The Trump Card...

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
They went overdrive against oBama for one simple reason their inner racist views could not accept it.. deplorables was a perfect description.

Sent from my SM-N900T using EO Forums mobile app
Newp. Not how I see. I seen it as a attempt to redistribute wealth. Starting with the Ocare disaster. I don't see race as the issue. If so, and we want to pull the race card, Obama won with a large white vote. Can't leave that out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm getting excited about the possibilities for the 2020 presidential campaign.

We've got Crazy Bernie ready to go, Pocahontas making her move, and now Spartacus.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
How do we know impeachment is becoming more likely? One way is to note the shift in Trump's remarks to his supporters. He used to talk about how great his poll numbers were and about how discombobulated the Democrats are because he defeated Hillary.

Last night he openly discussed the possibility he may be impeached. He told supporters that if he is impeached “it’s your fault ’cause you didn’t go out to vote.”This is not the first time he brought it up. In a recent interview he predicted the market would crash and everyone would be poor if he was impeached.

If I was advising Trump, I would strongly urge him to not talk about impeachment. What you resist persists, I'd say. Arguing against impeachment only puts it more in the public mind and thereby fuels the very notion that is better to diminish.

Last night, in his narcissistic fashion, Trump fixed blame for an impeachment outcome not on himself but on his base for not voting Republican. But blame-placing is beside the point. It is not insignificant that the pubic debate about impeachment has shifted so much that the president himself is now openly discussing the possibility.

Leadership-wise, Trump is working against himself. Who wants to follow any leader into battle who is openly entertaining the idea he might be eliminated, and that if that happens, it's not the leader's fault but yours? Which is the more motivational message? Vote Republican so we can continue to win or vote Republican because if you don't, I'll be impeached.

An upcoming impeachment battle is clearly occupying Trump's mind. He's already looking for someone to blame who is not himself. Sadly for his supporters, the people he will blame are them.
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
You can only impeach a President for what they did while in office. There wasn't any obstruction of justice. So what did he do while in office that merits impeachment?
Trump is bringing up the threat of impeachment because he believes it is a losing hand for Dems. (Dems bringing up impeachment) So many of their leaders are keeping the term impeachment on the "down low". You hear it a lot from some of their most radical members and their co horts in the media like Chuck Todd who want to have Paul Ryan start the impeachment proceedings already.
He thinks the Dems should talk about it more to energize their voters.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
You can only impeach a President for what they did while in office. There wasn't any obstruction of justice. So what did he do while in office that merits impeachment?

If that's the case, why are Trump and his attorneys not making that argument? They know he can be impeached if the political winds shift in that direction. They know impeachment is, at bottom, not a legal action in court but a political action in Congress.

A commentator, I don't remember who, recently said it best. "'High crimes and misdomeanors' means whatever Congress says it means." If the House decides cause for impeachment exists, the matter goes to the Senate. If the Senate agrees, the deal is done. The constitution provide no means of appeal.

When impeachment proceedings begin, the people voting on the matter will not be judges in a court of law, they will be politicians in Congress.
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
You can only impeach a President for what they did while in office. There wasn't any obstruction of justice. So what did he do while in office that merits impeachment?

If that's the case, why are Trump and his attorneys not making that argument? They know he can be impeached if the political winds shift in that direction. They know impeachment is, at bottom, not a legal action in court but a political action in Congress.
Trump himself has made the case publicly many times. "No obstruction and no collusion." Any collusion ( which isn't a crime anyway) would have happened before elected. Obstruction case is non existant. Can fire subordinates.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Last night, in his narcissistic fashion, Trump fixed blame for an impeachment outcome not on himself but on his base for not voting Republican.
Ya gotta keep up. He's been talking about that very thing since May, 2017, ever since the first attempts at impeachment began, and he's laid it directly at the feet of voters, his supporters in particular, ever since that 358-64 vote in the House against impeachment back in December of 2017. This isn't new. Told his supporters that they've got to get out and vote in 2018 otherwise the new House will impeach him first thing That's why he's been campaigning this entire midterm primary season and continues to do so heading into the election. He noted plainly b that the party in the White House loses the House in the first midterms, and it was up to his supporters to stop that from happening if they don't want him impeached.

Your disdain for Trump is quite clear in your prose, so there's no reason to create new contexts to project hopes and wishes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly and davekc

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Your disdain for Trump is quite clear in your prose, so there's no reason to create new contexts to project hopes and wishes.

ad hominem
Incorrect. I absolutely addressed the substance of your argument. Your argument fails on the merits, and in particular because you create new contexts and assumptions (both, logical fallacies in their own right) to prove your conclusions.

The contextual premise you presented as fact, that Trump has shifted in his remarks to his supporters and is now speaking of impeachment, as if he has not done that previously, is simply not true, and you then used that to support a predetermined conclusion. In addition, you claim to know what occupies the president's mind, to bolster your conclusions, so there is that contextual creation.

Contempt is the polar opposite of empathy. I see no empathy in your prose, only contempt, not in spite of the substance of your arguments, but because of the substance of them.

On a not-entirely unrelated note, does anyone else see the conundrum the Left, and the Press in particular, is faced with in light of the NYT anonymous op-ed? They've been hammering for more than 2 years the irrefutable fact that the Deep State doesn't exist, that it's a figment of the imagination of conservatives. But the op-ed, if you accept it as authentic, is direct evidence of the Deep State, where the Deep State itself admits to doing Deep State stuff. And isn't that funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and muttly

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Many people, several, a large number, I don't know exactly how many, belive the anonymous op-ed author is former Utah Governor and current US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman. You can Google it to find out the reasons why, all of which are very plausible and utterly make sense. But that doesn't mean he is the author.

Here is his statement of denial that he wrote the piece:

“Come to find, when you’re serving as the U.S. envoy in Moscow, you’re an easy target on all sides. Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: Never send an anonymous op-ed."

All of the other Trump administration officials who have offered up denias have done so in unambiguous ways, full-throated, crystal clear.

Huntsman's statement is a full-on, straight-up, in-your-face, non-denial denial. The only thing he denied is sending out something that didn't carry his name, which is not the same as having something published that didn't carry his name.

If he wrote it and submitted it to the NYT, it almost certainly carried his name, and if so almost certainly also carried with it the condition that if it gets published that it be published anonymously, without his name.

Something to think about, anyway.

I don't know if he wrote it. He might have. I do know that there is nothing new in the piece. Not one thing. It contains every hobby horse du jour that the Press has hammered ad nauseum for the last two years. It's almost like it was written by a member of the Press as a way to say, "See? We told you so! We're completely vindicated!"

The fact that it was written in the style of print journalism, using primarily one-sentence paragraphs, is also a little suspect. But that could be dismissed to having been edited by a copy editor who chose that layout

The timing that allowed the NYT op-ed to steal the thunder from WaPo's Bob Woodward is also a possible factor, though not necessarily in who penned it.

In any case, in government or any large company it's not that hard to find one disgruntled employee who thinks they know more and are smarter than the boss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Manafort has been found guilty in one trial and pleaded guilty ahead of another trial. That plea includes a deal in which Manafort “shall cooperate fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly with the Government and other law enforcement authorities identified by the Government in any and all matters as to which the Government deems the cooperation relevant.”

This could be very good news for Trump if, as he claims, he has done nothing wrong. With the Manafort trials now out of the way and with him now pledged to cooperate, we're closer to learning what, if anything, Manafort knows regarding the items of interest to Mueller. If Trump has done nothing wrong, Manafort's information (or lack of it) can help clear Trump. On the other hand, if Trump has done something wrong, Manafort's cooperation is not good news for the president.

Which will it be? Time will tell.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Manafort has been found guilty in one trial and pleaded guilty ahead of another trial. That plea includes a deal in which Manafort “shall cooperate fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly with the Government and other law enforcement authorities identified by the Government in any and all matters as to which the Government deems the cooperation relevant.”

This could be very good news for Trump if, as he claims, he has done nothing wrong. With the Manafort trials now out of the way and with him now pledged to cooperate, we're closer to learning what, if anything, Manafort knows regarding the items of interest to Mueller. If Trump has done nothing wrong, Manafort's information (or lack of it) can help clear Trump. On the other hand, if Trump has done something wrong, Manafort's cooperation is not good news for the president.

Which will it be? Time will tell.
Expect it to clear Trump, since there was no collusion, which isn't a crime anyway.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
They went overdrive against oBama for one simple reason their inner racist views could not accept it.. deplorables was a perfect description.
I don't see race as the issue. If so, and we want to pull the race card, Obama won with a large white vote. Can't leave that out.
The race card is the only card in his hand... and maybe a joker.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
They went overdrive against oBama for one simple reason their inner racist views could not accept it.. deplorables was a perfect description.
I don't see race as the issue. If so, and we want to pull the race card, Obama won with a large white vote. Can't leave that out.
The race card is the only card in his hand... and maybe a joker.
Some think the word joker is racist.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
If you credited Trump with bringing one million jobs to the US with the Alibaba deal, you now must credit him with blowing that deal with his tariffs. Story here.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Jack Ma has a history of making big promises and then backing out of them, so I don't know why anyone would have believed him when he promised a million jobs to the US. I certainly didn't. And I certainly didn't credit Trump for bringing 1 million jobs to the US before they showed up. Actions and results is what gets credited, rhetoric not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and Grizzly
Top