ADVERTISEMENT

It's just a Republican conversation now re Trump, isn't it?

Thyrsis

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2001
18,919
5,752
113
Indianapolis
"If" Trump is truly a threat, we succumb to that jeopardy unless Republicans say otherwise (at least until the election in 2020). Democrats can argue and leverage what power they have, but they can't alter the reality that (at least until the election in 2020) Trump does what he wants unless and until Republicans put him in check.

Essentially the entire investigation apparatus is Republican. Republicans have held the executive branch since 2016, will continue to hold a majority in both houses of the legislature until January and have a majority on the Supreme Court. What the Democrats say now just doesn't matter much except for the history books. All the talk that matters coming from the Hill is from Republicans who thus far have tolerated endless insanity and now offer hot and cold mood reflections which suggest at best a whimsical sense of propriety and concern for our foundational institutions. It's beyond aggravating to be dependent on that complicit partisanship that only occasionally offers up a glimmer of isolated pockets of active opposition.

I make the mistake of sometimes watching Morning Joe. Basically the entire cast of that show is Republicans and they purport to hold firm grasp of the national conventional wisdom (though certainly from something close to the Never Trump position). But they're the party that has the control and they're the ones still finding common cause with the Never Trumpers who are doing nothing in practice.

Pelosi's confrontation in the Oval Office was perhaps one of the first real "slaps" from the Democrats, but it still largely doesn't matter. We're all just passengers on the Republican train right now and waiting to see what happens at the next stop and whether they'll continue to allow the train to careen out of control leaving casualties in its wake. Finally taking some action 6 stops from now won't exactly be the stuff of heroes.
 
All this changes in January, when the House and its investigative apparatus goes into full swing. The tide will turn when the truth comes out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
There's not boatloads of truth already out?
Nixon was forced out only after the full extent of his criminality was exposed. We aren't yet there with Trump, but the parallels are striking. Between Mueller and the House investigations, I think we'll get there.
 
All this changes in January, when the House and its investigative apparatus goes into full swing. The tide will turn when the truth comes out.

You’re talking about a party who’s members/supporters have been inoculated against truth. The one’s who haven’t been inoculated simply don’t care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
You’re talking about a party who’s members/supporters have been inoculated against truth. The one’s who haven’t been inoculated simply don’t care.

Without consulting a map and doing an actual analysis, my suspicion is that most of the Republican members (like their Democrats across the aisle) are mostly concerned with keeping their seats. If The truth furthers that aim, so much the better. But no member is going to commit career suicide over The Truth.

If the prevailing public opinion in Red States shifts against Trump then I think you'd see the Senate shift quite enough to make a successful impeachment a potential reality. But no senator is going to fall on his/her sword to that end, regardless of what they think of Trump. This will require some bombshells from Mueller, or the House.

Personally, at this point I don't think Impeachment is really the best outcome, though arguably it might be the most viscerally satisfying outcome. I'd rank the scenarios, best to worst as:

1. Trump doesn't run or is defeated for the 2020 nomination
2. Trump runs again, but is defeated in November
3. Trump is impeached and removed in 2019
4. Trump wins in 2020, but is ultimately impeached and removed
5. Trump wins in 2020 and serves another full term
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
Without consulting a map and doing an actual analysis, my suspicion is that most of the Republican members (like their Democrats across the aisle) are mostly concerned with keeping their seats. If The truth furthers that aim, so much the better. But no member is going to commit career suicide over The Truth.

If the prevailing public opinion in Red States shifts against Trump then I think you'd see the Senate shift quite enough to make a successful impeachment a potential reality. But no senator is going to fall on his/her sword to that end, regardless of what they think of Trump. This will require some bombshells from Mueller, or the House.

Personally, at this point I don't think Impeachment is really the best outcome, though arguably it might be the most viscerally satisfying outcome. I'd rank the scenarios, best to worst as:

1. Trump doesn't run or is defeated for the 2020 nomination
2. Trump runs again, but is defeated in November
3. Trump is impeached and removed in 2019
4. Trump wins in 2020, but is ultimately impeached and removed
5. Trump wins in 2020 and serves another full term
There are umpteen million different ways other than impeachment that Congress could have checked and still could check Trump. They’ve purposely opted not to.
 
Which specific things could they have checked? What are the specific ways those things could have been checked?
 
  • Like
Reactions: herrli
"If" Trump is truly a threat, we succumb to that jeopardy unless Republicans say otherwise (at least until the election in 2020). Democrats can argue and leverage what power they have, but they can't alter the reality that (at least until the election in 2020) Trump does what he wants unless and until Republicans put him in check.

Essentially the entire investigation apparatus is Republican. Republicans have held the executive branch since 2016, will continue to hold a majority in both houses of the legislature until January and have a majority on the Supreme Court. What the Democrats say now just doesn't matter much except for the history books. All the talk that matters coming from the Hill is from Republicans who thus far have tolerated endless insanity and now offer hot and cold mood reflections which suggest at best a whimsical sense of propriety and concern for our foundational institutions. It's beyond aggravating to be dependent on that complicit partisanship that only occasionally offers up a glimmer of isolated pockets of active opposition.

I make the mistake of sometimes watching Morning Joe. Basically the entire cast of that show is Republicans and they purport to hold firm grasp of the national conventional wisdom (though certainly from something close to the Never Trump position). But they're the party that has the control and they're the ones still finding common cause with the Never Trumpers who are doing nothing in practice.

Pelosi's confrontation in the Oval Office was perhaps one of the first real "slaps" from the Democrats, but it still largely doesn't matter. We're all just passengers on the Republican train right now and waiting to see what happens at the next stop and whether they'll continue to allow the train to careen out of control leaving casualties in its wake. Finally taking some action 6 stops from now won't exactly be the stuff of heroes.

Schumer and Pelosi should compromise on the border barrier/slats/wall allowing Trump to claim another promise fulfilled.* If that happens, Trump will say he is so good that he accomplished all of his 2-term goals in one year and he's done. (The promised onslaught of investigations into his life and his kids' lives will also be a factor.) Even without a barrier/slats/wall, I think it's even money whether Trump runs in 2020.

Perversely, the Democrats want Trump in office, they need him in office. If he is out of the picture for 2020, the chances of the Democrats winning are substantially diminished.

*His abrupt pull-out from Syria and reduction of our presence in Afghanistan is another promise fulfilled.

Edited and made better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tacoll
Which specific things could they have checked? What are the specific ways those things could have been checked?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ection-check-balance-trump-column/1008922002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...congress-weighs-ways-counter-trump/792201002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...p-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.862485f2dd02

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9630a6d8725_story.html?utm_term=.43fdc317d1df

Actively protect the Mueller investigation, don't back Trump on the wall, don't shut the government down, consistently tell their constituents what Trump is really about, conduct Congressional hearings on Trump's foreign policy approach, etc. etc. etc. It's a really long list. But a consistent willingness to speak truth to power and/or to have some basic principles would be a good start (tho I think it's far too late and that's not at all what they're about).
 
Schumer and Pelosi should compromise on the border barrier/slats/wall allowing Trump to claim another promise fulfilled.* If that happens, Trump will say he is so good that he accomplished all of his 2-term goals in one year and he's done. (The promised onslaught of investigations into his life and his kids' lives will also be a factor.) Even without a barrier/slats/wall, I think it's even money whether Trump runs in 2020.

Perversely, the Democrats want Trump in office, they need him in office. If he is out of the picture for 2020, the chances of the Democrats winning are substantially diminished.

*His abrupt pull-out from Syria and reduction of our presence in Afghanistan is another promise fulfilled.

Edited and made better.


The entire RNC is now staffed full of Trump sycophants gearing up for 2020. There is no chance he isn't running....that's a pipe dream that our national nightmare would end that easily. The party will continue to trend more and more to this total basterdezation of conservatism (really alt-right populism) until the party is humiliated at the ballot box in 2020. The cancer is only at stage 2.
 
The entire RNC is now staffed full of Trump sycophants gearing up for 2020. There is no chance he isn't running....that's a pipe dream that our national nightmare would end that easily. The party will continue to trend more and more to this total basterdezation of conservatism (really alt-right populism) until the party is humiliated at the ballot box in 2020. The cancer is only at stage 2.

Between this and your comment on the stock market, you're just a bundle of freaking joy on this random day in the middle of a multi-holiday period. Aren't you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
Between this and your comment on the stock market, you're just a bundle of freaking joy on this random day in the middle of a multi-holiday period. Aren't you?

03ecce1b4c3aad402c67fa58d3ed7513--christmas-stuff-christmas-humor.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
The entire RNC is now staffed full of Trump sycophants gearing up for 2020. There is no chance he isn't running....that's a pipe dream that our national nightmare would end that easily. The party will continue to trend more and more to this total basterdezation of conservatism (really alt-right populism) until the party is humiliated at the ballot box in 2020. The cancer is only at stage 2.

Who cares how the RNC is staffed? The entire NSC is staffed with those who think we should stay in Syria if not ramp up there. Trump thrives on surprises and being unpredictable. Being able to exit after a series of kept promises and on his own terms would appeal to him.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ection-check-balance-trump-column/1008922002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...congress-weighs-ways-counter-trump/792201002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...p-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.862485f2dd02

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9630a6d8725_story.html?utm_term=.43fdc317d1df

Actively protect the Mueller investigation, don't back Trump on the wall, don't shut the government down, consistently tell their constituents what Trump is really about, conduct Congressional hearings on Trump's foreign policy approach, etc. etc. etc. It's a really long list. But a consistent willingness to speak truth to power and/or to have some basic principles would be a good start (tho I think it's far too late and that's not at all what they're about).
Congress did pass sanctions on Russia in 2017, and as your article points out they've continued to discuss adding additional discussions, and the Administration has imposed sanctions and expelled diplomats. There is a disconnect between Trump's stupid and soft rhetoric on Russia and what has happened in reality. Sanctions are actually tougher now than before Trump was elected (and no, I'm not crediting Trump - it's despite Trump). I don't know how they would "actively protect" the Mueller investigation, but there have been constant warnings and advice from countless Republicans to Trump no to fire Mueller. Replace "wall" (a stupid Trump rhetorical thing for political purposes) and both parties agreed to increase funding for border security, some of which could/would be used for barriers. There is a place for barriers in border security. I don't agree with shutting down the government, but Trump has made that extremely complicated. I have little doubt at this point that he'll veto anything that doesn't include some additional border security funding. I don't know if he'd veto it if it had less than $5 billion, but he'd veto something that has nothing in it as the Democrats now vow (before the election they were going to allow $1.5 or $1.6 billion) because they aren't going to compromise either. So for now, we're stuck in this partial shutdown until somebody gives or there is a compromise when the activist bases on both sides are working hard not to have happen.

Another thing, when anyone says that one side controls all aspects of government, they're being disingenuous. Neither party is monolithic on every, or even most, issues and the other side gets a vote. If you don't have a safe 60 votes in the Senate for an issue it's not going to happen. Neither side has been able to really control all three branches for my entire lifetime. It didn't happen under Obama and it didn't happen under Trump - even more so since Trump is at odds with Republican stances on many traditional issues.
 
Congress did pass sanctions on Russia in 2017, and as your article points out they've continued to discuss adding additional discussions, and the Administration has imposed sanctions and expelled diplomats. There is a disconnect between Trump's stupid and soft rhetoric on Russia and what has happened in reality. Sanctions are actually tougher now than before Trump was elected (and no, I'm not crediting Trump - it's despite Trump). I don't know how they would "actively protect" the Mueller investigation, but there have been constant warnings and advice from countless Republicans to Trump no to fire Mueller. Replace "wall" (a stupid Trump rhetorical thing for political purposes) and both parties agreed to increase funding for border security, some of which could/would be used for barriers. There is a place for barriers in border security. I don't agree with shutting down the government, but Trump has made that extremely complicated. I have little doubt at this point that he'll veto anything that doesn't include some additional border security funding. I don't know if he'd veto it if it had less than $5 billion, but he'd veto something that has nothing in it as the Democrats now vow (before the election they were going to allow $1.5 or $1.6 billion) because they aren't going to compromise either. So for now, we're stuck in this partial shutdown until somebody gives or there is a compromise when the activist bases on both sides are working hard not to have happen.

Another thing, when anyone says that one side controls all aspects of government, they're being disingenuous. Neither party is monolithic on every, or even most, issues and the other side gets a vote. If you don't have a safe 60 votes in the Senate for an issue it's not going to happen. Neither side has been able to really control all three branches for my entire lifetime. It didn't happen under Obama and it didn't happen under Trump - even more so since Trump is at odds with Republican stances on many traditional issues.
There's probably not much to say here inasmuch your post suggests (1) this is a both sides problem; and (2) that the politics of today is not far removed from garden variety stuff to which we can apply generic conventional wisdom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker
There's probably not much to say here inasmuch your post suggests (1) this is a both sides problem; and (2) that the politics of today is not far removed from garden variety stuff to which we can apply generic conventional wisdom.
Some of you can see a "both sides problem" in every post even when it isn't posted, and some can never see a problem that exists on both sides. In reality I blame Trump far more than anyone for all our problems at the moment.
 
Some of you can see a "both sides problem" in every post even when it isn't posted, and some can never see a problem that exists on both sides.
I don't know what you mean or what you're referencing.

In reality I blame Trump far more than anyone for all our problems at the moment.
Since Trump as a problem can be limited by Republicans, and he's not, and in fact he has something like record support from Republicans, I don't blame Trump far more than anyone.
 
Nixon was forced out only after the full extent of his criminality was exposed. We aren't yet there with Trump, but the parallels are striking. Between Mueller and the House investigations, I think we'll get there.
Forced out? I hope you're right, but Nixon (a Quaker) nonetheless was a military veteran serving with the Navy in the Pacific during WWII and actually was a public servant too, serving in Congress before becoming President. I despise Nixon but have always felt that he resigned because he ultimately realized what he had done to the country and felt guilty about it and wanted to spare the country of a fullblown impeachment trial.

Trump (Mr. "Bonespurs") has neither been a veteran nor public servant. He will never resign. He lacks morals to ever feel guilty about anything. He doesn't care about the country. As for the issue of Trump leaving office, the only Republicans who matter are:

robert-mueller-person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-square.jpg


And possibly:

lindsay_graham_suspends_campaign.jpg


But these matters might well be controlled by the most despicable person in today's Republican party, and the handsdown winner of the Earl Landgrebe Memorial "Don't Confuse me With the Facts" Award: ( see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Landgrebe ), whose turkey throat is known everywhere:

o-MITCH-MCCONNELL-facebook.jpg


I would rather we had Nixon than Trump. The fact that McConnell is a Republican "leader" tells us all we need to know about the Republicans.
 
Forced out? I hope you're right, but Nixon (a Quaker) nonetheless was a military veteran serving with the Navy in the Pacific during WWII and actually was a public servant too, serving in Congress before becoming President. I despise Nixon but have always felt that he resigned because he ultimately realized what he had done to the country and felt guilty about it and wanted to spare the country of a fullblown impeachment trial.

Trump (Mr. "Bonespurs") has neither been a veteran nor public servant. He will never resign. He lacks morals to ever feel guilty about anything. He doesn't care about the country. As for the issue of Trump leaving office, the only Republicans who matter are:

robert-mueller-person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-square.jpg


And possibly:

lindsay_graham_suspends_campaign.jpg


But these matters might well be controlled by the most despicable person in today's Republican party, and the handsdown winner of the Earl Landgrebe Memorial "Don't Confuse me With the Facts" Award: ( see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Landgrebe ), whose turkey throat is known everywhere:

o-MITCH-MCCONNELL-facebook.jpg


I would rather we had Nixon than Trump. The fact that McConnell is a Republican "leader" tells us all we need to know about the Republicans.
Nixon didn't resign because he felt guilty and wanted to spare the country, he quit when he was told he'd be removed.

Regarding your comparison of Nixon and Trump, I'll agree -- there is no comparison. As with all comparisons people try to make regarding Trump, he is in a class all to himself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/5/18056156/trump-michael-beschloss-presidents-of-war-book-interview

He also said that no president in American history scares him more than Donald Trump does. “He’s in a category of his own,” Beschloss told me during our interview, because Trump has shown no willingness to learn from history and little empathy — two key ingredients that make great wartime presidents who don’t eradicate most democratic norms.​
 
"If" Trump is truly a threat, we succumb to that jeopardy unless Republicans say otherwise (at least until the election in 2020). Democrats can argue and leverage what power they have, but they can't alter the reality that (at least until the election in 2020) Trump does what he wants unless and until Republicans put him in check.

Essentially the entire investigation apparatus is Republican. Republicans have held the executive branch since 2016, will continue to hold a majority in both houses of the legislature until January and have a majority on the Supreme Court. What the Democrats say now just doesn't matter much except for the history books. All the talk that matters coming from the Hill is from Republicans who thus far have tolerated endless insanity and now offer hot and cold mood reflections which suggest at best a whimsical sense of propriety and concern for our foundational institutions. It's beyond aggravating to be dependent on that complicit partisanship that only occasionally offers up a glimmer of isolated pockets of active opposition.

I make the mistake of sometimes watching Morning Joe. Basically the entire cast of that show is Republicans and they purport to hold firm grasp of the national conventional wisdom (though certainly from something close to the Never Trump position). But they're the party that has the control and they're the ones still finding common cause with the Never Trumpers who are doing nothing in practice.

Pelosi's confrontation in the Oval Office was perhaps one of the first real "slaps" from the Democrats, but it still largely doesn't matter. We're all just passengers on the Republican train right now and waiting to see what happens at the next stop and whether they'll continue to allow the train to careen out of control leaving casualties in its wake. Finally taking some action 6 stops from now won't exactly be the stuff of heroes.

Schumer and Pelosi should compromise on the border barrier/slats/wall allowing Trump to claim another promise fulfilled.* If that happens, Trump will say he is so good that he accomplished all of his 2-term goals in one year and he's done. (The promised onslaught of investigations into his life and his kids' lives will also be a factor.) Even without a barrier/slats/wall, I think it's even money whether Trump runs in 2020.

Perversely, the Democrats want Trump in office, they need him in office. If he is out of the picture for 2020, the chances of the Democrats winning are substantially diminished.

*His abrupt pull-out from Syria and reduction of our presence in Afghanistan is another promise fulfilled.

Edited and made better.
Schumer and Pelosi absolutely should not compromise a single bit on the wall. Border security yes, wall no.
 
The entire RNC is now staffed full of Trump sycophants gearing up for 2020. There is no chance he isn't running....that's a pipe dream that our national nightmare would end that easily. The party will continue to trend more and more to this total basterdezation of conservatism (really alt-right populism) until the party is humiliated at the ballot box in 2020. The cancer is only at stage 2.

Who cares how the RNC is staffed? The entire NSC is staffed with those who think we should stay in Syria if not ramp up there. Trump thrives on surprises and being unpredictable. Being able to exit after a series of kept promises and on his own terms would appeal to him.
I know the Pentagon, the generals, and our allies love when he surprises them like this.
 
Let’s start with a vote to protect Mueller. That would be a simple one.
How can they do that? There are many questions about the constitutionality of it, and if they passed it Trump would veto it immediately. Mueller is protected because firing Mueller would be a political disaster for him and impeachment would be sure to follow.
 
How can they do that? There are many questions about the constitutionality of it, and if they passed it Trump would veto it immediately. Mueller is protected because firing Mueller would be a political disaster for him and impeachment would be sure to follow.


Can Congress appoint their own special counsel? I have no idea.
 
Can Congress appoint their own special counsel? I have no idea.
If they want. They can do just about anything they want as part of an investigation. I can't remember the name of the case, but the power of investigation is an inherent power of the legislature, and the courts aren't going to mess with that.
 
Personally, at this point I don't think Impeachment is really the best outcome, though arguably it might be the most viscerally satisfying outcome.
I'm torn between impeachment conviction and jail time as the most viscerally satisfying. The former would make Trump the only US president ever convicted, but would help Republicans in 2020. Jail time would be deeply satisfying too and coming after his term, would probably include him getting slaughtered in the 2020 election, another viscerally satisfying outcome. In any case, any outcome that reduced him to the puny, petty dung mop that he is would be adequate.
 
If they want. They can do just about anything they want as part of an investigation. I can't remember the name of the case, but the power of investigation is an inherent power of the legislature, and the courts aren't going to mess with that.
But doesn't "special counsel" indicate power to prosecute? I would think prosecution is an exclusive power of the DOJ.
 
Let’s start with a vote to protect Mueller. That would be a simple one.
How can they do that? There are many questions about the constitutionality of it, and if they passed it Trump would veto it immediately. Mueller is protected because firing Mueller would be a political disaster for him and impeachment would be sure to follow.
What do you mean how can they do that? They’ve put forth a bill multiple times and Mitch refuses to put it to a vote. And maybe he would veto it, but that would be politically damaging also. Why do you think Mitch won’t put it to vote?
 
They’ve put forth a bill multiple times and Mitch refuses to put it to a vote. And maybe he would veto it, but that would be politically damaging also. Why do you think Mitch won’t put it to vote?
There's no political upside to it for Mitch and the Pubs. The fact that it should be done and has substantial support even from his own caucus has no bearing on it.
 
What do you mean how can they do that? They’ve put forth a bill multiple times and Mitch refuses to put it to a vote. And maybe he would veto it, but that would be politically damaging also. Why do you think Mitch won’t put it to vote?
Stop asking Aloha inconvenient questions.
 
Stop asking Aloha inconvenient questions.
It would be a constitutionally questionable, meaningless, symbolic gesture, but I also don't support firing Mueller. I don't think Trump would survive for long as President if he fired Mueller, with or without the Senate passing a constitutionally questionable, meaningless, symbolic gesture of a bill or a resolution.
 
What do you mean how can they do that? They’ve put forth a bill multiple times and Mitch refuses to put it to a vote. And maybe he would veto it, but that would be politically damaging also. Why do you think Mitch won’t put it to vote?
McConnell has to work with the President as long as he's President. Passing a constitutionally questionable bill that Trump will definitely veto will only make the toxic relationship that Congress has with the President worse.
 
It would be a constitutionally questionable, meaningless, symbolic gesture, but I also don't support firing Mueller. I don't think Trump would survive for long as President if he fired Mueller, with or without the Senate passing a constitutionally questionable, meaningless, symbolic gesture of a bill or a resolution.

I think a bill is meaningless. If Trump wants to force Mueller out, he will. Why wouldn't Trump survive if he fires Mueller? You expect the Senate to convict for impeachment?
 
It would be a constitutionally questionable, meaningless, symbolic gesture, but I also don't support firing Mueller. I don't think Trump would survive for long as President if he fired Mueller, with or without the Senate passing a constitutionally questionable, meaningless, symbolic gesture of a bill or a resolution.

What makes you think Trump wouldn’t last long if he fired Mueller? Trump is only in trouble if the GOP acts. What have you witnessed that makes you think the currently constituted GOP would do anything that could be considered country first?

There are no “good” Republicans left. I’m sorry but the party ceded all power to Trump.
 
What makes you think Trump wouldn’t last long if he fired Mueller? Trump is only in trouble if the GOP acts. What have you witnessed that makes you think the currently constituted GOP would do anything that could be considered country first?

There are no “good” Republicans left. I’m sorry but the party ceded all power to Trump.

There are good Republicans, but they aren't serving in Congress. With the exception of a handful of foreign policy votes, the next time the GOP senate stands up to Trump will be the first time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT