Trump Impeachment Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He’s good enough to remain super-rich. ~shrug~
After four businesses that went bankrupt, he was bad enough to put some people out of business.

As President, he isn’t going to find he can just walk away from failing projects that have his name emblazoned on them. Everything he does now is fodder for history.
 
After four businesses that went bankrupt, he was bad enough to put some people out of business.
How many didn’t go bankrupt?
As President, he isn’t going to find he can just walk away from failing projects that have his name emblazoned on them. Everything he does now is fodder for history.
Yup. And I’m telling you, those of us who voted him in are largely happy with what he’s doing. You can believe it or not, as you see fit.
 
I agree. I truly don’t understand the hysterics around him. He’s far from perfect, but we’ve had worse.

I just really hope the identity politics doesn’t continue to become more and more pervasive in our elections, but I think it’s going to become the norm. It won’t be any discourse, just various cliques vying for control.
 
Well, for one, they’re estimating, and it’s interesting that the estimates are way, way below Trump’s boasts. Second, in addition to his campaign, two of the biggest drags on his net worth were the New York real estate market (c’mon, Trump, you didn’t see this one coming? I thought you were a visionary business genius!) and a $25,000,000 check to people he defrauded.
 
After four businesses that went bankrupt,
That’s not exactly a measure of failure in the business world. The majority of start ups fail. My father is now very successful, but he’s been bankrupted about 6 times over the course of his life.
 
Well, for one, they’re estimating, and it’s interesting that the estimates are way, way below Trump’s boasts.
Okay. I don’t find it particularly relevant, but you do you. He’s a blusterer and a blowhard. I know this and accept it.
Second, in addition to his campaign, two of the biggest drags on his net worth were the New York real estate market (c’mon, Trump, you didn’t see this one coming? I thought you were a visionary business genius!) and a $25,000,000 check to people he defrauded.
And the third, as you say, was his run for the Presidency. Seems like a dumb thing to do for someone that was supposedly just doing it for a publicity stunt.
 
And the third, as you say, was his run for the Presidency. Seems like a dumb thing to do for someone that was supposedly just doing it for a publicity stunt.
Again, unless you see it as an investment in your future as a public figure. Imagine if Trump HAD lost, but had 35-40% of the country believing he was their political Messiah and had been robbed by Crooked Hillary. He’d be a constant guest on Fox, and he’d be basking in the cheers of tens of thousands in sold-out stadiums whenever he wanted. All without the tiresome business of actually governing. That’s what he actually thought he was getting, in my opinion. (Obviously, I can’t prove this conclusively, but it seems to be borne out by people who know him well.)
 
Again, unless you see it as an investment in your future as a public figure.
Is it an investment or a publicity stunt? Is he smart or is he a moron? Seems like everyone’s stories are getting crossed.
Imagine if Trump HAD lost, but had 35-40% of the country believing he was their political Messiah and had been robbed by Crooked Hillary. He’d be a constant guest on Fox, and he’d be basking in the cheers of tens of thousands in sold-out stadiums whenever he wanted.
Conjecture. I don’t know if I’d agree, I’d have to think about it.
All without the tiresome business of actually governing. That’s what he actually thought he was getting, in my opinion. (Obviously, I can’t prove this conclusively, but it seems to be borne out by people who know him well.)
You’re welcome to your opinion, and I say that without animosity. I don’t agree, obviously.
 
Is it an investment or a publicity stunt? Is he smart or is he a moron? Seems like everyone’s stories are getting crossed.
Can be both. People don’t publicity stunts for no reason. They always expect to get something out of it later.
You’re welcome to your opinion, and I say that without animosity. I don’t agree, obviously.
No, I get it. We’re just talking. I don’t have anything against you personally even though we disagree.
 
Didn’t he put his name in the ring, and then pulling it out right about the time the new season of the Apprentice started? I think he did that more than once.
 
Last edited:
But if Trump is as horrible at planning and running things as the media says he is, he’d be incapable of either.
Oh, I don’t think even the most rabid of HuffPo commenters would claim Trump isn’t very good at self-promotion/publicity. He’s a showman, that’s for sure.
 
How many didn’t go bankrupt?
That’s like a pilot referring to all the planes he didn’t crash or a captain referring to all the years he didn’t capsize his boat, LOL. Seriously, though, if you’re going to use “he got rich” as evidence that he’s competent, you have to consider that other people who ventured into business in him were not looked out for. He got his; they didn’t get theirs. He says, “that’s just the way business is done.” Maybe so, but in politics, you don’t get to just declare bankruptcy, swallow your losses and walk away. Your failures stay around your neck.
Yup. And I’m telling you, those of us who voted him in are largely happy with what he’s doing. You can believe it or not, as you see fit.
Voters normally require results, but it is true that a President’s partisans will usually give him credit whether or not he is directly responsible for a success and will make excuses for him when he fails. His adversaries will do the opposite.

It is the people in the middle, the people who are neither partisans nor adversaries, who will decide whether or not he gets re-elected.

I agree that if Donald Trump ran against Hillary Clinton today, however, he’d still have a very good chance of winning again. Mrs Clinton hasn’t gotten more popular since she lost. I will never predict he loses an election until I know who he’s running against. (There are some real dogs who could get into that race–politically speaking, of course.)
 
Last edited:
Didn’t he put his name in the ring, and then pulling it out right about the time the new season of the Apprentice started? I think he did that more than once.
According to those who know his wife, she thought he really did want to know how he would do as President. She thought he’d regret it if he never tried. Mostly, though, she told him he’d better do it if he was going to do it and stop talking about it. He was a very old candidate, even as it was.
 
Last edited:
That’s like a pilot referring to all the planes he didn’t crash or a captain referring to all the years he didn’t capsize his boat, LOL.
Not really. Apple and oranges there, sir / madame.
Seriously, though, if you’re going to use “he got rich” as evidence that he’s competent, you have to consider that other people who ventured into business in him were not looked out for. He got his; they didn’t get theirs.
If that’s true, it makes him selfish, not incompetent.
He says, “that’s just the way business is done.” Maybe so, but in politics, you don’t get to just declare bankruptcy, swallow your losses and walk away. Your failures stay around your neck.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that point. I mostly agree. What I don’t agree with is your apparent stance that he’s nothing but a failure. I think he’s doing pretty dang well, all things considered, and I am still happy that I voted for him.
Voters normally require results, but it is true that a President’s partisans will usually give him credit whether or not he is directly responsible for a success and will make excuses for him when he fails. His adversaries will do the opposite.
Cautiously agree. That’s a very partisan statement there, in a way, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt.
It is the people in the middle, the people who are neither partisans nor adversaries, who will decide whether or not he gets re-elected.
Possibly. We’ll see.
I agree that if Donald Trump ran against Hillary Clinton today, however, he’d still have a very good chance of winning again. Mrs Clinton hasn’t gotten more popular since she lost. I will never predict he loses an election until I know who he’s running against. (There are some real dogs who could get into that race–politically speaking, of course.)
Here we agree. I’m not convinced he could have won against Sanders, even, though I’m glad that Sanders didn’t get in either.
 
As much as I would like to not have Donald Trump as president, he is who we have. That’s how our system works. If enough people don’t like the job he is doing, then he will be fired in 2020.
Well, sort of.

There is no “none of the above” selection in our presidential elections. You can do a terrible job, and if you (a) don’t commit any high crimes or misdemeanors so bad that a super-majority of both the House and the Senate feels compelled to make you the first sitting President ever removed by Congress and (b) no one runs against you that the voters find more palatable than you are, you could still get re-elected.
 
Newsweek says that the chances of Trump being impeached is only about 20 percent. The chance of him being removed from office in an impeachment is practically nil.

Both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune (both very much on the liberal side of things) say that Trump is on track to get a second term in 2020. The Trib says there are only five things that could prevent that. They are:
  1. An economic downturn, which is unlikely. The economy is going the other way.
  2. War with N. Korea, started by the US, with any outcome but a non-nuclear N. Korea and minimal casualties. If N. Korea starts it, all bets are off. If anyone starts it and we run over them like we did Iraq, both times, all bets are off. I personally am very familiar with the Korean area Order of Battle. A clean victory would be tough, but very possible.
  3. The Democrats take control of the House AND reject an ultra-left wing agenda. Retaking the House is possible. The Dems rejecting an ultra-left agenda is unlikely. If they go ultra-left, they will likely lose the presidential race in 2020, like McGovern did in '72. Appealing to the base is one thing, alienating the majority is another.
  4. Impeachment of Trump himself. Impeachment requires "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The only thing that is even alleged on that order is possible violation of the 1799 Logan Act. Only two people in the history of the country have ever been indicted under the Logan Act and none have been convicted. The Trib says Mueller’s investigations will probably produce indictments, but there is no indication any of them will be against the president himself. The Trib says that even if the Dems retake the House, impeachment is a non-starter, due to #3.
  5. Trump’s health fails. Who knows? But that would not preclude a Republican victory.
 
Last edited:
Impeachment is always more about politics. It is like a long, drawn-out political ad. Unless there was some sort of blatant treason or serious crime uncovered, now or in the future with another president, we will not ever see a sitting president removed from office. A good case in point was the Clinton fiasco.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top