President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Mr.Micro

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Since he was elected, Trump's odds on being impeached or resigning during first term have gone as follows:

4 weeks ago: 6/4
2 weeks ago: 11/10
Yesterday: 10/11
Today: 4/5

Not sure it will happen despite the odds. The Republican Party will not let it happen IMO, but soldier on, somehow.

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not sure it will happen despite the odds. The Republican Party will not let it happen IMO, but soldier on, somehow.

Dunno if that would be wise. Every day that Trump continues with his madness, they lose more and more of the middle ground.

Nody

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not sure it will happen despite the odds. The Republican Party will not let it happen IMO, but soldier on, somehow.

Not so sure about that; if he gets impeached they get someone much closer to their normal cut into the position instead and it does not require that many to swing over (it's simple majority in both houses as far as I recall).

Water John

This seems to my reading, one of the best analysis of what actually happened, in the broader scheme of things.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/05/not-what-putin-planned-trump

Putin's people, were in fact, too successful. They over shot the runway. Now their actions cannot be buried, despite them trying, literally.

Even the GOP cannot tolerate a puppet of Russia in the Oval Office. And he is now less than useless to Putin too.

PopePalpatine

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno if that would be wise. Every day that Trump continues with his madness, they lose more and more of the middle ground.

Who needs the middle ground when you can just gerrymander them out of your districts?

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno if that would be wise. Every day that Trump continues with his madness, they lose more and more of the middle ground.

Well, they have Pence in prime position to replace, far more a republican than Trump.

Second, the DNC have not all of a sudden come back. They were roundly defeated in the recent elections, it was not just HC that lost. What have they done since then to raise their support levels?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote:

Second, the DNC have not all of a sudden come back. They were roundly defeated in the recent elections, it was not just HC that lost. What have they done since then to raise their support levels?

Leroy42 wrote:

Well, they have Pence in prime position to replace, far more a republican than Trump.

Well, if Trump is impeached or resigns in disgrace, all the Democrats subsequently need do is run repetitive adverts showing Republicans defending Trump and his actions. I reckon even I could make some adverts that would destroy their credibility given Trump's malice and madness and the GOP's craven support.

Leroy42

True, but they also have lots of GOP making statements (McCain for example) that were less that enthusiastic.

They will also simply paint him as lying to them, they were promised etc etc, blah blah.

I honestly think that the GOP have already been positioning themselves to be prepared IF it happens, Already they have started to float the idea of special investigator.

I do think it will, again IF anything was to happen, to be quite a problem for Priebus and Ryan. When are those guys up for reelection?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote:

I do think it will, again IF anything was to happen, to be quite a problem for Priebus and Ryan. When are those guys up for reelection?

Ryan is up for election in 2018 as are all congressmen. Priebus is an appointee, he wasn't elected to office by popular vote.

InTheTrees

Remember mid term elections are next year. The whole house of representatives is up for reelection. The best case scenario for democrats is that the chaos continues in to next year which could give the democratic party a majority in congress in November 2018.

Then impeachment would be easier and pence wouldn't have a Republican controlled congress to back him up.

Manic Moran

demfad wrote: »

None of the other 26 members of his committee had met with the ambassador. In fact no one from that committee has had a meeting him for 10 years. Why are you saying the opposite is public knowledge? Why are you deliberately misleading us?

Well... here's the problem with that one.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/02/claire-mccaskill/claire-mccaskill-says-she-never-met-russian-ambass/

Senator McCaskill is now delving into nuances of context in order to clarify her position. Goose/gander, and all that. I suspect that the other Senators are shutting up to avoid any further foot/mouth interfaces.

Happily for Ms McCaskill, the NYT, at least, has deleted her original comments from their article. http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1362411/1362436/www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

Igotadose wrote: »

---
This was a written questionnaire sent to Sessions as part of the confirmation process:
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked: "Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions responded, in total: "No."

If he met with the Ambassador about obtaining his wife's recipe for borst, the answer could well be quite correct, even if multiple cameras filmed the two shaking hands and being walked into the office.

Now, the above said, I'm face-palming as much as anyone else about these tweets. Someone really should lock him out of his account. However, two further observations come to mind.

1) I am unconvinced that there is going to be a huge swing in the mid-terms. In the Senate, the majority of seats up for grabs are D senators with narrow margins. Secondly, for all the public flubs that the Trump administration has done, Congress hasn't really done anything particularly controversial. Congress has ridiculously bad approval ratings as a whole, but folks are generally happy with their own representative. Trump's tweets may be embarassing and disturbing, but they do not make law, or particularly affect folks' day to day lives. If voters think that they're in a better position than two years earlier, they're going to ignore the tweets just as they ignored the pussy-grabbing.

2) I would be concerned that if the Democrats believe that 2020 would be a walkover (After all, who would vote for that madman yet again?), they won't take the threat seriously and will, again, nominate someone who is an absolutely terrible candidate. Who might even manage to lose again.

Fleawuss

Former DNI Clapper flatly denied on NBC today that there was a FISA order against Trump Tower. That leaves Trump having to prove that Obama ordered an illegal "plumber" type operation.

Water John

That now seems the only option he has to run with and prove.

Other wise it's just a brain fart. Fine for his loyal worshippers but will totally lose the middle ground.

rossie1977

There is zero chance that a call is made to impeach Trump under the current Republican regime.

Trump easily have a higher approval rating among hardcore Republicans than McConnell or Ryan so they are going to protect their own ass. McConnells wife is secretary of transport on Trump's team and already Ryan and McConnell voted against investigation into a connection between Trump and Russia.

Mr.Micro

Fleawuss wrote: »

Former DNI Clapper flatly denied on NBC today that there was a FISA order against Trump Tower. That leaves Trump having to prove that Obama ordered an illegal "plumber" type operation.

I doubt it will make any difference. Trump appears to have the privilege of saying what he likes, absolute lies or the truth, each are afforded equal status. Enough people will believe the lies and that is what matters. It's pure deflection IMO from his Russian ties and a possible investigation.

Water John

It will make O'Bama's book, a very interesting read.

Fleawuss

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I doubt it will make any difference. Trump appears to have the privilege of saying what he likes, absolute lies or the truth, each are afforded equal status. Enough people will believe the lies and that is what matters. It's pure deflection IMO from his Russian ties and a possible investigation.

He only gets that status because he's not nailed on them.

Frank Bullitt

Surely if the Republicans want to save face with all of this, they will (somehow) take twitter off him.

Have a whisper in someones ear and change his password without telling him. Realistically, that is the only thing that is causing Trump damage directly.

It would be great if a social media platform that he used to pretty much win the election, would cause his downfall.

Professor Moriarty

The Director of National Intelligence 2010 until 2017, has said that no tapping occurred and if any had then he would have known about it. He then went on to say that Trump's claim was "false".

Whither The Donald and his supporters' truthiness now?

Akrasia

Trump's one trick pony is getting tired now.

All he does is accuse other people of the thing he's being accused of.

Trump is accused of having dodgy ties to Russia so he implies that Obama was a russian agent (his wierd tweet today
'Who was it that secretly said to Russian President, "Tell Vladimir that after the election I'll have more flexibility?" @foxandfriends' )

Trump is accused of being a spy, so he accuses Obama of spying on him

Clinton accused Trump of inciting violence at his rallies, so he accused Obama and her of literally founding Isis.

Later on Trump accuses democrats of inciting violence at protests despite his pre-election calls for his supporters to only accept the result of the election if he is the winner.

Trump is accused of losing the popular vote, so he accuses others of rigging the election (3 million illegal votes all for hillary)

Trump was accused of taking drugs during the debates, so he accuses Clinton of taking drugs during the debates

Trump was accused of coordinating with his super pac (a crime) so he accused Cruz of coordinating with his super pac)

When Trump was accused of having no policy specifics because his campaign website was basically one page that said 'Make america great again', he just accused Clinton of having no policies despite her having a full manifesto and detailed plans.

Trump spent 8 years leading the 'birther' movement, but he accused Clinton of starting it

Trump is accused of having dodgy finances, so he accuses the Clintons of laundering money through their foundation

Trump was attacked for having a terrible temperament, so he just tweets out that Hillary can't be trusted because she has a terrible temperament.

Trump is accused of being a misogynist, so he calls Bill Clinton a rapist

I could go on, but it's an obvious pattern.

Anytime someone says something negative about trump, he just says 'I know you are, but what am I?'

KingBrian2

Congress is gridlocked at this stage between Democrats and Republicans with the Republicans being the party of the upper class while the Democrats have become the party of the middle and upper class. Trump is an asset not a liability to the GOP that he is portrayed as.

Working class voters gravitated towards him during the election so the Democrats incessant attacks on the President and his voters will do them no good.They clearly have no respect for the working class people they claim to speak on behalf of.

As for the Republicans it is fine for them they only rely on the upper classes for most of their votes, farmers, industrialists, and big business they will remain Republicans, have not seen much of late to demonstrate that Congress has changed. The other side is still as backward looking as ever.

MightyMandarin

Roger Stone- former Trump adviser during his campaign and general 'interesting character' (you'll see why)- admitted on twitter that he had back-channel communications with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, before deleting it.

https://twitter.com/liamstack/status/838260413280190465/photo/1

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Congress is gridlocked at this stage between Democrats and Republicans with the Republicans being the party of the upper class while the Democrats have become the party of the middle and upper class. Trump is an asset not a liability to the GOP that he is portrayed as.

Working class voters gravitated towards him during the election so the Democrats incessant attacks on the President and his voters will do them no good.They clearly have no respect for the working class people they claim to speak on behalf of.

As for the Republicans it is fine for them they only rely on the upper classes for most of their votes, farmers, industrialists, and big business they will remain Republicans, have not seen much of late to demonstrate that Congress has changed. The other side is still as backward looking as ever.

No actual defense of Trump's actions then? Just vague call to arms? In your opinion should the Democrats not call out the vast, vast number of lies from the current POTUS. Lies from his administration staff on multiple important issues? A yes or no will suffice if you are willing to discuss the issues as opposed to putting some buzzwords together to avoid talking about any actual issues.

Water John

That analysis Brian, shows a GOP, far removed from its original roots.

Lets focus on the issue at hand, Russia and links to same.

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

No actual defense of Trump's actions then? Just vague call to arms? In your opinion should the Democrats not call out the vast, vast number of lies from the current POTUS. Lies from his administration staff on multiple important issues? A yes or no will suffice if you are willing to discuss the issues as opposed to putting some buzzwords together to avoid talking about any actual issues.

I don't see a yes or no answer is appropriate. Clearly their is an effort by the Dems to throw all the dirt at Trump administration this is bad for them since the working class voters are traditional Democratic voters. Now Trump is summoning one of his trade mark tricks to fight back against the highly dubious charges made against him. Sen Schumer met Russian officials so this GOP Russian alliance allegation is totally bogus.

B_Wayne

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't see a yes or no answer is appropriate. Clearly their is an effort by the Dems to throw all the dirt at Trump administration this is bad for them since the working class voters are traditional Democratic voters. Now Trump is summoning one of his trade mark tricks to fight back against the highly dubious charges made against him. Sen Schumer met Russian officials so this GOP Russian alliance allegation is totally bogus.

Schumer met Putin in 2003 in front of both the press and public, it's not remotely similar to private meetings by members of Trump administration which more than one individual has lied about having ever occurred...... How about the wiretap allegations? They're far more 'dubious' than the Russia allegations. The Russia allegations are actually backed up by facts, why aren't you holding Trump to account for his very own irrational and somewhat insane behaviour?

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't see a yes or no answer is appropriate. Clearly their is an effort by the Dems to throw all the dirt at Trump administration this is bad for them since the working class voters are traditional Democratic voters. Now Trump is summoning one of his trade mark tricks to fight back against the highly dubious charges made against him. Sen Schumer met Russian officials so this GOP Russian alliance allegation is totally bogus.

Did Sen Schumer meet Russian officials while making multiple public statements about how amazing Putin is and how crap NATO allies are?

Yasser Arafat met Ariel Sharon too. But they weren't exactly friendly meetings

listermint

Akrasia wrote: »

Did Sen Schumer meet Russian officials while making multiple public statements about how amazing Putin is and how crap NATO allies are?

Yasser Arafat met Ariel Sharon too. But they weren't exactly friendly meetings

Oh and pulling apart the EU.

It's amusing that Brian thinks all of this appeals to the average working person.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't see a yes or no answer is appropriate. Clearly their is an effort by the Dems to throw all the dirt at Trump administration this is bad for them since the working class voters are traditional Democratic voters. Now Trump is summoning one of his trade mark tricks to fight back against the highly dubious charges made against him. Sen Schumer met Russian officials so this GOP Russian alliance allegation is totally bogus.

Is it because one answer is obviously silly and the correct one makes Trump look bad? Is that the reason a yes/no is not appropriate?

Akrasia

Roger stone is melting down. It's funny but not that immediately consequential

What happens when trump melts down? Or if his Twitter account got hacked and some bad actor tried to start something. Would we be sure it wasn't trump?

When you sound unhinged on an average weekend, it leaves the door open to all kinds of crazy identity theft scenarios.