• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blader

Member
Pixieking said:
How Trump Could Get Fired - The Constitution offers two main paths for removing a President from office. How feasible are they?

Not yet read this properly, because it is looooooooooooooooooooooooooong, and it's just gone 8am here (too early for this). But it seems very interesting.
Click to expand...

Everybody should forget about impeachment. The two main paths for removing Donald Trump from the presidency are defeating him in 2020 or waiting for him to leave in 2024.

Wilsongt said:
Using old outdated terms and flat out lying?

Must be a spring Tuesday morning.
Click to expand...

The "take my word for it" is what really puts it over the top.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
So what is removing 30 monuments even going to do? They can't possibly cost that much to maintain and add a mild tourist destination to places that would otherwise be in the middle of nowhere.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
pigeon said:
Carter ALSO was unpopular among African-Americans, what a coincidence
Click to expand...
Eh? He performed about as well as most normal democrat candidates at the time. The economy was bad in 1980, it's not surprising Reagan gained a bit with black voters; iirc Mohammad Ali endorsed him that year too.

It's well known that Carter and the Clinton's don't get along well. I'm not a Sanders fan at all but I find a lot of posts about him and black people to be...weird here. He would have done fine with black voters if he was the nominee. With Obama/Clinton/etc campaigning for him, plus an already strong support level among young blacks? Come on.
 
E

Ernest

Banned
Blader said:
Everybody should forget about impeachment. The two main paths for removing Donald Trump from the presidency are defeating him in 2020 or waiting for him to leave in 2024.
Click to expand...
Sad, but true.
I do think that unlike 2016, where many people stayed home assuming he'd lose, enough people will come out to vote against him in 2020.
Hopefully he'll remain incompetent until then, unable to fully enact his stupid ideas, like his wall or his health care.
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
Trump deleted mention of the "travel ban" from his website due to the court cases. Of course, being the idiot that he is, the url is still there:

C_XVdyjVYAEfSE6.jpg
 
B

Blader

Member
Ernest said:
Sad, but true.
I do think that unlike 2016, where many people stayed home assuming he'd lose, enough people will come out to vote against him in 2020.
Hopefully he'll remain incompetent until then, unable to fully enact his stupid ideas, like his wall or his health care.
Click to expand...

The moral of modern U.S. elections is to never bank on voting against a candidate, let alone voting against a sitting president. And it's not impossible that impeachment or even talk of impeachment can backfire a la 1998 and embolden both Trump supporters and people in the middle who see Dems as being overly eager to impeach him.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
Eh? He performed about as well as most normal democrat candidates at the time. The economy was bad in 1980, it's not surprising Reagan gained a bit with black voters; iirc Mohammad Ali endorsed him that year too.

It's well known that Carter and the Clinton's don't get along well. I'm not a Sanders fan at all but I find a lot of posts about him and black people to be...weird here. He would have done fine with black voters if he was the nominee. With Obama/Clinton/etc campaigning for him, plus an already strong support level among young blacks? Come on.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying he'd lose the black vote, but it's all about the margins. Seems pretty obvious to me that he'd do worse there than Clinton (or any other candidate who does well with black voters). He'd do better in rural areas though.
 
S

Slacker

Member
BoogieWoogie said:
Trump deleted mention of the "travel ban" from his website due to the court cases. Of course, being the idiot that he is, the url is still there:
Click to expand...

If you like math/probability type questions, the Trump White House is a fascinating place. We all knew Trump has no idea what he's doing as he took office - hell, the man can't even shake a hand properly. But think about this, there are somewhere around 2,000 employees working at the WH. Now consider the fact that there somehow isn't a single competent person on that list from top to bottom. It's amazing to think about really. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor that you'd at least accidentally stumble on one person with at least minimal competency, but Trump has managed to defy the odds.

In a better world Republicans would officially bury the "well he's an idiot but he'll surround himself with smart people" excuse they dusted off for Trump. Of course in the real world the next time Republicans learn from a mistake will be the first.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
So what is removing 30 monuments even going to do? They can't possibly cost that much to maintain and add a mild tourist destination to places that would otherwise be in the middle of nowhere.
Click to expand...
Drill baby drill and fuck the native brown people

I've never seen a group of people with so much hatred of melonin.

Another Iowa congress member stormed out of his town hall meeting.

These people run away faster than I do when I see a Gideon trying to hand out a bible.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
If AHCA passes, the capacity of Trump voters to delude themselves is the reason why.

C_Y9bLzXcAEbxfp.jpg:large



https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/861943928697827330
Click to expand...

People want to be on the "winning" team. A lot of those Trump voters were likely against the AHCA, not because of what was in it, but because it was doomed to fail and was a huge embarrassment. If it starts to become clear it's dead in the senate, watch how fast his voters turn around and hate it again.
 
B

Blader

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
If AHCA passes, the capacity of Trump voters to delude themselves is the reason why.

C_Y9bLzXcAEbxfp.jpg:large



https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/861943928697827330
Click to expand...

I wonder if that's a consequence of Trump being more involved the second time around, or even just the fact that the bill passed this time? Look at the questions: the House released a new healthcare bill vs. the House passed a new healthcare bill. If one bill didn't even get a floor vote, and the other was actually passed by a majority of House Republicans, then the instinctive reaction is "my party passed it, so it must be better."
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
WASHINGTON — It was the first major piece of legislation that President Trump signed into law, and buried on Page 734 was one sentence that brought a potential benefit to the president’s extended family: renewal of a program offering permanent residence in the United States to affluent foreigners investing money in real estate projects here.

Just hours after the appropriations measure was signed on Friday, the company run until January by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, was urging wealthy Chinese in Beijing to consider investing $500,000 each in a pair of Jersey City luxury apartment towers the family-owned Kushner Companies plans to build. Mr. Kushner was even cited at a marketing presentation by his sister Nicole Meyer, who was on her way to China even before the bill was signed. The project “means a lot to me and my entire family,” she told the prospective investors.
Click to expand...

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
 
T

Teggy

Member
One bit of good news is that the deadline to use the CRA has passed, so anything that Obama put in place at the end of his term is now much safer.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Maledict said:
Someone said earlier that Comey was a good example of a lawful good character from D&D, and I meant to respond to that. He's Lawful Neutral - his goal is to protect the institution (the FBI) above all else, no matter the consequences. Better to throw an election to a Russian agent than have people think the FBI concealed an investigation. Follow the text of the law (reveal the clinton investigation, don't reveal the trump one) and ignore the spirit and meaning of the law.
Click to expand...

Most likely he was just worried about how he'd look as an individual if the trumpites in the FBI leaked before he said anything.

Besides, doesn't "lawful" also mean following the longstanding procedure/rules to not interfere with elections.
 
B

Barzul

Member
Teggy said:
Congressional Review Act - lets congress overturn any regulation the outgoing president made during the last 90 days of their term with a simple majority vote.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm curious at the history behind this laws creation. I know it was passed in the 90's but why didn't Clinton veto it?
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
smokeymicpot said:
Just in: Sen @LindseyGrahamSC tells @mkraju he now wants to probe Pres. Trump's business ties to #Russia following Mon hearing w/Clapper

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/861960559897567233
Click to expand...

How is this going to help him find the leakers though???

balladofwindfishes said:
The CRA feels like it's unconstitutional. How can congress nullify executive decisions without legislation?
Click to expand...

Let's do away with it....right after Trump's out of office for 90 days.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
balladofwindfishes said:
The CRA feels like it's unconstitutional. How can congress nullify executive decisions without legislation?
Click to expand...

Isn't every denial technically a new piece of legislation as far as the constitution is concerned? That's why the president can veto.
 
E

Ernest

Banned
Blader said:
The moral of modern U.S. elections is to never bank on voting against a candidate, let alone voting against a sitting president. And it's not impossible that impeachment or even talk of impeachment can backfire a la 1998 and embolden both Trump supporters and people in the middle who see Dems as being overly eager to impeach him.
Click to expand...
True, but Trump isn't your typical president, D or R.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
ErasureAcer said:
Eric Paulsen (R-MN03) already has a challenger in successful businessman and Democrat Dean Phillips.
Click to expand...
Also Brian Santa Maria in the Dem primary, a former Onion writer.

I appreciate his spunk but Phillips seems more credible, especially for this type of district.

Blader said:
The moral of modern U.S. elections is to never bank on voting against a candidate, let alone voting against a sitting president. And it's not impossible that impeachment or even talk of impeachment can backfire a la 1998 and embolden both Trump supporters and people in the middle who see Dems as being overly eager to impeach him.
Click to expand...
I think we should wait until something tangible comes from investigations before impeaching anybody (assuming we win the House in 2018), but the major difference I think is Clinton got impeached on a sex scandal of all things. They were clearly digging. A Trump impeachment I would hope would be based on something more relevant.
 
Emerson

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
Aaron Strife said:
I think we should wait until something tangible comes from investigations before impeaching anybody (assuming we win the House in 2018), but the major difference I think is Clinton got impeached on a sex scandal of all things. They were clearly digging. A Trump impeachment I would hope would be based on something more relevant.
Click to expand...

Yes, if the Dems take the House in 2018, which seems quite likely, there is nothing stopping them from immediately impeaching. However, unless the FBI investigation has completed or there has been some other form of smoking gun, it would be a mistake.

Without the 66/67 votes in the Senate to convict, it's a very bad idea to try. You basically only get one shot at it.

So if the Dems take the House and there hasn't been a major revelation, the Dems should use every committee to investigate Trump, force all his associates to testify constantly, subpoena everything, make him waste all his time and distract him unless/until a smoking gun is revealed.
 
D

dramatis

Member
A tidbit I read about the Macrons
Yet despite their scandalous predecessors, the Macrons’ 24-year age gap (which, it must be pointed out, is the same age difference between Donald and Melania Trump) has led to more than a few raised eyebrows, even among the unflappable French. The May-December relationship has led to rumors that Emmanuel is actually a closeted gay man, speculation that he laughed off during the campaign, accusing his critics of sexism. “If I was 20 years older than my wife, no one would have questioned it being a legitimate relationship,” he said to Le Parisien. “It’s only because my wife is 20 years older than me that people say it’s not tenable.” And he has a point. During last year’s American election, the vast difference in age between the Trumps rarely if ever came up as an issue. And when it was revealed Mick Jagger, 73, was having a baby with his 30-year-old girlfriend late last year, their 43-year age gap barely registered beyond a few tabloid items.
Click to expand...
 
B

Blader

Member
Ernest said:
True, but Trump isn't your typical president, D or R.
Click to expand...

He is president and he has an R next to his name, which is enough. That R is what got him to the White House. If he lost the primary and continued to run as an independent, he'd be nowhere.

Emerson said:
So if the Dems take the House and there hasn't been a major revelation, the Dems should use every committee to investigate Trump, force all his associates to testify constantly, subpoena everything, make him waste all his time and distract him unless/until a smoking gun is revealed.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
E

etrain911

Member
Blader said:
Everybody should forget about impeachment. The two main paths for removing Donald Trump from the presidency are defeating him in 2020 or waiting for him to leave in 2024.



The "take my word for it" is what really puts it over the top.
Click to expand...


Taking the house in 2018 could be enough, it would certainly add Dem senators and remind GOP senators that they face the same fate as their house brethren if they don't play ball.
 
S

Slacker

Member
Onion AV Club responsibly issues a correction:

Correction: Republican bloodsuckers who sentenced poor to die didn’t drink Bud Light

Yesterday, we reported that a passel of grotesque Dickensian caricatures gathered in the House of Representatives to vote, by a margin of 217-213, to let poor people die and to punish women for the blasphemy of having a vagina, effectively putting some 24 million Americans at the perpetual risk of poverty should they fall victim to accident or debilitating disease—a monstrous display of selfishness that, by their own admission, many of them performed solely out of adherence to partisan dogma and unabashed spite, and a ghoulish, symbolic bloodletting ritual that they then commemorated by drinking Bud Light. However, we have now learned that they did not, in fact, drink Bud Light.
Click to expand...

In this era of “fake news,” it’s more important than ever to not let unverified rumor or libelous insinuation get in the way of the facts of the matter, which is that a bunch of soulless, greedy, waterlogged copies of Atlas Shrugged stuffed inside ugly suits stood around the White House yesterday, laughing and jacking each other off about how they’d successfully sentenced so many of their constituents to die just so they and their cronies could get a huge tax break, but while doing so, they most definitely did not drink Bud Light.

We regret the error.
Click to expand...

http://www.avclub.com/article/correction-republican-bloodsuckers-who-sentenced-p-254871
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Maledict said:
Someone said earlier that Comey was a good example of a lawful good character from D&D, and I meant to respond to that. He's Lawful Neutral - his goal is to protect the institution (the FBI) above all else, no matter the consequences. Better to throw an election to a Russian agent than have people think the FBI concealed an investigation. Follow the text of the law (reveal the clinton investigation, don't reveal the trump one) and ignore the spirit and meaning of the law.
Click to expand...

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Comey is Varys.

Comey did what he did because he figured that even if Hillary had won, she would only be a one term POTUS. So his priority was to not get fired for a GOP POTUS.

That's doesn't excuse what he did, but it means that even though he did it, we can still count on him to investigate Trump so long as he feels it protects the FBI from Russian influence.
 
E

Ernest

Banned
etrain911 said:
Taking the house in 2018 could be enough, it would certainly add Dem senators and remind GOP senators that they face the same fate as their house brethren if they don't play ball.
Click to expand...
Do they even have a chance to do so? The seats up for reelection in 2018 are heavily gerrymandered and quite safe, no?
 
B

Blader

Member
etrain911 said:
Taking the house in 2018 could be enough, it would certainly add Dem senators and remind GOP senators that they face the same fate as their house brethren if they don't play ball.
Click to expand...

This is a different thought experiment, but would Dems retaking the House mean there was enough of a wave to add new Senate Dems (I'm guessing just replacements for Heller and Flake?) without losing any in the process? I feel like it'd be possible to flip the House without changing the status quo in the Senate at all, or even losing some seats, but I'm not sure.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Ernest said:
Do they even have a chance to do so? The seats up for reelection in 2018 are heavily gerrymandered and quite safe, no?
Click to expand...

Start with the 23 GOP districts that voted for Clinton. 14 of those voted for AHCA. Work your way towards a wave from there.

Blader said:
This is a different thought experiment, but would Dems retaking the House mean there was enough of a wave to add new Senate Dems (I'm guessing just replacements for Heller and Flake?) without losing any in the process? I feel like it'd be possible to flip the House without changing the status quo in the Senate at all, or even losing some seats, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Dems have quite a few strong incumbents. Will be difficult to hold all of them, but with no retirements (so far?), it will be a more uphill battle for Republicans than originally anticipated. Problem with 2016 was that Dems were trying to unseat incumbents in a "check on the president" type year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

your favorite racing games by year (2002-2022)
2
72
4K
marcincz replied
[GfK data] In the UK, Xbox Series S and X has now overtaken sales of the original Xbox. PS5 is now closing in on 3DS/2DS sales.
Sales-Age 2
51
5K
Thirty7ven replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
Evolution of Open World Games 1980-2021
2 3
141
12K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom