[Suntzu]

Nixon's VP (Ford) upgraded to President and pardoned Nixon from (future) prosecution




They could start tommorow.

No they can't. A sitting president can't be charged he can only be impeached.

[Drlee]

He will never quit. He's not their stooge now, so he will never obey them. It's just not in his DNA.

You are kidding, right? He will do whatever is best for Trump. He is not basing a thing on some sense of right or wrong. The ball is entirely in the democrat's court.

No they can't. A sitting president can't be charged he can only be impeached.

Nonsense. The states could charge and prosecute him. How do you think he would fare if the Manhattan District Attorney charged him? And Ivanka. And Kushner...and....

New York is already subpoenaing Cohen.

At the end of the day I think the democrats will save him. Can he win in 2020? I am beginning to think not. It would all depend on the strength of the woman the democrats choose to run against him.

[Suntzu]

You are kidding, right? He will do whatever is best for Trump. He is not basing a thing on some sense of right or wrong. The ball is entirely in the democrat's court.



Nonsense. The states could charge and prosecute him. How do you think he would fare if the Manhattan District Attorney charged him? And Ivanka. And Kushner...and....

New York is already subpoenaing Cohen.

At the end of the day I think the democrats will save him. Can he win in 2020? I am beginning to think not. It would all depend on the strength of the woman the democrats choose to run against him.

You need to stick to medicine unless you know something the Supremes don't. A sitting president can't be charged . . . period. The only action that can be taken against a sitting president is impeachment.

[Crantag]

You need to stick to medicine unless you know something the Supremes don't. A sitting president can't be charged . . . period. The only action that can be taken against a sitting president is impeachment.

You need to stick to wacking off to granny porn.

drlee is right. It isn't actually settled law that a sitting president can't be prosecuted, but this is the Department of Justice policy, it seems.

The States can file charges.

As a matter of fact, late-breaking news has it that the Manhattan D.A. Reportedly Considering Criminal Case Against Trump Organization

Meanwhile, it's just come to the surface that Trump financial chief 'given immunity'.

Meanwhile, a hand full of Republican Congressmen are jumping ship. Republicans Urge Embattled Incumbents to Speak Out on Trump

Also, Trump has just spoken publicly about impeachment for the first time. Trump Predicts His Impeachment Would Trigger Stock Market Crash

I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job. I'll tell you what, if I ever got impeached I think the market would crash. I think everyone would be very poor. Because, without this thinking you would see, you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe.

Here's the full interview, if anyone has the stomach to listen to this piece of shit for so long.

[Rugoz]

Here's the full interview, if anyone has the stomach to listen to this piece of shit for so long.

It's hilarious actually. It's like watching The Sopranos.

Here's a quote:

I know all about flipping, for 30, 40 years I’ve been watching flippers. Everything’s wonderful, and then they get ten years in jail and they flip on whoever the next-highest one is, or as high as you can go. It almost ought to be outlawed, it's not fair.

[Beren]

A fair thing would be if all his minions were in jail while he's graciously deciding whether with whom he cheats on his wife next.

[Suntzu]

A fair thing would be if all his minions were in jail while he's graciously deciding whether with whom he cheats on his wife next.

Funnier would be if Trump pardoned 'em all while fucking Chelsea Clinton. Well, all except Cohen.

[Beren]

Funnier would be if Trump pardoned 'em all while fucking Chelsea Clinton. Well, all except Cohen.

Why would he fuck Chelsea Clinton? She's neither a pornstarlet/Playboy model nor his housekeeper, it wouldn't be worth the hush money. Real fun would be if he pardoned his son and himself while fucking his favourite child he seems sexually attracted to. That would be a real Trump family event.

[Suntzu]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[anarchist23]

I'm not one to believe in polls, but

By any metric, Donald Trump is in trouble.
A poll out from The Post and ABC on Friday shows that 60 per cent of voters disapprove of the job he's doing as president, a new low. But that's just one poll; the polling average at statistician Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight shows Mr Trump with a mere 53.4 per cent disapproval rating, which is better than its 56.8 per cent peak last December.
But a presidency is not in good shape when the best spin on the new poll is "It's an outlier! Only 53 per cent of the country thinks the president is terrible." The poll is especially ugly for Republicans with midterms looming in two months.
FiveThirtyEight's forecast for the mid-terms puts the likelihood of Democrats taking the House at more than 70 per cent. Their chances of taking the Senate are lower, but Republicans are hardly a lock despite a very favourable map for them. And if Democrats manage to eke out a majority in both houses of Congress, here is the poll's really bad news for Mr Trump: Half the country wants him impeached.
To put that in perspective: In January 1974, well into the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon's poll numbers on impeachment were better than President Trump's are now. Earlier, less disastrous polls for Mr Trump still showed him veering dangerously close to what we might call "the Nixon ceiling."
Most worrying for Mr Trump is that three-quarters of Democrats say they want Congress to impeach him. If Democrats gain control, they will be under immense pressure from their base to deliver.
That doesn't mean they'll do it. It takes a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate to actually remove a president from office. The best that Democrats can possibly manage in 2018 is a narrow majority; they would need more than a handful of Republican senators to support removal. The leaders of a Democrat-controlled House might well decide they'd rather not force their Senate brethren to take a hard and futile vote.
But as Republicans found in the 1990s, these things have a way of taking on unexpected momentum. A former Republican congressional staffer who was close to that process tells me that the day after the bruising 1998 mid-terms, Newt Gingrich - who would shortly step down as House speaker - said, "impeachment is over, that's one thing the election clearly meant." Five weeks later, with Mr Gingrich out of the way, House Republicans impeached Bill Clinton. Then he was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate.
"The activist base of the party was committed to the idea, and that made it impossible for the elected officials to change course," the former staffer says, "even though they knew impeachment wasn't what the broader public wanted."
It's all too easy to imagine a similar scenario for Democrats intent on impeaching Mr Trump as they come up short looking for Republicans to help them make it across the finish line. But it's not entirely impossible to picture a few Republicans going along. If Democrats do manage to start impeachment hearings, it would be because - unlike Republicans in 1998 - they would be coming off a huge mid-term win. Public support for impeaching Mr Trump, even taking into account his more favourable polls, would be higher than it ever was for impeaching Mr Clinton.
Mr Trump is in a very unusual situation for an American president. Members of his die-hard base are loyal, but at his peak they were barely a plurality of the party. The rest of his support is purely expedient, interested in getting judges appointed and keeping Democrats out of power. Republicans in Congress are loyal, for now, but only because they're afraid of his voters.
Trump allies raise alarm over impeachment as legal team shrinks
Trump unprepared for impeachment and Democratic takeover: report
Giuliani: 'American people would revolt' if Trump is impeached
President Trump deserves to be impeached but conviction is unlikely
How can a US president be impeached?
But by the time Mr Trump faced a Senate trial, that would mean the political calculus had shifted radically. He would have cost them the Congress; there would be no hope of more judges; the 2020 election would seem already lost. And he'd have no reservoir of goodwill in the party, for at every turn he has made a point of attacking and humiliating any Republican he deemed insufficiently obsequious. Just how long will the Coalition of the Unwilling stand by a president who was never really their man?
But even if Republicans hold the party line, what Mr Trump faces in this scenario is bad enough: a public trial that he can't avoid by firing the investigators, nor distract from with more Twitter blasts. One senses that public humiliation, especially at the hands of an establishment that has always looked down on him, is the thing that Mr Trump fears most. Though far from certain, that humiliation is growing more likely.
Yes, the president is clearly in trouble. But does Mr Trump, hunkered down with deferential staffers and screens blaring Fox News, realise it? Or might he learn it only when Congress calls him to account - and he finds no one standing behind him?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 17961.html

[annatar1914]

I'm not one to believe in polls, but

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 17961.html

Polls of this sort are designed to attempt to shape opinion, not reflect it. This is such an old story, that i'm surprised that people aren't more cynical these days.

[Crantag]

Polls are sort of shit.

They are fetishised because the provide numbers to look at, and numbers are easy to talk about.

I like good statistics as much as the next guy, or more probably, but endless polls are non-well-serving.

A good opinion poll would need to survey a hell of a lot of people in a hell of a lot of places, to gauge something like Trump's approval rating.

Asking 1000 people (or more often 500 odd) on the phone is really pretty damn meaningless.

The poll in the headlines today did catch my eye though, which said that Trump's approval rating is 36%; while 49% favor impeachment.

But, I didn't look at how it was compiled, and the poll was likely garbage. 49% may, after all, be too low as an estimate.

As for the story posted just above though, aggregating shit polls is just as meaningless.

[anarchist23]

I posted this on TLTE. lol




Talk about gaslighting.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a neologism used by its adherents to describe a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump conservatives, who are said to respond to Trump's statements and political actions irrationally, with little regard to Trump's actual position or action taken.
The use of the term by some on the right has been called part of a broader GOP strategy to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions, as a way of "reframing" the discussion by suggesting his political opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.
In December 2016, Justin Raimondo divided the "syndrome" into three stages; in the first, those who "lose all sense of proportion," next, they experience "a profound effect on ... vocabulary" and begin to "speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole," and, in the final stage, the afflicted "lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality." Jonathan S. Tobin defines it as "disgust at his manner and his tweets such that all distinctions between him and genuine villains is lost." In April 2017 Fareed Zakaria defined the syndrome as "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment."Similarly, Rand Paul stated in July 2018: "The hatred for the president is so intense, that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance."CNN's editor-at-large Chris Cillizza called TDS "the preferred nomenclature of Trump defenders who view those who oppose him and his policies as nothing more than the blind hatred of those who preach tolerance and free speech."

[blackjack21]

You are kidding, right? He will do whatever is best for Trump. He is not basing a thing on some sense of right or wrong. The ball is entirely in the democrat's court.

Quitting is not in his best interest. I wasn't kidding when I said Trump would be in it for the long term. I wasn't convinced he would win when he jumped into the race, but I was convinced he was going to raise hell. He did. He won. Now he's governing. Anyone thinking Trump is going to wilt under pressure is dreaming.

Nonsense. The states could charge and prosecute him. How do you think he would fare if the Manhattan District Attorney charged him? And Ivanka. And Kushner...and....

New York is already subpoenaing Cohen.

I think they're already exploring the avenues and coming up empty. The latest theory is that Cyrus Vance wants to prosecute Trump Organization accountants for filing bills from an attorney as "legal expenses." This stuff is going to go nowhere. The Democrats are in a big hole now, because they've spent two years doing nothing but trashing Trump while failing to build a compelling counter-agenda. On the contrary, they are fighting off their own Tea Party of leftist progressives. If they want to remain a Wall Street friendly party, losing is their best short-term option until they can regain control of the situation. The problem there is that they've ignored voters for so long, they don't know what voters think anymore.

It would all depend on the strength of the woman the democrats choose to run against him.

Unless they get the Virgin Mary to run, I think they're pretty much toast if they do round three of "identity politics president."

I think it's interesting that nobody on the left has written a post on "Will the Democrats get a clue?" or "Will the Democrats develop a plan that appeals to the masses?" It seems like that is not going to happen.

[Crantag]

'Trump derangement syndrome' is a copycat term of 'Obama derangement syndrome'.

It's popularity among neocon snowflakes shows how bereft they are of any creativity, to so much as come up with a unique concept.

When you use it trying to sound clever, all you get is deaf ears and rolled eyes, from those people who use to speak of, or think of, Obama Derangement Syndrome, which was a loose term for the condition whereby the Congress opposed Obama on every opportunity.

It's summed up decently in the infamous Mitch 'The Turtle' McConnell public statement: 'Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president.'

You need to come up with something original if you want to even be taken seriously one iota.

[SolarCross]

'Trump derangement syndrome' is a copycat term of 'Obama derangement syndrome'.

It's popularity among neocon snowflakes shows how bereft they are of any creativity, to so much as come up with a unique concept.

When you use it trying to sound clever, all you get is deaf ears and rolled eyes, from those people who use to speak of, or think of, Obama Derangement Syndrome, which was a loose term for the condition whereby the Congress opposed Obama on every opportunity.

It's summed up decently in the infamous Mitch 'The Turtle' McConnell public statement: 'Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president.'

You need to come up with something original if you want to even be taken seriously one iota.

Actually it started with Bush, there was a Bush Derangement Syndrome as well. The reason why they are not being "original" is exactly because it seems to be the same phenomena as before only with a different target. Also the hysteria is on a higher level this time but that is a difference of quanity not quality. I would say both republicans and democrats are prone to this given there was a lot of hysteria over Obama as well but so far the democrats have been afflicted with it twice and with Trump they have taken it to entirely new levels of hysteria.

[Crantag]

Actually it started with Bush, there was a Bush Derangement Syndrome as well. The reason why they are not being "original" is exactly because it seems to be the same phenomena as before only with a different target. Also the hysteria is on a higher level this time but that is a difference of quanity not quality. I would say both republicans and democrats are prone to this given there was a lot of hysteria over Obama as well but so far the democrats have been afflicted with it twice and with Trump they have taken it to entirely new levels of hysteria.

I suppose you are right.

I take some issue with your football game description though.

That's like saying the Buffalo Bills have been afflicted with this losing in the Superbowl thing twice.

I'm not a fan of Obama. I voted for Denis Kucinich in the primaries.

Obama is not easily compared though to Bush, or Trump.

I will say that the 9/11 'Truthers' remind me somewhat of the Trump deepstate conspiracy theorists. Minus the substance, for the latter crew.

I'll count myself among the 'Truthers'. What the people asking for truth about 9/11 had on their side is scientific basis. Sort of like those who disbelieve the Kennedy Magic Bullet Theory.

I'll say that my views have modified. It was an inside job, which involved the Saudis.

If you never have, it's worth watching/listening to the lengthy conferences by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's also worth looking into who the security company which was charged with managing the 9/11 towers was owned buy.

► Show Spoiler

George Bush's cousin.

Once you've done that, it's worth checking out the obscure publication: The Secret History of 9/11 (in 3 volumes), edited by Paul Zarembka.

Ah, wait. This is all ancient history, ain't it?

In fact, you make clear that it ain't with your comments. Oh, and there's those realities of the still-ongoing wars in the Middle East, which also mean it ain't.

[anarchist23]

'Trump derangement syndrome' is a copycat term of 'Obama derangement syndrome'.

It's popularity among neocon snowflakes shows how bereft they are of any creativity, to so much as come up with a unique concept.

When you use it trying to sound clever, all you get is deaf ears and rolled eyes, from those people who use to speak of, or think of, Obama Derangement Syndrome, which was a loose term for the condition whereby the Congress opposed Obama on every opportunity.

It's summed up decently in the infamous Mitch 'The Turtle' McConnell public statement: 'Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president.'

You need to come up with something original if you want to even be taken seriously one iota.

Further to the quote on TDS.
Trump has jumped on the Trump Derangement Syndrome wagon. It seems he believes in TDS. lol

Michael Davis claims that "conservatives and progressives appear equally susceptible."
The term has been widely applied by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, accusing them of responding negatively to nearly every Trump statement or action. Bret Stephens has described the term as something that was being used by conservative groups anytime that someone spoke out critically against Trump, regardless of political affiliation.
The term has been used by journalists critical of Trump to call for restraint. Fareed Zakaria, who urged Americans to vote against Trump calling him a "cancer on American democracy,” argues that every Trump policy "cannot axiomatically be wrong, evil and dangerous." Adam Gopnik, who takes a strong anti-Trump position, responded to these assertions that it is a "huge and even fatal mistake for liberals (and constitutional conservatives) to respond negatively to every Trump initiative, every Trump policy, and every Trump idea." Arguing that Trump's opponents must instead recognize that the real problem is "Deranged Trump Self-Delusion," Gopnik defined the "Syndrome" as President Trump's "daily spasm of narcissistic gratification and episodic vanity." The real problem, according to Gopnik, is that President Trump is a man of "fears and fits" with an "appetite ... for announcing his authority through violence, a thing capable of an unimaginable resonance and devastation".
Senator Ted Cruz used the term in a May 2018 interview with Fox & Friends to describe the media's coverage of the freeing of American citizens from North Korea. Steve Doocy asked Senator Cruz why the media's coverage was all about Stormy Daniels when President Trump just negotiated the release of the three American citizens. Senator Cruz responded:
Most of the media they are just out of their minds. They have what I call Trump Derangement Syndrome where all they can do is attack the president all day long on the scandal of the day.
Senator Rand Paul has also used the term to describe Russian interference in the 2016 US election:
All countries are doing this, but we've elevated this to a higher degree, and we've made this all about the sour grapes of Hillary Clinton losing the election, and it's all about partisan politics now. This is truly the Trump derangement syndrome that motivates all of this.
President Trump used the term himself in a tweet following the 2018 Russia–United States summit in Helsinki:
Donald J. Trump✓
via Twitter
@realDonaldTrump
Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!
July 18, 2018
He also used it in a tweet about Alan Dershowitz's book The Case Against Impeaching Trump:
Donald J. Trump✓
via Twitter
@realDonaldTrump
.@AlanDersh, a brilliant lawyer, who although a Liberal Democrat who probably didn’t vote for me, has discussed the Witch Hunt with great clarity and in a very positive way. He has written a new and very important book called “The Case Against Impeaching Trump,” which I would encourage all people with Trump Derangement Syndrome to read!
July 26, 2018
In July 2018, Judge Jeanine Pirro accused Whoopi Goldberg of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome during a guest appearance on The View (talk show) to promote her newly published book. This occurred while Pirro was responding to a question about how the “deep state” really works.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also used the term in this tweet:
Sarah Sanders✓
Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming a major epidemic among Democrats. Instead of freaking out about the booming Trump economy why not celebrate it?
August 1, 2018

[Red_Army]

Saying the hysteria about Trump is worse than Obama is ideological blindness. People were saying that Obama was a secret muslim communist nazi in complete sincerity. The only reason anyone could think the anti-Trump people are more hysterical is because the media is composed of pearl clutching liberals. The average dipshit fox news watcher was absolutely more hysterical than even the whiniest anti-Trump person. I agree that both are mostly silly, but Trump obstructs justice nearly every time he speaks and people criticize him. Right wing morons were literally organizing against the US military because they thought Obama was invading Texas.

[anarchist23]

Origin of term...
The coinage is traced to Bush derangement syndrome, a phrase coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2003, during the presidency of George W. Bush, and defined by Krauthammer as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of George W. Bush."