Impeachment

[BubberMiley]

12 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Why are you lying?  I merely repeated what news media said!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/sarah-silverman-calls-coup-oust-donald-trump/

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sarah-silverman-seems-to-call-for-a-military-coup/article/2613756

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/sarah-silverman-walks-back-tweet-urging-military-coup-against-trump/ar-AAmA9Se

 

 

Furthermore, I explained to you that when you invoke the military to OVERTHROW a government, you're calling for COUP D'ETAT!

 

That's the definition of a Coup D'etat!

 

Whereas the term, REVOLUTION,  has many nuances!

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution

 

 

It's up to you whether you accept that or not, but that's a fact!  I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it!  End of discussion about this coup!

you could concede graciously and not resort to large red fonts in anger. I'm sorry you didn't know Donald called for revolution before getting upset about a random comedian calling for resistance. I can see how that would be very embarrassing.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...the Clinton's were broke from so many legal fees and lawsuit settlements from Whitewater to sexual assault.   That's why they milked their positions with expensive influence peddling.    Trump already has billions...no need to grovel for speaking fees.

Trump speaks and the markets rise or fall, depending on his utterances.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Omni said:

I don't think a little fib about a sexual encounter is the same as an affront to the constitution. Do you?

Perhaps in your world adultery is ok. There is no law against it. Lying under oath is a different matter.

[BubberMiley]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Trump speaks and the markets rise or fall, depending on his utterances.

That's why everyone was so gobsmacked the Republicans were so irresponsible to put a person in charge who has no control over those utterances. Way to go.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

That's why everyone was so gobsmacked the Republicans were so irresponsible to put a person in charge who has no control over those utterances. Way to go.

I think he'll learn exactly how powerful the position is. He was just testing.

[BubberMiley]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I think he'll learn exactly how powerful the position is. He was just testing.

How reassuring. He just doesn't know.

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

How reassuring. He just doesn't know.

Sure he might make a few minor gaffs at the start, but its no big deal.

[BubberMiley]

5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Sure he might make a few minor gaffs at the start, but its no big deal.

Yeah, how much damage can a person do? It's not like it's an important job.

[Hal 9000]

8 hours ago, Omni said:

Sure. His Muslim ban. Goes against the constitution.

It's not a Muslim ban though.  I think that's easily provable.  Just because the leftists get hysterical, doesn't make what they say the truth.

[kactus]

Really don't understand why some members here are so confused about the ban... All these countries without exception have Muslim population majority. Donald Duck's pre- campaign rhetoric was to keep the Muslims out of US... To negate that it is not a Muslim ban is disingenuous or it could be to try to save the face of the president....

 

What makes this president especially incompetent is the very fact that he didn't  read the Executive Order whilst changing the responsibilities of Bannon....

[bush_cheney2004]

There are millions of Muslim American citizens already in the U.S., so such an argument and conclusion is ludicrous.

[Omni]

41 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

It's not a Muslim ban though.  I think that's easily provable.  Just because the leftists get hysterical, doesn't make what they say the truth.

So what type of bam would you righties like to call it? 

[Omni]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

There are millions of Muslim American citizens already in the U.S., so such an argument and conclusion is ludicrous.

The only thing that is ludicrous here is your attempt to conflate the past with the future. Well that and maybe your mentor's hairdo.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Avoid thread drift. 

[kactus]

Yeah that explains why muslim citizens now in US feel intimidated and taunted by the new musilm ban policy...

What a load of horse sh*te...

meanwhile...

The White House tried to put together a list of terrorist attacks the media "didn't want to report" on.

The effort to defend Donald Trump's bogus claims really didn't go well.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-struggles-defend-trumps-allegations-cover?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Edited February 7, 2017 by kactus

[kactus]

This sloppy reporting on the events that is actually taking shape in the white house is a serious matter. More lies and lies and lies...

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing reported to date are grounds for impeachment of President Trump.  

His critics will just have to try harder...much harder.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nothing reported to date are grounds for impeachment of President Trump.  

His critics will just have to try harder...much harder.

So you are fine with the lies?

[kactus]

The question does not solely focus on impeachment but rather the validity on whether this president that questions the judiciary, who is an incompetent leader (didn't read the EO before signing it) and lies time and time again and creates an atmosphere of ambiguity is fit to run a country based on false premise. 

One has to ask in the absence of credible opponents is it right to have a president that fails on basic principles of running a country?

Edited February 7, 2017 by kactus

[bush_cheney2004]

Lots of U.S. presidents have questioned the Congress and Judicial branches of government.  There is nothing special about President Trump in this regard.

President Obama was also challenged by court rulings at several levels and the U.S. Congress (e.g. closing 'Gitmo).

President Trump cannot be impeached for clashing with judges or states attorneys general on policy.

 

[kactus]

I don't think president Obama questioned and undermined the judicuary to the extent that Trump is doing. Trump is indeed very different from the system and other presidents.

Escalating he matter to the supreme court invariably suggests that there is a serious concern in the decision making process of this president....

Edited February 7, 2017 by kactus

[bush_cheney2004]

American political history says otherwise....the nation has survived such presidential conflicts many times before President Trump was elected.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/12/presidents-and-the-supreme-court-public-battles-an/

 

http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-us-supreme-court-and-the-imperial-presidency.html

 

U.S. presidents cannot be impeached based on the opinions of foreign nationals.

Edited February 7, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Omni]

Trump's own cabinet does not support him. How long will they let this go on?

http://www.themarysue.com/trumps-awful-ideas/

 

[Topaz]

6 hours ago, Omni said:

Trump's own cabinet does not support him. How long will they let this go on?

http://www.themarysue.com/trumps-awful-ideas/

 

Well, at least the public don't have to worry of selling secrets to China..Clinton or becoming a drug dealer, or fooling around with the interns.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Topaz said:

Well, at least the public don't have to worry of selling secrets to China..Clinton or becoming a drug dealer, or fooling around with the interns.

Would you rather have them sold to Putin, and do you think possibly that sniffle he has comes from coke abuse? And of course we all know Trump's reputation as a philanderer. At least I think Clinton's extra marital affairs were consensual.