Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[BasilValentine]

Sorry for being unclear.  When I said "I don't think it does" I was referring to impeachment.

Oh.

Whether it does or not doesn't much matter at the moment because the rest of his fellow parasites will protect him

[Todd]

I also believe floating trial balloons like Trump just did violates the oath of office and justifies impeachment.

Which specific high crime(s) or misdemeanor(s) is/are committed when trial balloons are floated?

I wonder if Trump has contemplated the broadly held view that the assassination of dictators like Xi and Putin by their citizenry is ethically justified

You are one heckuva an internet tough guy. 

[Karl Henning]

His one and only saving gracing.... 

Q

Whoa! An actual doctor has certified that his health is extraordinary!

[Que]

Whoa! An actual doctor has certified that his health is extraordinary!

He doesn't look fit to me.... And there is nothing wrong with my eyesight. 

[Karl Henning]

Fair disclosure:  this is a Massachusetts-born liberal columnist:

We didn't fully realize just how hard it is to be president until we had one with no idea of what it takes to do the job.

We didn't appreciate having a government that was relatively honest and free of venality until we had one riddled with corruption.

And we didn't know how wildly irresponsible Republican criticisms of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were until the GOP fell silent in the face of abuse after abuse from [El Presidente Tupé].

[BasilValentine]

You are one heckuva an internet tough guy.

Tough guy? Huh? I was raising an ethical issue: Do you believe it is ethical to depose or assassinate despots? I was hinting that I'd truly like to hear Trump's answer to that. And yours.

As for high crimes and misdemeanors, I would say egregiously violating ones oath of office qualifies. Alternatively, one could just apply the recent Trumpian logic and take away his office first and then figure out a reason later. 

[Todd]

I was raising an ethical issue.

Is that what you were doing?

As for high crimes and misdemeanors, I would say egregiously violating ones oath of office qualifies.

Again, I ask, what specific high crime or misdemeanor would be cited in the Article of Impeachment.  Supposedly violating the oath of office seems vague, nebulous, and partisan, as opposed to legal and constitutional.

[Todd]

10 years after financial crisis, Senate prepares to roll back banking rules  (And yes, some Dems are on board.)

--

Trump says Canada and Mexico will only escape new tariffs after NAFTA concessions

[Karl Henning]

"Once upon a time" = in the pre-Trump-sycophancy era.

"Well, I think the tariffs are a terrible idea. I'm a conservative. I'm a free-market conservative. I believe in free trade," said Linda Chavez (a veteran of the Ronald Reagan administration) on CNN's "State of the Union," adding: "And I think what he's done is perhaps the most reckless thing he's done since becoming president because if he is successful, if, in fact, he does slap these tariffs on, we've already heard from the U.K., from Germany, from Canada, from others who actually sell us steel more steel than China, which is what he seems to be most upset about. We're going to end up with a trade war and while he thinks we can win a trade war that is not the case." Once upon a time, that's how most Republicans sounded.

[BasilValentine]

Is that what you were doing?

Yes. Yes it was. That's what moral preeners do, isn't it? I know what I would say if I heard some Russian citizen had assassinated Putin. I would say "Good!," and then spend the day gleefully celebrating. I'm wondering what Trump would say.

Again, I ask, what specific high crime or misdemeanor would be cited in the Article of Impeachment.  Supposedly violating the oath of office seems vague, nebulous, and partisan, as opposed to legal and constitutional.

When one consistently advocates violating basic constitutional protections like freedom of the press, one is not upholding and defending the constitution, one is advocating its abrogation. How is that partisan? None of this is about politics for me. It's all moral preening. It offends my ethical sensibilities.

[Karl Henning]

Emphasis mine.

[El Tupé] is clearly a creature of ignorance. No other sort of man would be capable of writing these sentences: "When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. When we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore — we win big. It's easy!" There isn't a serious economist or businessman in these United States who really believes that. But it may sound good on talk radio and social media, and [El Tupé] is at the very least clever enough to understand that his core partisans are ignorant enough about the underlying issues that their sense of tribal loyalty is almost certain to overwhelm whatever critical thinking they may bring to the question.

[El Tupé] doesn't know much, but he knows enough to know that that doesn't much matter, at least as a question of the crude calculation of his own self-interest — the only subject to which he gives serious thought.

Call it rational ignorance with a vengeance, rational ignorance with malice aforethought.

[Karl Henning]

President Clueless brings us bad economics and bad policy.

The beginning of the [El Tupé] administration's rollout of long-promised protectionist measures for the U.S. steel and aluminum industry has been Beltway comic opera as [El Tupé's] lightly informed economic enthusiasms interact chaotically with his staff's attempts to keep him from indulging his worst impulses too deeply.

It's not like nobody saw this coming: Trade protectionism — crony capitalism for well-connected and politically sensitive firms and industries — is bad policy, but it is one of the few issues about which [El Tupé] has been consistent in his public statements going back decades, to the 1980s at least. He ran on a protectionist agenda and specifically named steel imports as a source of irritation.

[Baron Scarpia]

I specifically suggested impeachment, and only impeachment, for Trump. Assassination by their own citizens, I asserted, is justified for despots like Xi and Putin.

I think you are wrong about Trump, since his chatter always goes to the same place. Anyone who thinks Trump wouldn't abolish the free press, jail journalists and political opponents, and make himself dictator for life tomorrow, if he could get away with it, is a poor judge of character. He is more than sufficiently evil. Fortunately, he is also a coward. His decades long criminal career has consisted primarily of craven financial crimes he could pay his way out of. His evil is that of an intestinal parasite, not a predator.

The problem isn't Trump, the problem is people voted for Trump. The goal is for Trump and his enabler to get voted out. If he gets impeached for what sounds like a technicality (emoluments, obstruction of justice) it will only reinforce the narrative that he is the outsider that wanted to fix the country but was sabotaged by the "establishment,", the "deep state," etc.

And the problem with Putin is he is not a "despot." Putin actually was elected and will get elected again. The goal is for people in Russia to realize that they have a choice and the Putin is not the best choice.

[Karl Henning]

The problem isn't Trump, the problem is people voted for Trump. The goal is for Trump and his enabler to get voted out. If he gets impeached for what sounds like a technicality (emoluments, obstruction of justice) it will only reinforce the narrative that he is the outsider that wanted to fix the country but was sabotaged by the "establishment,", the "deep state," etc.

Let him serve out his chaotic term, and lock him up afterwards.

"The problem isn't Trump, the problem is people voted for Trump."  Yes, yes;  although El Tupé is indeed one whiz of a problem machine . . . which is why the problem is the enablers.

[Todd]

Yes. Yes it was. That's what moral preeners do, isn't it? I know what I would say if I heard some Russian citizen had assassinated Putin. I would say "Good!," and then spend the day gleefully celebrating. I'm wondering what Trump would say.

Yep, that there's more internet tough guy blather, with a generous dash of inane moral preening tossed in.

When one consistently advocates violating basic constitutional protections like freedom of the press, one is not upholding and defending the constitution, one is advocating its abrogation. How is that partisan?

Because it is.  I do like how you refuse to offer a single, specific charge for your dreamed of Article of Impeachment.  I guess you're dreaming of and hoping for something akin to the "inflammatory and scandalous harangues" Andrew Johnson faced.  Maybe.  Maybe.

None of this is about politics for me.

Nonsense.

It offends my ethical sensibilities.

Your ethical sensibilities do not matter.

Let him serve out his chaotic term, and lock him up afterwards.

How would that work?  Of special interest here would be the specific, existing legal mechanisms involved.

[Baron Scarpia]

Let him serve out his chaotic term, and lock him up afterwards.

The left-wing fantasy: In 2020 Elizabeth Warren is sworn in, Trump, still growling that the election was stolen from him by Mexicans with phony voter IDs, boards the "Marine One" helicopter. But he is surprised to see Bob Mueller inside. "Sorry, Mr. Trump, before we can go to Mar-a-Lago, there will be a stopover.....in Leavenworth, Kansas. You are free to go Melania, Not so fast Ivanka."

[Turner]

"It's not just Russia — Mueller is digging into Trump associates' potentially corrupt foreign ties... in Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and China."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/5/17080302/trump-russia-news-kushner-mueller

"The Real Threat To Trump Isn't Russia, Racism, Or Incompetence. It's Corruption ... Voters hate it."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/the-real-threat-to-trump-isnt-russia-its-corruption?utm_term=.edr58jdl80#.pb3Y1jpJ1O

"Trump lawyer complained he wasn't reimbursed for Stormy Daniels payment"
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376791-trump-lawyer-complained-he-wasnt-reimbursed-for-payment-to-stormy

"Unseen Christopher Steele Memo Claimed Russia Stopped Trump From Appointing Romney As Secretary of State: Report"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/unseen-christopher-steele-memo-claimed-144727465.html

[Baron Scarpia]

I read some nonsense story saying Bob Mueller came into the office telling colleagues, "The Swine is Mine." Sounds out of character, but I can't help but hope the substance is accurate.

[milk]

Is that what you were doing?



Again, I ask, what specific high crime or misdemeanor would be cited in the Article of Impeachment.  Supposedly violating the oath of office seems vague, nebulous, and partisan, as opposed to legal and constitutional.

I doubt it makes sense politically but there may be a case of obstruction. I'm not a lawyer but it seems some legal experts believe it could be a clear case. How about his constant, baldfaced, pathological lying as a misdemeanor? I mean I thought the clause is deliberately vague? I very much doubt he will get impeached unless something else comes up. I still question whether his health will hold up for three more years, especially with all those diet pills he takes.

[milk]

Trump Lawyer's Payment to Stormy Daniels Was Reported as Suspicious by Bank
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyers-payment-to-porn-star-was-reported-as-suspicious-by-bank-1520273701