Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hypothetical reflections on current talk regarding the fall elections, here.

Posit the Dems take control of the House in the 2018 elections.

1) Can they avoid bringing articles of impeachment against Trump, since 71% of their base supports this action?
2) Should they do so, how will their inability to achieve conviction in the Senate rebound on the elections of 2020?
3) What lessons can we draw from the GOP's failed impeachment of Clinton (that would be William Jefferson Clinton) in 1998?

Extra Credit Question:

How much would you wager that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians actually exists and will be uncovered in the current special counsel investigation?
 
mezzrow said:
Hypothetical reflections on current talk regarding the fall elections, here.

Posit the Dems take control of the House in the 2018 elections.

1) Can they avoid bringing articles of impeachment against Trump, since 71% of their base supports this action?
2) Should they do so, how will their inability to achieve conviction in the Senate rebound on the elections of 2020?
3) What lessons can we draw from the GOP's failed impeachment of Clinton (that would be William Jefferson Clinton) in 1998?

Extra Credit Question:

How much would you wager that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians actually exists and will be uncovered in the current special counsel investigation?
Click to expand...

1) They certainly should avoid it, barring some bombshell from Mueller that very likely won't come. The American public has a short attention span. Benghazi, IRS, Russia, etc. Most Americans don't support impeachment hearings and there isn't any substantive basis for them anyway. The spectator part of me would like to see it because it'd be entertaining and it'd probably hurt the left pretty badly. But it'd be bad for the country, so I hope that doesn't happen.

2) Barring some huge development, impeachment proceedings over what we know right now would probably ensure Trump's reelection, in my opinion.

3) Don't wear out the public's patience and spend their money long after they stop caring. Congress should have censured Clinton and moved on. Of course, in today's political/social climate, you could make a strong argument that Clinton should have been forced to resign.

Extra Credit: $0. There is really only modest smoke of collusion, and no fire. This is an example of what I'm talking about above. Democrats should be hammering Trump on hiring total imbeciles and asking "If he can't competently run his own WH, why do we want him running the country?" Instead they're screaming at the sky, calling him Hitler, and pretending he's personally coordinating with Putin to bring down HRC.
 
mezzrow said:
Hypothetical reflections on current talk regarding the fall elections, here.

Posit the Dems take control of the House in the 2018 elections.

1) Can they avoid bringing articles of impeachment against Trump, since 71% of their base supports this action?
2) Should they do so, how will their inability to achieve conviction in the Senate rebound on the elections of 2020?
3) What lessons can we draw from the GOP's failed impeachment of Clinton (that would be William Jefferson Clinton) in 1998?

Extra Credit Question:

How much would you wager that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians actually exists and will be uncovered in the current special counsel investigation?
Click to expand...
1) no, if they regain House think Dems will bring up impeachment
2) Think failure would rebound some but 2020 will still depend more on quality of Dem candidate and the state of economy ie whether Trump voters feel he has delivered on what they wanted in 2016 enough to turn out and how the “pox on both sides” voters feel.
3) partisans will rally to their side, others will just wish the whole damn lot sink into an ocean never to be heard of again.

Bonus q
Think the Trump Tower meeting was cast iron evidence of attempted collusion - even Don Jnr isn’t dumb enough to believe that Russians were willing to give him dirt on Clinton with no strings attached, there would always be a price to pay for even if just fear of exposure leading to softening their stance on issues but more likely sanctions relief. Did some, say Flynn, make that deal explicit no idea but they don’t seem the smartest bunch so possible. Think evidence of obstruction or money laundering more likely.

Edit, what is your own view Mezz, after all you live in a swing state so your votes count more than most!
 
Last edited:
mezzrow said:
Hypothetical reflections on current talk regarding the fall elections, here.

Posit the Dems take control of the House in the 2018 elections.

1) Can they avoid bringing articles of impeachment against Trump, since 71% of their base supports this action?
2) Should they do so, how will their inability to achieve conviction in the Senate rebound on the elections of 2020?
3) What lessons can we draw from the GOP's failed impeachment of Clinton (that would be William Jefferson Clinton) in 1998?

Extra Credit Question:

How much would you wager that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians actually exists and will be uncovered in the current special counsel investigation?
Click to expand...

Your last question will determine the answers to all the other questions.
I'm not sure there'll be obvious evidence of collusion but I do think there will be plenty of evidence of illegal business practices with Russians. There will also be clear evidence of obstruction of justice (with the aim of hiding these practices)
This will be enough to impeach if the Dems take the house. I'd imagine the impeachment proceedings will be pretty damning and any republican senators that stand by him will suffer in 2020.

My biggest fear is what he might do to distract the masses from impeachment proceedings
 
Pettifogger said:
1) They certainly should avoid it, barring some bombshell from Mueller that very likely won't come. The American public has a short attention span. Benghazi, IRS, Russia, etc. Most Americans don't support impeachment hearings and there isn't any substantive basis for them anyway. The spectator part of me would like to see it because it'd be entertaining and it'd probably hurt the left pretty badly. But it'd be bad for the country, so I hope that doesn't happen.

2) Barring some huge development, impeachment proceedings over what we know right now would probably ensure Trump's reelection, in my opinion.

3) Don't wear out the public's patience and spend their money long after they stop caring. Congress should have censured Clinton and moved on. Of course, in today's political/social climate, you could make a strong argument that Clinton should have been forced to resign.

Extra Credit: $0. There is really only modest smoke of collusion, and no fire. This is an example of what I'm talking about above. Democrats should be hammering Trump on hiring total imbeciles and asking "If he can't competently run his own WH, why do we want him running the country?" Instead they're screaming at the sky, calling him Hitler, and pretending he's personally coordinating with Putin to bring down HRC.
Click to expand...
What are your views on the Don Jnr Trump tower meeting to obtain dirt on Clinton? What would need to be presented for you to believe there is fire?
 
Pettifogger said:
If you are saying the 1.6 offered matches the FY18 request, I agree.

But I've never seen a 10 year commitment of that funding from the left, as I think you originally set forth.

I did note the alleged deal floated by Schumer and discussed by Cornyn, that he subsequently withdrew, may have included something more in that range, but I've never found anything but comments from Cornyn to confirm that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. That bipartisan deal gave him everything he wants for FY18 including DACA which both parties want...including Trump.

I think it should be noted that it would be irresponsible and wreckless to commit to an $18 bill ten year plan without meeting the condtions outlined right after the line where the $1.6 billion was appropriated.

What if they find it will be less expensive to achieve? More expensive to achieve? What if the EPA report creates problems? (Like that would happen with Pruitt...just sayin). Etc.

There is a thing called compromise in politics and I don't see how this couldn't be viewed as a reasonable compromise. Trump got everything he wanted in writing except a 10 year commitment.

I saw you mention campaign promise with regards to the wall. Is a $1.6 billion commitment in FY18 not meeting that promise? The only way I don't see it as a promise not fulfilled is that Americans are paying for it.
 
mezzrow said:
Hypothetical reflections on current talk regarding the fall elections, here.

Posit the Dems take control of the House in the 2018 elections.

1) Can they avoid bringing articles of impeachment against Trump, since 71% of their base supports this action?
2) Should they do so, how will their inability to achieve conviction in the Senate rebound on the elections of 2020?
3) What lessons can we draw from the GOP's failed impeachment of Clinton (that would be William Jefferson Clinton) in 1998?

Extra Credit Question:

How much would you wager that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians actually exists and will be uncovered in the current special counsel investigation?
Click to expand...

1) Absolutely they can avoid impeaching the POTUS. Absent a report from Mueller with solid evidence and recommendation, I don't believe a Dem-controlled House will move forward with articles of impeachment.
2) Not sure "A" necessarily leads to failure in "B". Depends upon the evidence from the investigation and, to a lesser degree, public opinion at the time.
3) Lesson from Clinton impeachment? Don't try to impeach a popular POTUS who lies about a blowjob.

Extra Credit: Evidence of collusion already exists. We see it in the DJTJ emails. Can/will Mueller recommend indictment on it is another matter.
 
LinekersLegs said:
What are your views on the Don Jnr Trump tower meeting to obtain dirt on Clinton? What would need to be presented for you to believe there is fire?
Click to expand...

I think the TT meeting is probably evidence that the campaign would have been willing to collude with Russian actors to get oppo on Hillary. Of course, at this stage, it looks like Hillary engaged an oppo firm that may well have gotten information from Russia.

Is going to a meeting to get dirt from people who are probably tied to the Kremlin, but instead getting an anti-Magnitsky act pitch, evidence of collusion? I'd say no. It's evidence of stupidity. The fact that the campaign listened to an anti-Magnitsky pitch at all is embarrassing. It may show that the campaign was reckless enough that they would have colluded, but I think the evidence of the TT meeting makes it less likely any real collusion ever took place.
 
ilikecheese said:
Perhaps. That bipartisan deal gave him everything he wants for FY18 including DACA which both parties want...including Trump.

I think it should be noted that it would be irresponsible and wreckless to commit to an $18 bill ten year plan without meeting the condtions outlined right after the line where the $1.6 billion was appropriated.

What if they find it will be less expensive to achieve? More expensive to achieve? What if the EPA report creates problems? (Like that would happen with Pruitt...just sayin). Etc.

There is a thing called compromise in politics and I don't see how this couldn't be viewed as a reasonable compromise. Trump got everything he wanted in writing except a 10 year commitment.

I saw you mention campaign promise with regards to the wall. Is a $1.6 billion commitment in FY18 not meeting that promise? The only way I don't see it as a promise not fulfilled is that Americans are paying for it.
Click to expand...

A lot of what you're saying is reasonable. But expecting Trump to take on faith that a contingent that absolutely loathes him is going to continue to fund his project after the first year isn't reasonable. Would you have expected Obama to take that deal in some alternate universe? Of course not, because he definitely couldn't have trusted Republicans.
 
mezzrow said:
Hypothetical reflections on current talk regarding the fall elections, here.

Posit the Dems take control of the House in the 2018 elections.

1) Can they avoid bringing articles of impeachment against Trump, since 71% of their base supports this action?
2) Should they do so, how will their inability to achieve conviction in the Senate rebound on the elections of 2020?
3) What lessons can we draw from the GOP's failed impeachment of Clinton (that would be William Jefferson Clinton) in 1998?

Extra Credit Question:

How much would you wager that evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians actually exists and will be uncovered in the current special counsel investigation?
Click to expand...

1. See below.
2. Unable to respond based on assumption of no conviction.
3. Impeaching a president and not getting a conviction is a waste of time.
EC. I would guess that Mueller is going down the money laundering and obstruction of justice rabbit holes. Collusion is a pretty broad term. I also think that if Mueller is doing his job that there are other avenues he's going down that aren't being reported...ie Saudi Arabia. To answer #1 properly it will all depend on how the investigation plays out in the coming months. If more charges are brought against the likes of Kushner or others in the inner circle then who knows.
 
Pettifogger said:
A lot of what you're saying is reasonable. But expecting Trump to take on faith that a contingent that absolutely loathes him is going to continue to fund his project after the first year isn't reasonable. Would you have expected Obama to take that deal in some alternate universe? Of course not, because he definitely couldn't have trusted Republicans.
Click to expand...

So compromises no longer exist in politics? He literally got everything he wanted. I don't see how that proposal falls short of a massive win for Trump.
 
ilikecheese said:
So compromises no longer exist in politics? He literally got everything he wanted. I don't see how that proposal falls short of a massive win for Trump.
Click to expand...

They don't really exist as they used to, no. And I don't think it's accurate to say he got everything he wanted. If Trump ever merely sought 1.6m for the wall (I know that's the DHS request), and then came back later and said "oh that's not enough I need a firm commitment for the remaining billions," then you're correct. But I doubt that's the case. I suspect Trump's position has been he wants a commitment on the wall/border security as part of any resolution of DACA, and just a fraction of the wall would be a non-starter.

If you see border security/wall as a necessary accompaniment to any pathway to citizenship for a couple million people, why would you take a fraction of what you think you need to accomplish that objective? Democrats would get essentially everything they want now, while 90% of what you want is deferred and can be subsequently obstructed. If you're a Trump voter, wouldn't you be pissed if the "master negotiator" did that deal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top