Trump's attacks could leave him friendless if impeachment comes

[GinBoy2]

9 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Most likely not going to happen until the elections of 2018- and the Dems will need to make good gains. It will also depend upon Trump continuing to make bizarre statements and also continuing his alt right agenda. At some point the House may vote yes on impeachment and send it to Senate to convict.  If it gets to the Senate- he is gone. Trump continues to make enemies of his party and he needs their votes to survive.

 

I am concerned that he may attempt to use the military to start a war with either N Korea or go on a bombing campaign in Syria or the Middle East to take the public mind off of him. I wonder at what point the military refuses to go along with him. I doubt General Kelly ; General Mattis and General McMaster would go along with a war of convenience for Trump.

Well the good new is, Trump will be Trump. Not a lot Kelly will be able to do to curb Motor Mouth, 

Trouble is, the Dems have sort of lost the plot somewhere. I hear the reboot, but it still sounds like the only real strategy is "Not Trump"

Until we actually have a credible opposition message, the craziness is going to continue.

My advice for the Dem's would be to let some of the younger rising stars at the State level actually have a voice, rather than continuing to have to hear the Pelosi & Shumer's of the party. That story is old, and clearly not working

 

And if I had to pick, it would be Gavin Newsom of California. But I think he's already made the political calculation that 2020 is a non starter, hence he's running for Governor to replace Jerry Brown

Edited August 18, 2017 by GinBoy2

[Thaidream]

I agree that the Pelosi and Schumer message is not doing the Dems any good.  They should really turn to Bernie Sanders who I believe resonated with voters but the Clinton campaign screwed Bernie out of the nomination and I believe Bernie could have beaten Trump.  The only thing the Dems appear to be doing as you said advocating an Anti Trump agenda and a resistance to all that is Trump. They don't seem to have a message because Pelosi refuses to let go and Schumer represents nothing new or is unable to articulate anything new.

 

I believe Bernie Sanders did articulate an agenda for America that would be the answer both domestic and foreign but Sanders is a Senior citizen and while he had a lot of support from the millenials- he is going to be in his late 70s come election time. 

[joecoolfrog]

8 hours ago, USPatriot said:

Good luck.  The liberals will be losing the next election. The world new section is more like the anti trump section.

Yes because the entire world is part of a conspiracy to make Trump look bad !!!! No idea who will win the next USA presidential election but I would wager my life it wont be Trump.

[GinBoy2]

2 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I agree that the Pelosi and Schumer message is not doing the Dems any good.  They should really turn to Bernie Sanders who I believe resonated with voters but the Clinton campaign screwed Bernie out of the nomination and I believe Bernie could have beaten Trump.  The only thing the Dems appear to be doing as you said advocating an Anti Trump agenda and a resistance to all that is Trump. They don't seem to have a message because Pelosi refuses to let go and Schumer represents nothing new or is unable to articulate anything new.

 

I believe Bernie Sanders did articulate an agenda for America that would be the answer both domestic and foreign but Sanders is a Senior citizen and while he had a lot of support from the millenials- he is going to be in his late 70s come election time. 

In many ways Sanders actually resonated with the same electorate that ultimately voted for Trump.

The disenfranchised, the folks who felt ignored by the ruling class. 

It's one of the great 'what ifs' had there been a Trump, Sanders contest.

I believe that Sanders would have won, since he connected with the same folks, but actually had the intellect to pull it off

[Jingthing]

No, Sanders won't be running again, and yes, the democrats have an internal conflict on their hand, which really isn't anything that new, between going further left or keeping with more left of center.

[Jingthing]

Just now, GinBoy2 said:

In many ways Sanders actually resonated with the same electorate that ultimately voted for Trump.

The disenfranchised, the folks who felt ignored by the ruling class. 

It's one of the great 'what ifs' had there been a Trump, Sanders contest.

I believe that Sanders would have won, since he connected with the same folks, but actually had the intellect to pull it off

The dynamics in the nation in 2020 will be very different than 2016. You can't make reliable projections about what will play then based on the past. I agree Sanders vs. trump, Sanders may have won. But that's over. 

[GinBoy2]

Just now, Jingthing said:

No, Sanders won't be running again, and yes, the democrats have an internal conflict on their hand, which really isn't anything that new, between going further left or keeping with more left of center.

I actually think that the right/left/center argument is moot. We are in a weird moment of political history, I don't think anyone could actually pinpoint where Trump is on a right/left spectrum. But he appealed to something, something that has been ignored. 

For the Democrats, their challenge is to seize that ground before whoever succeeds Trump does

[Jingthing]

Just now, GinBoy2 said:

I actually think that the right/left/center argument is moot. We are in a weird moment of political history, I don't think anyone could actually pinpoint where Trump is on a right/left spectrum. But he appealed to something, something that has been ignored. 

For the Democrats, their challenge is to seize that ground before whoever succeeds Trump does

I think you're totally wrong. Studies have shown the main reason trump  won was WHITE resentment. He milked the racism the republicans have been playing with for a very long time, as in Nixon's southern strategy. Racism can be put on the political spectrum. It's right wing.

[maewang99]

Nixon's office was inundated by telegrams. 

 

if tens of millions of Americans still support Trump that had voted for him.... it wouldn't simmer down for 2 or 3 generations.  even Trump can figure that out... all by himself. that's why he loves his rallies.

the Trump opposition is beginning to look many times as ignorant as the illiterate loner (functionally illiterate... he can read but just never has read much of anything worthwhile).... Donald J. Trump.

that's quite an accomplishment.



 

Edited August 18, 2017 by maewang99

[GinBoy2]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think you're totally wrong. Studies have shown the main reason trump  won was WHITE resentment. He milked the racism the republicans have been playing with for a very long time, as in Nixon's southern strategy. Racism can be put on the political spectrum. It's right wing.

I think you're forgetting the point that Trump carried the great lakes, the supposed Blue firewall! thats what won him the election

[joecoolfrog]

5 hours ago, captspectre said:

if that happens, you think there are riots now just let those useless cowards try that! you will see blood shed as you have not seen it before. the American People are fed up, they tried the ballot, now if that does not work,stand by!

Or they might concede that they made a huge error of judgement and learn not to believe in shysters in future.

[sawadee1947]

8 hours ago, Dave67 said:

the people of the USA look stupid

but it's a fact that half of the people voted for him. So at least half of the Americans are stupid? Wow...!

[joecoolfrog]

5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

He does seem to be alienating himself. I'd chalk it up to his general demeanor, but he does appear to be getting worse.

 

I think he will resign - via a tweet no doubt - perhaps citing a need to spend more time with his family.

No chance , if he goes it will in a blaze of glory. He will blame everybody but himself and hope to bring down as many people as possible , he would be overjoyed to leave a bitterly divided nation.

[rijb]

3 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

but it's a fact that half of the people voted for him. So at least half of the Americans are stupid? Wow...!

Maybe you should visit.  You'll fit right in.

[joecoolfrog]

3 hours ago, tomwct said:

Keep Dreaming! President Trump will be in office for the next 7 1/2 years. Anybody know if anybody is taking bets on impeachment?

I'll bet No Impeachment and Win!

A walking talking bookies dream !

[impulse]

1 minute ago, joecoolfrog said:

A walking talking bookies dream !

 

Just like him getting elected in the first place...

 

Like Thaidream, I think the Dems screwed the pooch when the HRC loyalists (I refer to them as the entrenched politicians) stabbed Sanders in the back.  And I suspect the Dems will do something just as destructive in 2020 because they don't have anyone among their anointed few that can win.  But they'll run them anyway because they've brought in enough special interest money that it's finally their turn.  Meanwhile, any Dems that could beat Trump will get the royal shaft because they haven't done enough for the party yet.

 

Besides which, their obstructionism is starting to sound pretty much like what the Repubs did to hack off enough voters to get Trump on the ticket.

 

[Somtamnication]

Happily counting the days........ this guy is a dangerous man, totally incompetent. 

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I'm well aware of it.  But he's just the stepping stone to the guy(s) we need in office.  

 

What's being shown here is that a nimrod like The Donald has the ego and thick skin to get through the election cycle.  He's still a nimrod, but somebody had to open the door.  Sad as it is, he's our only dog in the fight.  And since we're stuck with him, I'm hoping he can make the entire 4 years so the door doesn't slam shut again.

 

Tillerson could be a decent President.  Or how about Bezos or Gates?  Their temperaments are worlds ahead of The Donald's.  But without somebody to show the way, who would have ever thought they could survive the election cycle?  And if the entrenched politicians and the media stooges are successful at sending Trump off in disgrace, what decent person is going to risk it?   We'll be back to the party faithful vying for their positions at the cost of our kids' futures.

 

We also went through this with Clinton.  Remember? An outsider who was going to change everything and introduce Clinton Care. Failed miserably. In many ways.

[dunroaming]

Trump's lunacy continues at a pace.  Surely it is now clear to everyone with a brain that he is mentally unstable and needs to be removed.  His ramblings are more manic day by day.  Time for the men in the white coats to intervene and do the whole world a favour.

[sawadee1947]

1 hour ago, rijb said:

Maybe you should visit.  You'll fit right in.

Yeah, good idea. And reading your post I'm very sure what half you belong to.

[calexapic]

1 hour ago, rijb said:

Maybe you should visit.  You'll fit right in.

A nasty but clever woman once said personal attacks are great, it means you have no political argument left.

 

Trump scares me, Pence scares me more. Genuine question... if impeachment happens would Pence be in the mix? I'm pretty ignorant of US politics.  

[rijb]

2 minutes ago, calexapic said:

A nasty but clever woman once said personal attacks are great, it means you have no political argument left.

 

Trump scares me, Pence scares me more. Genuine question... if impeachment happens would Pence be in the mix? I'm pretty ignorant of US politics.  

I don't know.  But, I think we're going to find out.

[impulse]

17 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

We also went through this with Clinton.  Remember? An outsider who was going to change everything and introduce Clinton Care. Failed miserably. In many ways.

 

The difference between a Tillerson (or Gates, or...) and a Clinton is that Tillerson has made his nugget and won't still be haunting Washington doing $500,000 speaking engagements in return for favors 20 years later.  I'm going to discuss here as if it is Tillerson, but he may not be the guy.

 

With no lifelong designs on the DC money trough, he won't be looking at every single word and deed and backroom deal with an eye toward how it will affect his piggy bank over the next few decades.  He won't be making compromises to guarantee decades of government and corporate pork coming his way.  He's made his money.  Now, he wants to insure his legacy.

 

The fact that he's an outsider is a plus.  But the real attraction in my mind is that he wants to take time away from a successful career to serve the country and not the party and the special interests at the expense of the country.  Then, he wants to go back to his life.  That's what the founding fathers envisioned when they framed the system.  Not career politicians hauling around an entourage that cares about staying in power and the spoils more than they care about the country.

 

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, sawadee1947 said:

but it's a fact that half of the people voted for him. So at least half of the Americans are stupid? Wow...!

Not quite.  Some people voted for Trump, many just voted against Clinton and some didn't vote at all.  I would think a vast amount of people who voted for Trump have their head in their hands and realise what a terrible mistake it was.  That is why he now has the lowest popularity rating of any POTUS that has gone before him.

[impulse]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Not quite.  Some people voted for Trump, many just voted against Clinton and some didn't vote at all.  I would think a vast amount of people who voted for Trump have their head in their hands and realise what a terrible mistake it was.  That is why he now has the lowest popularity rating of any POTUS that has gone before him.

 

Last I read, he's still out ahead of congress in the ratings.  Kinda sad, really.

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by impulse

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Just like him getting elected in the first place...

 

Like Thaidream, I think the Dems screwed the pooch when the HRC loyalists (I refer to them as the entrenched politicians) stabbed Sanders in the back.  And I suspect the Dems will do something just as destructive in 2020 because they don't have anyone among their anointed few that can win.  But they'll run them anyway because they've brought in enough special interest money that it's finally their turn.  Meanwhile, any Dems that could beat Trump will get the royal shaft because they haven't done enough for the party yet.

 

Besides which, their obstructionism is starting to sound pretty much like what the Repubs did to hack off enough voters to get Trump on the ticket.

 

More nonsense about stabbing Sanders in the back.  Most of the primary votes he won came from caucuses,  a much less democratic way of choosing a candidate than primaries.  As for the conspiracy part http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/25/the_dnc_s_emails_show_it_had_no_idea_how_to_rig_an_election.html

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

More nonsense about stabbing Sanders in the back.  Most of the primary votes he won came from caucuses,  a much less democratic way of choosing a candidate than primaries.  As for the conspiracy part http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/25/the_dnc_s_emails_show_it_had_no_idea_how_to_rig_an_election.html

 

That's the treachery we know about.  Let's just call that demonstrating a pattern of behavior.  How much went on that we don't know yet?  

 

Maybe the Dem operatives who do know how to rig an election also know how to secure their email- or not to use it at all?

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's the treachery we know about.  Let's just call that demonstrating a pattern of behavior.  How much went on that we don't know yet?  

 

Maybe the Dem operatives who do know how to rig an election also know how to secure their email- or not to use it at all?

 

You know, I thought the case you were making was tendentious. But now that I've learned it's based on how much we don't know...

[ilostmypassword]

I think Krugman sums it up nicely why impeachment won't happen.

"But a third of the country still approves of that rogue president — and that third amounts to a huge majority of the G.O.P. base. So all we get from the vast majority of elected Republicans are off-the-record expressions of “dismay” or denunciations of bigotry that somehow fail to name the bigot in chief.

It’s not just that Republicans fear primary challenges from candidates pandering to the racist right, although they do; Trump is already supporting challengers to Republicans he considers insufficiently loyal."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/trump-caligula-republican-congress.html

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You know, I thought the case you were making was tendentious. But now that I've learned it's based on how much we don't know...

 

I think it's more of a reasonable extrapolation of what we do know.  Along with a little bit of the piss on my part.

 

And I didn't bring up securing the email by accident.