Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[CaptHaddock]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

I'm not a Trump supporter. I can't stand the guy, for decades now. You may be confused because I blame the Democrats for Trump.

Makes sense.  Just like we all naturally blame Heinrich Bruning for WWII.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I was simply trying to put your insulting post in its proper context.

You failed to do so.  As part of your rambling post you wrote:

 

" Stupid people tend to vote for the "least worst" candidate."

 

Was this rambling, or did you mean it?  If you meant it, do you think all rational compromise is stupid, or simply a compromise to keep a blatant incompetent from holding an important job.  Please give your post some context.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

You failed to do so.  As part of your rambling post you wrote:

 

" Stupid people tend to vote for the "least worst" candidate."

 

Was this rambling, or did you mean it?  If you meant it, do you think all rational compromise is stupid, or simply a compromise to keep a blatant incompetent from holding an important job.  Please give your post some context.

 

I meant it. I think people fail to think more than a short period of time ahead. I think it is better to vote your ideals. I think if you vote based on your ideals the system changes. You must have noticed that voting for the least worst candidate has done nothing other than given a slate of bad candidates to choose from. It helps one think long term if one has children I think.

[thaihome]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

I'm not a Trump supporter. I can't stand the guy, for decades now. You may be confused because I blame the Democrats for Trump.

The Democrats did not create the political atmosphere that gave us Trump as the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. This was the almost inevitable outcome of the pact with devil the Republican party made with an extremist minority giving a voice to the descendents of the John Birch Society and others right wing hate groups of the 1950's and billionaire supported PAC's in party platforms and organizations with radio and TV personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and various Fox News personalities in full support.

 

Trump may have won due to strategic mistakes the Clinton campaign made in both message and voter persuasion techniques,  but to say the Democrats are wholly to blame for Trump is ludicrous and along with your  almost fanatical hatred of Hillary in fact shows how successful the 40+  year right wing propaganda campaign has been.  

https://us.macmillan.com/howtherightlostitsmind/charlesjsykes/9781250147172/

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism-ebook/dp/B010MHACD0/ref=pd_sim_351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VC9W28KD3JH7FPCV70NC&dpID=51On04T2%2BDL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

TH

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, thaihome said:

The Democrats did not create the political atmosphere that gave us Trump as the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. This was the almost inevitable outcome of the pact with devil the Republican party made with an extremist minority giving a voice to the descendents of the John Birch Society and others right wing hate groups of the 1950's and billionaire supported PAC's in party platforms and organizations with radio and TV personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and various Fox News personalities in full support.

 

Trump may have won due to strategic mistakes the Clinton campaign made in both message and voter persuasion techniques,  but to say the Democrats are wholly to blame for Trump is ludicrous and along with your  almost fanatical hatred of Hillary in fact shows how successful the 40+  year right wing propaganda campaign has been.  

https://us.macmillan.com/howtherightlostitsmind/charlesjsykes/9781250147172/

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism-ebook/dp/B010MHACD0/ref=pd_sim_351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VC9W28KD3JH7FPCV70NC&dpID=51On04T2%2BDL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

TH

Thank you for your views. For my part I hope the Democrats are capable of some self examination and course correction before the next election. I take it as an article of faith that the Republicans are not.  My view is that the Democrats have drifted so far from what they once were people are beginning to wonder why they are worthy of their support. Also they made themselves attackable by a lot of unethical behaviour. They are not "the good guys" anymore and if they're not why would anyone vote for them?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

Thank you for your views. For my part I hope the Democrats are capable of some self examination and course correction before the next election. I take it as an article of faith that the Republicans are not.  My view is that the Democrats have drifted so far from what they once were people are beginning to wonder why they are worthy of their support. Also they made themselves attackable by a lot of unethical behaviour. They are not "the good guys" anymore and if they're not why would anyone vote for them?

For one thing, the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about 50 percent thanks to Obamacare.

[F4UCorsair]

27 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I meant it. I think people fail to think more than a short period of time ahead. I think it is better to vote your ideals. I think if you vote based on your ideals the system changes. You must have noticed that voting for the least worst candidate has done nothing other than given a slate of bad candidates to choose from. It helps one think long term if one has children I think.

Most can think no further ahead than their windscreen wipers when driving, so why would they be capable of any thinking at all,  much less rational thinking.

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

For one thing, the number of uninsured Americans dropped by about 50 percent thanks to Obamacare.

And did that solve the problem of healthcare in America. Did it create unity?  Did it bring down premiums?  How was it that a president that controlled both houses couldn't get through Universal healthcare. Answer: Because he  didn't want to. He was pandering to a constituency while penalizing others and enriching his corporate sponsors. Hey, that's just my take.  Maybe it isn't exactly how it looks.

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/unh/stock-chart?intraday=off&timeframe=10y&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=off&index=&drilldown=off

Edited November 5, 2017 by lannarebirth

[boomerangutang]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Thank you for your views. For my part I hope the Democrats are capable of some self examination and course correction before the next election. I take it as an article of faith that the Republicans are not.  My view is that the Democrats have drifted so far from what they once were people are beginning to wonder why they are worthy of their support. Also they made themselves attackable by a lot of unethical behaviour. They are not "the good guys" anymore and if they're not why would anyone vote for them?

It's a big topic, but I think one big reason the Dems lost last year was because they didn't slither down to dirty tricks like their opponents.  Dem politicians generally think the populace has some smarts, and try addressing them accordingly.  Reps, on the other hand, assume the populace are motivated by fears and prejudice.  The Reps were right, and played to Americans' fears and prejudices - which got them a lot of votes.

 

Obama, in 2016, had ample opportunity to allow publication of findings that the Russkies were actively assisting Trump's campaign.  Obama held back, because he's a gentleman and didn't want it to appear he was using his office to affect the campaign.  Republicans have no such decency.  Indeed, Republicans will scatalogically spread BS lies and dirty tricks in every direction, hoping that some sticks.  

 

 

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

It's a big topic, but I think one big reason the Dems lost last year was because they didn't slither down to dirty tricks like their opponents.  Dem politicians generally think the populace has some smarts, and try addressing them accordingly. 

 

 

Yeah, they must have learned the "Deplorables" technique in Dale Carnegies advanced class. I do want to thank you for the simile free post however.

Edited November 5, 2017 by lannarebirth

[CaptHaddock]

14 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

And did that solve the problem of healthcare in America. Did it create unity?  Did it bring down premiums?  How was it that a president that controlled both houses couldn't get through Universal healthcare. Answer: Because he  didn't want to. He was pandering to a constituency while penalizing others and enriching his corporate sponsors. Hey, that's just my take.  Maybe it isn't exactly how it looks.

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/unh/stock-chart?intraday=off&timeframe=10y&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=off&index=&drilldown=off

 

I notice how oversimplifications of this kind often prefer a single-actor theory, in this case: Obama did it.  The Clintons' attempted to reform health care in the 90's from the ground up, without the participation of stakeholders like the insurance companies and Congress.  Because these, and other, stakeholders wield substantial power, money, and influence they shut down the Clintons efforts, despite, by the way, Democratic control of both houses of Congress.  So, when Obama took on the problem, he never offered any health insurance plan of his own at all.  Instead, he handed the problem to Sen. Max Baucus, the senator who had received the most support from the insurance industry on Capitol Hill.  That's to say, he let the insurance companies write the bill, which they did.  So, we see, for example, that they agreed to drop their ability to exclude pre-existing conditions in exchange for the expected large increase in their customer base from mandated insurance.  Baucus went so far as to prevent any expert called to testify during hearings on the bill ever from even mentioning a single-payer option.  This is the sausage-making that produces legislation.  The result was a significant legislative achievement that brought concrete benefits to tens of millions of Americans, not just those who had previously been uninsured.

 

Had Obama attempted to dictate his terms or to drive the insurers out of business with Medicare-for-all his proposals would have ended up like the Clintons'. 

 

Obamacare has been the biggest improvement in health care access since LBJ instituted Medicare.  Criticizing it for not solving all of America's health care issues is abysmally misinformed.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I meant it. I think people fail to think more than a short period of time ahead. I think it is better to vote your ideals. I think if you vote based on your ideals the system changes. You must have noticed that voting for the least worst candidate has done nothing other than given a slate of bad candidates to choose from. It helps one think long term if one has children I think.

So if there is no ideal candidate (there never is) people should not vote and abdicate all responsibility for the future of their country.  Is that your view?

 

Government in the US has always required compromise. The country works best when the different parties in government work together towards a practical center ground.  It works worst when the political parties refuse to compromise, as now. 

 

Elections work the same.  There has never been a candidate that I was in 100% agreement with, but I voted for those that I considered the best option available.  I voted for HRC because, in spite of her obvious flaws, she was a responsible, knowledgeable person to trust the nuclear codes with.  Trump isn't.  People who allow their "idealism" to enable an erratic, unethical opportunist like Trump to start a nuclear war are fools.

[lannarebirth]

24 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

I notice how oversimplifications of this kind often prefer a single-actor theory, in this case: Obama did it.  The Clintons' attempted to reform health care in the 90's from the ground up, without the participation of stakeholders like the insurance companies and Congress.  Because these, and other, stakeholders wield substantial power, money, and influence they shut down the Clintons efforts, despite, by the way, Democratic control of both houses of Congress.  So, when Obama took on the problem, he never offered any health insurance plan of his own at all.  Instead, he handed the problem to Sen. Max Baucus, the senator who had received the most support from the insurance industry on Capitol Hill.  That's to say, he let the insurance companies write the bill, which they did.  So, we see, for example, that they agreed to drop their ability to exclude pre-existing conditions in exchange for the expected large increase in their customer base from mandated insurance.  Baucus went so far as to prevent any expert called to testify during hearings on the bill ever from even mentioning a single-payer option.  This is the sausage-making that produces legislation.  The result was a significant legislative achievement that brought concrete benefits to tens of millions of Americans, not just those who had previously been uninsured.

 

Had Obama attempted to dictate his terms or to drive the insurers out of business with Medicare-for-all his proposals would have ended up like the Clintons'. 

 

Obamacare has been the biggest improvement in health care access since LBJ instituted Medicare.  Criticizing it for not solving all of America's health care issues is abysmally misinformed.

 

 

I do not dispute that it is an improvement in healthcare access for many people.  Where I find fault with it is that it created winners and losers. It is not unifying, creates legitimate discord and it is not a sustainable model. I also do not like the fact that he rolled it out arbitrarily and offered exemptions to corporations using executive orders after it already had the force of law.  I also do not like that I now pay $27,000/yr ( not counting deductibles) for a family of four two of which are 21  and 22 ,who have no pre-existing conditions take no meds and haven't even been to a doctor this year.

 

I don't mind helping to pay for those less fortunate,  I never have, but this policy attacks the host and will kill it eventually. Did ya see the chart?  They are all like that.

 

I think Bill Clinton putting Hillary in charge of healthcare reform probably didn't help matters. Kinda like Trump putting Jared Kushner on Israeli/Palestinian problem.  Doomed before they started.

Edited November 5, 2017 by lannarebirth

[Ron19]

Two off topic troll posts and an answer have been removed.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

I cannot comment on your personal health insurance costs.

 

The "discord" created  by the ACA is largely with the rich, who are the financial supporters of the Republican Party, and whose taxes were indeed raised slightly to support the ACA.  By contrast, the ACA is supported by a majority of Americans, the insurance companies, the hospitals, and the doctors. 

 

I would have to rate your theory of locating the center of all Evil in the world in Hillary Clinton one step below Bigfoot sightings as a subject worthy of my attention.

If I hold anyone in contempt it is the DNC for allowing it to be co-opted by her. She is just doing what people like her do.

[thaihome]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Thank you for your views. For my part I hope the Democrats are capable of some self examination and course correction before the next election. I take it as an article of faith that the Republicans are not.  My view is that the Democrats have drifted so far from what they once were people are beginning to wonder why they are worthy of their support. Also they made themselves attackable by a lot of unethical behaviour. They are not "the good guys" anymore and if they're not why would anyone vote for them?

I'm struggling to understand your apparent, and to me irrational hatred, of the Demcratic party. The Democratic Party is not a monolithic organization united behind a single overriding political philosophy.  It is a coalition of many divergent people and groups somewhat loosely associated into a diverse, fractious political party.

 

The very fact that the only somewhat serious contender to Hillary was not even a member shows how loose party the party is philosophically. The "unethical" behavior you seem to be upset about, which I assume must be the based on the recent  Donna Brazile book and the fact that Hillary as a longtime Democratic party leader and major fundraiser signed a legal contract with the DNC  that gave her say in how funds she raised was spent. But you expect the DNC to solicit a similar deal with a non-member running on a platform attacking the party and you call that lack unethical? 

 

I just wonder what you thought the party once was and what  behavior you expect from the party that would deserve your support? 

TH

[Thakkar]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I meant it. I think people fail to think more than a short period of time ahead. I think it is better to vote your ideals. I think if you vote based on your ideals the system changes. You must have noticed that voting for the least worst candidate has done nothing other than given a slate of bad candidates to choose from. It helps one think long term if one has children I think.

I don’t know  if this is the correct term for that sort of thinking, but it’s close enough: the nirvana fallacy, or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

 

Politicians don’t emerge spontaneously and magically from a flower, pristine and sin-free. They are products of their societies. In politics there are always going to be competing interests and all kinds of horse trading, some of it  (maybe a lot of it) unsavory. And this even under conditions where differences are argued based on agreed facts and honest differences. When the process participants include people who deny facts, argue on pure ideological grounds or are outright dishonest, pristine policy is well neigh impossible. The alternative cannot be to wait for a messiah, but for serious people to do the best possible under the circumstances.

 

Improvements come in small steps and one of the duties of a good citizen is to take the time to make an honest appraisal of which policy makers are likely to take us a step forward—small and flawed as that may be—and which policy makers will take us backwards, and vote accordingly.

[mogandave]

If there are only two candidates, not voting for the “least worst” is the same as voting for the worst.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[amvet]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

I don’t know  if this is the correct term for that sort of thinking, but it’s close enough: the nirvana fallacy, or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.

 

Politicians don’t emerge spontaneously and magically from a flower, pristine and sin-free. They are products of their societies. In politics there are always going to be competing interests and all kinds of horse trading, some of it  (maybe a lot of it) unsavory. And this even under conditions where differences are argued based on agreed facts and honest differences. When the process participants include people who deny facts, argue on pure ideological grounds or are outright dishonest, pristine policy is well neigh impossible. The alternative cannot be to wait for a messiah, but for serious people to do the best possible under the circumstances.

 

Improvements come in small steps and one of the duties of a good citizen is to take the time to make an honest appraisal of which policy makers are likely to take us a step forward—small and flawed as that may be—and which policy makers will take us backwards, and vote accordingly.

I think vote is the operative word in your post and one which I agree with 100%.  The politics of coups or Constitutional coups such as those now discussing impeachment is what I disagree with.  

[Thakkar]

24 minutes ago, amvet said:

I think vote is the operative word in your post and one which I agree with 100%.  The politics of coups or Constitutional coups such as those now discussing impeachment is what I disagree with.  

I assume you are referring the the topic of this thread ?—that of Trump stepping down one way or another.

 

My problem isn’t with Trump so much as with the politics of division that got him into power and that he exacerbates. That problem precedes Trump and is bigger than one presidency.

 

Impeachment or forced resignation won’t address that issue. He can continue to exacerbate divisions in or out of office.  That is a whole different topic.

 

However, in office, he is a clear and present danger—if not for his lying ways, his buffoonery, his griftyness, his possible treachery in collusion with Putin among other things, then for his sheer and clear incompetence.

 

I don’t propose a coup or extra judicial overthrowing of any kind. I want a non-partisan, honest investigation into possible collusion and, if possible, a determination on whether voter suppression, Russian collusion, Russian hacking or interference caused those extra 70,000 votes that elected Trump. If so, there should be another special election. But since the possibility of determining that is highly unlikely, at least to let Mueller’s investigation take its course without interference and with the fullest cooperation from everyone who claims to be patriotic.

[thaihome]

And the hypocrisy continues. 

TH

 

Trump wins visas to hire 70 foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago

Palm Beach's unemployment rate currently sits at 3.6 percent. A local job placement agency told the Post that there are plenty of local workers who would be eager to fill the positions.

"We currently have 5,136 qualified candidates in Palm Beach County for various hospitality positions listed in the Employ Florida state jobs database," CareerSource spokesman Tom Veenstra said Friday.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/358793-trump-wins-visas-to-hire-70-foreign-workers-at-mar-a-lago

 

[amvet]

50 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I assume you are referring the the topic of this thread ?—that of Trump stepping down one way or another.

 

My problem isn’t with Trump so much as with the politics of division that got him into power and that he exacerbates. That problem precedes Trump and is bigger than one presidency.

 

Impeachment or forced resignation won’t address that issue. He can continue to exacerbate divisions in or out of office.  That is a whole different topic.

 

However, in office, he is a clear and present danger—if not for his lying ways, his buffoonery, his griftyness, his possible treachery in collusion with Putin among other things, then for his sheer and clear incompetence.

 

I don’t propose a coup or extra judicial overthrowing of any kind. I want a non-partisan, honest investigation into possible collusion and, if possible, a determination on whether voter suppression, Russian collusion, Russian hacking or interference caused those extra 70,000 votes that elected Trump. If so, there should be another special election. But since the possibility of determining that is highly unlikely, at least to let Mueller’s investigation take its course without interference and with the fullest cooperation from everyone who claims to be patriotic.

Do you think it appropriate for the special council to investigate the taxes of every person who worked for Trump now and up to, say 3 or four years ago?   Is that part of an investigation into collusion? How about Trump real estate deals 20 years ago?  Is that part of Russian collusion? 

 

If the investigation is used to determine Russian interference aided by Trump I'm in agreement with you.  However I think my impression will be born out when I say it is a fishing expedition to dig up any dirt on Trump that is available and smear him till the public cries for a hanging or Trump gets upset and quits.  He's is not the most mature person I've ever seen. 

[Thakkar]

1 minute ago, amvet said:

Do you think it appropriate for the special council to investigate the taxes of every person who worked for Trump now and up to, say 3 or four years ago?   Is that part of an investigation into collusion? How about Trump real estate deals 20 years ago?  Is that part of Russian collusion? 

 

If the investigation is used to determine Russian interference aided by Trump I'm in agreement with you.  However I think my impression will be born out when I say it is a fishing expedition to dig up any dirt on Trump that is available and smear him till the public cries for a hanging or Trump gets upset and quits.  He's is not the most mature person I've ever seen. 

I would not presume to know how such investigations should go, or not go. I do know of Mueller’s reputation—as attested to by both democrats and republicans and independent observers at the outset—as a scrupulous, non-partisan, competent investigator. What we’ve seen and heard so far is only part of the story. Best to wait till the investigation is complete before parsing details we know nothing of.

[Thakkar]

50 minutes ago, thaihome said:

And the hypocrisy continues. 

TH

 

 

 

The fact that most observers are neither surprised or shocked at this is rather despairing. It means that outrageous hypocrisy has been normalized.

[amvet]

5 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

The fact that most observers are neither surprised or shocked at this is rather despairing. It means that outrageous hypocrisy has been normalized.

I agree.  It's shocking that you can go after a sitting President with a fishing expedition to see if any of his aids will turn on him and give you some slanderous information that will make him look bad.  But Trump has created so many enemies in such a short period of time that anything is possible. 

[Thakkar]

4 minutes ago, amvet said:

I agree.  It's shocking that you can go after a sitting President with a fishing expedition to see if any of his aids will turn on him and give you some slanderous information that will make him look bad.  But Trump has created so many enemies in such a short period of time that anything is possible. 

Please refrain from quoting me out of context. I was responding to Thaihome with regard to Trump company hiring practices in contravention of his public pronouncements.

[amvet]

7 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Please refrain from quoting me out of context. I was responding to Thaihome with regard to Trump company hiring practices in contravention of his public pronouncements.

Sorry I had no idea that a Trump company hiring practices would have anything to do with impeachment.  

[Thakkar]

15 minutes ago, amvet said:

Sorry I had no idea that a Trump company hiring practices would have anything to do with impeachment.  

Being a smart aleck is just that—being a smart aleck; it does nothing to bolster your argument, such as they are.

[amvet]

11 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Being a smart aleck is just that—being a smart aleck; it does nothing to bolster your argument, such as they are.

Perhaps if this thread was about Trump impeachment it would be better than a anti Trump free for all and name calling fest.  I have no problem discussing anything that is a legitimate argument concerning impeachment of Trump and comparison of his behavior with other Presidents who have been impeached.  But I think you will admit that is but a small part of the content of this thread.

[Andaman Al]

24 minutes ago, amvet said:

Perhaps if this thread was about Trump impeachment it would be better than a anti Trump free for all and name calling fest.  I have no problem discussing anything that is a legitimate argument concerning impeachment of Trump and comparison of his behavior with other Presidents who have been impeached.  But I think you will admit that is but a small part of the content of this thread.

Well perhaps if you stopped hijacking threads and making comments that encourage an anti-Trump response we might get somewhere. Whatever thread you go on, you derail it with off-topic content, and now you complain. How ironic. I am all for staying on thread. How about you set the example.