The Trump Card...

[Turtle]

Observations:

1. A president's base rarely grows or shrinks within the first 100 days.

2. What Pilgrim said. Also, Obamacare was signed into law on Obama's 428th day in office, despite a very large, solid and vocal base.

3. No president who has been impeached has been convicted and removed from office.

 

[JohnWC]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume someone else created this Cracker Jack of a meme.

Setting aside the fact that the meme borders on the sociological cliché of the classic liberal ad hominem personal attack born of emotion rather than containing any intelligence whatsoever, Ted Nugent's wife, Shemane, not only earned a Masters degree, but she once contracted a life-threatening lung illness from toxic mold in her house, could barely walk, and was dependent on bottled oxygen for a year before recovering.

So if the creator of the meme was going for outrageously offensive and hurtful, they nailed it.

True I've noticed after this last election that the rules are changing again a president who is leaving his child in a school to Finnish off the year is getting how much criticism and his wife staying with that child.

 

[davekc]

A crucial component of my predicted Trump impeachment scenario is the erosion of the Trump base. While some alt-right Trump supporters have made loud statements in becoming former Trump supporters, and a handful of others have jumped off the Trump train because they feel betrayed by his actions or inactions, it is clearly the case that the Trump base is holding firm up to this point.

Observations:

1. The base has not grown.

2. The base proved impotent in influencing congressional votes during the repeal and replace discussions.

3. No president who has been impeached has been impeached in his first year.

While I am watching for indications of an eroding base, the fact that it has not yet happened does not mean it will not happen. I've also been watching Trump's popularity ratings. It is worth noting that those numbers fluctuate by large amounts for all presidents as they move through their time in office. As an indicator of future events or future support, a president's job approval number on a given day has little predictive value.

The components of my impeachment scenario have yet to converge, but I continue to believe they will.

Just by chance, are you following or subscribing to Micheal Moore and his impeachment madness?
Michael Moore Suggests Trump Impeachment And Offers Progressive Action Plan (VIDEO)

 

[ATeam]

Just by chance, are you following or subscribing to Micheal Moore and his impeachment madness?
Michael Moore Suggests Trump Impeachment And Offers Progressive Action Plan (VIDEO)

No. Until you mentioned it here, I was not aware of this action plan. I know Michael Moore is highly regarded by many on the left. I'm not impressed by the guy myself.

 

[ATeam]

Quite the contrary, the base proved potent in influencing congressmen NOT to vote for a bad bill being proposed by Paul Ryan.

I understand the impulse of Trump supporters to blame Ryan for the repeal and replace failure, but fair-minded, objective observers correctly note that Trump was fully engaged in the attempt to pass it. Trump himself is on record saying he supported that bill "1,000 percent). Ryan voiced high praise for Trump's personal involvement in getting the bill passed.

If "... the base proved potent in influencing congressmen NOT to vote for a bad bill ..." they did so in direct opposition to Trump, and thereby saddled him with one of the biggest failures of his administration. If Trump himself chose to support a "bad bill," which he clearly did, it indicates poor political judgement and ignorance about how the legislative process works.

While it can be said of any failed or stalled legislative initiative, or of any new president, that it or he is a work in progress, the same can be said for the developing impeachment scenario I foresee. In all three cases, speculation about a future outcome is involved; and all such speculation is based on the speculator's perceptions, interpretations, emotions and thoughts.

Work in progress suggests something will be different in the future. To date, I see little evidence of change in the man Donald Trump. He continues to make vague pronouncements that inspire hope in his uncritical base. He continues to manifest the narcissistic personality he brought with him to office. He does not appear to be learning from his mistakes. As the budget battle approaches, his approach to Congress is the same as it was with repeal and replace.

There is a big difference between the Oval Office and Trump's corporate board room. If Trump does not change, he enjoy the occasional win while falling flat on his face again and again.

 

[Pilgrim]

Quite the contrary, the base proved potent in influencing congressmen NOT to vote for a bad bill being proposed by Paul Ryan.

I understand the impulse of Trump supporters to blame Ryan for the repeal and replace failure, but fair-minded, objective observers correctly note that Trump was fully engaged in the attempt to pass it. Trump himself is on record saying he supported that bill "1,000 percent). Ryan voiced high praise for Trump's personal involvement in getting the bill passed.

If "... the base proved potent in influencing congressmen NOT to vote for a bad bill ..." they did so in direct opposition to Trump, and thereby saddled him with one of the biggest failures of his administration. If Trump himself chose to support a "bad bill," which he clearly did, it indicates poor political judgement and ignorance about how the legislative process works.

While it can be said of any failed or stalled legislative initiative, or of any new president, that it or he is a work in progress, the same can be said for the developing impeachment scenario I foresee. In all three cases, speculation about a future outcome is involved; and all such speculation is based on the speculator's perceptions, interpretations, emotions and thoughts.

Work in progress suggests something will be different in the future. To date, I see little evidence of change in the man Donald Trump. He continues to make vague pronouncements that inspire hope in his uncritical base. He continues to manifest the narcissistic personality he brought with him to office. He does not appear to be learning from his mistakes. As the budget battle approaches, his approach to Congress is the same as it was with repeal and replace.

There is a big difference between the Oval Office and Trump's corporate board room. If Trump does not change, he enjoy the occasional win while falling flat on his face again and again.

The Speaker of the House is responsible for moving legislation through the process and getting it passed; Ryan failed at this on two levels - by letting bad legislation get proposed in the first place and then doing a lousy job of selling it. Yes, Trump went along with it but it didn't help win over the conservatives. Since they've gone back to the drawing board to create a new bill that the Freedom Caucus seems to be agreeing with in general, the Repeal/Replace effort is not yet a failure - it's a work in progress. Refer to the amount of time it took to enact ObamaCare - without a single Republican vote.

On a related note, in spite of all the supposed Trump "failures" his base is NOT leaving him, according to the latest ABC News / Washington Post poll. Granted polls are to be taken with a grain of salt, but this bears out other indicators that his actions so far are satisfactory to the voters who elected him.

As noted, this poll finds no evidence of buyer’s remorse among Trump supporters. Among those who report having voted for him in November, 96 percent today say it was the right thing to do; a mere 2 percent regret it. And if a rerun of the election were held today, the poll indicates even the possibility of a Trump victory in the popular vote among 2016 voters.

Poll: 96% of Trump Supporters Would Vote for Him Again, Win Popular Vote - Breitbart

 

[ATeam]

One of the components of the Trump impeachment scenario I am predicting is that reasonable cause for impeachment must come to exist. While I believe several such items already exist, the Trump administration recently served up another item for impeachment advocates and attorneys to process. Story here.

Excerpt:

What did the president know about the Mar-a-Lago advertisement that appeared for a time on official government websites? And when did he know it? These questions might sound trivial. They aren’t. The webpage about President Donald Trump’s private club, which had all the features of a marketer-drafted puff piece, is a prime example of corruption, namely the knowing use of government means to enhance the private wealth of the president. And corruption is the classic example of a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the Constitution.

 

[Pilgrim]

One of the components of the Trump impeachment scenario I am predicting is that reasonable cause for impeachment must come to exist. While I believe several such items already exist, the Trump administration recently served up another target for impeachment advocates. Story here.

Excerpt:

What did the president know about the Mar-a-Lago advertisement that appeared for a time on official government websites? And when did he know it? These questions might sound trivial. They aren’t. The webpage about President Donald Trump’s private club, which had all the features of a marketer-drafted puff piece, is a prime example of corruption, namely the knowing use of government means to enhance the private wealth of the president. And corruption is the classic example of a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the Constitution.

From the article:

...One is that it’s a violation of federal regulation (5 CFR 2635.702 if you’re keeping track at home) for a government employee to “use his public office … for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.”
The second thing we learned is that nothing much necessarily happens if a government employee violates that regulation...1.

1. I’m confident that in the case of Mar-a-Lago the post endorsed the private club. But it’s still not clear that the post violated this regulation, because it’s not clear who, exactly, was using his or her public office to do the endorsing. Maybe the author of the post broke the regulation. Maybe the embassy staff who posted it did so. But I don’t expect to see any serious enforcement of the regulation.

When reading the above referenced regulation, one can't help but think of Hillary Clinton and how her husband and the Clinton Foundation likely profited from her interactions with international dignitaries, heads of state and Wall St. bigwigs during her term as SECSTATE. One of Slick Willie's speeches would have paid for his membership at Mar-a-Lago. But that's water under the bridge, nothing to see there, we're moved along. Truly, there hasn't been any serious enforcement of that regulation in the past nor will there be in the future. Which congressman or govt official will be the one to cast the first stone?

 

[ATeam]

Which congressman or govt official will be the one to cast the first stone?

Unknown at this point. When the time comes, it will likely be a group who gather together to co-sponsor the action. When the political sentiment moves in that direction, it will likely be a large group.

 

[Turtle]

I can't think of anything Trump can do at this point that isn't considered a conflict of interest by someone on the Left.

People think if the president owns a hotel and a representative of a foreign government stays there, it's an emolument. It's not. If the president own a convenience store with gas pumps and a foreign government official filled up his car and got a Big Gulp, that's not an emolument, either.

 

[muttly]

Trump on pace to surpass 8 years of Obama's travel spending in 1 year - CNN
Trump on pace to surpass 8 years of Obama's travel spending in 1 year - CNNPolitics.com


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

Looks like that figure might be exaggerated a bit.
Associated Press: Trump Travel Expenses May Have Been Overestimated

 

[Turtle]

Trump on pace to surpass 8 years of Obama's travel spending in 1 year - CNN
Trump on pace to surpass 8 years of Obama's travel spending in 1 year - CNNPolitics.com


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

Looks like that figure might be exaggerated a bit.
Associated Press: Trump Travel Expenses May Have Been Overestimated

I dunno. When you factor in the cost of Lays potato chips and Oreo cookies, it might be a wash.

 

[davekc]

One of the components of the Trump impeachment scenario I am predicting is that reasonable cause for impeachment must come to exist. While I believe several such items already exist, the Trump administration recently served up another item for impeachment advocates and attorneys to process. Story here.

Excerpt:

What did the president know about the Mar-a-Lago advertisement that appeared for a time on official government websites? And when did he know it? These questions might sound trivial. They aren’t. The webpage about President Donald Trump’s private club, which had all the features of a marketer-drafted puff piece, is a prime example of corruption, namely the knowing use of government means to enhance the private wealth of the president. And corruption is the classic example of a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the Constitution.

Way too many politicians on both sides have their hand in the cookie jar for their own benefit. Items like this would only shine a light on what they do. Don't see this getting any traction. Just my take.

 

[ATeam]

I can't think of anything Trump can do at this point that isn't considered a conflict of interest by someone on the Left.

People think if the president owns a hotel and a representative of a foreign government stays there, it's an emolument. It's not. If the president own a convenience store with gas pumps and a foreign government official filled up his car and got a Big Gulp, that's not an emolument, either.

Or it is, depending on one's point of view. That's why we have laws, courts, oversight committees and investigations. As you read this, cases are being developed. The merits of these cases will be decided by the courts as the cases proceed.

 

[ATeam]

Way too many politicians on both sides have their hand in the cookie jar for their own benefit. Items like this would only shine a light on what they do. Don't see this getting any traction. Just my take.

So because others are corrupt, it's OK for the administration to be corrupt too?

 

[ATeam]

Which congressman or govt official will be the one to cast the first stone?

Another component of my predicted impeachment scenario is that Pence will come to be seen by Republicans as the better alternative to Trump. It's not an all or nothing decision for them. Pence will pass muster with nearly every conservative out there. Dumping Trump does not mean dumping control of the White House and Congress. It does not mean dumping the opportunity to convert conservative legislation into law.

To the Republicans who have the power to impeach Trump, Pence is one of their own. He is not an outsider, he's a brother. When the breaking point is reached with Trump, it will not be a big stretch to replace him with Pence. Look for numerous Republicans to act together when that option becomes attractive.

 

[Turtle]

I can't think of anything Trump can do at this point that isn't considered a conflict of interest by someone on the Left.

People think if the president owns a hotel and a representative of a foreign government stays there, it's an emolument. It's not. If the president own a convenience store with gas pumps and a foreign government official filled up his car and got a Big Gulp, that's not an emolument, either.

Or it is, depending on one's point of view. That's why we have laws, courts, oversight committees and investigations. As you read this, cases are being developed. The merits of these cases will be decided by the courts as the cases proceed.

The Emoluments Clause has never been directly litigated, but it has been interpreted and enforced through a long series of opinions of the Attorneys General, and by less-frequent opinions of the Comptrollers General. Congress has also exercised its power of "Consent" under the clause by enacting the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which authorizes federal employees to accept foreign governmental benefits of various kinds in specific circumstances. One of those specific circumstances is payments for services rendered in the normal course of business. It's just one of the many things that allowed Jimmy Carter to continue selling peanuts to foreign countries while he was president, for example.

 

[Turtle]

Trump's holding a big rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday night, same night as the White House Correspondents Dinner.

“I feel bad, because a lot of White House reporters are going to have to go and cover that and not come to our own dinner,” Julie Mason says. “It’s one thing for him to stay home, and that was fine. And he can just tweet about us and be mean, and that would be kind of funny, and it would feel right. But for him to stage a competing event — we just can’t even have our dinner? We just can’t even do that?”

The poor, poor press. They want the president, and the world, I guess, to just stop, so they can party in peace, and in the spotlight.

 

[davekc]

Way too many politicians on both sides have their hand in the cookie jar for their own benefit. Items like this would only shine a light on what they do. Don't see this getting any traction. Just my take.

So because others are corrupt, it's OK for the administration to be corrupt too?

I didn't say that. What I did say is that it likely wont lead to anything significant.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The war is on again US attacking the Canadian softwood industry with a 20% tariff ...the US tried this in the 80' s and lost. Canada simply sold the overage to Asia it didn't hurt Canada at all just an inconvenience and American building industry died on the vine... cost of US housing rose.