When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

That sounds like something a Tory would've said leading up to the revolution...

Not to imply we're on the brink of a revolution. Just my thoughts on your attitude here.

What has Trump done? He's cut taxes, appointed Gorsuch (which any other Republican president would have done), and made a few middling trade deals. Not exactly taxation without representation.

Since we're not on the verge of revolution, it is important for the left to offer alternatives and to present it's agenda and plans. So far, we have incoherance and little more than "Trump is bad" or demands that the Republicans acquiesce to the Democratic agenda.

And that's why I'm voting Republican. They at least have an agenda and proposals, some of which I agree with, and even some I don't are better than what the left is likely to offer given it's current state of lunacy. Do they even have an immigration policy? A tax policy? A coherant foreign policy? Any plan for economic growth? Are they going to reign in the SJWs at all? What about Big Tech?

State wise though, I'm more inclined to vote Dem because I worry about Republicans and their affinity for anti-labor policies and their fumbling with education.

That sounds like something a Tory would've said leading up to the revolution...

Not to imply we're on the brink of a revolution. Just my thoughts on your attitude here.

What has Trump done? He's cut taxes, appointed Gorsuch (which any other Republican president would have done), and made a few middling trade deals. Not exactly taxation without representation.

Since we're not on the verge of revolution, it is important for the left to offer alternatives and to present it's agenda and plans. So far, we have incoherance and little more than "Trump is bad" or demands that the Republicans acquiesce to the Democratic agenda.

And that's why I'm voting Republican. They at least have an agenda and proposals, some of which I agree with, and even some I don't are better than what the left is likely to offer given it's current state of lunacy. Do they even have an immigration policy? A tax policy? A coherant foreign policy? Any plan for economic growth? Are they going to reign in the SJWs at all? What about Big Tech?

State wise though, I'm more inclined to vote Dem because I worry about Republicans and their affinity for anti-labor policies and their fumbling with education.

What are the Republican policies? Other than build a wall and stop all immigartion except from countries they like. Tax policy? Cut all taxes ensuring the wealthy get wealthier. A coherent foreign policy plan? Threaten allies, disrupt international institutions and flatter dictators. Economic plan? Pull out of trade deals and hurt American workers. But the SJW's can suck it so all is well.

Republicans have run congress for long enough to have policies in place. They haven't done that.

Please, Republicans have nothing to offer but Trumpism and Trumpism offers nothing at all but vitriolic rhetoric against percieved elites. And owning the libs

What are the Republican policies? Other than build a wall and stop all immigartion except from countries they like. Tax policy? Cut all taxes ensuring the wealthy get wealthier. A coherent foreign policy plan? Threaten allies, disrupt international institutions and flatter dictators. Economic plan? Pull out of trade deals and hurt American workers. But the SJW's can suck it so all is well.

Yes- build a wall, the DACA deal they offered, and merit based immigration. The tax cuts that were already offered. How do you propose to make other wealthy? Economic redistribution in the form of a blank check?

Trump wants to primarily renegotiate our global trade deals to be more beneficial to the U.S. overall. Obviously, some individual sectors or firms may suffer, but it is supposed to be better overall, in theory. American workers were already hurt by our trade deals.

Our international institutions are overdue for an overhaul. They've been unchaged since the Cold War, but things have changed. Good on Trump for recognizing that even if "progressives" can't see the future.

Viva la Resistance! They (we) are fighting for the ideals America was founded on. And we're making progress.

Vote DEM in November!

Depends on what they're running for. I'm looking at some of the Dem candidates in state and local. But sorry, I'm taking James over Stabenow (my congressional district is solid blue).

The Resistance isn't fighting for anything. They're reflexively resisting and having put forth any alternatives.

Complete BS.

What are the Republican policies? Other than build a wall and stop all immigartion except from countries they like. Tax policy? Cut all taxes ensuring the wealthy get wealthier. A coherent foreign policy plan? Threaten allies, disrupt international institutions and flatter dictators. Economic plan? Pull out of trade deals and hurt American workers. But the SJW's can suck it so all is well.

Yes- build a wall, the DACA deal they offered, and merit based immigration. The tax cuts that were already offered. How do you propose to make other wealthy? Economic redistribution in the form of a blank check?

Trump wants to primarily renegotiate our global trade deals to be more beneficial to the U.S. overall. Obviously, some individual sectors or firms may suffer, but it is supposed to be better overall, in theory. American workers were already hurt by our trade deals.

Our international institutions are overdue for an overhaul. They've been unchaged since the Cold War, but things have changed. Good on Trump for recognizing that even if "progressives" can't see the future.

Right, nothing has changed since the Cold War. Take a look around once in a while.

As far as trump and the "future," that's a crock. Rolling back civil rights, environmental protections, and trying to revive industries that can't keep up on their own, that ain't the future, bud. That's the past.

The DACA deal that the Dems AGREED to? Merit-based immigration is a smoke screen for greatly limiting ALL immigration, i.e., white nativism.

Get your FACTS straight.

President Trump so alarmed his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, during a discussion last January of the nuclear standoff with North Korea that an exasperated Mr. Mattis told colleagues “the president acted like — and had the understanding of — a ‘fifth or sixth grader.’”

At another moment, Mr. Trump’s aides became so worried about his judgment that Gary D. Cohn, then the chief economic adviser, took a letter from the president’s Oval Office desk authorizing the withdrawal of the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Mr. Trump, who had planned to sign the letter, never realized it was missing.

In July 2017, Mr. Woodward said, Mr. Trump told Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia that he would exempt his country from steel tariffs, only to claim, nearly eight months later, that he had never made that promise. Pressed on it by Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Trump said, “Oh yeah, I guess I remember that.”

Mr. Cohn, Mr. Woodward said, concluded that Mr. Trump was a “professional liar.”

He found a sympathetic ear in Mr. Kelly, another retired Marine general, who frequently vented his frustration to colleagues about the president, whom he labeled “unhinged,” an “idiot” and “off the rails.” Mr. Kelly’s reference to Mr. Trump as an “idiot” has been reported before.

“We’re in crazytown,” Mr. Kelly said in one meeting, according to Mr. Woodward. “I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

Mental wounds not healing
Life's a bitter shame

I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train

What are the Republican policies? Other than build a wall and stop all immigartion except from countries they like. Tax policy? Cut all taxes ensuring the wealthy get wealthier. A coherent foreign policy plan? Threaten allies, disrupt international institutions and flatter dictators. Economic plan? Pull out of trade deals and hurt American workers. But the SJW's can suck it so all is well.

Yes- build a wall, the DACA deal they offered, and merit based immigration. The tax cuts that were already offered. How do you propose to make other wealthy? Economic redistribution in the form of a blank check?

Trump wants to primarily renegotiate our global trade deals to be more beneficial to the U.S. overall. Obviously, some individual sectors or firms may suffer, but it is supposed to be better overall, in theory. American workers were already hurt by our trade deals.

Our international institutions are overdue for an overhaul. They've been unchaged since the Cold War, but things have changed. Good on Trump for recognizing that even if "progressives" can't see the future.

Have to disagree. In the 21st century, a wall along a 3000km border is fantasy. Social welfare programmes are a feature of most European nations all of which have more equal distribution of wealth than the US. All have higher, and I would say fairer, taxes then the US to that end. And a lot have happier citizens, which far less bitterness and polarisation than the US. But fair enough if you see things differently, that's the nature of politics and economics.

I also think that if the party which has controlled congress for the past few years really had well-planned policies they would have implemented them far sooner. They haven't which illustrates the lack of coherence among the party and their president.

The idea that the institutions which have served the US and its allies well are in need of an overhaul is plainly wrong. The only country calling for an overhaul is the US, none of its European allies are, and most are in fact aghastat his actions. Also, before Trump that wasn't a policy of either party. The only beneificiary of such calls is Russia and possibly China.

I think it's pretty naive to believe everything he says or does. And Republicans will suffer long term from his term in office.

What are the Republican policies? Other than build a wall and stop all immigartion except from countries they like. Tax policy? Cut all taxes ensuring the wealthy get wealthier. A coherent foreign policy plan? Threaten allies, disrupt international institutions and flatter dictators. Economic plan? Pull out of trade deals and hurt American workers. But the SJW's can suck it so all is well.

Yes- build a wall, the DACA deal they offered, and merit based immigration. The tax cuts that were already offered. How do you propose to make other wealthy? Economic redistribution in the form of a blank check?

Trump wants to primarily renegotiate our global trade deals to be more beneficial to the U.S. overall. Obviously, some individual sectors or firms may suffer, but it is supposed to be better overall, in theory. American workers were already hurt by our trade deals.

Our international institutions are overdue for an overhaul. They've been unchaged since the Cold War, but things have changed. Good on Trump for recognizing that even if "progressives" can't see the future.

Have to disagree. In the 21st century, a wall along a 3000km border is fantasy. Social welfare programmes are a feature of most European nations all of which have more equal distribution of wealth than the US. All have higher, and I would say fairer, taxes then the US to that end. And a lot have happier citizens, which far less bitterness and polarisation than the US. But fair enough if you see things differently, that's the nature of politics and economics.

I also think that if the party which has controlled congress for the past few years really had well-planned policies they would have implemented them far sooner. They haven't which illustrates the lack of coherence among the party and their president.

The idea that the institutions which have served the US and its allies well are in need of an overhaul is plainly wrong. The only country calling for an overhaul is the US, none of its European allies are, and most are in fact aghastat his actions. Also, before Trump that wasn't a policy of either party. The only beneificiary of such calls is Russia and possibly China.

I think it's pretty naive to believe everything anything he says or does. And Republicans will suffer long term from his term in office.

FIFY.

Otherwise, solid post.

I think it's pretty naive to believe everything anything he says or does. And Republicans will suffer long term from his term in office.

FIFY.

Otherwise, solid post.

Funny, his opponents believe the things he says that validate their view, but everything else is a lie. Trump says "I'm innocent"- he's lying. Trump says "Russia, if you're listening..." then he just said the truth and was confessing to treason.

You can't have it both ways. I think the best conclusion is take anything Trump says either way with a grain of salt. Look, I'll say I support him on more than not, but I'll be the first to admit that Trump says a lot of crap which shouldn't be taken at face value.

[quoteHave to disagree. In the 21st century, a wall along a 3000km border is fantasy][/quote]

I agree the wall is moronic (to some extent- obviously in moderate amounts at certain high-traffic regions or to push traffic towards border crossings and controlled areas and to avoid dangerous terrain is sensible), but it IS a plan.

The idea that the institutions which have served the US and its allies well are in need of an overhaul is plainly wrong. The only country calling for an overhaul is the US

The notion of a European army isn't a major overhaul? That's been bandied about by the EU, pre-Trump. That certainly would represent a major overhaul.

Certainly you'd agree that just as a natural matter of course, that after a certain period of time, circumstances will change and just as a part of natural progress and development, that long-standing agreements should get something of an overhaul just as a matter of "routine maintenance". I mean, we don't have to assume such an overaul would be excessively confrontational or to the detriment of the relationship (obviously any negotiation will have its areas of disagreement, but nothing catastrophic). It would seem to be a sensible measure that could boost efficiency and the well-being of both parties.

This doesn't mean you have to agree with Trump's direction as planning. An overhaul isn't any good if you're damaging things, but the idea of an overhaul in principal after say, a generation is not something one should oppose out of hand.

You can't have it both ways. I think the best conclusion is take anything Trump says either way with a grain of salt. Look, I'll say I support him on more than not, but I'll be the first to admit that Trump says a lot of crap which shouldn't be taken at face value.

For what it's worth, I really don't want to have to take the ****** president's words with a grain of salt. To some extent you have to take anyone's words with a grain of salt, but this guy is putting the country way past safe levels of sodium. I remember when republicans (not saying you are one) used to complain about Obama not being presidential enough because of irrelevant things like the color of his skin suits. For the same people who said that to now defend a republican president by saying "we shouldn't take him seriously" is just ~wild~ to me.

For what it's worth, I really don't want to have to take the ****** president's words with a grain of salt. To some extent you have to take anyone's words with a grain of salt, but this guy is putting the country way past safe levels of sodium. I remember when republicans (not saying you are one) used to complain about Obama not being presidential enough because of irrelevant things like the color of his skin suits. For the same people who said that to now defend a republican president by saying "we shouldn't take him seriously" is just ~wild~ to me.

Oh I agree there was a lot of conervative/Republican dumbassery when it came to Obama and stuff like his suit or some crap they'd spew about Michelle. Heck, I didn't even give a crap about him and Jeremiah Wright or what he did when he was young and in college, and I voted for him the first time and favored him over Romney (though wrote in Ron Paul) in 2012. I agree that a lot of Republicans and conservatives are being hypocrites on this, especially the Family Values crowd.

I think Trump overall does two really important things- He's really forcing a reckoning with "the system" and "the establishment" and in part he is doing what his voters wanted him to do- Go in there and blow things up and maybe, somehow, force out the crowd that has played both sides of the aisle for the last 30 years and perhaps not always served the interests of the American people as much as globalism and corporations. Whether his moves are effective at doing that is another matter, but it is a shake-up.

The other thing that Trump really brings is that, to go along with David Brooks, Trump may be uniquely talented in terms of dealing with dictators and rogue regimes in a way a conventional politician might not be. The establishments methods don't exactly have the best track record of recent success in Syria, Russia, and North Korea. Sometimes you have to go with unconventional and see if it works. Just like only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only Trump can go to North Korea. We may lose something in terms of our traditional relationships, but I don't think that loss overall is going to be seriously damaging. On the other hand, what we could gain in say, bringing North Korea into the international community is tremendous.

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling. 

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

It's just you

I think it's pretty naive to believe everything anything he says or does. And Republicans will suffer long term from his term in office.

FIFY.

Otherwise, solid post.

Funny, his opponents believe the things he says that validate their view, but everything else is a lie. Trump says "I'm innocent"- he's lying. Trump says "Russia, if you're listening..." then he just said the truth and was confessing to treason.

You can't have it both ways. I think the best conclusion is take anything Trump says either way with a grain of salt. Look, I'll say I support him on more than not, but I'll be the first to admit that Trump says a lot of crap which shouldn't be taken at face value.

Really, I think it's more a matter of "You can't trust anything he says." He's giving the same "guarantee" now about not firing Mattis that he did about Cohn, Tillerson, McGahn, etc, etc. That means it doesn't really look all that good for Mattis--and the country, as a result.

He apparently promised the Australian PM Turnbull not to raise steel tariffs in a phone call only to later "forget" he had done so. 

His word--hell, even his notarized signature--is absolutely worthless.  How can a government function with a pathological liar heading it?

The notion of a European army isn't a major overhaul? That's been bandied about by the EU, pre-Trump. That certainly would represent a major overhaul.

Certainly you'd agree that just as a natural matter of course, that after a certain period of time, circumstances will change and just as a part of natural progress and development, that long-standing agreements should get something of an overhaul just as a matter of "routine maintenance". I mean, we don't have to assume such an overaul would be excessively confrontational or to the detriment of the relationship (obviously any negotiation will have its areas of disagreement, but nothing catastrophic). It would seem to be a sensible measure that could boost efficiency and the well-being of both parties.

This doesn't mean you have to agree with Trump's direction as planning. An overhaul isn't any good if you're damaging things, but the idea of an overhaul in principal after say, a generation is not something one should oppose out of hand.

There might be a difference between routine maintenance and an overhaul.  But in either case, you should have a qualified mechanic do it, not "a moron" with "a fifth or sixth grade understanding" who is a "pathological liar".

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

That’s childish.

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

That’s childish.

If the child is smarter than the alleged man, in then case you, so be it.

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

That’s childish.

If the child is smarter than the alleged man, in then case you, so be it.

No, in then case you !!!

Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.

Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.

Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.

This is exactly what you do, Steel Rails, Martin, DMT, whoever you are …

See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing.  So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.

I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it.  Eventually.

Flash forward to the waygook.org era (I don't--never did--engage on Dave's) and you've found that the thing to do when you are wrong--for sure, not always--is to subtly change the point of debate.  If someone is talking about Israel, bring up Syria.  The military annexation of Ukraine, well, some people wanted it.  Clinton won the popular vote, well, it wasn't the majority.

The same attempt at redirection we see in the other thread about the Trump Tower meeting.  You keep yammering about how they needed to vet the info from the Russians about potential Clinton "incriminating" acts without being willing to understand that meeting with those Russian agents may have been illegal in itself.  And should certainly have been reported to the FBI.

I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter.  You should stop.

None of us is perfect, certainly including myself.  We all engage in hyperbole, personal slights, rhetorical excesses when engaged in matters we believe in.  I get it.  We all understand that.

However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.