Final Days of the Trump Presidency?

[sudo242 0]

SkyDekker

It is interesting that you are accusing Canada of starting a trade war. I think your reality is a little skewed, stop licking all those bullets. Lead is bad for you.

They started the trade war because they refused to renegotiate the abomination called NAFTA. The tariffs are just a response to that. Again, you are confusing tactics with strategy.

[billvon 3,006]

>He imposed the tariffs in response to Canada refusing to eliminate THEIR tariffs.

Canada had tariff quotas on US products (dairy for example) the US had tariff quotas on Canadian products (lumber for example.) These came out of the NAFTA framework. Seemed to work.

THEN Trump started the trade war.

>This is one thing I hate abut leftists.

Why is it that the more vitriolic and angry a right winger is, the more likely he is to be ignorant of the basic facts of his argument?

[sudo242 0]

gowlerk

Quote

He imposed the tariffs in response to Canada refusing to eliminate THEIR tariffs.

You very obviously know little about the matter. Trump imposed world wide tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports as a response to the oversupply in world markets caused by Chinese over production. Canada just got caught in the same net as everyone else.

YOU must know very little. The trade war and tariffs are a direct result of Canada refusing to renegotiate the abomination called NAFTA. Canada has been ripping us off for a long time.

[gowlerk 2,216]

sudo242

***
...We are all far too well off to even consider ourselves oppressed to the point of needing to fight.

And here is the fatal flaw in your reasoning^.


Okay. Maybe not all of us. Just the vast majority. I certainly hope you are not considering committing an act of violence in support of your extreme views. It will not accomplish any of your goals. It did not work for Dylan Roof, it did not work for Edgar Maddison Welch,it did not work for James Alex Fields, or Nichols or McVeigh or any of the other violent right wing "leftist haters" who tried to start revolution. And it won't start working for anyone else.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[sudo242 0]

billvon

Why is it that the more vitriolic and angry a right winger is, the more likely he is to be ignorant of the basic facts of his argument?

Am am certainly not right wing. They are equally crazy, but we are not talking about them right now. If you want to talk about how delusional religions are, then that should be a different thread.

[sudo242 0]

gowlerk

Okay. Maybe not all of us. Just the vast majority. I certainly hope you are not considering committing an act of violence in support of your extreme views. It will not accomplish any of your goals. It did not work for Dylan Roof, it did not work for Edgar Maddison Welch,it did not work for James Alex Fields, or Nichols or McVeigh or any of the other violent right wing "leftist haters" who tried to start revolution. And it won't start working for anyone else.

This has nothing to do with me.

[billvon 3,006]

>Second, I'm not convinced impeachment would be best for the country anyway.

Well, _successful_ impeachment probably wouldn't be best right now, given who is waiting in the wings. Probably the best thing that could happen is to have the "hammer" of impeachment primed and ready to go; that might help keep Trump under control and less likely to do anything really dangerous.

[gowlerk 2,216]

sudo242

***

Quote

He imposed the tariffs in response to Canada refusing to eliminate THEIR tariffs.

You very obviously know little about the matter. Trump imposed world wide tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports as a response to the oversupply in world markets caused by Chinese over production. Canada just got caught in the same net as everyone else.

YOU must know very little. The trade war and tariffs are a direct result of Canada refusing to renegotiate the abomination called NAFTA. Canada has been ripping us off for a long time.


Apparently you are unaware that Canada is re-negotiating NAFTA right now. Canada is currently running a trade deficit with the USA. We generally export raw materials and import finished goods from the USA. We used to run a large surplus, but that was because the US had a huge need to import our oil. That is not the case right now. Like most Americans you have only a very shallow understanding of US-Canada trade. And that is not surprising considering the relative size and importance of the relationship to each country.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[sudo242 0]

gowlerk

Apparently you are unaware that Canada is re-negotiating NAFTA right now. .

I AM aware. And I am also aware that they are BECAUSE of the tariffs.

[sudo242 0]

billvon

>Second, I'm not convinced impeachment would be best for the country anyway.

Well, _successful_ impeachment probably wouldn't be best right now, given who is waiting in the wings. Probably the best thing that could happen is to have the "hammer" of impeachment primed and ready to go; that might help keep Trump under control and less likely to do anything really dangerous.

You know for a fact that impeachment is nothing more than political propaganda because it requires a two thirds majority vote in both the house and the senate and that of course is not possible under any scenario. It is just a side show for the mid term elections. So since you know that as a fact, why would you keep pretending like it is a possibility?

[gowlerk 2,216]

Quote

You know for a fact that impeachment is nothing more than political propaganda because it requires a two thirds majority vote in both the house and the senate and that of course is not possible under any scenario. It is just a side show for the mid term elections. So since you know that as a fact, why would you keep pretending like it is a possibility?

Impeachment would be the ultimate political act. It could only happen if the Senate was convinced that they would be more likely to be re-elected than defeated if they voted for it. Like Nixon, Trump would resign if this was a possibility.

The main people even talking about impeachment are Republicans trying to stir up anger among the base. Like you.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 235]

Quote

...his replacement is arguably worse.

This is my largest concern, when the news broke my thought was "Fuck, two years too soon." I would much rather that the next President be chosen by American voters. Don't think that either Trump or Pence could win it but I absolutely don't want Pence to remain in D.C. any longer than he needs to.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,006]

>So since you know that as a fact, why would you keep pretending like it is a possibility?

Did you read my post? I am not advocating for impeachment.

[pchapman 279]

sudo242

They started the trade war because they refused to renegotiate the abomination called NAFTA.

[sarcasm] Love it!
Poland started a war with Nazi Germany because it didn't give in to Germany's demands. Poland refused to negotiate on the Danzig corridor, the fools!

Might is right! The US has more rights than others, because it's bigger!
[/sarcasm]

(And good luck with China by the way, hard to tell where that goes.)

As for the Trump presidency, I'd actually be surprised if it didn't go full term. As a foreigner I'm a little surprised at how much the US makes the president a sort of king in his powers, despite how much 'checks and balances' are otherwise a cornerstone of the system.

People aren't even clear on whether the president can be charged with crimes or disobey most of the rules of government...

[yoink 321]

sudo242

You know for a fact that impeachment is nothing more than political propaganda because it requires a two thirds majority vote in both the house and the senate and that of course is not possible under any scenario.

Sadly I think you're right. Even if Trump got caught red handed breaking the law and pissing on the Constitution, the Republican majority wouldn't vote to impeach him.

Can we at least agree that that is REALLY bad news - putting party before country?

[sudo242 0]

billvon

>So since you know that as a fact, why would you keep pretending like it is a possibility?

Did you read my post? I am not advocating for impeachment.

I did read your post. You are not advocating for impeachment, but you are implying that it is a possibility. I know you are no dumb ass, so you also know that it is indeed not a possibility. But yet for some reason, you want to spread the word that it is.

[sudo242 0]

gowlerk

The main people even talking about impeachment are Republicans trying to stir up anger among the base. Like you.

There you go again, implying that I am a republican. I am nothing of the sort, so stop it. I am staunchly independent and not corrupted by any ideology.

[gowlerk 2,216]

Quote

You are not advocating for impeachment, but you are implying that it is a possibility.

Not replying for Bill, but for myself. It is definitely a possibility at some future time. There is a good chance he has done things in the past that are impeachable. Like perhaps money laundering. But just like a good Mafia boss he is hard to pin down. There is a reason that he wants his business dealings to stay outside of any scrutiny.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[gowlerk 2,216]

sudo242

***
The main people even talking about impeachment are Republicans trying to stir up anger among the base. Like you.

There you go again, implying that I am a republican. I am nothing of the sort, so stop it. I am staunchly independent and not corrupted by any ideology.

Yes, you are not espousing typical R ideas. You seem to be very Trumpian though. Trump is also not an ideologue. He is an opportunist and a reactionary. And although you may not consider yourself part of the R base, you are definitely part of the Trump base.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[ryoder 1,590]

gowlerk

Not replying for Bill, but for myself. It is definitely a possibility at some future time. There is a good chance he has done things in the past that are impeachable.

What is impeachable is whatever the House decides.

An example Yale Law Prof Akhil Amar gives in one of his Constitutional Law lectures:
"Suppose you had a POTUS that spent all day, every day, drunk in bed. He is not breaking any laws, but he could be impeached if the House voted to do so."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#Impeachable_offenses
Impeachable offenses
The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".[32] Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[33] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

RMK

Meanwhile, while this is happening, he’s on his way to one of his trademark white trash festivals (AKA Trump Rally).

The correct term is Hillbilly Nuremberg Rally.
(credit to Bill Maher)

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[gowlerk 2,216]

Indeed. And the lesson of the R controlled House voting to impeach Clinton is the best example ever of what can happen when impeachment becomes too partisan. It is always and must be a political calculation.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 3,006]

>I did read your post. You are not advocating for impeachment, but you are implying that it is a possibility.

Of course impeachment is a possibility. All that is required is a House vote to begin the process. Usually it also involved the House Judiciary Committee recommending the vote, but that's not a requirement.

>so you also know that it is indeed not a possibility.

Again, of course it's a possibility. Nothing is preventing it. And it becomes likely if the democrats retake the house.

[JerryBaumchen 1,373]

Hi Bill,

Quote

It is absolutely a possibility if the democrats retake the house.

It is a possibility at anytime.

However, IMO it is not a probablility at this time.

Those two words, possibility & probability, mean different things.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,500]

sudo242

Am am certainly not right wing. They are equally crazy, but we are not talking about them right now.

Yeah, you're talking about left wing extremists - because you decided to start talking about left wing extremists. Just like every other thread you enter you're talking about left wing extremists, and left wing courts, and the left wing media.

But no, you're definitely not right wing. What could possibly give anyone that idea?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?