Impeachment not going so well?

[Dumpington]

jomar writes: "Obama inherited a recession. He presided over an ongoing recovery that Trump is enjoying."

The U.S. economy moves in cycles - it always has. Had Barack Obama done absolutely nothing our economy would have soon righted itself. Instead, Obama listened to Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" advice, and used it to greatly expand government spending at a cost of an additional $10-trillion to our nation's debt. Barack's economic policies resulted in eight-years of mostly stagnant growth that President Trump would run roughshod over after taking office with a booming economy that Obama now desperately wishes that he could take credit for (but nobody believes it's really his!)

"So far he has succeeded in not reversing the economic recovery that began under the Obama administration."

Not ONE Democratic Party presidential candidate is attacking President Trump's handling of the economy, or claiming that Obama's policies are responsible for it. Perhaps YOU should angrily insist that they start doing that, jomar!

"Republicans might need to take care they aren’t seen as not taking the constitution seriously."

The U.S. Constitution says that House Democrats CAN use impeachment for any reason they want to attack the president, but it will be the U.S. Senate that determines whether or not the partisan House's charges have any validity, and if they're simply an unsuccessful clown-show instead.

DraggonStone writes: "This is the best impeachment ever!"

It'll get even BETTER when the U.S. Senate trial embarrasses Adam Schiff & Jerry Nadler's crude coup-attempt by decisively shooting-it-down!

 

[YDB95]

Doesn't change anything. Senate won't convict him.

At least history will show that we tried to do the right thing.

 

[JackLuis]

How do you think the voters will honour the Rethuglicunts for giving Trumpypants a pass?

2020, Elections have consequences!

 

[moonflasher]

This will be the last thing the Democrats will win for a very long time. The impeachment vote won't pass the senate,and Trump will win a second term as OUR president.

Please be sure to come back and tell me how right I was

 

[YDB95]

How do you think the voters will honour the Rethuglicunts for giving Trumpypants a pass?

Depends on just how shameless they are about it. But given how fired up the Democratic base is right now, I wouldn't be resting too easy if I were a republican from anywhere less than R+10 or so.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Yay for Impeachment week. Eleven more judges cleared for Senate confirmation, Defense authorization approved, USMCA coming to the floor tomorrow, and POTUS up six points in the latest Gallup poll. #winning

Fortunately, your man is still behind.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx

 

[BotanyBoy]

Didn't Trump increase the budget ( increased Military spending)? Is not the budget spending?

Didn't Trump put in place a tax cut?

Isn;t Trump demanding billions for his wall, if that comes to fruition, isn't that "spending"?

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

No it's not spending it's asking for money....because he doesn't control taxing and or spending.

So by the two above I would say Trump does affect spending.

You mean the two where you are demonstrably wrong??

Trump isn't in control of nor is he responsible for taxing and spending.

POTUS simply doesn't have the authority.

He can affect it by asking for spending but the call is totally out of his hands.

By doing the above, Trump has added to the debt, just like Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson all did before him.

He didn't do any of the above.

None of the Presidents before him did either.

POTUS doesn't have control or authority (and thus responsibility) for taxing/spending/budgeting. That's all on the HoR.

 

[BotanyBoy]

How do you think the voters will honour the Rethuglicunts for giving Trumpypants a pass?

A pass on what??

The temper tantrum (D)'s are throwing for their fee fees?? LOL

The liberals and moderates like myself are going to give them another 4 years in the WH and probably take the HoR away from you too.

2020, Elections have consequences!

Yes and so do hissy fits from the left over not getting their way.

Ask the UK "progressives" how their temper tantrum worked out for them.

 

[jomar]

The U.S. economy moves in cycles - it always has. Had Barack Obama done absolutely nothing our economy would have soon righted itself. Instead, Obama listened to Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" advice, and used it to greatly expand government spending at a cost of an additional $10-trillion to our nation's debt. Barack's economic policies resulted in eight-years of mostly stagnant growth that President Trump would run roughshod over after taking office with a booming economy that Obama now desperately wishes that he could take credit for (but nobody believes it's really his!)

Cherry picked revisionist history. Got it.

Not ONE Democratic Party presidential candidate is attacking President Trump's handling of the economy, or claiming that Obama's policies are responsible for it. Perhaps YOU should angrily insist that they start doing that, jomar!

You’re forgetting the tariffs, about which all but one economist in the world said they were a bad idea. Guess which economist Trump hired and whose advice he took.

The U.S. Constitution says that House Democrats CAN use impeachment for any reason they want to attack the president, but it will be the U.S. Senate that determines whether or not the partisan House's charges have any validity, and if they're simply an unsuccessful clown-show instead.

Not for any reason. They held off of the clear obstruction of justice found by mueller, but then, emboldened, Trump finally did impeachable acts that they simply couldn’t ignore. Most congressional republicans know what trump that did and he deserves impeachment, but they’ve bought into the cult of Trump and are protecting him for purely political reasons...note McConnell and Graham comment on how they plan to have a non-trial.

 

[Deleted member 1215945]

To Hell With dRUMPF!

This is the best impeachment ever!

F*CK dRUMPF, AND F*CK ALL THE GOD DAMNED REPUBLIKKKANSS. THEY ALL LOVE TO SUCK dRUMPF’S RUSSIAN MONEY TIT TO STAY IN THEIR PHONY BALONEY JOBS

I HOPE THEY ALL EAT RANCID SMEGMA AND GO TO HELL!


dRUMPF=THE ANTICHRIST


RESIST!

 

[Dumpington]

jomar writes: "Cherry picked revisionist history. Got it."

TRANSLATION: Everybody already knows about President Obama's weak handling of the U.S. economy - QUIT bringing it up!

"You’re forgetting the tariffs, about which all but one economist in the world said they were a bad idea. Guess which economist Trump hired and whose advice he took."

Yes, tariffs are a form of tax-increase (which Democrats usually LOVE) - but they're ALSO pretty much the ONLY WAY to bring a foreign nation to the table to re-negotiate unfair trading practices! China is hurting a whole lot more than is the United States with Trump's ongoing tariffs against that nation's products! China's only real hope was that the Democrats might defeat Trump (and remove him from office), so that Chinese goods could continue flooding the U.S., but now they know that's NOT going to happen.

"Trump finally did impeachable acts that they simply couldn’t ignore."

Baloney - and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even admitted as much when she stated in her news conference that the House Democrats have been planning to impeach Trump for over three-years now! They were simply looking for an excuse - ANY EXCUSE! And when the U.S. Senate shoots this thing down (which they will), there will be a voter backlash AGAINST the Democratic Party for putting our nation through this silly-ass clown-show!

 

[YDB95]

Cherry picked revisionist history. Got it.

Not only revisionist, but completely debunked. If I had a dollar for every time Dump made a claim that I or someone else had already explained was false, I'd be driving a Ferrari.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

No it's not spending it's asking for money....because he doesn't control taxing and or spending.

Trump presented a budget to the house in 2017, asking for 4.094 Trillion dollars
He spent 4.1094 trillion dollars, and the budget deficit was 779 million dollars.

Now you can say what you want, Trumps budget, Trumps spending. Yes approved by the house, but asked for by Trump.

Trump isn't in control

.......................I couldn't resist...

of nor is he responsible for taxing and spending.

The HoR approves the budget after that it is Trumps budget. Trumps spending. As you say below.

simply doesn't have the authority.

He can affect it by asking for spending but the call is totally out of his hands.

Thank you for the above, that is exactly what i said earlier, he asked to increase spending in defence. He asked for approval of a tax cut. So he totally owns that, just as much as he owns the economy.

doesn't have control or authority (and thus responsibility) for taxing/spending/budgeting. That's all on the HoR.

By the position of his office he is required to present a budget to fund government, all the HoR has it the ability to say if he gets the money, what it may be spent on ( that is what a budget it, the spending document), so by default he is responsible.

 

[jomar]

jomar writes: "Cherry picked revisionist history. Got it."

TRANSLATION: Everybody already knows about President Obama's weak handling of the U.S. economy - QUIT bringing it up!

"You’re forgetting the tariffs, about which all but one economist in the world said they were a bad idea. Guess which economist Trump hired and whose advice he took."

Yes, tariffs are a form of tax-increase (which Democrats usually LOVE) - but they're ALSO pretty much the ONLY WAY to bring a foreign nation to the table to re-negotiate unfair trading practices! China is hurting a whole lot more than is the United States with Trump's ongoing tariffs against that nation's products! China's only real hope was that the Democrats might defeat Trump (and remove him from office), so that Chinese goods could continue flooding the U.S., but now they know that's NOT going to happen.

"Trump finally did impeachable acts that they simply couldn’t ignore."

Baloney - and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even admitted as much when she stated in her news conference that the House Democrats have been planning to impeach Trump for over three-years now! They were simply looking for an excuse - ANY EXCUSE! And when the U.S. Senate shoots this thing down (which they will), there will be a voter backlash AGAINST the Democratic Party for putting our nation through this silly-ass clown-show!

LOL, I think you’re a Russian bot like DawnONight, maybe are even his alt.

Not only revisionist, but completely debunked. If I had a dollar for every time Dump made a claim that I or someone else had already explained was false, I'd be driving a Ferrari.

A Russian bot, I say!

 

[Cubantripod]

At least history will show that we tried to do the right thing.

I fear that history will also show that this is the point that guaranteed that there will be other Trumps. We've learned nothing at all.

 

[YDB95]

I fear that history will also show that this is the point that guaranteed that there will be other Trumps. We've learned nothing at all.

There will always be bigots and they will always find an audience, but we can beat them if we get off our asses and vote. I wasn't crazy about Hillary Clinton either, but if I could get past my reservations and vote for her, so could everyone else.

 

[Cubantripod]

There will always be bigots and they will always find an audience, but we can beat them if we get off our asses and vote. I wasn't crazy about Hillary Clinton either, but if I could get past my reservations and vote for her, so could everyone else.

Using one of the "isms" is intellectually lazy and part of the reason we have Trump. We've had a steady decline in jobs from middle America since the 1970s. These people have been screaming for help and no one listens. We scream "racist" because it's a simple way to dismiss them and continue to reap the benefits of this shift in our economy. Trump comes along and says "we're going to bring those jobs back." Whether he can or can't is not the issue. The point is he listened and kept saying "make America great again." To these people this means when America was the heart of the manufacturing world. It doesn't matter what else he says because people will always vote with their wallets. These people were never going to not for Hillary. She represents the very establishment they've come to resent and she even acknowledged these types of people in her jacket of deplorable speech.

We've gotten to the point where half of the country is pissed off that they've been ignored and they finally got together and sent a message. We are not going to solve the problem by pretending it's something else like racism instead of jobs. Brexit and Trump were not a coincidence. They mark a shift away from globalism. Three years later we haven't proven we've learned anything. To top it off, the fact that our country doesn't elect a president by popular vote forces us to have to address this problem, if we're going to move forward. Otherwise we will be stuck in this same rut.

 

[YDB95]

Using one of the "isms" is intellectually lazy and part of the reason we have Trump. We've had a steady decline in jobs from middle America since the 1970s. These people have been screaming for help and no one listens.

I don't think that's quite fair. The left has been pushing for decades for a return to progressive taxation, a strong safety net, living wages, etc., and the very people who are hurt most by what you describe are also the ones who have been the most insistent in voting against all that. Why? Partly because the right wing shit machine has done a fantastic job of painting it all "socialist" - but also partly due to good old fashioned bigotry. Say what you will about the Republicans, they have done a fantastic job of connecting with the common man and woman, and marketing themselves as the exact opposite of what they really are. What's the secret ingredient? The most obvious candidate is indeed racism. Whether that's intellectually lazy or not, I don't see a better answer.

We scream "racist" because it's a simple way to dismiss them and continue to reap the benefits of this shift in our economy.

But is it really? Or is it a perfectly rational reaction to the unavoidable fact that these people have consistently voted in droves for the party that has done all it could to exacerbate the problem, and which has done so through decades of racist/sexist/homophobic/islamophobic dogwhistle politics?

Trump comes along and says "we're going to bring those jobs back." Whether he can or can't is not the issue. The point is he listened and kept saying "make America great again." To these people this means when America was the heart of the manufacturing world. It doesn't matter what else he says because people will always vote with their wallets. These people were never going to not for Hillary. She represents the very establishment they've come to resent and she even acknowledged these types of people in her jacket of deplorable speech.

Oh, but it DOES matter what else he said. You cannot lay his win at the feet of one thing he said and pretend the rest didn't exist. Now, it is true that neither you nor I know for certain just which part of his message persuaded his supporters to vote for him, but you can't rule out that it was the naked appeals to bigotry just because it's nice to think it wasn't that.

We've gotten to the point where half of the country is pissed off that they've been ignored and they finally got together and sent a message. We are not going to solve the problem by pretending it's something else like racism instead of jobs. Brexit and Trump were not a coincidence. They mark a shift away from globalism. Three years later we haven't proven we've learned anything. To top it off, the fact that our country doesn't elect a president by popular vote forces us to have to address this problem, if we're going to move forward. Otherwise we will be stuck in this same rut.

You make some interesting points, but it just isn't reasonable to pretend the most openly bigoted presidential candidate in decades won for reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry. That may not have been the only reason, but it sure as heck was one reason. There's no way around that.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: " If I had a dollar for every time Dump made a claim that I or someone else had already explained was false, I'd be driving a Ferrari."

This, coming from the same guy who praised Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger for teaching the Ku Kux Klan wives all about using abortion to control the black population! And then you go and argue that Robert Byrd only joined the KKK to teach them about the importance of passing national health care legislation (e.g. ObamaCare).

You live in a fantasy world!

"...it just isn't reasonable to pretend the most openly bigoted presidential candidate in decades won for reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry."

In your world, YDB95, black people dependent on food stamps = GOOD, while black people working and making good money = BAD, because you (like Senator Robert Byrd) prefer to see black people permanently dependent on receiving federal government hand-outs to survive, thus forcing them to vote for Democrats indefinately! Trump is destroying your world!

jomar writes: "LOL, I think you’re a Russian bot like DawnONight, maybe are even his alt."

And you are unintentionally HILARIOUS, jomar - and I do believe that you’re very possibly a Russian bot like dan_c00000 - or possibly even his alt?

 

[moonflasher]

F*CK dRUMPF, AND F*CK ALL THE GOD DAMNED REPUBLIKKKANSS. THEY ALL LOVE TO SUCK dRUMPF’S RUSSIAN MONEY TIT TO STAY IN THEIR PHONY BALONEY JOBS

I HOPE THEY ALL EAT RANCID SMEGMA AND GO TO HELL!


dRUMPF=THE ANTICHRIST


RESIST!

Its people like you that make me smile knowing you've 5 more years of tearful nights crying yourself to sleep .

 

[YDB95]

Its people like you that make me smile knowing you've 5 more years of tearful nights crying yourself to sleep .

That says far more about you than it does about any of Trump's detractors. #CrueltyIsThePoint

 

[The_Trouvere]

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

No it's not spending it's asking for money....because he doesn't control taxing and or spending.



You mean the two where you are demonstrably wrong??

Trump isn't in control of nor is he responsible for taxing and spending.

POTUS simply doesn't have the authority.

He can affect it by asking for spending but the call is totally out of his hands.



He didn't do any of the above.

None of the Presidents before him did either.

POTUS doesn't have control or authority (and thus responsibility) for taxing/spending/budgeting. That's all on the HoR.

Regardless of that the United States Constitution says, the President has the most important role to play in economic policy. The President proposes economic policy. Congress can approve or disapprove. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump proposed increases in the military budget and tax cuts given mainly to the rich. Each time Congress, to its discredit, approved.

As a result, the national debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has increased from 32% in 1980, the year Jimmy Carter left office, to 106% now.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes approved by the house, but asked for by Trump.

all the HoR has it the ability to say if he gets the money, what it may be spent on

Putting the HoR in charge, just like the law says.

so by default he is responsible.

No, the buck stops with congress, not the WH. They have the ultimate authority on the matter thus the responsibility.

If the HoR gives POTUS whatever he wants that doesn't change the responsibility to POTUS. Not even a tiny bit, Congress still owns that.

Regardless of that the United States Constitution says,

Yea....reality be damned!!

the President has the most important role to play in economic policy. The President proposes economic policy. Congress can approve or disapprove.

Congress can also alter and shove what they say up his ass or not pass anything.

There is a whole resolution portion to the process for all the bickering and fighting over who gets what money to get sorted out.

So his role ain't all that important compared to the role congress plays nor does he have any authority in the matter, congress does.

 

[1Diver2]

what happened to the clear evidence of collusion anyway?
Do any of you feel silly for going all in on that bandwagon ? Let down by your party maybe?
How do you go from enemy of the sate to he's a poo poo head and we want him out and still stand in support?

 

[phrodeau]

what happened to the clear evidence of collusion anyway?
Do any of you feel silly for going all in on that bandwagon ? Let down by your party maybe?
How do you go from enemy of the sate to he's a poo poo head and we want him out and still stand in support?

In case you didn’t know, there were hundreds of contacts between Trump associates and Russian operatives, and they have tried to cover up every one.

https://themoscow************/expla...rs-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/