flynn lie on paperwork and to officials, why did White House officials feed Nunes (House intel committee Chair) false info, and etc, etc, etc. I understannd that being caught lying about that which you are accused doesn't in itself prove you're are specifically guilty as accussed but it certianly begs to question. In my opinion logic dictates that a person would not lie under the threat of penalty (perjury and falsifying official forms) less they had something to hide. We can debate that lying is not proof that Trump or his people have committed other crimes but the lying certianly dimishes their creditability and significantly increase suspicion. This isn't simply a matter of one or 2 people misremembering. This is an ongoing coordicated attempt to obscure the truth. The first Russia hacks that went public were a year ago now. Trump and his people have had a year to decide how to answer these questions. They are either guilty or inept to comical level.

[KipIngram]

Because all of those things have also become standard fare amongst elite politicians. Lie, lie, lie. Ultimately they all feel they are "above the people," so anything they need to do to get the people off their backs is fine, just fine.

I've harped on our polarization being a huge problem, but this is another one: high government officials just don't think of themselves as our servants. They think of themselves as elite and special.

[Ten oz]

It's unlikely that this exact scenario would ever happen. It would take a perfect storm of political and demographic factors, but I'd say this represents an upper bound on what is possible without active vote tampering while keeping it at least adjacent to plausible reality.

 

It's actually a bit more of an extreme divergence than I was expecting going in, frankly.

My grandmother passed away in 1996 at 87yrs old. She never had a President who didn't win the popular vote. I have already had two. As a kid in grade school in 92' teachers took the election that year as a good opportunity to explain the electoral process to us student. That year was special because of the popularity of 3rd party candidate Ross Perot. I recall them describing what it would take for a candidate to win without the popular vote as being a "perfect storm". It was something we were told was possible but unlikely and we'd probably never see it. While your example seems next to impossible we simple can't say never. In 00' when Gore lost while winning a half million more votes no one predicted that just 16yrs later a candidate would lose with 3 million more votes.

Because all of those things have also become standard fare amongst elite politicians. Lie, lie, lie. Ultimately they all feel they are "above the people," so anything they need to do to get the people off their backs is fine, just fine.

I've harped on our polarization being a huge problem, but this is another one: high government officials just don't think of themselves as our servants. They think of themselves as elite and special.

Standard for whom? Claiming all politicians do this merely provides cover for those who do it to the worst degree. You cannot provide equal examples of this behavior under the previous several administrations. Obama, Bush, etc didn't fire the FBI Director while themselves under investigation by the FBI and then provided conflicting excuses for why. Pervious Atorney Generals didn't lie to the Senate during their confirmation heirings. You are implying a status qou which hasn't ever existed. We have never had a National Security Director whom themselve were a risk to national security. None of this is normal politics. There aren't equal comparisons to other situations over the last few decades.

[swansont]

And yet the other 20% count too. And are very important. For one thing, they feed the 80%. Anyway, the whole suite of things laid out in the Constitution was an attempt to achieve a reasonable solution to a difficult situation. I think they did at least reasonably well. The solution they came up with might not remain optimum given the way the influence of the federal government has changed over the years, but I don't think it goes without saying that having everything be made proportional is the best answer either; some arrangement at least similar in philosophy strikes me as still making sense.

 

I also think that the electoral college is not something people are really having calm, rational thoughts about right now. Clinton supporters are just royally pissed over it at the moment - they're not thinking about "the big picture." They're just focused on the fact that they wanted to win and didn't, so something should be done. I think it's a much more complex issue than that.

 

 

Let's face it: the electoral college system was not to prevent skewing toward populous states as much as was to bolster states that had embraced slavery, so that 3/5 of the slave population would count towards representation of the south. And the more slaves you had, the more representation you would get. You could literally buy more representation.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

[Airbrush]

"There is still no there there" is the Fox News mantra, because there is still no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But why would there be any evidence for the general public if all evidence is part of the investigations? Any evidence for collusion would be SECRET as part of an ongoing investigation. Right?

Edited June 14, 2017 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

 

 

Let's face it: the electoral college system was not to prevent skewing toward populous states as much as was to bolster states that had embraced slavery, so that 3/5 of the slave population would count towards representation of the south. And the more slaves you had, the more representation you would get. You could literally buy more representation.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

 

 

Let's face it, the west has always worked on the basis that one can buy influence.

[Airbrush]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DONALD!

 

You are now under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice.

 

Have an extra piece of birthday cake. You deserve it.

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532985377/report-trump-under-investigation-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice

Edited June 15, 2017 by Airbrush

[Delta1212]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DONALD!

 

You are now under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice.

 

Have an extra piece of birthday cake. You deserve it.

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532985377/report-trump-under-investigation-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice

You know, it's a rare person who would be able to say that he personally sank the nominees of both major parties from the same election and directly prevented them from being President.

[MigL]

Good to see the Senate, led by a vocal J McCain, finally approve a sanction against Russia for unlawfully meddling with the American election.

Now we await action against the President for his collusion.

[Phi for All]

Good to see the Senate, led by a vocal J McCain, finally approve a sanction against Russia for unlawfully meddling with the American election.

Now we await action against the President for his collusion.

 

If it comes down to any action (the GOP is finding some gems among the filth, so this is doubtful), I'm betting he goes with the "I'm in real estate, I didn't know it was illegal" argument. He's set the bar so low he could probably make a case by claiming we all should've known he'd screw this up. This is all OUR fault.

 

Who knew being POTUS isn't like running a family business?

[MigL]

It is our ( well, not really mine ) fault...

We voted for, and elected, a moron.

[Phi for All]

We voted for, and elected, a moron.

 

I think it's worse than that. I think he has the Dunning-Kruger effect. I think he has a highly exaggerated assessment of his own intelligence and abilities, a superiority that's all in his head. The more you point out his deficiencies, the more convinced he is that he's a genius that can't be understood by lesser beings.

 

He is NOT a self-aware person, and has no mechanism for evaluating his own competence.

[StringJunky]

 

...a superiority that's all in his head....

A legend in his own mind.

[iNow]

...and also in the White House... in charge of one of the strongest countries on the planet...in a position often described as leader of the free world.

 

Unfortunately, it's not just in his head, not simply a delusional figment of his imagination.

He's really there. He really did it.

[KipIngram]

And sooner or later he'll be gone, and about half of us will be slamming whoever's in the White House next. We just don't know which half yet.

[Phi for All]

And sooner or later he'll be gone, and about half of us will be slamming whoever's in the White House next. We just don't know which half yet.

 

Oh, I sincerely hope not. I hope this choice chokes those who made it, and it forces everyone to re-evaluate what kind of people we want to be. Right now we look like ignorant, greedy, heartless leeches who want to make the world really, really difficult for our children to get along in. Real issues are ignored while the rich and corporate are buying legislation at the White House garage sale. It's not The Apprentice any more, it's Wheel of the Fortunate.

[iNow]

I'm also not in the habit of slamming whoever's in the White House, but I acknowledge the point being made

[KipIngram]

I'm also not in the habit of slamming whoever's in the White House, but I acknowledge the point being made

 

Well, that's a very good point. I fell right into the trap of equating the middle to the ends. Hopefully it won't be nearly half. I didn't jump for joy when Obama was elected, but I did knuckle down and acknowledge that he was our President. It's how the system works. And though I didn't agree with a lot of his policies, he in no way made the buffoon out of himself that we're seeing now.

[Airbrush]

It is our ( well, not really mine ) fault...

We voted for, and elected, a moron.

 

That is not correct. We were successfully conned by a world class con artist. A "moron" would not be as successful in his plans. We voted for, and elected, a delusional.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Airbrush

[John Cuthber]

 

That is not correct. We were successfully conned by a world class con artist. A "moron" would not be as successful in his plans. We voted for, and elected, a delusional.

He never seemed to me to be acting as anything but a buffoon, yet you elected him...