How much the Russians affected the elections isnt know, but they definitely interferred. That is a fact. Hillary was considered a sure bet until after the results started coming in.Makes you wonder why the polls were so far off. According to 'Fire and Fury' even Trump was shocked that he won.To ignore the Russian influence is to blind yourself. Maybe Hillary would have lost anyway, but they were involved according to 17 government agencies such as the CIA and FBI.The also interferred in Brexit successfully and in the French election unsuccessfully
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2018 06:28PM by bona dea.
All I can see is that I think it would be fun to watch anybody try to do it, especially a mormon. I'm sure a lot of Dems in states where you can vote either ballot in the primaries would cross over and vote Republican just to be able to vote against Trump. But for the most part, Utah Republicans are part of that 30% solid base. So It would be interesting to see what they would do.
Maybe Trump can follow the example of the President of China. Change the constitution to erase term limits and then make himself President for life.
On a more serious note, I doubt anyone will be able to beat Trump in an honest election between now and when he has to step down at the end of his second term. The Democratic party is too scattered and without a good message for the country. All we know for sure about them now is that they hate Trump and that they will do anything they can to stop him. Right about the time everyone finally once and for all decides that there was no Trump collusion with Russia and that the whole thing was made up by the Democratic party, it'll be time to vote again and Trump will be campaigning as he did before.
Yawn...your incessant Trump apologetics get increasingly pathetic every day. And what exactly is Trunp's "message for the country" other than constant chaos, flip flopping and lying every time he opens his vile, hateful, vomit-infested mouth?
"Right about the time everyone finally once and for all decides that there was no Trump collusion with Russia and that the whole thing was made up by the Democratic party. . ."
Refresh my memory, but didn't you say a couple of months ago that you were going to take a leave of absence from RfM until everyone admitted there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? What happened to that?
And have you been asleep since then, unaware of the new evidence about Kushner, Ivanka, the 13 indicted Russians; the additional indictments of Manafort, Gates, the young Greek dude; the new statements by present and past leaders of intelligence agencies; the facts about Trump's negotiating investment deals in Russia during the campaign; and the other information that is mounting?
You really have to cast your conspiracy net wider to include a lot more actors than the Democratic Party. Either that or refrain from making broad declarations about when everyone is going to accept your purblind declarations.
Perhaps he missed last night's election in Pennsylvania where the Democrat won in an area that is hugely Republican and voted for Trump by 20 points just a few short months ago. Sounds like they might be rethinking things.Doesnt sound to me if Trump will be reelected. He may not even make it through one term with Mueller, a Republican, on his tail.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2018 02:23AM by bona dea.
I think he makes it through one term. If the GOP controls both houses, there is no chance of impeachment. If the Dems take the house, impeachment could proceed but would almost certainly would not succeed in the senate. 2/3, isn't it?
What will happen (has largely already happened) is that he'll be rendered a lame duck, incapable of getting anything done--even more so than has been the case in his first year.
The danger is that if the economy does spectacularly well, public opinion could mount in his favor and he could win re-election. The US would then become just another republic that offered up its liberty to a tyrant.
Indictment is probably not possible. There is constitutional question that the judiciary can indict a sitting president, who has equal status. The proper remedy constitutionally is impeachment.
Resignation is possible, but I suspect things would have to get a lot worse. And Trump doesn't have Nixon's sense of propriety.
Regarding the GOP, so far the party has proved willing to sell its soul. If it gets trounced in the midterms, the party could distance itself. But it is hard to see how that can happen given that most of the Trump skeptics have already resigned. Could Ryan establish himself as an alternative? McConnell?
That's why outsiders have a chance. Flake, emboldened by the fact that he is no longer responsible, is setting himself up to run. Romney has chance, too. There would be others. But can any of them regain the territory lost by GOP senators and representatives who have, with various degrees of servility, kissed the tyrant's ring?
It is somewhat unlikely but there is nothing specific in the Constitution that addresses the issue of indictment. It is open to interpretation. Trump reportedly never wanted to win and was surprised when he did. I could see him finding some excuse to resign. As for the Republicans, they have sold out, but if their reelection would be served by selling out Trump, I think they would do it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2018 08:50AM by bona dea.
The constitutional question is indeed unclear. But the president is a co-equal branch of government and head of the judiciary.
The political question is an interesting one. If the GOP thought Trump was endangering its future, it could indeed reject him. But the farther the party goes in supporting him now, the more difficult the separation becomes since the GOP leadership is tainted. That is my point about Ryan or McConnell. The problem isn't finding someone who would challenge the president in such circumstances: it is whether the public would accept such a politician. Members of Congress are, with few exceptions, already compromised.
That is why, if the GOP decided to reject Trump, it would have to do so through an outsider--someone like a Flake or a Romney who is not directly involved with, and supportive of, the president right now. Corker or Kasich might work, too. But it would have to be an outsider. And even then there is some reason to doubt whether the public would tolerate any Republican as an alternative to Trump given the extent to which he has come to represent the party.
Ironically, given how badly he fared in the last few presidential elections, I think he might have a chance in 2020. If the country is looking for a traditional Republican, he'll be in the front ranks.
The other possibility is that the Trump fiasco tears the GOP apart and the Dems walk into the White House. I don't think that scenario would be good for the country, since one-party states are rarely either responsive or effective.