SURVEY: Trump -- Will his presidency end soon?

[keemapoot]

The GOP calculus on this is probably to get Trump to resign quietly in a "Spiro Agnew" type deal with Mueller, no charges filed, so no pardon required by Pence. That would keep the GOP intact for 2020, and also keep that surprising new Trump base from revolting. I think Pence serves merely as caretaker for the remainder of the term, and 2020 sees new faces from both parties. However, agree with JT's analysis above and note that there are now more than 17 federal and state investigations ongoing, and there is no way to control the outcome of all these actions, especially state actions. So, I doubt if Trump skates free. He will be awash in crap for years to come.

[Skeptic7]

Observer isn't very observant! 

[Jingthing]

Well nobody knows yet how and when the tragicomic presidency of Individual-1 will eventually end, but perhaps this is a foreshadowing? Individual-1's bogus con man scam "charity" under investigation for corruption of course, is now shut down. I say of course because pretty much everything connected to Individual-1 is being investigated, and rightly so, and the democrats aren't even in power yet in the house. Wait a few weeks for that.

 

Quote

 

Trump agrees to shut down his charity amid allegations he used it for personal and political benefit

President Trump has agreed to shut down his embattled personal charity and give away its remaining funds amid allegations that he used it for his personal and political benefit, the New York attorney general announced Tuesday.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood announced that the Donald J. Trump Foundation is dissolving as her office pursues its lawsuit against the charity, Trump and his three eldest children.

The attorney general’s suit, filed in June, alleged “persistently illegal conduct” at the charity and sought to have the foundation shut down.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-agrees-to-shut-down-his-charity-amid-allegations-he-used-it-for-personal-and-political-benefit/2018/12/18/dd3f5030-021b-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html

 

[Nyezhov]

And while the bashing continues, the poll numbers here are telling.

[bristolboy]

23 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

And while the bashing continues, the poll numbers here are telling.

You want to know some really telling poll numbers? They aren't real easy to find. That's because they come from those socialists at Fox who have done their best to bury them. Among other things, in their latest poll, only 38 percent of those polled said they would vote for Trump in the next election. 55 percent said someone else.

 

57 percent said they approved of Mueller's investigation. 37 percent don't.

 

Here's one I especially enjoyed: 

10. How often do you think President Trump puts his personal business interests ahead of the interests of the American people?

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never (Don’t know)9-11 Dec 

18         35%       17            15      14            14 

14 percent say he never puts his business interests ahead of the interests of others.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-document-12-12-18

 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[bendejo]

10 hours ago, keemapoot said:

Chris Mathews may be a bit of an overly dramatic liberal for my tastes but he does offer a lot of experience and insights. Last night he predicted Trump may resign in only a few weeks as he drew parallels to Spiro Agnew who cut a deal and ran (resigned) rather than face the inevitable:

 

Mathews may be dramatic and dramatically vain (Jimmy Carter openly called him out on this right on his show, leaving Mathews speechless (sort of a pun in there)) but he claims to be a registered Republican and voted for W in 2000, which he went on to regret.  As he says, he looks to the past to assess the present.  Well, this is a whole new game.  Part of the Agnew thing was Nixon trying to stir up a diversion: it didn't work, but it bought him another year.

Another Nixon UN-similarity is the pardon:  Ford pardoned him, but for the most part Nixon's only outright crimes involved political monkey business.  DT has cascading involvements including profiteering from his position, putting the interests of his family organization ahead of those of the country which is potentially treasonous, and so on.

 

Why I don't think DT will step down voluntarily:

he won't do it without a lifetime get out of jail card for himself and his kids (Kushner is another story), he'll keep being the rascal he always has been, so he would bargain for a pardon for anything he might do in the future;

his vanity couldn't handle it -- he's a winner, not a quitter (I don't see potential suicide either, he doesn't have the guts);

and it would probably involve some forfeit of his wealth.

 

Ok, for the benefit of the doubt, if he does step down like some here are suggesting, he will not shut up afterwards.  He will go on whining about "being treated unfairly," witch hunt/no collusion etc and the Trumpistas (that solid 35%) will continue to swallow it whole, as they do now.  He would probably continue to do arena tours, this time for cash admission, and continue to stoke discord.  It will be only a matter of time before he is playing golf at his own resort in North Korea.  Or Indonesia.

 

 

[Jingthing]

In any case, Individual-1 is definitely trending down. Tired of all that losing?

 

Quote

 

Trump’s power slips away, as Flynn faces possible jail time

A trio of developments on Tuesday underscore that President Trump’s power, like sand through an hourglass, is steadily falling. All of the usual tricks (distraction, lying, photo ops) will not reverse the downward trend.

Perhaps the worst blow yet to Trump — and the aura of power that helps keep his cult-like following in a trance — occurred in a federal courtroom.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/18/trumps-power-slips-away-flynn-faces-possible-jail-time/

[simple1]

Given his track record prior to his election, can anyone explain why trump has never served jail time?

[Tug]

Trump won’t go quietly it’s not in his dna he has a lot of money and lawyers that’s why no jail time check out what Robert mechum said today plus there is a fury in this country about the way this man has treated allies friends and institutions the people of color the middle class children the environment ect ect nope 1 term possible impeachment possibly of an attempted coup

[keemapoot]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Given his track record prior to his election, can anyone explain why trump has never served jail time?

This is a man who has flown close to the sun (skirting illegality) for a long time in both business and politics , employing lots of lawyers and "fixers" like Cohen. Perhaps the most telling thing that has been exposed from all these 17 investigations and parade of people going down is the Character of those who are close to Trump. He attracts a lot of people of questionable character, similar to him, and we can assume that includes many in his current orbit of those who have not yet been charged. But then, his character was always at issue, but his base did not care then, and doesn't care now. Character used to be a defining characteristic of the office of President.

 

Interesting theories being advanced on this thread as cited by analysts that perhaps he will resign, but given his record of obstinance, probably won't resign without immunity for not only himself, but the only two people he seems to care about: daughter Ivanka and husband Jared. Again, we can probably infer that they are on Mueller's radar too, and given the character issues we've seen in all the others, that we could expect it from these two as well. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
 

[bendejo]

52 minutes ago, Tug said:

possibly of an attempted coup

 

I began to suspect this when Kelly became chief-of-staff.  He would be the guy who would then sit in the chair and go on national tv and explain the situation.  I was wrong, but he still has 2 weeks

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 6:10 PM, bristolboy said:

So when Obama was President it equally could been said that the Republicans  "would apparently rather that America was destroyed, than support him"?

IMO the US political system is so corrupt it is always about who is in power rather than doing the right thing for the country. So, yes, whichever party is in power, the other side would apparently be capable of destroying the country if it got them back in the money seats.

Which is why Trump was elected, because the voters thought he was their only chance of destroying the existing cosy set up between the Dems and the GOP, and of course the swamp in Washington.

[mtls2005]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Lack of proof? OR perhaps he never did anything that he could be charged for. 

There's several politicians on the Dems side that could probably be put in jail if there were a DA willing to take them on.

 

The Three D's for trumplestilkskins :  Deny. Deflect. D'oh.

 

Surviving in NYC is one thing, easy enough to pay Cy Vance Jr. to make problems go away.

 

Surviving in the larger world? Good Luck.

[thaibeachlovers]

A really rich person has to be extremely unlucky to actually be charged for any crime. Like all things in life, there are rich people that get away with it and the rest of us that don't.

[keemapoot]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

A really rich person has to be extremely unlucky to actually be charged for any crime. Like all things in life, there are rich people that get away with it and the rest of us that don't.

Yes, that is true. Especially in the highly complex and expensive US legal system. The reason is the cost of litigation and the funds to settle. It's always known that whoever has the deepest pockets will usually always win in any litigation. You cannot imagine the staggering cost of fighting extended litigation. Millions of dollars. In the end, unless the case is extremely close, the money wins.

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

And while the bashing continues, the poll numbers here are telling.

Yes they are! Telling that even here 56% think he's one & done...or not-even-one and DONE.  

[Nyezhov]

26 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Yes they are! Telling that even here 56% think he's one & done...or not-even-one and DONE.  

The telling fact is that only 25% feel he will be impeached and 75% dont. Notice how the discussion here is not being driven by them?

 

Thats how he got elected and why the polls didnt reflect his support prior to the election. While a vocal minority screams, yells, and schemes, the vast majority of the country elected him.

 

And yes, I am well aware of the popular vote. Almost 8 million folks voted for Clinton in Cali, NYC and Chicago alone. That says it all. 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Nyezhov

[Skeptic7]

This says it all

 

[mtls2005]

11 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

the vast majority of the country elected him.

 

Huh? Are you talking about acreage?

 

I've read some truly odd "opinions" here from trumplestilkskins here but this one is a doozy. Is this one of those "Alternative Facts"?

 

Candidate         Party         Electoral Votes         Popular Votes
Donald J. Trump         Republican         304         62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton         Democratic         227         65,845,063
Gary Johnson        Libertarian         0         4,488,931
Jill Stein        Green         0         1,457,050
Evan McMullin        Independent         0         728,830

 

 

Now Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, 49 states (not mine), 529 electoral votes, and he was gone in less than two years. Sure he cheated, but still.
 

 

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

15 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Huh? Are you talking about acreage?

 

I've read some truly odd "opinions" here from trumplestilkskins here but this one is a doozy. Is this one of those "Alternative Facts"?

 

Candidate         Party         Electoral Votes         Popular Votes
Donald J. Trump         Republican         304         62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton         Democratic         227         65,845,063
Gary Johnson        Libertarian         0         4,488,931
Jill Stein        Green         0         1,457,050
Evan McMullin        Independent         0         728,830

 

 

Now Nixon won in a landslide in 1972, 49 states (not mine), 529 electoral votes, and he was gone in less than two years. Sure he cheated, but still.
 

 

 

 

 

I suggest you reread my post. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

The telling fact is that only 25% feel he will be impeached and 75% dont. Notice how the discussion here is not being driven by them?

 

Thats how he got elected and why the polls didnt reflect his support prior to the election. While a vocal minority screams, yells, and schemes, the vast majority of the country elected him.

 

And yes, I am well aware of the popular vote. Almost 8 million folks voted for Clinton in Cali, NYC and Chicago alone. That says it all. 

Did you notice how the Fox Poll says only 38 percent say they will vote for him in the next election? He barely scraped by with 46.4 percent last time.

 

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Thats how he got elected and why the polls didnt reflect his support prior to the election. While a vocal minority screams, yells, and schemes, the vast majority of the country elected him.

LOL, really? In what alternative reality did this take place? Or do you perhaps define "vast majority" in an alternative manner?

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Did you notice how the Fox Poll says only 38 percent say they will vote for him in the next election? He barely scraped by with 46.4 percent last time.

 

Depends on the opponent. If it is another "Hillary" type of candidate, Trump is assured of victory.

I'm sure most people voted against her, rather than for him.

Given the Dems have no charismatic leader, and the election circus will commence in a year or less, they could be in for a repeat performance.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends on the opponent. If it is another "Hillary" type of candidate, Trump is assured of victory.

I'm sure most people voted against her, rather than for him.

Given the Dems have no charismatic leader, and the election circus will commence in a year or less, they could be in for a repeat performance.

Given the high level of loathing for Trump, a plain vanilla or chocolate candidate should have no problem. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

LOL, really? In what alternative reality did this take place? Or do you perhaps define "vast majority" in an alternative manner?

Vast majority of electoral college votes. The actual number of individual voters is irrelevant in the US electoral system. Regardless, they did not constitute a majority of potential voters, so only a majority of actual voters, not a majority of potential voters. 

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends on the opponent. If it is another "Hillary" type of candidate, Trump is assured of victory.

I'm sure most people voted against her, rather than for him.

Given the Dems have no charismatic leader, and the election circus will commence in a year or less, they could be in for a repeat performance.

They really dont have anyone. Of course, they could nominate a lightweight like Beto and play the "anybody but Trump" game, but for some folks, its the devil you know as opposed to the devil you dont. Still a lot can happen between now and then.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Given the high level of loathing for Trump, a plain vanilla or chocolate candidate should have no problem. 

LOL. You apparently think that because there is a vocal group against him, that a majority of the population loath him. IMO, those that would vote for him again in a contest against another "Hillary" would be about the same as last time.

Seems that people have forgotten that Trump was not a popular candidate. It's just that in middle America more people loathed her than him.

[Nyezhov]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Vast majority of electoral college votes. The actual number of individual voters is irrelevant in the US electoral system. Regardless, they did not constitute a majority of potential voters, so only a majority of actual voters, not a majority of potential voters. 

The electoral college, like the Senate, is designed to diffuse power and prevent electoral domination of big vs small. In the Federal system as envisioned by the Founders, the states were "equal" so to speak entities whose responsibility was to take care of their own peculiar needs with the government to be responsible for things like national defense and the post office. That has since morphed as we all know, with the Feds taking on far more than their as written constitutional mandate.  But thats a debate not relevant here.

 

The complaints about the electoral college are sour grapes. Yes Clinton won the popular vote because of California, Chicago and NYC. If one believes that the politics and policies of these three areas should dominate the policies of the USA, thats fine, but thats not the way the system is set up. The system is designed to dilute power, not concentrate it.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

They really dont have anyone. Of course, they could nominate a lightweight like Beto and play the "anybody but Trump" game, but for some folks, its the devil you know as opposed to the devil you dont. Still a lot can happen between now and then.

I'd be lovin' it if they nominated Chuck or Nancy ( along with the entire GOP ).

I think they'll go for loveable old buffoon Biden. If they do, he'll probably win, IMO.