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

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

So I guess your talking about a kind of unconditional love then.

That's an interesting perspective that would explain a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't say I've ever had that kind of feeling for a political leader before.  I certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary. In the case of Hillary I suspect a lot of her support came from the fact that she wasn't Trump.

Nonetheless you would acknowledge this 'unconditional love affair' would make a rational discussion/debate problematic given the propensity for purely emotive responses, wouldn't you?

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

So I guess your talking about a kind of unconditional love then.

That's an interesting perspective that would explain a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't say I've ever had that kind of feeling for a political leader before.  I certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary. In the case of Hillary I suspect a lot of her support came from the fact that she wasn't Trump.

Nonetheless you would acknowledge this 'unconditional love affair' would make a rational discussion/debate problematic given the propensity for purely emotive responses, wouldn't you?

On first look they would seem purely emotive but that emotion is the logical reaction to being under attack.

Thats why I'm saying if the media/elites were just treating Trump with presidential respect they would have a better chance. They aren't being bashful about who they feel Trump represents and openly attacking him/them. Logically, the "evil" working class middle of the country is going to dig their heels in and not give an inch if they can help it.

*I think none of this matters as I believe the next election results will be reported as a defeat for Trump... even if he actually wins. The media/elite seem to be all in and are creating a narrative that he is a lot more unpopular than he actually is in reality.

It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d27K5t7CWPU

Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

So I guess your talking about a kind of unconditional love then.

That's an interesting perspective that would explain a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't say I've ever had that kind of feeling for a political leader before.  I certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary. In the case of Hillary I suspect a lot of her support came from the fact that she wasn't Trump.

Nonetheless you would acknowledge this 'unconditional love affair' would make a rational discussion/debate problematic given the propensity for purely emotive responses, wouldn't you?

On first look they would seem purely emotive but that emotion is the logical reaction to being under attack.

Thats why I'm saying if the media/elites were just treating Trump with presidential respect they would have a better chance. They aren't being bashful about who they feel Trump represents and openly attacking him/them. Logically, the "evil" working class middle of the country is going to dig their heels in and not give an inch if they can help it.

*I think none of this matters as I believe the next election results will be reported as a defeat for Trump... even if he actually wins. The media/elite seem to be all in and are creating a narrative that he is a lot more unpopular than he actually is in reality.

Make up your mind dude.

In your previous post you just said your support for Trump was based on feelings.

The fact that your feelings are telling you that you're under attack, irrespective of the reality of the situation, doesn't make you're position anymore logical/reasoned. It is still an emotive response.  I understand that Trump validates your emotive fears and disdain for the likes of 'uppity foreigners' and other groups that you choose to use as scapegoats so there is no need to muddy the water any further with talk of media conspiracies.

Well, this action may actulally rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IrmHI5j94

Golfers outraged after Donald Trump commits golf’s ‘unforgivable’ sin               

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/golfers-outraged-after-donald-trump-commits-golf%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98unforgivable%e2%80%99-sin/ar-BBD2SS4?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=LENDHP

There's a lot of things you can do on a golf course that, while may not defy golf's etiquette, are very much within the laws of the game. Swearing, shouting, slamming clubs; it all happens occasionally. But what President Donald Trump just did, as any golf fan will tell you, is a step too far.

Granted, Trump did it at the golf course he owns, so in reality he can do whatever he wants, but even still: Driving a golf cart on the putting green? Ruining that impeccably-manicured putting surface? So rude.

Here is my recommendation for Trump that I believe would significantly enhance his election probabilities in 2020, if he wants to run in 2020. My recommendation is: go for Medicaid and/or Medicare for all.

Part of Trump’s winning coalition was created with a populist message; a message that IMHO helped him to peel away from Clinton millions of people who voted for Obama in 2012, but voted for Trump in 2016.  Going for a health program that would truly help blue collar working people, and a lot more, I believe would assist to cement his ties with many of these voters. 

Yes, some Republicans would oppose it, but many establishment Republicans already oppose Trump.  But, I also believe if he came up with a good plan, and they are out there, that rank and file Republicans would eventually follow along; especially if he introduced the health care plan with a tax reform plan and immigration reform plan that Republicans really liked.

There is Republican precedent for it.  Nixon submitted a very good national health care plan to Congress in the early seventies.  I wish it had become law back then, but unfortunately it got buried by Watergate.  You can read excerpts about Nixon’s plan at the link at the end of my post,  BTW, it is a Kaiser Health News Link.

First, here is a link to an article about why Medicaid and/or Medicare for all might be a good idea.  And note that it is a NewsMax link….
Some excerpts.

Medicaid for All: Bold Rx for What Ails the US Healthcare System?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/medicaid-for-all-bold/2017/06/21/id/797523/

(Copyright DPC)
By John Bachman and Nick Tate   |   Wednesday, 21 Jun 2017 11:46 PM

The bruising congressional debate over what to do about Obamacare has prompted Jim DeMint, the president of the Heritage Foundation, to call the 2010 law a “cancer” on the nation’s healthcare system that must be excised.

“We don’t need to replace the healthcare system — we need to remove the cancer,” said the former U.S. senator at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference. “Once we get rid of Obamacare, we can begin to improve our healthcare system so that it works for every American.”

Whether you agree or not, DeMint’s analogy suggests a bold Rx may be needed to fix what ails the nation’s healthcare system: A radical treatment that — like chemotherapy — is not designed to merely treat the symptoms, but remove the tumor, which has spread to the point that more moderate measures won’t work.

That radical fix: Medicaid for all.

A controversial idea? No doubt. A tough pill for some GOP leaders to swallow? You bet. But workable? Without question, many experts and some political pundits say.

In fact, for a growing number of moderate and conservative voices, Medicaid for all may be the only true antidote for the healthcare crisis the Republican Party has inherited. In the minds of many, it is the only way to significantly lower premiums, increase competition and choice, and make sure every American has coverage and care……

Most Americans believe everyone should have access to some standard level of healthcare in the U.S., at the lowest possible cost — so it doesn’t bankrupt individuals, businesses, insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, or the government.

If you agree with this simple premise — as polls show most Americans do, as well as members of Congress, and the current occupant of the White House — the only reasonable follow-up question is: How do we do that?

The answer, by many accounts, is Medicaid.

Congress and the White House have been gridlocked over minor Band-Aid Obamacare fixes that essentially keep the Affordable Care Act alive, while choking off funding and enforcement of many of the law’s provisions.

But even those modest prescriptions for reform have been stymied — and not just by the Democrats who oppose significant changes to Obamacare. Deep divisions within the Republican Party have also led to a standoff, with conservatives demanding full ACA repeal and moderates pushing to keep safeguards for people with pre-existing conditions and insurance subsidies for middle class voters.

Congressional leaders and the president could sidestep all of this by turning to Medicaid to cover the 7 percent of Americans who don’t now get insurance through the workplace, Medicare, the Veterans Administration, or Medicaid….

In fact, federal stats also show it costs half as much, on average, to insure a Medicaid recipient (under $5,000 per year, on average) as it does a typical American who is covered through the Obamacare exchanges, the private market, or employer-sponsored health plans (more than $10,300, on average, last year, according to Obama Administration estimates)….

Allowing Americans who now make too much money to qualify for Medicaid — or even buy into the plan by paying a nominal premium — would create a safety net that makes sure everyond is covered at half the cost of a typically insured individual in the U.S.

That would bring the nation’s average per-capita costs in line with most other Western nations. (Americans now pay twice as much per capita for healthcare than any other country on Earth, yet trail all other Western nations when it comes to the death rate from preventable conditions, according to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund).

Another option worth a look: Allow Americans to buy into Medicare before they turn 65, the age of eligibility. Letting middle-aged Americans to pay two, three, or even four times as much as the average Medicare recipient pays ($109 monthly) would provide adequate insurance coverage at a significant savings to younger, healthier individuals. It would also produce an infusion of cash to Medicare, and keep it solvent. (Federal stats show that Americans over 65 use roughly twice as many healthcare services as those under 65).

Both options — perhaps offered in tandem, on a voluntary basis — would meet President Donald Trump’s core campaign promises to make sure “everyone will be covered” and “healthcare costs will come down.”…..
   


 http://khn.org/news/nixon-proposal/

Nixon’s Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:
–Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
–The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
–The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.

For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can ‘be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.
Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws:…………….




                           

The latest news is, CNN was so eager to write crap about Donaldo, that it published a story using fabricated sources/quotes.  Now it's in the very craphole it wanted to put Donaldo. 

Here is my recommendation for Trump that I believe would significantly enhance his election probabilities in 2020, if he wants to run in 2020. My recommendation is: go for Medicaid and/or Medicare for all.

I have to say, on the surface it sounds compelling. I'd support it.

Not that Trump would seem to care, he seems happy to be crapping all over the American consititution, and believing he's getting 'things' done.

Donald Trump wasn't elected to be President of the world, so who gives a crap?

Also, how is he crapping all over the American Constitution? You can't just throw out that phrase without specific examples.

How does someone like this have 1.5m subs?  Just crazy...

https://youtu.be/DJXE8R1gByM

Related to impeachment, these are the same crazies, let's make up and give as much misinformation as we can and maybe we can convince the world we are telling the truth.  Shame on people like this, if you are going to say something at least get your facts straight. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuFH2Aui14g

Some people should watch a few of these Ben Shapiro vids and learn.

I am disappointed to say this, but I agree with the basic concept of this article.  Although I would have changed the headline to something like: If Trump signs this health care bill it means that Trumpism isn’t populism.

As I have previously said, part of Trump’s winning coalition was created by him talking a populist message; especially regarding health care.  Trump should be the one leading on this issue, and not a Republican congress.  Whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, congress is basically worthless.  Congress will always put their individual interest ahead of what is good for the country.  A president needs to lead and tell congress what he wants.

One of the issues I had with Obama was that he did not try and lead congress and fight for what he wanted.  He liked to sit back and say that since the Republicans controlled congress it wasn’t worth the fight.  IMHO, presidents should not shy away from a good fight with congress. But, I digress.

If Trump lets the Republican congress be the main force behind the health care bill, tax reform and immigration reform, Trump will look just like a typical Washington DC politician because congress will give him typical Washington DC garbage legislation - GIGO.

Many of us supported Trump because we wanted to shake up DC, and the health care bill is a great way to do this.  In his campaign Trump promised many blue collar workers –and others -- that they would have affordable health care.  Therefore, Trump should change course and submit a new health care bill that has a plan for basically allowing people to obtain very affordable health care either through a Medicare and/or Medicaid option.  I talked about this in my previous post.

Yes, there will be Republicans that will oppose this, especially the so called “Freedom” caucus, but who really cares about them.  They certainly do not care about Trump.  Based on the past 6 years or so they have clearly demonstrated that all they really care about is their own reelection.

Now, for the interesting part.  Many Democrats have been very vocal about adopting a health care plan that provides an affordable Medicare and/or Medicaid option for anyone who needs it. So, if Trump proposes such a plan do the Democrats support it, and break with the very powerful anti-Trump section of the Democratic Party, or do they follow their beliefs and support it?  IMHO, if they opposed it such action will clearly state that all they want to do is oppose Trump.

Please remember that this is exactly the kind of political situation that many of us who supported Trump wanted to see.  We wanted to see the standard Republicans only support Republicans and/or the Democrats only support Democrats political gridlock challenged: to create political situations just like the one that would occur with a Trump supported populist health care bill.  Again, Trump needs to lead on this issue or he will lose.

Some excerpts.

The Senate health care bill is proof: Trumpism isn’t populism
By Matt O'Brien By Matt O'Brien
June 28 at 7:00 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/28/the-senate-health-care-bill-is-proof-trumpism-isnt-populism/?utm_term=.63f3c74aabc1#comments

The Senate's health-care bill might be too much for even Marie Antoinette.
After all, about the only way it could be more regressive is if it took the cake a certain French queen wanted the poor to eat for dinner and gave it to the rich for dessert. Or, say, cut Medicaid and middle-class health insurance subsidies so much that 22 million fewer people have health insurance -- all so that the government could afford to cut the capital gains tax for households making $250,000 or more.

Oh, wait. That last one is actually what the Senate bill would do.......

....Now, there are three ways to think about the Senate bill. The first is that it would take health-care from the poor and middle-class to pay for tax cuts for the rich at a time of already historic inequality. The second is that it would make insurance more expensive for everyone and less useful for anyone who is sick. And the third is that it would hurt President Trump's working-class base the most. Other than that, how were the tax cuts, Mrs. Lincoln?...

....the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the Senate bill would increase the cost of a "silver" plan that covers 70 percent of expected medical costs by an average of 74 percent over the next three years—and more for the type of older, poorer people who overwhelmingly went for Trump.


Although it's actually even worse than that. A 64 year-old making $26,500 would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, see their premiums for a silver plan go from $1,700 under Obamacare to $6,500 under the Senate bill—but it'd be for a silver plan that covered 17 percent fewer of their expected medical expenses. So they'd be paying more to get less. How much more? Well, the Kaiser Family Foundation calculates that, in the case of our hypothetical 64 year-old, their deductible would go from $809 to $6,105.....
 
Let them pay a third of their income in deductibles is the new let them cake.




         

Time magazine has asked the Trump Organisation to remove a framed front cover featuring Donald Trump from several of its golf clubs after it was proven to be fake.

The cover, showing a presidential Mr Trump with his arms folded and steely-eyed, was framed and hung on the walls of at least four Trump courses in the US, Ireland and Scotland.

Dated March 1, 2009, the cover reads “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!”, with another headline stating: “TRUMP IS HITTING ON ALL FRONTS . . . EVEN TV!”

However, the Washington Post established that there was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time Magazine and Mr Trump did not feature on the cover at any time in 2009.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/time-magazine-asks-trump-organization-remove-fake-donald-trump/

Mr Trump was criticised for a speech in January at the solemn setting of the CIA memorial wall, in which he lambasted the media and boasted that he held the record for the number of Time magazine covers.

"So a reporter for Time magazine - and I have been on their cover, like, 14 or 15 times," Mr Trump said.

"I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time Magazine. Like, if Tom Brady is on the cover, it’s one time, because he won the Super Bowl or something, right?  I’ve been on it for 15 times this year. I don’t think that’s a record, Mike, that can ever be broken. Do you agree with that?  What do you think?"

Time later clarified that the president had been on 11 covers in total at the time, while Richard Nixon had graced it on 55 occasions.

There was no response from the Trump Organization to the use of the fake Time cover.

Instead of starting new threads I’m going to use this one for things/comments that involve Trump. 

Instead of wasting his time and lowering his presidency – presidents should never punch down --- on Twitter attacking MSNBC, if Trump really feels the need to tweet he should come out and support this amendment.  See the link below. 

This is a good example of how parties should work together.  The decision to go to war is gravely important and one of the main responsibilities/duties delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.   Regarding this amendment:

•   It aligns with many things Trump said during his campaign.
•   It is the constitutional way of deciding about and/or conducting war.
•   It is time for the U.S. to have a real debate about a war that we have been involved in since 2001.  And, I mean a real debate: not like the Iraq war debate – should they be called freedom fries or French fries……

While the media is wasting its time pushing and/or fabricating stories about the “Russians,” there is serious talk in the Trump administration about increasing U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.  Why doesn’t the media cover/push this story?  IMHO, if we had followed through and not gotten sidetracked into Iraq, we could have basically been out of Afghanistan by 2004/05 at the latest.

House panel votes to force new debate on terror war

The move to rescind the post-9/11 military authorization was a rare victory for Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, a long-time war critic.

By Bryan Bender and Jennifer Scholtes
06/29/2017 12:48 PM EDT
Updated 06/29/2017 08:24 PM EDT

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/29/congress-vote-authorize-war-islamic-state-240095

Congress may finally be getting fed up with war on autopilot.

A powerful House committee voted unexpectedly Thursday to require Congress to debate and approve U.S. military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other far-flung countries — in a surprise victory for a longtime Democratic critic of the nearly two-decade-old war on terrorism.

The amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee of California — one of countless she has offered in recent years — is only a modest first step in getting Congress to update the authorization of military force that lawmakers adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Thursday's voice vote in the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee is a symbolic move forward.

Even Republicans with military experience embraced Lee's defense spending bill amendment, which would repeal the 2001 authorization............

                                       

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_0tBKG80dk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_0tBKG80dk

"This video is unavailable"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=w44lApffH30

Yet another Project Veritas video came out showing CNN has nothing except extreme hate. Trump will be in 8 more years, and if you get past all these false flags, you can see all the good he's doing and done. Tens of thousands of pedophiles have been apprehended already, jobs are flooding back to America, nations are being empowered to handle their own problems.

Even if Obama is still pretending to be president, meeting with Moon Jae In, I acknowledge he did some really good things as president as well. America needs to focus on unity at this point, or at least not looking for excuses to circumvent the political process.

 If you don't like it, vote again in 3 years. But in the mean time, don't look for every opportunity to get in his way.  Trump sure isn't perfect, but find me a president who was, and I will gladly retract my statement.

I'm actually very shocked this can even be talked about on Waygook. They say they don't allow religious talk because it's inflammatory, but this thread seems much more so, but *crickets.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_0tBKG80dk

"This video is unavailable"

Must have been porn - Life improvement is trying to get us all fired, I'm telling ya!   

Yet another Project Veritas video came out showing CNN has nothing except extreme hate. Trump will be in 8 more years, and if you get past all these false flags, you can see all the good he's doing and done. Tens of thousands of pedophiles have been apprehended already, jobs are flooding back to America, nations are being empowered to handle their own problems.

Even if Obama is still pretending to be president, meeting with Moon Jae In, I acknowledge he did some really good things as president as well. America needs to focus on unity at this point, or at least not looking for excuses to circumvent the political process.

 If you don't like it, vote again in 3 years. But in the mean time, don't look for every opportunity to get in his way.  Trump sure isn't perfect, but find me a president who was, and I will gladly retract my statement.

I'm actually very shocked this can even be talked about on Waygook. They say they don't allow religious talk because it's inflammatory, but this thread seems much more so, but *crickets.*

This advice is about 8 years too late.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRvum4TlSY

Watching SNL you'd've thought Eric was the stupid one. Seems Ivanka is our only hope. (Is it too early for Barron to live up to his name?)