Home Main Forums General Discussion I, for one, am thrilled that the Trump Presidency is on a death watch

  • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
    Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

    I, for one, am thrilled that the Trump Presidency is on a death watch

    He’s a monstrous delusional lunatic and currently wields more power than any other person on Earth. I only pray that the military has placed some check on his ability to launch nuclear weapons. (I guess if your state has any Trump properties, you might not be as worried.)

    I get that people are tired of getting screwed for decades, by people within the Establishment. It’s incredibly frustrating. It’s worse than frustrating: it has resulted in a tremendous toll on life and property. But I’m with Bernie on this: if you think Trump will somehow make things better… well, we disagree.

    As an added bonus, Trump’s self-immolation is taking out some of the Republican Party. It will emerge from this a shrunken and fractured mess.

    I look forward to the day when Trump and his crew are out of office and in a penal facility. This might just be a fantasy, but it’s MY fantasy, and it gets me out of bed each day.

    And even more, I look forward to Liberals… REAL Liberals… FDR/Bernie Liberals… running our government again. Our government of, by, and for the people. The Zeitgeist is changing rapidly, and I believe it will happen.

    Peace and strength to us all!

    ThomPaine, kidfrumcleveland, Tierra y Libertad and 33 othersOhio Barbarian, Broward, hopemountain, Pacco Fransisco, 3FingerBrown, joentokyo, Marym625, beemerphill, cui bono, shanti, Ferd Berfel, 7wo7rees, nevereVereven, mick063, So Far From Heaven, vattel, WillyT, ravensong, Major Hogwash, Madison, 99Forever, Satan, Octafish, mak3cats, LaaDeeDaaVA, Marooned, PADemD, 2bAnon, broiles, d3lic, chknltl, Fuddnik, BlueAK like this
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
136 replies
  • 1 week ago #12
  • 1 week ago #20
  • Content removed for violations of the community standards & guidelines

     
    6 days ago #42
  • 6 days ago #46
  • 6 days ago #60
    • arendt (1426 posts)
      Profile photo of arendt

      1. Then you haven't read a word I've written in the last week.

      You completely ignore the lasting damage to the Constitution that the CIA driving the man from office with bogus bullshit about Russia will do. It will leave the CIA and its captive corporate media as the final arbiter of who is allowed to remain seated in the WH. It will mean that every non-approved candidate will get the same treatment (with the same result) that Bernie got from the DNC and the media. Plus, it will escalate the already dangerous, and completely manufactured, confrontation with Russia.

      Then there is the political damage of un-jamming the GOP’s total control of all branches of goverment. You will replace an unstable guy who is fucking up the GOP’s and the MIC’s agenda with a loyal GOPer who will do every neolib and neocon thing he is told to do. And, he will bring back the Kristian Kulture War with a vengeance. For all their screaming for impeachment, I don’t see any corporate Dem planning to derail the GOP’s agenda under a President Pence. The Corpo-Dems don’t have any policies at all, except maintain the status quo and get rid of Trump.

      They can’t think past their next corporate paycheck. They don’t represent us, they represent the Fortune 500.

      Until Trump can be removed for something that is obvious and genuine, which shouldn’t be that hard to prove, helping the Deep State to consolidate its complete control of who gets to sit in the WH, and who Jesus should bomb next,  is a bad idea.

       

       

      • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
        Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

        5. I read it.

        I just don’t agree with it.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
        • davidgmills (4484 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills

          50. If the same shit happenss to Bernie because the Deep State doesn't like him

          Any better you might regret a Trump take down.

          I don’t agree at all that the Trump Presidency is over.  Taking down a President is hard very hard.

          And the fact that the Democratic Party is in such disarray, makes me believe just the opposite.  Barring bad health I expect Trump to be president two full terms.

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
            Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

            90. $10 bet?

            Loser pays to winner’s charity of choice.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
            • davidgmills (4484 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills

              103. Sure. But what exactly are we betting on?

              Trump winning again?  Or Trump being forced out in his first term?  Or Trump not running in 2020?  Or Sanders getting the Democratic nomination in 2020?

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • Ohio Barbarian (2256 posts)
                Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

                104. I'll bet $10 to the charity of your choice that Trump does not finish his first

                term right now. Why not?

                "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
                • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  110. Deal.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
                  • Ohio Barbarian (2256 posts)
                    Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

                    112. Cool. I kinda hope I lose–see reason way below–but my hope doesn't matter.

                    "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
              • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
                Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

                116. Trump making it through 2 terms. nt

                "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
                • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  118. OK. I really hope I lose that bet.

                  I hope the Democrats, the left, or whatever you want to call it, can agree on a candidate the will beat Trump in 2020.  I am just not feeling warm and fuzzy about that now.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
      • jdpriestly (4988 posts)
        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

        8. I don't agree either, Arendt.

        Trump is dangerous.  I don’t know whether the Russia accusations are accurate, but I think it is great that a special counsel has been appointed.

        As for impeachment, the Republicans are in control, in utter and total control really, of Congress, so impeachment, whether it happens or not, is up to them.  Of course many Democrats would vote for it if the Republicans decided to bring an impeachment charge, but it is, in my view, unlikely that they will bring one.

        A more likely scenario is that Trump first begins to fire his staff resulting in fewer and fewer people being willing to give up their jobs to join his White House and then, second, he will find an excuse to quit the presidency.  That is more what I expect.  But I cannot predict what Trump will do.

        I do know, having cared for children as a student and as a mother, that Trump is emotionally very, very immature — childish in many ways in fact.  He is demanding, petulant and obstinate.  He is likely to get into trouble, serious trouble with his angry pronouncements against the media.  It’s OK and maybe even normal for a president or a politician to be privately angry about nasty press reports.  But the First Amendment prohibits the Congress (and it applies to the president too) from “mak(ing any) law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .”

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

        Trump gets his feelings hurt too easily.

        Compare to Obama who was called a Muslim, asked for his birth certificate and accused of things he did not do.  That is what it means to be in the White House.  If you are going to be president, you have to have a tough skin.  You can’t be sensitive to criticism because being president means you get criticized.

        I’m with Bernie and with Manny.  Let’s just see how this plays out.  But unless there is horrible evidence against Trump, he is not going to be impeached.  He more likely will quit because the more he reacts to the criticism that is part of the job, the more criticism and the more ridicule he will experience.

        The noun “poise” means

        graceful and elegant bearing in a person.
        “poise and good deportment can be cultivated”
        synonyms: grace, gracefulness, elegance, balance, control
        “poise and good deportment”

        composure and dignity of manner.

        “at least he had a moment to think, to recover his poise”
        synonyms: composure, equanimity, self-possession, aplomb, presence of mind, self-assurance, self-control, nerve, calm, sangfroid, dignity; More
        informalcool, unflappability

        “in spite of the setback she retained her poise”

        2.
        archaic
        balance; equilibrium.

        https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=poise

        Poise is not superficial.  It is a character trait.  Obama had a lot of it.  Trump has very little.  Unfortunately for Trump, a president needs to have a lot of it.  It’s part of being “presidential.”  Trump isn’t.

        That’s no reason to impeach him.  But it is likely to make being president very difficult for him.

        Trump is just not of the stuff that an American president needs to be.  He has the stuff to get elected, but not to preside over the United States.

        So I agree with Manny.

        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
      • 2bAnon (4139 posts)
        Profile photo of 2bAnon Donor

        11. I didn't bother reading your piece though I saw it given special tribute

        But I didn’t go out of my way to piss on it either.

         

        http://jackpineradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sergiolara2-1.mp3

         
         
      • Hawkowl (1300 posts)
        Profile photo of Hawkowl Donor

        16. I agree 100℅

        Removing Trump will kill any last vestiges of democracy. The military and CIA will run completely amok.

        Those who think ridding ONE MAN, Trump, from the current government, will improve it one iota are fools.

        Pence becomes President. So instead of an evil moronic buffoon, we now have a clever, polished, more presentable evil.  An evil that finishes out 2 years of Trump’s term and is re-selected twice for a total of TEN years. He will be unbeatable with the conniving, brute force of the Deep State.

        GAME FUCKING OVER!

        "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Burke
      • duckpin (1403 posts)
        Profile photo of duckpin Donor

        25. I've read what you've written and agree with it – good analysis and

        good long term thinking.

        "Sometimes I feel like Fletcher Christian..."
      • Katashi (724 posts)
        Profile photo of Katashi

        93. +10000000

      • kidfrumcleveland (85 posts)
        Profile photo of kidfrumcleveland

        95. Same question that I asked silverwitch? This is not Obstruction of Justice?

        NYT: Trump brags to Russians about firing ‘nut job’ Comey

        By Dan Merica, CNN

         

        Updated 11:04 PM ET, Fri May 19, 2017

        Source: CNN

        Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump bragged to two top Russian officials last week that firing “nut job” FBI Director James Comey eased “great pressure” on him, The New York Times reported Friday.
        “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Trump said, according to the Times. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

        • Flygirl (2407 posts)
          Profile photo of Flygirl

          97. No it is not Obstruction of Justice.

          no matter how much you wish it was,

          According to the DNC I am a Wife of a Taco Bowl Member!
        • arendt (1426 posts)
          Profile photo of arendt

          100. A formal complaint fired Comey. A complaint by an assistant AG, IIRC.

          Trump is grandstanding after the fact, as usual…claiming credit for something his underlings did…stepping on his own dick, as usual.

          Gee, did we demand HRC’s head on a platter when she said, “We came, we saw, he died. Cackle.” No, we just let the war crime of destroying Libya be ignored.

          The double standard around Trump vs Hillary is astonishing.

          The double standard around Comey approaches a reality distortion field. First the DNC party line is to hate him (when he really let HRC skate on the emails). Then, we are supposed to hate him more for opening his mouth a week before the election (another violation of precedent). Both of those public facts are cited in the DoJ guy’s letter firing Comey.

          But, now, Comey is a saint, and Trump is proven to be in cahoots with the Russians? Give me a break.

          • kidfrumcleveland (85 posts)
            Profile photo of kidfrumcleveland

            114. As much as you hate to admit it…at least Comey was consistent

            He was willing to take on both parties.  As for Trump’s “underlings” doing the dirty work….were they ordered to do so,  or are they doing Trump’s bidding?

            • davidgmills (4484 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills

              117. Comey pissed off both sides. That is true.

              But he should have been fired by Obama, or Trump on day one. Because he fucked up royally, at least twice.

              But the bottom line is that once a president calls for a special prosecutor, or nominates one, or appoints one, Comey has no authority to do jack shit after that.

              Appointing a special prosecutor is the right thing to do.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • kidfrumcleveland (85 posts)
                Profile photo of kidfrumcleveland

                120. Yea Obama didn't try to obstruct the email probe….

                Unlike Trump who bragged about trying to obstruct the Russian probe.

                • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  123. Obama kept his mouth shut. Trump didn't.

                  The obstruction of justice charge is nonsense given the fact that Comey was no longer authorized to do anything once a special prosecutor was nominated.

                  Obama and Lynch should have appointed a special prosecutor to look into the emails.  They didn’t.  For all practical purposes the appearance was they were protecting HRC.  Especially after the tarmac event.  But Obama couldn’t do that because it would look like HRC was under investigation.  Can’t have a candidate for president be under that cloud.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
            • arendt (1426 posts)
              Profile photo of arendt

              131. Consistently either a rogue or a waffling coward. Nothing to praise in that. n/t

          • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
            Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

            121. No.

            The firing was decided by Trump. Rod Rosenstein has said it himself, that he was told Comey was being fired, and he just came up with a rationale.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
            • davidgmills (4484 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills

              124. Not exactly. He had his own reasons for thinking Comey should be fired.

              And they predated Trump’s decision to fire Comey.

              In one of my first meetings with then-Senator Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.

              On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader.

              I wrote a brief memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey’s public statements concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation. 

              I chose the issues to include in my memorandum. 

              Before finalizing the memorandum on May 9, I asked a senior career attorney on my staff to review it. That attorney is an ethics expert who has worked in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General during multiple administrations. He was familiar with the issues. I informed the senior attorney that the President was going to remove Director Comey, that I was writing a memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my own concerns, and that I wanted to confirm that everything in my memorandum was accurate. He concurred with the points raised in my memorandum. I also asked several other career Department attorneys to review the memorandum and provide edits.

              ………………………………..

              My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination.

              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/19/deputy-ag-rod-rosenstein-statement-congress-james-comey-firing/101876196/

              French Revolution; not secession.
        • davidgmills (4484 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills

          115. Trump nominated/appointed a special prosecutor. Comey is out of the loop.

          Comey has no right to do shit as it will be the special prosecutor’s job to investigate and prosecute any claims of Russian interference with election.  Plus Trump apparently appointed the special prosecutor on the advice of the head assistant attorney general after AG Sessions recused himself.

          French Revolution; not secession.
      • Flygirl (2407 posts)
        Profile photo of Flygirl

        96. Absolutely agree with you arendt!

        to even think differently is Naive at best!! Or as I sometimes say.small world thinking!!

        This is about Democracy and who is in charge of it..the people or CIA..and it won’t just effect our Democracy..it will effect the worlds democracy!

         

        According to the DNC I am a Wife of a Taco Bowl Member!
    • MistaP (4423 posts)
      Profile photo of MistaP Donor

      2. "About eighteen years later"

      http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ (Third Way = Bell Curve)
      • bemildred (2699 posts)
        Profile photo of bemildred Donor

        99. +1

        Good job!

        It ain't the things you don't know that hurts you, it's the things you know that ain't so.
    • tripleQ (163 posts)
      Profile photo of tripleQ

      3. Gotta halfway disagree.

      I think he’s venal and unstable and capable of doing great harm, but I can’t call him full-on evil.

      And while I too enjoy his self-inflicted wounds, I don’t want to see him die of them.  I think we are safest with him groaning and sweating and bellowing throughout his entire term, near death but never leaving us.  I want the Republicans cursing under their breath, despising his nuttery, and *wishing* the Dems would force him out.  I want Trump to be the Millstone of Crazy around everyone’s neck.

      I want him to stay put, Pence to stay gelded, and the whole government apparatus to be entirely centered on Trump  – with everyone in DC hard at work either restraining him, trying to evict him, weakly apologizing for him, or desperately begging  him to take his meds and give up the Twitter.

      That’s how we get through this thing with minimal damage done to the world and maximum entertainment for us peasants.  Lean back, and enjoy the show.

      • wilsonbooks (97 posts)
        Profile photo of wilsonbooks Donor

        4. Exactly. If he were more competent he would be very dangerous, but as damaged

        goods he is a blessing.

        I asked Tom if countries always apologized when they had done wrong, & he says, "Yes; the little ones does." (*Tom Sawyer Abroad*, Mark Twain)
      • jdpriestly (4988 posts)
        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

        10. Do you want his Trumpcare, his tax policies, his foreign policy, his

        appointments, his policy toward the press, toward freedom of speech, toward women, toward hiring his family, toward the environment, toward drugs, toward crime, toward student loans and I could go on and on?

        I don’t.  But we are stuck with him for the moment.

        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
        • tripleQ (163 posts)
          Profile photo of tripleQ

          15. I am hopeful he's too wounded to get anything done.

          And frankly, I am getting old enough and disgusted enough to care less than I used to about the fate of humanity

          I mean, there was a time when fighting for available birth control and abortion rights meant the world to me.  But hell:  plenty of women voted for the pussy-grabber who kissed up to evangelists and said women who get abortions should be imprisoned.  Plenty of women said Clinton was worse.  That’s totally fIne; they got the leader they wanted – Sure, I am sorry for all the women who did care about reproductive rights and who voted for Clinton – who had. stellar record on abortion and forhed a strong path as one of the first women to enter Yale Law — But I don’t feel a lot sorry. .   I am mostly way past caring.

          The pendulum  will swing back soon enough.  And in the longer view, I”m gonna be dead in the blink of an eye.   Also the earth’s getting nice and toasty, and no civilization lasts forever.  Which is okay by me.  In the present, I help my friends and family; I’m giving my own kids as good a life as I can –  and sometimes I can do good for strangers in need who cross my path, and that still feels nice.  To the rest of humanity I say a cheery “Good luck.”  They can save themselves, or not, without my help.

          • coderEmeritus (247 posts)
            Profile photo of coderEmeritus

            28. I like…

            … what you are saying and as another old man I agree.

            • tripleQ (163 posts)
              Profile photo of tripleQ

              29. Thank you :)

              That actually makes me want to keep fighting.  For you if for no one else!

          • senz (5080 posts)
            Profile photo of senz Donor

            74. You sure don't know much about Hillary Clinton.

            You write

            “Sure, I am sorry for all the women who did care about reproductive rights and who voted for Clinton – who had. stellar record on abortion”

            Stellar record?  Hillary??  Do you know anything at all about Hillary Clinton?  She cares not one whit about any woman beside herself and perhaps Chelsea.  She will sell out anything and anyone to get what she wants. She made it very clear that she is quite willing to “compromise” on abortion rights.

            Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there’s a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I’m open to that.

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

            And here:

            During a Fox News town hall on Monday night, Clinton and Sanders were asked about their position on late-term abortions. Sanders’ stance was easy to discern: He opposes abortion restrictions, full stop.

            -snip-

            Clinton replied, “No—I have been on record in favor of a late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.”

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

            Hillary’s record on this issue, as on everything, is anything but “stellar.”   She has no values beyond her own advancement.  She stands for nothing.

            • tripleQ (163 posts)
              Profile photo of tripleQ

              82. I have seen her voting record on abortion

              from her Senate days.

              Feel free to look it up yourself.

              and for the record:  I find the “Hikary is the Devil” stuff just as stupid as the “republicans are the Devil”, “rich people are the Devil”, “Ivy Leaguers are the Devil”, “cops are the Devil,” and various other permutations I see bandied about in certain quarters.

              People are all a mix of good and bad.  We are all pretty motivated by self-interest (come on, you know you are!) but also by ideals, love of family and so on.

              I do recognize that in this particular social club, I will be pilloried for refusing to call Clintons and Bushes “the Devil”.

              Please do look up her voting record on abortion.

              • senz (5080 posts)
                Profile photo of senz Donor

                85. Ah yes, these more "nuanced" views on abortion

                that came about when she was running for president.  Then she decided she was actually okay with creating a “Constitutional restriction” on a woman’s right to choose.

                Sort of like her “public” and “private” positions on policy, right?  https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

                Whichever way the wind blows …

                She stands for nothing but herself.

                • tripleQ (163 posts)
                  Profile photo of tripleQ

                  91. As I remember, what she said was …

                  that she would consider legislation that restricted third trimester abortion.  I am in agreement with her on that.  Third trimester fetuses are pretty much human beings in every way and deserve a measure of protection.  (You don’t agree?) However the woman still has rights because the damn thing is inside her body.  To me, a sensible balance is to restrict third trimester abortions to cases of serious medical need:  either woman’s health is seriously jeopardized, or baby is going to be born with serious defects.

                  First you insisted she is devoid of good qualities, and now you are spinning her reasonable (and I think ethically correct ) position as something far more sinister than it is.  You are also using the word “nuanced” as if it is a bad thing, whereas I think complicated situations demand nuanced responses.  (You don’t agree?)

                   

                  All in all, you are welcome to cling to your claims, but they strike me as ill-informed at best.

                  • senz (5080 posts)
                    Profile photo of senz Donor

                    92. Lol, all of my "claims" are direct quotes from Hillary herself.

                    If you think what she said was “ill-informed,” then perhaps you should speak to her about it.

                    This conversation started with your “feeling sorry for all the women who cared about reproductive rights” because Hillary would have been their champion, remember?

                    “Sure, I am sorry for all the women who did care about reproductive rights and who voted for Clinton – who had. stellar record on abortion”

                    Except she wouldn’t.  She was willing to write abortion restrictions into the Constitution.

                    My position?  I’m with Bernie: pro-choice.  Leave it up to the woman.

                  • area woman (3926 posts)
                    Profile photo of area woman Admin

                    127. There's no need for legislation to restrict late-term abortions because they

                    ARE NOT performed frivolously. They’re only performed when something’s gone tragically wrong with a pregnancy. When alleged supporters of reproductive rights say this crap they actually help weaken those rights and lend validation to the anti-choice position.

                     

                    I'm so cute I shit kittens.
        • Cassiopeia (1709 posts)
          Profile photo of Cassiopeia

          27. Do you think any of that changes under any other

          Republican?

          If we used 10% of the energy spwnt on trump creating a new party we might have something viable by 2020.

          Instead many are laser focused on Trump amd will likely have Clinton forced on us again.

          I hate Donald, but I'm still glad Her is not POTUS.
          • jdpriestly (4988 posts)
            Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

            43. When was the last time that a third party actually won a majority of seats

            in Congress or the presidency?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections

            In the United States it is rare for third party and independent candidates, other than those of the six parties which have succeded as major parties (Federalist Party, Democratic-Republican Party, National Republican Party, Democratic Party, Whig Party, Republican Party), to take large shares of the vote in elections.

            Occasionally, a third party becomes one of the two major parties through a presidential election (the last time it happened was in 1856, when the Republicans supplanted the Whigs, who had withered and endorsed the ticket of the American Party): such an election is called a realigning election, as it causes a realignment in the party system; according to scholars, there have been six party systems so far. Only once one of the two major parties came third in an election, but that did not cause a realignment (in 1912 the Progressive Party surpassed the Republicans, but the party quickly disappeared and the Republicans re-gained their major party status).

            In the 58 presidential elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote or garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%); this does not count George Washington, who was elected as an independent in 1788–1789 and 1792, but who largerly supported Federalist policies and was supported by Federalists. The last third party candidate to win a state was George Wallace of the American Independent Party in 1968, while the last third party candidate to win more than 5.0% of the vote was Ross Perot, who ran as an independent and as the standard-bearer of the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996, respectively. The most recent third party candidates to receive an electoral vote were Libertarian Ron Paul and Yankton Sioux Nation independent Faith Spotted Eagle who received a vote each from faithless electors in 2016.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

            It would take a miracle for a third party candidate to be elected president.

            No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
            • Cassiopeia (1709 posts)
              Profile photo of Cassiopeia

              48. History is full of people that say it cant be done.

              They’re all right until they stop and actually try.

              I hate Donald, but I'm still glad Her is not POTUS.
            • davidgmills (4484 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills

              51. It would not take a miracle for a third party candidate to change us to a

              Parliamentary system.  All it takes is a third party getting enough ECs to prevent the other two from getting 270.  Some elections like Bush/Gore that could have been as little as winning one small state.  If Nader had won NH that would have done it.

              The strategy has been entirely wrong if the goal is to have a parliamentary system.  The third party must concentrate on a region and get enough votes to throw the election to the House and Senate.  Do that several times and we have a parliamentary system.  it is very doable.  It does not take a miracle.  It takes a popular candidate who doesn’t mind being a spoiler for the sake of democracy.

              Parliamentary systems are much more tolerant of multiple parties.  Once the House and Senate pick the President and VP, everything changes.  Overnight even if the EC would have picked the same people.  Suddenly representatives and Senators become much more important.

              So it doesn’t take a miracle to change the system.  It actually takes surprisingly little.  Sanders could have easily pulled it off.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • jdpriestly (4988 posts)
                Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

                52. Very interesting theory. Might be a good thing.

                No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
              • Green Dog Dem (2865 posts)
                Profile photo of Green Dog Dem

                76. Does California count as a region?

                Thinking back to #Calexit, we could have something like the Bloc Quebecois.

                Aloha! KamaAina in the hale (house).
                • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  83. California would really qualify. That would be overkill.

                  California could make it a near permanent parliamentary system if it voted third party consistently.  That is a CalExit I could get behind.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
              • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
                Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

                87. That's brilliant

                How do we start? NH or VT seem like fertile ground.

                "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
                • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  102. I posted a number of OP's about this here back in the early days of JPR

                  I don’t remember if it was during the first iteration of JPR or this one.  They explained the 12th amendment, history of it, how it worked, and what was needed.

                  I thought Sanders could pull it off, because he did so well along the Canadian border. And he actually could have a non-spoiler strategy if he just limited his campaign to red states along the Canadian border.  And maybe a few like WV and KY.

                  But the trick is not being a spoiler if you are concerned about that.

                  In the end, SHE lost, so he would not have been a spoiler.  But he was accused of that anyway.  So a candidate will have to understand that is how he/she will be viewed.

                  But the idea needs to be spread.  It needs to be a known threat for it to work.

                  It actually happened in 1824.  The leading EC vote getter lost to the second EC vote getter in the House.  It nearly happened with Lincoln but he still managed to get a majority of EC’s while three other candidates split the rest.

                  George Wallace managed 46 EC’s in 1968 but Humphrey failed to garner enough EC’s to throw the election to the House. Perot, Anderson and Nader were not able to get EC’s as far as I know, but they never had a regional strategy or a strategy to win a few states.

                  I thought about it for Stein.  But she does not do well with rural states.  Sanders really did well in rural and suburban areas.  I was wondering if the libertarians would pull it off in 2016.  But they had the same problem of not being strong in any one place.

                  Suppose next time Sanders fails once again to get the D nomination and Trump is way ahead of the D nominee.  Then it would make great sense to go after red and blue states.

                  French Revolution; not secession.
              • Ohio Barbarian (2256 posts)
                Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

                106. From a historical perspective, that makes perfect sense, and could easily happen

                again. Back in 1876 the establishment Republicans of the time pushed the admission of Colorado as a state thinking they might need its 3 Electoral College votes to win the election. They were right, and it worked. Just 16 years later, however, in 1892 Colorado and four other western states went for the People’s Party and James Weaver in a populist farmer’s and miner’s revolt against the robber barons. By 1904, Teddy Roosevelt had learned how to appeal to those people.

                In 1968 the neo-Confederate South largely went for George Wallace over Nixon and Humphrey. As a result, Nixon pandered to those assholes, partially on the advice of the late, unlamented Roger Ailes.

                My point is that I think your proposed strategy is a viable one.

                 

                "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
                • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                  Profile photo of davidgmills

                  122. It is an idea that unfortuantely has been forgotten.

                  But I think the founding fathers actually envisioned a parliamentary system. They did not like political parties and I don’t think they foresaw a two party system becoming the norm.

                  We are often told that a party must be built from the grassroots.  I think that is backwards.  I think a successful political party is made from the top-down.  Because ballot access and coat-tails are extremely important.

                  Successes at the top will bring success at every level below.  But if the Greens and libertarians have proven anything, it doesn’t work well the other way.  But you can have success at the top with EC’s.  It doesn’t take an actual victory.

                   

                  French Revolution; not secession.
        • Stockholmer (704 posts)
          Profile photo of Stockholmer

          39. Any RW Repub POTUS yields all that too, Trump is so unstable and over the top

          he actually hurts the chances of a lot of it being enacted into law. He is helping to destroy (at cursory levels) the Republican brand every bit as much as SHE did to the Dem brand.

      • incognito (1276 posts)
        Profile photo of incognito Donor

        14. I agree! + a Gazillion! n/t

         
      • Hawkowl (1300 posts)
        Profile photo of Hawkowl Donor

        17. Well said !

        Completely agree.

        "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Burke
      • OCMI (1219 posts)
        Profile photo of OCMI

        44. Agreed, and thank you n/t

        If you dislike Trump, you should vote for him so we can change his party from within. Yes, Hillary supporters, this is how ridiculous you sound.
      • ctsnowman (359 posts)
        Profile photo of ctsnowman Donor

        49. This X2

        Army and Navy veteran and a proud liberal.
    • chknltl (93 posts)
      Profile photo of chknltl

      6. Although I generally recommend all things MG….

      In this case i find myself in better agreement with the above responses even more than the O.P.

      My recommend in this case is for what they wrote.

    • jdpriestly (4988 posts)
      Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

      7. Thank you, Manny.

      No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
    • KauaiK (3465 posts)
      Profile photo of KauaiK Donor

      9. I think Trump & Co. will implode without impeachment

      They have so much to hide and it’s seeping out in dribbles and drabs.  Trump will is too volitile to withstand the constant barrage of criticism and bad press.  He’ll go back to his empire in NY.

      I also think the Deep State is behind releasing info to the WaPo, NYT, Reuters, etc.  A coup? [email protected] asked me what I think the Deep State wants.  I have yet to come up with an answer other than perpetual war to pertetuate itself.

      Having said that, I think that Pence is as bad as Trump; and if he goes away with Trump, we have the Ayn Rand sociopath Paul Ryan….ugh!

      Critical thinking is the vaccine for charlatans of the world who exploit ignorance - JPR's own So Far From Heaven.

    • paulthompson (71 posts)
      Profile photo of paulthompson

      12. mostly agree

      I haven’t posted at JPR for a while. But I want to say I mostly agree with Manny.

      I think the Trump administration is a disaster for the country, and a DNC type Hillary Clinton presidency would be really bad too. Pence, of course, would be horrible as well. Right now, it’s a matter of least bad options.

      I think when people consider a Pence presidency though, they underestimate the degree to which Pence will go down with the Trump ship, if Trump goes down. Pence is surprisingly unpopular already. I saw a recent poll, and he’s polling at about 35% approval vs. 40% for Trump, with almost the same disapproval ratings for both of them. Trump has a kind of weirdly appealing charisma that Pence just doesn’t have. Pence is sort of like Tim Kaine – he comes off as bland and boring (despite Pence having radical right wing beliefs).

      Some people then say, yes, Pence is bland and boring, but that means he will be able to sneak through all sorts of awful changes because people will get complacent. I don’t think so. If Trump were to resign or be impeached, Trump’s popularity would plummet even lower before he’s forced to do that, taking Pence and all the other Republicans with him. After an impeachment or resignation, the Democrats almost certainly would win in a huge landslide in 2018, making whomever is president at that point unable to do practically anything.

      Consider what happened after Watergate. The Republicans got seriously spanked. In the 1974 election, Democrats won 61 Senate seats and 291 House seats (compared to 144 Repubs in the House). In the 1976 election, the “Watergate effect” continued, with the Dems keeping the same number of Senate seats and picking up one more House seat. That could easily happen again, or possibly even larger wins, if the general public has a “kick the Republican bums out” general attitude.

      The point is, the scenario in which Pence becomes president would be very different than what the political climate is today (unless Trump were to die of natural causes or resign in the near future, before the weight of scandals has their full effect). Whatever you think of the Trump-Russia scandal, there’s no doubt that there will be headline-grabbing investigations about that, plus other corruption and conflict of interest scandals to sort out, that will literally last for years. A President Pence would be bogged down in all that for years. And he would be personally embroiled in many of those scandals. His role as head of Trump’s transition team alone would tie him closely to the emerging Michael Flynn mess and other messes. Besides, as they say, it’s usually not the crime that gets you but the cover-up, and even though Pence is keeping a low public profile, he is said to be a close confidante to Trump, advising him on firing Comey and other key decisions.

      An alternate to that would be for a badly wounded Trump to stagger on for the rest of his term. That might not be that different from the Pence scenario. Trump could effectively be a lame duck president all the way to 2020. Pundits are already saying that Republican efforts on health care and tax “reform” are dead in the water with all these emerging serious scandals. So that’s why I say I only mostly agree with Manny, because a de facto lame duck Trump may not be that different from a de facto lame duck Pence.

      The problem though is that even a very unpopular president can still do some things all on their own, such as declare war. I prefer the Pence scenario because Trump has so many obvious mental problems and competence problems that I think he’s much more likely to do something seriously unhinged just to shake things up.

      In the wake of a Trump disaster, Republican leaders would almost certainly want Pence to be steady and uncontroversial rather than add even more to their scandals and reelection woes by trying to ram through a far right agenda in the face of massive unpopularity. The truth is those far right policies are very unpopular with the vast majority of the public. For instance, look at what’s happened on health care so far – that alone is going to cost the Repubs dearly in 2018. The more the Republicans try to actually accomplish their agenda, the more they reveal just how awful their agenda is. The main thing that got them this far into power was Trump’s weird charisma, and that’s rapidly falling apart.

      The Republican ideology has morphed over the years to the point that they’re basically hostile to any sort of competent government, so now they’re in power they’re showing how incapable of governing they are. It was easy for them when they were out of power and they could say things like “Obamacare is awful and we’ll replace it with something much better.” Now that they’re in power, they’re showing that they’ve been bluffing the whole time. That will keep happening under Trump or Pence.

      All the way until 2020, the best progressives can hope for is to limit the damage. But under either the de facto lame duck Trump or Pence scenarios, I think there’s a very good chance that by 2020 Americans will be so fed up with Republican rule that they’ll be open to something very different. A recent poll had Bernie Sanders beating Trump by 13 points if the election was held tomorrow, which would be a historic landslide. That gap between them could grow even larger as the Republicans continue their downward spiral. (The one danger is if the Democrats put forth another awful Third Way type like Hillary in 2020.)

      One last thing. The odds of Trump actually being impeached are not small. I just checked the British betting sites, and at least one site has 60% odds that Trump won’t last to 2020. And a week ago, the odds were 7% that Trump wouldn’t even last to the end of 2017, and now that’s 30%. But if Trump goes, there’s a not insignificant chance that Pence could go too. It may very well be that he’s deeply tied to these scandals. And no, that wouldn’t lead to President Ryan, but to whomever gets appointed as vice president, which needs Senate approval. (That happened to Gerald Ford, who was appointed vice president and then bumped up to president.)

      • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
        Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

        13. Thank you!

        Great to see you again!

        Interesting times!

        I tell our teenager: “keep your eyes open – this is serious history!”

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
      • Hawkowl (1300 posts)
        Profile photo of Hawkowl Donor

        18. One thing…

        The current popularity of Trump is similar to George W. Bush after his selection in 2000.

        He was mocked, ridiculed and extremely unpopular.

        Sooo, the Deep State used 9-11 and stared a war. Add in jingoistic 24/7 cable news and voila, instant popularity, enough to get him re-selected.

        I expect that if Trump is impeached, or even close to impeachment, we will have the biggest! Most beautiful! Fantastic war you’ve ever seen.

        Pence will not go down with Trump and the Republicans will start a nuclear war before they allow their grip on power to slip. This is not 1974. We have gone too far and the MIC/CIA is far, far more powerful than back then.

        It is best Trump be mauled, humiliated, mocked, detested, BUT above all else, be removed by the PEOPLE, through an election. It is the only way to reclaim democracy.

        "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Burke
        • paulthompson (71 posts)
          Profile photo of paulthompson

          19. War?

          War could happen. Or some major terrorist attack could change things drastically.

          However, I’m cautiously optimistic that those tricks won’t work anymore.  It’s not 2001 anymore. People have been there and done that. It’s been over 15 years of non-stop war since 9/11. People are tired of it. It’s there’s going to be a new war, it would almost certainly be in the Middle East. People are especially tired of that. According to the latest news reports, Trump wants a new “surge” in Afghanistan as his new war. People are even more especially tired of that. I predict a surge there won’t boost his popularity at all.

          From a Machiavellian point of view, there are no “easy wars” like the Falklands or Grenada on the horizon. There’s nowhere where people would welcome the US marines with open arms and flowers. All the likely hot spots (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc) would almost certainly be costly quagmires. Some of them could be total disasters, including politically for whomever starts them.

          There’s a law of diminishing returns/”boy who cried wolf” effect here. People have become jaded and numbed by lots of war and terror attacks. Maybe you’d get a rally around the flag effect if there’s a massive war or a nuclear bomb going off in the US or something like that. There is that danger. There are some extreme possibilities that are hard to predict.

          But overall, I think things are very different from 2001. For instance, the US is much more polarized politically. The people who love Trump will still love him and the people who hate him will still hate him. There’s even a growing number of people on the right who are sick of war and voted for Trump in the misguided belief that he would be a peaceful isolationist.

          Look at France and the Paris terror attack for instance. The popularity of France’s president wobbled a little bit right after that, but then went exactly back to what it was before. Had that been back in the 2001 time frame, the effect would have been totally different. Look also at Trump’s missile strike on Syria last month. The pundits praised it to the high heavens, and the media’s assumption was that it was a popular move. But if you look at Trump’s actual poll numbers, there was no effect at all. I watched the polls that week and the next, and the numbers hardly changed. There wasn’t even a small bump. I’ve paid close attention to polls in different countries after major terrorist attacks to see if there are “really around the flag” effects, and I haven’t seen that effect in recent years.

          Trump may well TRY something like a war, but I don’t think it’s going to have the effect he expects.

          • FanBoy (7740 posts)
            Profile photo of FanBoy

            71. "those tricks won’t work anymore"

            that’s what I thought before the war in Iraq, but as soon as it got going it was jingo fever

        • INTJ (1893 posts)
          Profile photo of INTJ

          23. The response to W was war -AND- the erection of the Cheney regency

          and the Neocon war cabinet.

          We not only got lied into a war without end (and matching budget requirements)  we got horrid interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution and the power of the CIC,  by the likes of John Yoo.

          We got the concept of a constitutionally split-personality presidency with one entity being a super-powered authoritarian who wasn’t constrained in any significant way by the Constitution.   We were given an unbridled reified CIC, free to conduct torture, and a ‘global war’, and the nation wasn’t given any special powers to check him.

          The excessive,  potentially abusive Powers of the CIC weren’t fought or locked away by peace-prize winning Obama,  Rather, the powers  were accepted, normalized, and used by Obama, The Droner, and nowTrump.  Clearly, the Executive Branch enjoys the application of that power.

          That’s bad enough to scream ENOUGH!

          But, in the presence of a willing (Obama/Clinton) or nit-witted (W/Trump) executive, those powers are also open to manipulation from real and would be ‘advisors’ aka PuppetMasters whose existence in DC is now structured around an endless struggle for control of the strings.  And the Constitution and the People have got little in the way of institutions to check that conflict outside of the institutions of the Deep State itself.   No wonder we sense every president ultimately succumbs to the will of cloaked and daggered egos in the shadows.

          The last 25 years have been a destruction of  constitutional democracy particularly with respect to meaningful control by an accountable elected leadership.

          The cheering for a process that will further ensure endless internal wars of the mentats of the Deep State vs the Chenys and the Bannons is actually a pretty horrible outcome whose invasive products we will almost certainly rue.

          In no way does it signal the emergence of a wiser or better contemporary organization of Executive power.  It just guarantees that the Deep State and all it’s offenses will root Deeper.

          Farewell,  Rights of Man! Welcome to the charade of government by weak officers of politics and the rule of the manipulative plotting Claggert’s who will endlessly rely upon alternative facts and fake news to tear down efforts to restore government by and for the people.

           

          Grant us the vision to see what must be changed and save us from making it even worse.
      • davidgmills (4484 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        53. I disagree Paul.

        This is not anything like Watergate.  Not close.  And during Watergate the Democrats held the House and Senate.  Impeachment is not going to happen.   It is a pipe dream of wishful thinkers and the Brits are absolutely clueless about this.  Maybe I ought to bet my retirement on it.  It seems like such a slam dunk.

        It is extremely hard to impeach a president, as it should be.  People are primarily pissed off because of the EC / popular vote.  And it was strange.  Clinton got killed in the EC yet won the popular vote by a huge margin.  And people think it is totally unfair.  But it is not going to make a difference when it comes to impeachment.

        The Democratic party has a huge EC problem.  Clinton won 489 counties out of 3,144.  The Democrats are losing everywhere in this country and yet they manage to win the popular vote in a presidential election.

        Unless Sanders is the Democratic nominee in 2020, the Democrats have no chance of winning because they suck so bad in rural and suburban America.  Sanders is the only candidate that can pull in enough rural and suburban votes to beat Trump in 2020.  And I don’t have any faith that Sanders will be allowed to be the nominee next time by the DNC if Hillary is still able to run.  It might be a worse primary next time.  She might win only because she has super delegates.

        I really expect Trump to be around for two terms unless Sanders somehow gets the nomination.  I just don’t see that happening in 2020 either.

        French Revolution; not secession.
        • paulthompson (71 posts)
          Profile photo of paulthompson

          64. Hi David

          Good to hear from you. I know impeachment  really hard. I don’t actually expect impeachment, but instead the top Republican politicians realizing that having Trump as president is going to sink them all and then forcing him to resign. That’s what happened to Nixon. It would be the most face-saving way to do it.

          In my opinion, the odds of Trump leaving office just went way up from yesterday. Because Trump said this to some Russian leaders in private, and the White House doesn’t even deny it:

          “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

          Meaning he’s taken away the pressure of the Trump-Russia investigation by firing Comey. This matches what he said in the Lester Holt interview the other day, where he again straight up admitted he fired Comey to stifle that investigation.

          As more and more people are saying, one can make a very strong argument for a pattern showing obstruction of justice. And the key evidence are the politically stupid things coming out of Trump’s own mouth. His own people are pulling their hair out and calling him a “complete moron” behind his back:

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/19/trump-officials-he-looks-more-and-more-like-a-complete-moron

          And here’s the thing: Trump never wises up and changes his behavior. Instead, he always doubles down. Expect for him to take even more overt steps to obstruct the investigation and continue to admit to obstruction more and more. It’s like a spiral where the more serious the investigation gets, the more overtly and illegally he moves to stop it. Eventually, it will reach a point where the Republicans have no wiggle room, no excuses. It all becomes so blatant that either they stop him or they’ll get obliterated in the next election. What we’re seeing is truly unprecedented. No politician ever incriminates himself this badly, but Trump simply can’t control his own mouth.

          As far as the Democrats winning, I guess I’m much more optimistic than you. The Dems should have won 2016 in a landslide had they not nominated the worst candidate possible (Hillary). Right now, Dems are already winning handily in generic Congressional Dem vs. generic Congressional Repub poll results. They’re crushing it in terms of hypothetical presidential matchups. And scandals like these have a natural arc to them. The newly formed special prosecutor investigation will take two years, at least, with more and more damaging stuff coming out all the time. We’re seeing an epic political meltdown that might actually surpass the effect of Watergate.

          Time will tell, of course. And the Democrats have a tendency to screw things up with their Third Way ways. But the Republicans are imploding so badly that by the time 2020 comes around, you could probably run Charlie Manson from prison against Trump or Pence and win the presidency. Admittedly, a lot could change between now and then, but that’s how I see the current trajectory of events playing out. What we’re seeing is like a slowly exploding bomb, and we’re just at the very start of the explosion.

          • davidgmills (4484 posts)
            Profile photo of davidgmills

            72. He says some stupid things. But I don't think they rise to the level of

            Obstruction of Justice.

            So I am going to beat up on you a bit for your California bias as I have beat up on some of my other friends in the NE.  You have no idea what middle and flyover America is like.  You are not getting it.   People from the midwest and the south and mountain west tried to tell the coasts what was happening and we were ignored.  And you guys are just doubling down.

            I really mean it when I say that the vulnerability of the Democratic party is that it has lost flyover America and rural and suburban America.  Only Sanders has been able to appeal to these constituencies.

            And the removal of Trump with no more than some accusations of improper firing of Comey is just not going to get it.  It would piss off middle America like you would not believe.  You forget how pissed off the Republicans were at Comey for not indicting Clinton.  They think Obama should have fired him.  They expected Trump to fire him on day one.  So where are you going to get the votes for impeachment?  They are not going to view these statements as being obstruction of Justice.  Trump has said it’s a witch hunt and they probably agree.

            Furthermore, he appointed a special prosecutor.  That isn’t consistent with obstruction of justice.  The special prosecutor will have access to all of Comey’s information.  Comey wasn’t going to be prosecuting the case.  And special prosecutors usually do their own investigations.  Not likely Comey would have done much investigation once the special prosecutor took over. Maybe that has the effect of shutting down Comey, but that is what happens when special prosecutors get appointed.

            It will take awhile for the special prosecutor to get up and running and it will probably be months down the road before Russia surfaces again.  So Trump’s statement could be interpreted that in the meantime he can concentrate on something other than Russia.

            Trump’s mouth is what gets his base going and what pisses everyone else off.  Double edged sword.  He would be a nightmare client for a lawyer.  Can’t shut him up.

            French Revolution; not secession.
        • FanBoy (7740 posts)
          Profile photo of FanBoy

          73. Clinton won the popular vote by a huge margin? I don't think so.

          “The AP analysis of certified results showed Clinton winning 65,844,610 votes, or 48 percent, with Trump winning 62,979,636 votes, or 46 percent…”

          Neither candidate got even half the popular vote and Clinton’s 2% margin is hardly huge.

          http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1222/Clinton-wins-US-popular-vote-by-widest-margin-of-any-losing-presidential-candidate

          She won by the widest margin of any candidate who lost the electoral college, maybe that’s what you were thinking of.

          Warren G Harding had the widest victory margin,  26%.  Coolidge, Roosevelt (1936), Nixon and Johnson followed, all over 20% margins.

           

          • davidgmills (4484 posts)
            Profile photo of davidgmills

            81. I was being generous to their point of view.

            And I know many people claim the margins are suspect.  But in reality, it was not a huge margin unless you are a Hillbot.  Then it was HUGE.

            French Revolution; not secession.
            • FanBoy (7740 posts)
              Profile photo of FanBoy

              84. didn't catch the tone then

      • Marym625 (18695 posts)
        Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

        57. Great post Paul

        Thank you. Missed you! :hi:

        948c8f248a "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
      • FanBoy (7740 posts)
        Profile photo of FanBoy

        61. "Bernie Sanders beating Trump" = in 2020 sanders will be 79 i think.

        one of the things sanders has had going for him is a very long record of consistency in his beliefs and actions, with a very limited record of sell-out.

        I don’t think there’s anyone like him coming down the pike to replace him, and I don’t think he’s going to be winning when he’s pushing 80.

      • Green Dog Dem (2865 posts)
        Profile photo of Green Dog Dem

        79. Consider what happened after Watergate.

        A mere six years later, the repukes were back on top with St. Raygun. 

        Aloha! KamaAina in the hale (house).
      • Ohio Barbarian (2256 posts)
        Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

        108. This should be an OP. I have only one picky legalistic quibble.

        The President cannot declare war. Only Congress can do that. Congress, of course, has shamelessly ceded most of its warmaking power to the Executive Branch, but not all of it. The remnants of the Watergate-era War Powers Act, passed over Nixon’s veto, remain. That’s why they still have to have at least the fig leaf of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Congress has let presidents of both major parties trample over them again and again, but if there’s enough popular outrage that can change quickly, as Obama found out when he wanted to invade Syria.

        Other than that, great post. I selfishly wish you would post more often.

        "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
    • Colors of the Rainbow (1072 posts)
      Profile photo of Colors of the Rainbow

      20. 2024

      Manny writes,

      “And even more, I look forward to Liberals… REAL Liberals… FDR/Bernie Liberals… running our government again. Our government of, by, and for the people. The Zeitgeist is changing rapidly, and I believe it will happen.”

       

      Be careful what you wish or hope for.

       

      The Ds have no intention leaving their neoliberal agenda and want neoliberal presidents and policies—with or without the presidency in the party’s column.

       

      A question worth asking is this, “Who is worse—Donald Trump or Mike Pence?”

       

      Also: I anticipate that Rs will retain the presidency with Election 2020 and Ds won’t be able to flip it until 2024. Voting patterns, yes. But, this is also my sense with these current, establishment Ds. They have nothing to offer.

    • Hunter S (339 posts)
      Profile photo of Hunter S

      21. A long time ago, at a website far, far away

      a post by Manny was a must-read – insightful and funny.

      People change.

      I don’t “love” Trump. I tolerate him. But I have a burning hatred for the people who fucked Bernie Sanders and I am not over it yet. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/you-really-love-that-idiot-dont-ya/
      • davidgmills (4484 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        59. ouch

        French Revolution; not secession.
    • djean111 (3491 posts)
      Profile photo of djean111 Donor

      22. If Trump is successfully ousted, IMO any chance of us having REAL Liberals

      running our country will have vanished.  Trump will be replaced with even more RW war and austerity freaks, and the Third Way/DNC will see – and have – no reason to change one fucking thing.  If Trump is ousted, I believe the DINOs will take over whatever the fuck the Democratic Party is now, and I don’t really see myself voting Democrat again.

      You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie?  Um, nope.
    • Octafish (3036 posts)
      Profile photo of Octafish Donor

      24. Trump is toast. Same for his friends.

      While 36 years of trickle-down has done miracles for the fabulously wealthy, it has failed to do the trick for the country as a whole.

      Nation needs some new ideas and that means new leadership. Not just Eddie Munster, either.

       

      “Get the truth and print it.” -- John S. Knight
    • PFunk1 (987 posts)
      Profile photo of PFunk1

      26. I for one want a long, dragged out invesigation of 45…

      much like they did with Clinton before they finally impeach him.  Like months or even years long.  It’ll stick up the place so much and drag a lot of corrupt repugs into it that it would give the dems a better chance of wining back both houses even with dem idiocy.

      However if I know this so do the repugs.  So if this drags on past June expect either a quick impeachment or 45 stepping down to kill it before it head in that direction.

      • davidgmills (4484 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        54. I expect two terms out of Trump.

        Sorry.  Unless we have a miracle and Sanders gets the nomination in 2020.

        French Revolution; not secession.
    • Rocker (488 posts)
      Profile photo of Rocker

      30. Gone and replaced with what other "crew"?

      Who are you going to install after your coup?  If a valid, not WP/CNN/NYT produced lie, ever surfaces that would require impeachment, who would become president and how?

      Just a rational question.

    • Major Hogwash (1992 posts)
      Profile photo of Major Hogwash

      31. The weirdest part of it all is how it was so fucking predictable.

      Did anyone really think they could follow Obama in to the White House and then cancel Michelle’s program for kids and be allowed to remain the President? I doubt many here thought the real reason the Russians infiltrated the GOP as of late was to go after Michelle’s popular kids program. But, the facts speak for themselves. Hell, even Comey liked her kids program.

      Poor sonovabitch, he never stood a chance once he canceled her program.

       

       

    • ravensong (1052 posts)
      Profile photo of ravensong Donor

      32. You never really loved him, Manny.

      “Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system which is corrupt—that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy,”  ~ Sen. Bernie Sanders  
    • whatchamacallit (620 posts)
      Profile photo of whatchamacallit Donor

      33. Trump is a disaster, but the manner of his removal and the precedent it sets

      may prove to be a bigger disaster. If they nail him for malfeasance, fine, but if the PTB can sell the “Russian fake news subverted our election” bullshit, they’ll use it to strangle what’s left of the 1st amendment. That won’t bode well for sites like JPR.

      The ring is out of my nose.
      • arendt (1426 posts)
        Profile photo of arendt

        132. +10 for bringing the consequences home to JPR. n/t

    • WillyT (7236 posts)
      Profile photo of WillyT Donor

      34. I'm With You, Manny !!!

      :fistbump:

       

      :hug:

       

      • arendt (1426 posts)
        Profile photo of arendt

        133. In other exciting and important news… (yawn). n/t

        • WillyT (7236 posts)
          Profile photo of WillyT Donor

          134. Well… I Think Trump Is A Threat To…

          The people, the country, international relations, and the planet.

           

          If that’s a yawn for you, then there’s nothing else to say.

           

          :shrug:

           

    • Xyzse (2093 posts)
      Profile photo of Xyzse Donor

      35. I am quite conflicted, and there are many reasons why.

      (Pardon me for referencing myself but)

      It has been almost half a year since Trumplestiltskin has taken office, and during that time my conviction that the 2016 election cycle was absolutely needed.

      • A Candidate that hearkens back to the values of old.  Economic justice and the FDR way before Reagan and Clinton destroyed the New Deal.
      • A Candidate that exemplifies all the wrongs of the current establishment.  An open sore that brought to light all the infected pus of corruption just hiding underneath the shiny veneer of charisma the prior administration had.
      • A Candidate that was a clownish caricature.  A foil that showed how things have not been working.  A buffoon that is a product of the current situation.  One who even mentioned that “I do what I do because I can”.

      What we got is Trump and he is the product of the laws of the land, which was started up by Reagan.  He calls himself smart for not paying taxes, because it is legal and what the politicians such as Hill and Bill before him has given us.

      Trump, by virtue of his ugliness in every single way, has shown many the problems within the system.  Matters that many would have dismissed, were it perpetrated by any other President is now shown to be unreasonable, overreaching and unacceptable.  Because it really should have been unacceptable to begin with.

      The US has one thing going for it, and that, the US has a great PR campaign.  However, the US is being exposed more and more as a fraud due to its actions.  Trump exposes the actual action while Obama, through his charm was able to hide it.  When it comes to policy, there has not been much of a change as of yet since a lot of the things Democrats are complaining about now was also done during Obama’s tenure.

      It is why it is imperative that a decent President wins in 2020, since most of Trump’s changes are Executive Orders and signing statements, which can be overturned by the next President if they so desire, as it is not a Legislative Law.

      Which merely brings the fact that Obama did not overturn much of Bush’s executive orders.   What this shows is that he agrees with them.  He expanded many of the worst things Bush has done:

      • War
      • The Patriot Act/Espionage Laws and the erosion of privacy
      • Deregulation of Banks and Corporations
      • Expansion of Privatization in Education and other Infrastructure

      All the while paying lip-service without action in regards to Social issues that he did not even fight for.  Most of the gains we got from issues such as Women’s equality, Gay Marriage and others were done through the court system.  He was merely there to say “Great Job” and take credit.

      He did all that, and Trump doing the same thing woke people up to all the atrocities being perpetuated under our name.

      Why I am conflicted however, is because everything is a balancing act for me.

      I still consider Hillary to be effectively worse than Trump.  She would be mired with a set of different scandals and investigations while having a depressing effect towards the Left.  She will not call attention to the problems within the system since she is part of it, exemplifies it, and uses it as an excuse to do nothing.

      In essence, they would govern similarly while showing cosmetic changes.  With Pence, he would do the same thing, but what makes him dangerous is that he is a true believer of his cause.  True believers would actually screw us over harder and actually think that they’re doing it for our own good.

      With the media paying attention only to Russia and other matters that we can not do much about but wait.  Whipping hysteria on something that is not actionable by the general populace, other than wring their hands and talk, it is creating the same effect of removing people’s focus on the systemic issues that Trump initially put to light by his awfulness.

      So yes, I consider this whole matter a charade of some sort, a deflection to allow the establishment to hold on to power and put people back to sleep.  I don’t want that.

      In fact, to me, they are already sowing the seeds to hamstring any progressive candidate to begin with.  They are placing attacks upon attacks on Progressives without much basis, but setting up a foundation of stories that they can bring up later to stop any sort of opposition or movement.

      I still think the best way to combat Trump is issue by issue.  Go through Townhalls and so forth, where in fact, it has been working.  We have been talking about Healthcare until this went in to the forefront again.  It is a massive distraction, especially since whatever happens will take an inordinate amount of time, especially since they haven’t even done an investigation yet, other than alleged anonymous sources.  It allows them to make up whatever they want.

      Unless they have a formal action, forget it.  I don’t care.  If they have something, provide it, with the release of Chelsea Manning, there are a number of issues that she brought to light which has not been discussed, dealt with or investigated.

      Do that, and that seems to be a type of investigation that can be done more easily and can prove to be more fruitful.

      I want Trump kicked out by a valid election, through an improved set of candidates that actually work for the people.  I do not want another establishment shill, or a tool of the plutocracy.  So 2018 is important in bringing about progressive candidates, and 2020 would hopefully bring an actual change.  I doubt it, but is it too much to wish for?  It is why I can not get behind impeachment proceedings until investigations and more information is provided.

      • FanBoy (7740 posts)
        Profile photo of FanBoy

        67. +++

        “I consider this whole matter a charade of some sort” = me too, but I can’t figure the angles; just seems off

      • Ohio Barbarian (2256 posts)
        Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

        109. Great galloping gods! This should be an OP.

        + a LOT!

        "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
        • Xyzse (2093 posts)
          Profile photo of Xyzse Donor

          125. I was thinking about it

          Maybe I’ll do that later.  Going to be busy for most of the day.

    • So Far From Heaven (9186 posts)
      Profile photo of So Far From Heaven Donor

      36. Yeah, well I don't agree. At all.

      It seems @mannygoldstien thinks the current horror story is in it’s death throws.

      Never underestimate the ability for slime to squeeze out of your grasp, no matter how tight it is. Trump et. al. are the epitome of slime and as many of his understudies may be sacrificed, the Trump will be extremely hard to pin down, like nailing jello to the ceiling.

      I for one am not holding my breath on this. And I’m not sure that any of those in line after the orange faced butthead are going to be any better.

      At anything.

      I dream of how things could be, and ask ‘Why not?’ Dwelling on the past keeps us rooted to the past. I say to hell with what has come before, let us shape that which will be.
    • peacecorps (2754 posts)
      Profile photo of peacecorps Donor

      37. I just hope it weakens him enough to sink his pro-1% agenda. Then

      bring on Bernie.

      FDR stood for high/progressive taxes, tight regulation of corporations, effective legislation to support strong unions, a strong safety net, fiscal policy that supports full employment rather than austerity, engagement with the rest of the world in terms of trade and diplomacy and the Four Freedoms. Bernie supports the same issues plus an understanding of the danger posed by climate change. Count me as an FDR/Bernie liberal.
    • mick063 (1941 posts)
      Profile photo of mick063 Donor

      38. I can't disagree with any of this.

      Trump is a disaster.

      My main concern, though, is regaining half the duopoly.

      Primaries are exponentially more important to me than general elections. The Republicans are their own worst enemies.

       

      "I welcome their hatred"    Franklin D. Roosevelt
      • davidgmills (4484 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        62. Regaining half the duopoly for many Sanders supportes is a fool's errand

        That is why so many of the original members of this board have moved on.  They are not here squawking about it and so the impression of many here is that the vast majority of Sanders supporters share your view of reformation.  Many don’t.

        In fact if Sanders runs again, it will be interesting to see how many of these people who feel they got left at the altar support him next time.  Some definitely will not.

        French Revolution; not secession.
        • mick063 (1941 posts)
          Profile photo of mick063 Donor

          68. I think you need to clarify your intended meaning

          I make a clear distinction between:

          1. Winning back half of the duopoly
          2. Taking back the Democratic Party.

          When I stress #1, it means that alternatives to #2 are being considered. Further, I would consider that almost every Sanders supporter is in favor of #1 even if not in favor of #2.

          Indeed, the only reason I don’t use the phrase “take back the Democratic Party” is entirely due to the many here that believe it is a “fools errand.” I have never received similar feedback when using the term “taking half the duopoly” instead. I believe they understand my distinction exactly as it was intended. That would be the notion that there are viable avenues available other than coopting the Democratic Party.

          "I welcome their hatred"    Franklin D. Roosevelt
          • davidgmills (4484 posts)
            Profile photo of davidgmills

            77. Well now that I understand what you meant, I agree.

            I interpreted it as option 2 and not all alternatives to option two.  What threw me is the term duopoly.  If you are considering multiple options is it a duopoly?

            French Revolution; not secession.
            • mick063 (1941 posts)
              Profile photo of mick063 Donor

              86. I concede half the duopoly to the Republicans

              I always have. That leaves the remaining half of the duopoly as the only viable realm for the advocates of the working poor.

              Some believe the Democratic Party can be taken back so that it can once again advocate for the working poor.

              Others believe that the Democratic Party has reached a threshold of deeply imbedded corruption where it cannot be coerced into advocating for the working poor.

              Some believe that efforts should be taken to both coopt the Democratic Party AND establish a viable alternative party. To be opportunists that take advantage of the first available opportunity, whether it includes or does not include the Democratic Party. You can put me in that third category. Instead of saying “Take back the Democratic Party”, we use the term “Take back half the duopoly”, indicating our opportunist approach. We care less about the vehicle and more about the final outcome. As long as the best interests of the working poor are served, we are not invested in the methodology used to get there. We are looking for the winning bandwagon to jump aboard. We are willing to register as a Democrat for Bernie and unregister again at his perceived marginalization. (#DemExit).

              "I welcome their hatred"    Franklin D. Roosevelt
              • davidgmills (4484 posts)
                Profile photo of davidgmills

                101. See my post 51

                For a means of not necessarily needing half.

                French Revolution; not secession.
        • Pacco Fransisco (3375 posts)
          Profile photo of Pacco Fransisco Moderator

          70. Many would not adhear to the community standards & guidelines…

          but everyone entitled to their opinion …as long as it does not go against the community standards & guidelines.

          I am L0oniX  Fuck David and his pin head DLC 3rd way herd of goats
          • davidgmills (4484 posts)
            Profile photo of davidgmills

            80. That may be true for those who left involuntarily.

            But many left of their own volition.

            French Revolution; not secession.
    • nevereVereven (2052 posts)
      Profile photo of nevereVereven Donor

      40. I'm really NOT happy to see him being forced out, Manny.

      I think he’s just about the worst thing that could be happening to the Repubs right now, and he’s doing real damage to them. They are gonna be more dangerous once they’re rid of their reeking orange albatross.

      A hologram of a magnifying glass will also function as a magnifying glass, but a hologram of Sherlock Holmes won't solve anything.  
    • Rozinante (2673 posts)
      Profile photo of Rozinante

      41. Reports of the death of his presidency are premature.

      W was a trainwreck, and he was reelected. Trump is  ‘leading’ just as most predicted. Dems are in no position to impeach in House or convict in Senate. Remember, repubs impeachment of Clinton blew up in their face, and his popularity went up. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. As long as Trump has the political backing of the republican majority, there won’t be an impeachment.  Only when Trump becomes an anchor around the ankles of the republican majority, and a threat to their continued control of House and Senate, will they begin to act. Until then, they’ll just try to keep him reined in.

    • Content removed for violations of the community standards & guidelines
      • Pacco Fransisco (3375 posts)
        Profile photo of Pacco Fransisco Moderator

        63. Indeed ..the anti-FDR Democratic Party is responsible for Trump.

        The Democratic Party undemocratically foisted one of the worst candidates on us and told us they didn’t need us.

        I am L0oniX  Fuck David and his pin head DLC 3rd way herd of goats
    • Aerows (2829 posts)
      Profile photo of Aerows Donor

      45. Then get ready for the "delight" that Pence will be as President

      I don’t mind saying that he scares the shit out of me.

      Root: If we're just information, just noise in the system, we might as well be a symphony.
      • Pacco Fransisco (3375 posts)
        Profile photo of Pacco Fransisco Moderator

        65. …and it will still be the fault of the anti-FDR Democratic Party.

        I am L0oniX  Fuck David and his pin head DLC 3rd way herd of goats
    • paulthompson (71 posts)
      Profile photo of paulthompson

      46. article

      There are some good arguments here why a President Pence wouldn’t help the Republicans.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/05/mike_pence_can_t_save_the_gop.html

      One interesting one I didn’t think of is how, after a Trump impeachment or forced resignation, the Repubs would split into pro- and anti- Trump factions, with Trump presumably still around and angrily tweeting and condemning all those “traitors” who voted against him. It could break the Republican party into pieces.

       

      • Marym625 (18695 posts)
        Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

        58. Now THAT I could get behind!

        948c8f248a "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
      • davidgmills (4484 posts)
        Profile photo of davidgmills

        69. That is a good reason why impeachment is not going to happen.

        The Republicans are not going to impeach their own.  And Nixon only resigned when indictments were about to come down.  On what basis do you see indictments?  I sure am not seeing any at this point.  I can’t even find any specific act he is being accused of.

        Maybe you need to do another famous timeline.  I can be convinced otherwise if the evidence is there.

        French Revolution; not secession.
      • Flygirl (2407 posts)
        Profile photo of Flygirl

        128. Or

        it could rabidly Unite them like never before..just as Billy Boys Impeachement vote united Democrats…

        i can honestly say…and now shamly say…I was so angry about that vote..I would look at nothing bad about Billy Boy…nothing..I would hear nothing of it…

        what a naive young fool I was!!

        According to the DNC I am a Wife of a Taco Bowl Member!
    • Koko (2932 posts)
      Profile photo of Koko Donor

      47. Great discussion of differing views on Manny's OP….

      There’s nothing I can add except my observation that our Mainstream Corporate Media gave us Trump with their nonstop coverage of him and his endless Tweets and Twitters.  The more they pointed out every filthy thing that came out of his mouth and his past life of demeaning women, the more people paid attention to what else he was saying that resonated with them. The MSM barely covered Bernie and his Platform for Change because it appealed to so many Americans that he was in danger of winning the Election.  They were not going to tolerate that.

      That said, the Mainstream Corporate Media (with influence from Deep State) are the ones that I believe will now take him down. Their relentless  post-election coverage of him and the ongoing leaks from “Officials” and “Anonymous Sources Familiar With the Subject” from both the WaPo and NYT are feeding  the Cable Media frenzy, along with Hillary’s Pac and her loyalists.

      We shouldn’t forget that Trump is such a loose cannon that he is dangerous to the “Deep State.”  He rocks the boats of both Repubs and Dems.  He is harming the image of the U.S. in the eyes of our allies leading to a lack of confidence in American Stability that “The Greatest Country on Earth” is loosing it’s grip.  Nervous Global Investors could begin to pull their money out and move it elsewhere.  Wall Street and the Global Financial Complex don’t like instability and our US Economy is dependent, more than ever, on that Foreign Investment.  Trump is giving the appearance of someone who is dangerously out of control and rumors about his family’s ties and financial interests/dealings leaking out are making many, who don’t want the exposure, very nervous.

      —-
      So, my view is that he will be pressured to resign.  He’s too dangerous to be allowed to stay there much longer.  The Global Economy, Deep State along with Wall Street would feel much more comfortable with Pence.  They aren’t concerned, as we on the Left are, about Pence’s religious fundamentalism zealotry and his Far Right legislative leanings.  His calm demeanor will allow the Repubs push through all the backward legislation that we are so afraid of without much or any backlash.  And, remember that we have many Democrat Neolib/Neocons who would support Pence.

      I just can’t see him making it to 2018.

    • Marym625 (18695 posts)
      Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

      55. Bernie hasn't stated that

      Investigation, yes, removing him, no.

      Regardless, what pisses me off, is the call for investigation into everything under the sun with trump and absolutely nothing on the DNC and Hillary.

      Additionally, the GOP is actually growing.  Sadly. So I don’t know what good will come of a Pence presidency or removing the asswipe in there now.

      It’s a not a win, imo. We still have a GOP congress and religious zealot at the helm.

      And no investigation into stolen elections.

      948c8f248a "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
      • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
        Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

        75. I agree with Bernie

        But I can’t imagine him surviving an investigation.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
        • Marym625 (18695 posts)
          Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

          94. I agree with Bernie on most things

          Not all but most. And I have no problem whatsoever with an investigation. If it’s done, truly, without it being partisan.

          I just want the entire election investigated.

          I also agree with Bernie on bombing Syria:

          “The US must not get involved in “perpetual warfare in the Middle East,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday in explaining why he was one of the few senators to oppose the recent US missile strike on Syria.”

          “Asked about support for the strike from within the Democratic Party and even former Obama administration officials, Sanders said the Syria strike, as well as the US dropping one of its largest non-nuclear bombs in Afghanistan, were ineffective for problems that required a multilateral, diplomatic solution.”

          http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/16/politics/bernie-sanders-syria-strike-cnntv/

           

          948c8f248a "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
      • FanBoy (7740 posts)
        Profile photo of FanBoy

        78. i can't see his crime either, and it seems to me the drumbeat started on

        day one of his presidency or maybe a few weeks before, which is why it feels so phony to me.  the ptb can take out anyone they like more or less, and have.  but corollary to that – if they wanted trump out, how did he get into the running in the first place?  it’s not like he wasn’t a known quantity.

        they managed to keep sanders out.  if trumps so awful, how did he make it through the primaries?  the powers actually helped him get publicity and minimized his flaws in multiple ways, so what’s the game here?

        • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
          Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

          89. You don't this smells like obstruction of Justice?

          E,g,, https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/im-with-bernie-you/

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
        • Marym625 (18695 posts)
          Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

          107. I agree and disagree

          I believe they saw him as the easiest for her to beat.

          As far as his crimes, I don’t believe he’s innocent in many things. If thecourts had allowed it, he would have broken laws all over the place. He did.

          I don’t have a problem with an investigation. I have a problem with no investigation into the DNC and Hillary campaign stealing the primary. I have a problem with no investigation into war crimes Obama and bush committed. Etc.

          I believe trump is a lunatic criminal. I just believe trying to remove him because “Russia did it” will backfire

          948c8f248a "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
          • FanBoy (7740 posts)
            Profile photo of FanBoy

            119. oh, i'm sure he's done 'crimes'. what i'm not seeing is the criminal

            aspect of what’s been released to the public.  I see a lot of smoke being blown.

            yes, I expect they saw him as easy for her to beat.  question is what went wrong, assuming that was the reality

            • Marym625 (18695 posts)
              Profile photo of Marym625 Admin

              126. For them, I think, she went wrong.

              They saw she as more of a detriment than he. And it ended up, not as originally planned, but as finally planned.

              Yes, I agree with that

              948c8f248a "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
    • MrMickeysMom (1258 posts)
      Profile photo of MrMickeysMom Donor

      56. I don't bang on that THRILL drum as much as this, Manny…

      Trump’s inability to figure out what his role could be is obvious. The baboonery is also enjoyed by those waiting in the wings… The Republicans for thinking they can push forward non-stop war and draining the bath water, and the Democrats for being too stupid not keep themselves from doing what PUT US IN HERE in the first place!!!!

      Once again, everybody say it now…. THANKS, DNC!

      Once we have obvious signs of breaking away from those devoid of leadership, we will have a 3rd party. We better fucking do it, now… Then, you can giggle with all kinds of glee about Trump’s spiral down to Satan and Saddam…

      Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
    • Pacco Fransisco (3375 posts)
      Profile photo of Pacco Fransisco Moderator

      60. ~

      I am L0oniX  Fuck David and his pin head DLC 3rd way herd of goats
    • doh1304 (162 posts)
      Profile photo of doh1304

      66. I sympathize with your position, but there are 2 reasons I must disagree:

      The first is Mike Pence. Mic drop. Trump is an unfocused kleptocrat, there is a limit to the long term damage that he will do. Pence is a christian dominionist. Theocratic terror states accept no bounds. Even nuclear war is not an argument – a religious absolutist is more likely to destroy the world than an incompetent.

      The second is who will benefit from impeachment. The Republican establishment and corporate Democrats. Democratic weakness and wishful thinking is hiding Republican weakness. They are having a split as deep and as weakening as the Democrats’. If Trump is impeached the big business Republicans win and after a few months of griping the Trump supporters will give up and return to the fold and the Republican party will be stronger. Meanwhile the corporate Democrats will claim victory, making them look like a legitimate opposition and therefore harder to defeat.

      • arendt (1426 posts)
        Profile photo of arendt

        98. Yes. Impeachment is short term pleasure that brings long term pain.

        The very word “thrilling” gives away what emotional manipulation is being deployed here.

        Yeah, go way out on that limb to get that chocolate bar. Oops, the limb broke. Who could have possibly predicted that?

        • davidgmills (4484 posts)
          Profile photo of davidgmills

          105. Does it ever. And especially this soon in the President's first term.

          It basically is election nullification without cause or right.

          Right now there is not even a specific charge against Trump.

          Paul Thompson, upthread, suggested Obstruction of Justice as a possible charge, but as I pointed out upthread, Trump has nominated a special prosecutor who will have access to all of Comey’s files and the special prosecutor will be doing his own investigation.

          So exactly how is Trump obstructing justice if he is doing nothing to thwart the special prosecutor’s appointment and investigation?

          French Revolution; not secession.
          • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
            Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

            130. If I rob a bank, then return the money when caught

            I’m still guilty of bank robbery.

            "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
            • davidgmills (4484 posts)
              Profile photo of davidgmills

              135. But if you don't rob it, and it is instead Seth Rich, you shouldn't go to jail.

              People keep asking for evidence about the Russians.  We don’t get any.  But we are getting the steady inflow of evidence it was Seth Rich who leaked the emails, just as we thought back last summer.

              Hope he gets a monument.

              French Revolution; not secession.
              • MannyGoldstein (1924 posts)
                Profile photo of Manny Goldstein Admin

                136. ???

                "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
    • Ohio Barbarian (2256 posts)
      Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

      111. I am convinced Trump is doomed by himself, and there's absolutely no point

      in bemoaning his fall. I, for one, will celebrate it. Since I’m in a good mood, I will merely describe the Child-in-Chief as a boor and a turd. It’s always good to see people like that fall hard. And it’s going to happen whether you or I or anyone else on this board wants it too or not, so we may as well enjoy it.

      I kind of hope I lose my propose bet with Monsieur Mills; it would be nice to see the Republican Party reduced to a discredited minority and that would definitely happen if Trump lasted until 2020.

      I just think Trump’s too stupid to last that long. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s gone by Christmas. We’ll see what position Pence will be in, but I don’t think it’s going to be a very strong one.

      On edit, I think you’re right about our future as progressives. Helps keep me sane, it does.

      "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
    • Flygirl (2407 posts)
      Profile photo of Flygirl

      113. With all the Daily "BOMBSHELLS"

      how could anyone survive..that’s a lot of  bombs…

      According to the DNC I am a Wife of a Taco Bowl Member!
    • Tierra y Libertad (1363 posts)
      Profile photo of Tierra y Libertad Donor

      129. The poor fellow will have to return to a life of poverty and hunger.

      My heart bleeds for him….or maybe not.

       

      But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine