@blatham,
Don't you think that that is a good thing, Bernie? Surely you don't think that the last 75 years of war crimes and terrorism against the people of Korea by the USA is a good thing.
That would make you quite the evil one.
Trump tells supporters it'll be 'your fault' if he gets impeached
By Kate Sullivan, CNN
Updated 11:43 PM ET, Thu September 6, 2018
Trump talks impeachment at rally
President Donald Trump told supporters Thursday that if he is impeached "it's your fault 'cause you didn't go out to vote."
"You didn't go out to vote -- that's the only way it could happen," Trump said during a rally in Billings, Montana.
"I'll be the only President in history they'll say: 'What a job he's done! By the way, we're impeaching him,' " Trump said.
"This election, you aren't just voting for a candidate, you are voting for which party controls Congress," the President said. "Very important thing. Very important thing."
The rally in Montana -- where Trump was campaigning on behalf of Matt Rosendale, who's challenging Democratic Sen. John Tester for a Senate spot -- was not the first time the President has brought up the subject of his own impeachment.
Following the guilty plea of his former attorney Michael Cohen, Trump said "the market would crash" and "everybody would be very poor" if Democrats were to take back control of Congress and impeach him.
At Thursday's rally, Trump railed against Democrats, like Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who have made impeaching him a central part of their political identity. He engaged in a mock conversation, playing both the role of supporter and defender, during one portion of the rally.
"They like to use the 'impeach' word," Trump said. " 'Impeach Trump.' Maxine Waters: 'We will impeach him.' 'But he didn't do anything wrong.' 'It doesn't matter. We will impeach him. We will impeach.' "
"But I say, how do you impeach somebody that's doing a great job, that hasn't done anything wrong?" Trump said. "Our economy is good. How do you do it? How do you do it? How do you do it?"
" 'We will impeach him!' " Trump shouted, " 'But he's doing a great job!' 'Doesn't matter.' Remember that line, 'He's doing a great job.' 'That doesn't matter. We'll impeach him.'"
Trump later warned the United States would turn into a "Third World country" because of the precedent his hypothetical impeachment would set.
"But let's say a Democrat gets elected, and let's say we have a Republican House. We will impeach that Democrat, right? And then a Republican. We won by a lot. We won by a hell of a margin," Trump said.
"If the opposite party becomes president, every time before it even starts, before you've even found out whether or not he or she is going to do a great job, they'll say, 'We want to impeach him' and you'll impeach him," Trump said. "It's so ridiculous."
@neptuneblue,
Quote:If the opposite party becomes president, every time before it even starts, before you've even found out whether or not he or she is going to do a great job, they'll say, 'We want to impeach him' and you'll impeach him.
I'd like to think he isn't really as stupid as he sounds and that he's just talking down to his audience. They seem to like it.
@blatham,
I'm not sure I buy all the progressive hand-wringing over this event. The country's "democratic mechanisms" are too slow to deal with potential disasters that arise in the White House every day. I'm relieved to know that Trump's team isn't just a collection of eager apparatchiks who automatically do everything he says. It doesn't make me any more likely to support Republicans, however.
It is less stupidity than invincible ignorance--something which probably helps his so-called base identify closely with him. Two presidents have been impeached--all that impeach means is to indict. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate, however, to convict. (Article One, Section Three, sixth paragrph: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.) Andrew Johnson was acquitted, and just barely, even though he was a southerner who had succeeded Lincoln. Clinton was acquitted and it wasn't even close.
In neither the case of Johnson nor of Clinton was impeachment some kind of knee-jerk reaction to having lost the election. As usual with idiotic conspiracy claims, it doesn't even make sense. A Republican-controlled House impeached Johnson (who had run in 1864 as a Republican), who was acquitted by a Republican-controlled Senate. Clinton, a Democrat, was impeached by a Republican House and acquitted by a Republican Senate, which didn't even come close to convicting him. Johnson was impeached and acquitted almost three years after taking office, and Clinton was acquitted six years after taking office.
President Plump is a f*cking moron.
Myriads of good walkaway stories:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=walkaway
You too can #walkaway. Walk away from the crime syndicate of the Demokkkrat party. Walk away from George Soros and trans-national gangsterism. Walk away from the KKKlinton machine. Walk away from criminality, stupidity, and mindless hatred. Stop being a Demokkkrat. Just walk away.
Quote:Don’t be too quick to condemn ‘Deep State Throat.’
Quote:In a parliamentary system, getting rid of such a terrible leader would be relatively easy: Simply call a vote of confidence in Parliament or within the party caucus. But in our presidential system it’s not so easy. Impeachment requires a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. Removal via the 25th Amendment, if it is challenged by the president, requires two-thirds of both house. Given how craven Republicans are toward a president who still commands the loyalty of their base, if no one else, it is impossible to imagine getting the votes from the current Congress that would be necessary to remove Trump.
Quote:The Times op-ed writer apparently is trying to have it both ways by speaking out publicly while still trying to stymie the president in private. Perhaps that’s not a tenable approach, but I am willing to cut some slack to anyone in a position of power who is working to save America from the most reckless, corrupt and unqualified president in our history. We don’t know how best to resist this demagogue, so a little humility is in order. The only people who should come in for withering scorn are all the Republicans in Washington who are cynically acting as Trump’s enablers even though they understand just how dangerous and destructive he is.
WP
I suppose what upsets me the most was reading of what the deep throat thinks of the positives in the administration. It is for those reasons, republicans in congress don't come out against him. Those reasons are not positives and I am afraid that narrative may resonate with voters in the mid-terms.
One of the reasons many during the Clinton saga and impeachment didn't come out against him over the whole Monica thing and evading the truth under oath was because our economy was doing so good. However, that prosperity during the Clinton years was felt by the middle class which it is not today at all.
Pols blast Trump for hurting middle class
@hightor,
Quote:I'm not sure I buy all the progressive hand-wringing over this event.
Your meaning here is not clear to me. What do you see as hand-wringing and which "progressives" are you referring to?
Quote:The country's "democratic mechanisms" are too slow to deal with potential disasters that arise in the White House every day.
True
Quote:I'm relieved to know that Trump's team isn't just a collection of eager apparatchiks who automatically do everything he says.
I think the important elements here are:
1) which matters/policies they are
or are not concerned with (clear in this op/ed by inclusion/exclusion)
2) the timing of the op/ed in relation to the midterms, polling and what is surely clear to the GOP as a coming disaster (part of this factor is the absolute certainty that rebranding strategies would be put in place)
3) the contradiction in what the author(s) imagine or state to be a "constitutional crisis". This is surely better understood as a reluctance to act in an open and honest manner which would cause havoc in GOP messaging and in GOP voter support.
@blatham,
blatham wrote: Do you really suppose that this op/ed would have happened if GOP electoral chances were not heading toward the toilet?
precisely. this op-ed was a wonderful piece of art to protect conservatives/Republicans if they need to cut themselves off from #45. I think the NYT was taken in by them.
old-skool conservatives? I mean conservatives vs the #45 base. we see it here. we have some traditional conservatives posting - we have some of #45's base. it is clear from reading the posts how very different those groups are.
@ehBeth,
Quote:I think the NYT was taken in by them.
I very much doubt the editorial staff at the Times are that naive. If I was in their place, I'd understand (or certainly suspect) that there is a strategy behind the submission but I would deem publishing it necessary and suppressing it reportorial malfeasance. Sure, there would be an eyeball/sales advantage to them in publishing but that doesn't equate to bad intentions.
@ehBeth,
Re your differentiation between Trumpies and old school conservatives here, I no longer see much value in attending to them. Is there a single one who has not tossed up the phrase "Trump derangement syndrome" or who has spoken positively of David Frum, Michael Gerson or other such conservative voices who have publicly criticized Trump (and his supporters/enablers in Congress)?
@blatham,
I feel like they got suckered by the timing. If there hadn't been some mushiness about conservatives brought on by John McCain's death, I don't think they would have been taken in like this.
We're real republicans, he was never a republican. they'll pull that out again if #45 doesn't get them the midterms and people will fall for it. thanks a lot NYT. they're no better than the idiot Robert Reich who I blame for the liberal part of the HRC fail.
Speaking of Gerson, today's column by him forwards a perfectly apt analogy
Quote:[Trump] responds like a child or a narcissist — but I repeat myself — to positive or negative stimulation. It is the reason a discussion on “Fox & Friends” can so often set the agenda of the president. It is the reason that Trump’s lawyers, in the end, can’t allow him to be interviewed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. It would be like a 9-year-old defending a PhD dissertation.
@blatham,
blatham wrote:Re your differentiation between Trumpies and old school conservatives here, I no longer see much value in attending to them.
compare roger and sturgis to coldjoint
I'd be startled if you couldn't see the difference
jaysus murphy. are #45's dentures loose again? listening to that Montana speech from yesterday again. he can't pronounce anonymous no matter how often he tries. you'd think with his money, he could get someone to fix that.
it's as bad as Obama and his mint-sucking
