Jump to content

The Impeachment of Trump?


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

In my opinion the failures were logistical on the ground level and not with Clintons "first grade teacher" look. =

 

She lost the election from any of a number of failures, as well as logistical on the ground.

 

I know this sounds terribly superficial, but a large part of our population is superficial and sexist.

 

If Clinton had consciously suppressed her natural inclination to have a too-wide-eyed look with too-wide-toothy smile, like a first grade teacher on the first day of class, she may have won the election. The election was THAT close. Almost any trivial thing could have made the difference between winning and losing.

 

Look at Angela Merkel, she always has a controlled-serious look, even when she is smiling.

 

Back to the impeachment of Trump, its beginning to look like Trump cant be impeached until the special investigation by Bob Mueller reaches a conclusion, or by the midterm election, whichever comes first.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know this sounds terribly superficial, but a large part of our population is superficial.

 

If Clinton had consciously suppressed her natural inclination to have a too-wide-eyed look with too-wide-toothy smile, like a first grade teacher on the first day of class, she may have won the election. The election was THAT close. Almost any trivial thing could have made the difference between winning and losing.

 

Look at Angela Merkel, she always has a controlled-serious look, even when she is smiling.

 

Why do you think her popularity was the problem when she won the popular vote? Do you really think anyone supporting the Pussygrabber would have voted for Hillary if she would have smiled more seriously? The election wasn't close at all, it was a technical decision by the electoral college.

 

This stooge embodies all the WORST TRAITS we've had in presidents. He's the biggest liar, lecher, thief, and bully, and he's the most ignorant about the job. He has none of the good qualities we've had in presidents, none whatsoever. Clinton just rubbed you the wrong way, and you really need to learn why this wasn't her fault, but rather yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why do you think her popularity was the problem when she won the popular vote? Do you really think anyone supporting the Pussygrabber would have voted for Hillary if she would have smiled more seriously? The election wasn't close at all, it was a technical decision by the electoral college.

 

This stooge embodies all the WORST TRAITS we've had in presidents. He's the biggest liar, lecher, thief, and bully, and he's the most ignorant about the job. He has none of the good qualities we've had in presidents, none whatsoever. Clinton just rubbed you the wrong way, and you really need to learn why this wasn't her fault, but rather yours.

Exactly, I just don't understand the attitude that if Hillary had just wore different shades of lipstick or what that people would have voted for her. Additionally people with that attitude insist that the candidate with millions more votes was the one with a popularity problem. It makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the probability? What will it take to impeach Trump considering the GOP has control of senate and house and supreme court? Will it take a change in 2 years when there is an election and the Dems have a chance to take control of the house and/or senate? Or could Trump become so obnoxious that even his party turns against him in less than 2 years?

 

It seems like Trump wants to take his office to the unknown in unpopularity. He has such opposition already, what can happen in the next 2 years? I shudder to think.

 

I shudder to think about people who voted for a woman who laughed as she bragged about "getting Alfred Tayler off with only 10 months in jail" for raping a 12-year-old girl. Hillary Clinton, serial felon and pathological liar, told the judge that the child "teased" her client and asked for it. She wanted it.

This is all anyone needs to know about a vile and despicable woman who was unable to name a single accomplishment of her own as either senator or secretary of state.

 

Moreover, Bill Clinton gave a state of the union address in which he advocated the same protections from illegal immigrants coming through Mexico, and strongly restricting Muslim immigration, as Donald Trump did. The joint session of congress gave Clinton repeated standing ovations for his comments, which garnered Donald Trump only cries of "racism." This is the awful hypocrisy of the Democratic Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder to think about people who voted for a woman who laughed as she bragged about "getting Alfred Tayler off with only 10 months in jail" for raping a 12-year-old girl. Hillary Clinton, serial felon and pathological liar, told the judge that the child "teased" her client and asked for it. She wanted it.

This is all anyone needs to know about a vile and despicable woman who was unable to name a single accomplishment of her own as either senator or secretary of state.

 

Moreover, Bill Clinton gave a state of the union address in which he advocated the same protections from illegal immigrants coming through Mexico, and strongly restricting Muslim immigration, as Donald Trump did. The joint session of congress gave Clinton repeated standing ovations for his comments, which garnered Donald Trump only cries of "racism." This is the awful hypocrisy of the Democratic Party.

I guess you missed the title of this thread. I'll list it below so you'll know.

 

"The Impeachment of Trump?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you missed the title of this thread. I'll list it below so you'll know.

 

"The Impeachment of Trump?"

 

How interesting that you said not a word to Airbrush for his comparison of President Trump to Hitler, with no mention of "impeachment."

 

Here is Airbrush's "rediculous" (sic) tirade in its entirety:

 

What Trump and Hitler have in common is a genius at pulling people into their own delusion. They can be totally wacked on a subject, but they have such conviction in their delusion that others join in with zeal. He can say the most rediculous (sic) things and his 35% following give him a pass because Trump is a brilliant con artist telling them what they want to hear.

 

---------------end of "rediculous" (sic) hate tirade.------------------

 

The divisiveness of Americans stood at 46% when Obama was sworn in, 2009. When he left office after his disastrous, incompetent eight years, divisiveness had increased to 86%, thanks to his race warfare and class warfare. Never before in history has there been such insanity displayed by a political party as the Democrats now undertake. The Democratic Party should be prosecuted under the RICO Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How interesting that you said not a word to Airbrush for his comparison of President Trump to Hitler, with no mention of "impeachment."

How interesting that you didn't read the post immediately following Airbrush's comparison of Trump to Hitler, where I criticized Airbrush for making such a ridiculous comparison.

 

The divisiveness of Americans stood at 46% when Obama was sworn in, 2009. When he left office after his disastrous, incompetent eight years, divisiveness had increased to 86%, thanks to his race warfare and class warfare. Never before in history has there been such insanity displayed by a political party as the Democrats now undertake. The Democratic Party should be prosecuted under the RICO Act.

Your post is as ridiculous as that of Airbrush. People who live in glass houses... Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airbrush: "What Trump and Hitler have in common is a genius at pulling people into their own delusion. They can be totally wacked on a subject, but they have such conviction in their delusion that others join in with zeal. He can say the most ridiculous (sic) things and his 35% following give him a pass because Trump is a brilliant con artist telling them what they want to hear."

 

GeniusIsDisruptive: "rediculous" (sic) hate tirade"

 

​Zapatos: "Your post is as ridiculous as that of Airbrush."

 

I'd like to know specifically how my post is "ridiculous" or a "hate tirade". Please explain. How is a "genius at pulling people into their delusion" ridiculous?

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airbrush: "What Trump and Hitler have in common is a genius at pulling people into their own delusion. They can be totally wacked on a subject, but they have such conviction in their delusion that others join in with zeal. He can say the most ridiculous (sic) things and his 35% following give him a pass because Trump is a brilliant con artist telling them what they want to hear."

 

I think far too much credit is given to Donald Trump regarding his success. We have seen it on this forum from a few different posters where despite knowing Trump is incompetent he is supported anyway from the position of us vs them. We all know many people who support Trump even while acknowledging his nurmerous faults. It is systematic of them and not proof of his genius. Trump is an effect and not a cause.

 

The over crediting of Trump has accorded his whole life. I have seen it argued nurmerous times that while born wealthy it still took great business savvy to remain wealthy. Donald Trump's father at one point was one of the 10 wealthiest people in the country and was thee wealthiest real estate mogul in NYC. Donald Trump is wealthy but not moreso than his father was. While he has managed to remain wealthy he hasn't taken his inheritance to new levels. If simply not losing a fortune makes someone an intellegent at business what does that say about the many who start with nothing and become billionaires? Not saying Trump is an idiot at business but rather he simple receives more credit than he deserves.

 

Society, in my opinion, does this too often. Everyone successful is deemed to have winning attributes which enable their success while everyone who fails is criticised as having various negative traits. The world simply isn't that linear. History is full of wildly intelligent women who failed to succeed because of sexism, brillant artists who died with little following only to be discovered later, and important scientists who were opressed by religion. Often how successful one is simply says more about society at large than it does the individual. Trump isn't fooling anyone. The posters in here like tar and Kiplngram who admit they voted for Trump are also admittedly aware that he is a liar. They have not bought into a delusion (at least not one created by or specific to Donald Trump).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost any trivial thing could have made the difference between winning and losing.

 

 

And there were several non-trivial things she had to overcome, so to focus on the trivial is a bit misguided, IMO. The playing field was not level, but we've had other threads where we discussed this, and it has nothing to do with Trump and his prospects of being impeached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone successful is deemed to have winning attributes which enable their success while everyone who fails is criticised as having various negative traits. The world simply isn't that linear. History is full of wildly intelligent women who failed to succeed because of sexism, brillant artists who died with little following only to be discovered later, and important scientists who were opressed by religion. Often how successful one is simply says more about society at large than it does the individual. Trump isn't fooling anyone.

 

Exactly! For every person that is very successful in any endeavor, there are 10 others just as qualified, or more qualified, but they were not in the right place at the right time.

 

And there were several non-trivial things she had to overcome, so to focus on the trivial is a bit misguided, IMO.

 

In a CLOSE election, both the non-trivial and trivial can make the difference between winning and losing.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airbrush: "What Trump and Hitler have in common is a genius at pulling people into their own delusion. They can be totally wacked on a subject, but they have such conviction in their delusion that others join in with zeal. He can say the most ridiculous (sic) things and his 35% following give him a pass because Trump is a brilliant con artist telling them what they want to hear."

 

GeniusIsDisruptive: "rediculous" (sic) hate tirade"

 

​Zapatos: "Your post is as ridiculous as that of Airbrush."

 

I'd like to know specifically how my post is "ridiculous" or a "hate tirade". Please explain. How is a "genius at pulling people into their delusion" ridiculous?

 

Your post is ridiculous because it uses a logical fallacy. In this case the fallacy is Guilt by Association. Your comparison of Trump to Hitler is an obvious attempt to make Trump appear evil simply because of shared attributes with Hitler. You could just as well have substituted 'The Pope' for 'Hitler' in your comparison, but it would have lessened the impact of your attack.

 

I'm sure there are similar attributes between you and Hitler also, but it is unlikely that any valid criticism of you would benefit by such a comparison.

 

Trump has enough faults that there is no need to try to make them appear worse than they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a CLOSE election, both the non-trivial and trivial can make the difference between winning and losing.

 

 

The assertion that she ran a lousy campaign does not fit with that argument. If you have to overcome non-trivial obstacles that are not present for your opponent, you cannot conclude that the campaign wasn't run well. Nobody runs a perfect campaign. Everybody makes mistakes. This is yet another false narrative, one among many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...... the fallacy is Guilt by Association. Your comparison of Trump to Hitler is an obvious attempt to make Trump appear evil simply because of shared attributes with Hitler. You could just as well have substituted 'The Pope' for 'Hitler' in your comparison, but it would have lessened the impact of your attack.

 

Ok then, substitute "religious leaders" for Hitler. What Trump and religious leaders have in common is ability to pull people into their delusion.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The assertion that she ran a lousy campaign does not fit with that argument. If you have to overcome non-trivial obstacles that are not present for your opponent, you cannot conclude that the campaign wasn't run well. Nobody runs a perfect campaign. Everybody makes mistakes. This is yet another false narrative, one among many.

No one runs a perfect campaign but not every candidate contends with foriegn adversarial attacks. We are living in a twilight zone where people are arguing that the biggest issue was Hillary Clinton herself. That if she had just been better the cheating and illegal activity wouldn't have mattered. Forget winning fair and fair Hilary Clinton failed by not being strong enough to beat a stacked deck; it's nuts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think Trump can be impeached before the Mueller investigation reaches a conclusion? I think no matter what happens now, the only way Trump can be impeached is from a bad outcome to the Mueller investigation, or the other investigations. Now the R's in congress are saying "don't say anything, just wait and see what happens to the investigations."

 

Or there is a chance that after the midterm elections, democrats get a majority in the house. Then impeachment is possible.

 

If he shoots someone on 5th Avenue, he may not "lose any votes". The question is how many people would he need to shoot before the republicans in congress change their mind?

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think Trump can be impeached before the Mueller investigation reaches a conclusion?

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and quite a lot of the judicary. They control state legislatures and governorships. I'm not even sure he'll be impeached AFTER the Mueller investigation even if damning evidence is presented.

 

The only way this changes is if citizens from deeply red Trump-supporting districts tell their representatives to do it. Absent that, those in congress will be too afraid to support impeachment since it could cause them to lose their next election / get primary'd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and quite a lot of the judicary. They control state legislatures and governorships. I'm not even sure he'll be impeached AFTER the Mueller investigation even if damning evidence is presented.

 

The only way this changes is if citizens from deeply red Trump-supporting districts tell their representatives to do it. Absent that, those in congress will be too afraid to support impeachment since it could cause them to lose their next election / get primary'd.

I don't think the outcome of the Mueller investigation will be enough. Mueller may call for formal indictments and it won't be enough. Independent Counsel determined Bill Clinton had corrupted Justice via perjury with regards to Monica Lewinsky yet Clinton serve out his term (his approval rating went up and the House Republicans who voted to impeach him suffered heavy mid term loses). So there is already precendence in place for the GOP to hide behind when Mueller reports Trump has broken the law. Obviously an affair is significantly different than cooperating with a foriegn aggressor to circumvent campaign ethics during a democratic election but it won't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP has gone all-in, putting party before country.

 

One thing that will sway them is losing 2018 elections in districts they thought they controlled, owing to 20 point swings in the results. Then they might see that 2020 is in serious trouble. But will that be too late for them? Right now they are behaving as if they don't have much to worry about in future elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now they are behaving as if they don't have much to worry about in future elections.

It's hard to be scared when you control the legislatures, the drawing of the districts, and can cut funding for the US census process which only happens every 10 years and has the opportunity to adjust districts.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/us-census-director-resigns-amid-turmoil-over-funding-of-2020-count/2017/05/09/8f8657c6-34ea-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?utm_term=.33c749a0d98e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP has gone all-in, putting party before country.

 

One thing that will sway them is losing 2018 elections in districts they thought they controlled, owing to 20 point swings in the results. Then they might see that 2020 is in serious trouble. But will that be too late for them? Right now they are behaving as if they don't have much to worry about in future elections.

Republicans don't respond to campaign loses by conforming to the will of the people, hahah. They respond by deluding the power voters have.

 

Republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections. Midterms over that period have been split but ultimately Democrats have more popular support but the number despite being large haven't been enough.

The 48 members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, in their most recent respective elections dating back to 2012, collectively earned 78.4 million votes on their way to victory. Republicans, by contrast, won just 54.8 million votes—even though there are 52 of them. In other words, Senate Democrats have gotten more than 23.5 million more votes than Republicans. In a head-to-head election, that would amount to a crushing 59-41 margin in percentage terms.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/5/1617584/-We-re-the-popular-party-Senate-Democrats-won-over-23-million-more-votes-than-Republicans

 

Democrats in the Senate represent 35 million more people:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tn9v6Jq-fd0uT7FkwD757LMghX5jYUwlaeSgZbPgRUg/edit#gid=0

 

Republicans know they cannot compete on an even playing field with Democrats for votes so what they did post 2008 loses is focus on statehouse elections so that they could get control over state election processes. Then they changing voting regulations, moved polling sites, and did all they did to supress turn in key regions. Once they won back congress in 2010 it gave them control over redistricting and they made democratic district large as possible. That way Democrats may have more supporters and votes but ultimately Republicans in smaller districts will be more abundant which equals more individuals seats in Congress.

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerrymandering-its-moneyball-applied-to-politics

It's hard to be scared when you control the legislatures, the drawing of the districts, and can cut funding for the US census process which only happens every 10 years and has the opportunity to adjust districts.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/us-census-director-resigns-amid-turmoil-over-funding-of-2020-count/2017/05/09/8f8657c6-34ea-11e7-b412-62beef8121f7_story.html?utm_term=.33c749a0d98e

Exactly, they focus on manipulating the process and not on what voters want or need and it has been wildly sucessfully in part because most people out of equal parts patriotism, naivety, and not wanting to appear conspiratorial refuse to accept our system isn't a fair democratic process anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this tweet today.

 

"We need to accept the fact that Trump's supporters will never abandon him except on the outside chance he suddenly becomes black."

[mp][/mp]

 

Republicans don't respond to campaign loses by conforming to the will of the people, hahah. They respond by deluding the power voters have.

In an interesting semantic twist, this kinda works... but I'm pretty sure you meant diluting. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter as much that Democrats get more votes. That's not what I said. I said the GOP has to lose elections. That would be in spite of the gerrymandering and voter suppression, and whatever other underhanded advantages they have been able to put into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News today is focusing a lot of attention today on Trumps remarks about Jeff Sessions. It is ahis remarks at Rod Rosenstein I find more disheartening:

 

The president also expressed discontent with Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, a former federal prosecutor from Baltimore. When Mr. Sessions recused himself, the president said he was irritated to learn where his deputy was from. “There are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any,” he said of the predominantly Democratic city.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html

 

The President is questioning the Deputy Attorney General puring for where he is from? If my boss challanged my competence to do my job and publicly sought to diminish my reputation based on where I'm from I'd have grounds for discrimination suit. There is a clear pattern of discrimination with this President. He has challanged a judge for being hispanic in the past as well. Now he is basically saying People from Blatimore basically aren't fair or competent to do their jobs based on the popular voting traditions of the region? Yet Trump himself is from Manhattan which votes blue as Baltimore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Trumps says he condemns the recent violence "on many sides" (which he repeated to emphasize there were MANY sides) in VA, when hate groups including, KKK, Neo-Nazi, white supremecist groups, and others united to protest the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue.  This is an example of his racism and senile dementia.  There were not "many" sides.  There were hate groups UNITED against the removal of the statue, and a group opposed to them.  That makes only 2 sides, the racists, and the anti-racists.  Trump makes a false equivalence to say the violence was from "many sides". 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-condemns-violence-on-many-sides-after-charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-2017-8

 

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.