Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Leroy42

Inquitus wrote: »

The main takeaways from a Senate Impeachment conviction are Trump loses:

• His Presidential Pension
• His Secret Service detail
• The ability to run again in 2024

TBH, that is all fairly meaningless.

The real takeaway is that not only had Trump now become the only POTUS to have been impeached twice, he is the only POTUS ever to have been impeached with votes from his own party.

No matter what else he ever tries to do, twice impeached will forever be his legacy. The ins-an-outs will be forgotten over time, but that fact will never be forgotten.

seamus

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL just give it five minutes for them to pivot to explain its because hes under duress from the rest of the GOP, being bribed or its just a deepfake

I mentioned this before, but it should be a big concern for Trump and the US;

These people are off their nut. There is no explanation too off-the-wall for them so long as they get to maintain their delusion. Trump is being coerced; Trump has "flipped"; Trump has been removed and replaced with an imposter.

These are all perfectly reasonable theories, because they protect/support the core QAnon theories.

All it takes is one of these lunatics who sees fit to remove Trump from the equation so as to defend the QAnon ideas, and assassinates him.

Then you've a relatively large group of lunatics running headless and convinced they need to take back their country by force.

The only saving grace might be the volume of bored middle-class people involved in this. They might be more inclined to go back to their lives than get physically involved.

Inquitus wrote: »

The main takeaways from a Senate Impeachment conviction are Trump loses:

• His Presidential Pension
• His Secret Service detail
• The ability to run again in 2024

The last point is a good reason why the GOP might engineer a scenario where the Senate convicts without damage the Republican brand too much.
Find 6 or 7 GOP senators who are planning on retiring anyway, convince another 10 to quietly abstain or be unexpectedly not present.

Trump gets convicted and the GOP can then try and rebuild for 2024 without the distraction of Trump hanging over them.

hotmail.com

Leroy42 wrote: »

TBH, that is all fairly meaningless.

The real takeaway is that not only had Trump now become the only POTUS to have been impeached twice, he is the only POTUS ever to have been impeached with votes from his own party.

No matter what else he ever tries to do, twice impeached will forever be his legacy. The ins-an-outs will be forgotten over time, but that fact will never be forgotten.

Bill Clinton doesn't seem bothered about being only the 2nd president in history to be impeached.

Unlikely that Trump gives a toss about this either. He didn't even mention it last night.

fash

Inquitus wrote: »

The main takeaways from a Senate Impeachment conviction are Trump loses:

• His Presidential Pension
• His Secret Service detail
• The ability to run again in 2024

link. that seems to have been viral "fake news".

aloyisious

Tell me how wrote: »

Wonder how his supporters who are looking down the barrel of federal convictions feel after him telling them about 176 hours ago that he would never back down, or never surrender.

I've been bothered by the start of his statement where he speaks the words "as I've said, the encouraging of the U.S. Capitol" makes me think he either ignored words on the prompter screen like ATTACK ON THE after the word ENCOURAGING, or ATTACK after the word CAPITOL on the teleprompter he was reading his words from made it a non-apology, just like it was a blip on the screen of U.S history, nothing to be ashamed of or apologetic for on his part or the word/s ATTACK ON THE were edited out later. What do the words "the encouraging of the U.S capitol" mean without reference there and then to what happened at the Capitol? Even when referencing the advice he got from the FBI about another attack on the Capitol, he uses the word PROTEST not attack.

When he mentions use of speech, he references censoring. It doesn't take a genius to see he's talking about himself and the platforms revoking his access to them for the purpose of avoiding further disturbances on the streets caused by his use of words.

I'm not sure if the peculiarity of the words FOX 2 popping up on screen at that particular moment of his statement, replacing the words YouTube, have anything to do with the lack of the word ATTACK in his screened statement seeing as Fox does take a slanted view of Trump's actions, words and deeds.

Sorry, MoodeRator: I should have proofread my post more before hitting the print button. You're right, it's "incursion" not "encouraging", my thanks.

MoodeRator

I think he is saying "incursion" rather than "encouraging". Either way, there is no way these are his words

Dohnjoe

I am not sure why people are even discussing the possibility of a two-thirds vote in the Senate, it won't be happening.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

Bill Clinton doesn't seem bothered about being only the 2nd president in history to be impeached.

Unlikely that Trump gives a toss about this either. He didn't even mention it last night.

It isn't about whether they pretend they care or not (they do). It is the fact that whenever they are talked about it will be part of the conversation.

Clinton was, at the very least, not a terrible POTUS. He did some good things. But whenever he is mentioned impeachment will soon be mentioned.

It even played a drag on HC.

So even if Ivanka or Don Jr want to have a political career, the questions about their fathers double impeachment will never be far from them.

Quin_Dub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am not sure why people are even discussing the possibility of a two-thirds vote in the Senate, it won't be happening.

Well - You've got to think of this in terms of the GOP Power play.

They want to win in 2024 and Donald Trump isn't going to win in 2024, he's irreparably toxic outside the GOP, and they know this.

However , they do need to keep his "base" onside.

So their calculus will be - Is it better to cut him loose now and have 2/4 full years to repair/rebuild before the Elections or do we support him and then run the risk of more dirt coming out , but him still being able to run and maybe even winning the primary.

That's the discussion and evaluation they are doing right now.

Evidence of his crimes doesn't enter into it for a second.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

Bill Clinton doesn't seem bothered about being only the 2nd president in history to be impeached.

Unlikely that Trump gives a toss about this either. He didn't even mention it last night.

Andy Jackson as well, as impeaching is the bringing of charges only, not trial and/or conviction by the senate.

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

Bill Clinton doesn't seem bothered about being only the 2nd president in history to be impeached.

Unlikely that Trump gives a toss about this either. He didn't even mention it last night.

Clinton isn't a screaming narcissistic person.

When you think Clinton impeachment you automatically think Blow job in the oval office.

When you think Trump impeachment you automatically think Russian collusion, Narcissist, Man baby, Grifter, whinger, sore loser etc.

hotmail.com

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am not sure why people are even discussing the possibility of a two-thirds vote in the Senate, it won't be happening.

It gives the Trump people some suspense over the next few days and keeps ratings high.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

Bill Clinton doesn't seem bothered about being only the 2nd president in history to be impeached.

Unlikely that Trump gives a toss about this either. He didn't even mention it last night.

Given how Trump reacted to the previous impeachment, it's a sure thing he is going mental over the impeachment. Also saying anything in relation to it last night has the potential to increase the risk with the trial. He stuck to a script to cover his own defence.

MadYaker

If Mitch McConnell in in favour and it sounds like he is(?) then I think it could happen but can it happen before next Wednesday?

dogbert27

Marjorie Taylor Greene planning to file impeachment on Biden, Jan 21st

So much for "now is the time for unity"! :rolleyes:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9145845/Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-plans-file-impeachment-against-Joe-Biden-January-21.html

Shelga

Maybe a bit off topic, but why is everyone so flippant about the impeachment of Clinton? Yes, Republicans just did it for political purposes, but he massively abused his position of power, and did lie under oath so I don't understand why he wasn't convicted? Super dodgy connections to Epstein too. Ruined Lewinsky's life and just got back slapped by everyone at the time. "Ha ha, boys will be boys" blah blah blah. I think the man is disgusting.

But hey, he's a Democrat and charming :rolleyes:

lee_baby_simms

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

When you think Clinton impeachment you automatically think Blow job in the oval office.

I immediately think of a cigar but your point still stands.

VinLieger

MadYaker wrote: »

If Mitch McConnell in in favour and it sounds like he is(?) then I think it could happen but can it happen before next Wednesday?

Doesnt need to, there's precedent for cases being brought to the senate after the person they are about has left office, although it has not yet happened for a president

FreudianSlippers

MadYaker wrote: »

If Mitch McConnell in in favour and it sounds like he is(?) then I think it could happen but can it happen before next Wednesday?

The rumour is that if he does go along they have 12 votes, but Mitch is refusing to even sit and start a trial before the 19th, so it'll be (if they get at least 4 more votes and the 12 do vote the way they've indicated) impeachment after he's left office, which would still be a win.

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The rumour is that if he does go along they have 12 votes, but Mitch is refusing to even sit and start a trial before the 19th, so it'll be (if they get at least 4 more votes and the 12 do vote the way they've indicated) impeachment after he's left office, which would still be a win.

Do abstentions reduce the votes required?

Quin_Dub

dogbert27 wrote: »

Marjorie Taylor Greene planning to file impeachment on Biden, Jan 21st

So much for "now is the time for unity"! :rolleyes:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9145845/Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-plans-file-impeachment-against-Joe-Biden-January-21.html

Won't even get out of committee.

robinph

dogbert27 wrote: »

Marjorie Taylor Greene planning to file impeachment on Biden, Jan 21st

So much for "now is the time for unity"! :rolleyes:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9145845/Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-plans-file-impeachment-against-Joe-Biden-January-21.html

Why do they use the term "9/11 truther"? Should just stick to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, using the word truth makes it seem like their crazy has some validity.

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Clinton isn't a screaming narcissistic person.

When you think Clinton impeachment you automatically think Blow job in the oval office.

When you think Trump impeachment you automatically think Russian collusion, Narcissist, Man baby, Grifter, whinger, sore loser etc.

Two impeachments and no 'cigar', poor Donnie

Quin_Dub

VinLieger wrote: »

Do abstentions reduce the votes required?

Yes , it's 2/3rd's of "those present"

Retr0gamer

Shelga wrote: »

Maybe a bit off topic, but why is everyone so flippant about the impeachment of Clinton? Yes, Republicans just did it for political purposes, but he massively abused his position of power, and did lie under oath so I don't understand why he wasn't convicted? Super dodgy connections to Epstein too. Ruined Lewinsky's life and just got back slapped by everyone at the time. "Ha ha, boys will be boys" blah blah blah. I think the man is disgusting.

But hey, he's a Democrat and charming :rolleyes:

It was a sneaky blowie and affair. Hardly a threat to state like colluding with a foreign power or inciting sedition. And then there's the gross hypocrisy that the majority of the people voting to impeach him were hardly paragons of monogamy.

FreudianSlippers

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It was a sneaky blowie and affair. Hardly a threat to state like colluding with a foreign power or inciting sedition. And then there's the gross hypocrisy that the majority of the people voting to impeach him were hardly paragons of monogamy.

Well the affair is one thing, committing perjury is another.

I'd have been a fan of Bill, but he really made a balls of that whole thing.

aloyisious

There's something that may have been missed by some in the rush for impeachment before the inauguration and that the two new senators from Georgia have not been certified and [presumably] not sworn in yet. I just saw an item on Bloomberg markets news channel on Sky that Georgia State election officials are saying it will be done by inauguration day. Certainly I was not aware of it and had to google for info.

MSN news link.... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/when-will-the-new-georgia-senators-be-sworn-in-what-to-know-after-democratic-victories/ar-BB1cyKO6

The races are over, and the two Democrats have edged out victories over the two Republicans, splitting the legislative body 50-50. That means the Dems will gain control of the Senate because in a half-and-half situation, the vice president breaks tie votes—in this case, incoming Democratic VP Kamala Harris.

But before congratulating winners Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff (who beat Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, respectively), know that a few things have to happen before it’s a 100% done deal. The first issue is administrative. As ABC News reports, the counties must certify their election results by Friday, January 15, although they won’t necessarily take that long. Georgia‘s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, then has until the following Friday, January 22, to certify the election results, although he’s free to complete the process anytime before then.

Runoff victors are usually sworn in shortly after certification, the Washington Post reports. Congress was already sworn in for the new session earlier this week.

I'm presuming from this that there'd be no point in the Dems trying to go ahead with a senate trial for weeks yet, probably not before the inauguration, which explains what's been going on with the slowness of proceedings in the senate and both parties must be fully aware of the certification and swearing-in legalities yet to be done. There's no sudden lack of impetus at all there.

Quantum Erasure

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well the affair is one thing, committing perjury is another.

I'd have been a fan of Bill, but he really made a balls of that whole thing.

He was shafted

FreudianSlippers

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

He was shafted

Bill Clinton lied to an IC that was put in place by his own AG at the time. If he didn't try to lie about the affair and then try to justify it by talking about the definition of the word "is" he wouldn't have been impeached. Clinton shafted himself by trying to be clever.

...and again, I say this as someone who is generally fond of Bill Clinton.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Bill Clinton lied to an IC that was put in place by his own AG at the time. If he didn't try to lie about the affair and then try to justify it by talking about the definition of the word "is" he wouldn't have been impeached. Clinton shafted himself by trying to be clever.

...and again, I say this as someone who is generally fond of Bill Clinton.

Clinton was a very good President in the grand scheme of things , broadly speaking he left the place in a much better state than when he arrived.

He was (and still is) not a particularly good/nice person though, mainly linked to his inability to keep it in his pants

Trump is an awful person who is leaving the country in an immeasurably worse place as well.