View Full Version : Based on Trump's behavior.....
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-17, 4:09pm
do you see him lasting a full four years? This is a serious, non-snarky question. I'll go first and no surprise, I just can't see him lasting a four year term, at least without some kind of tempering and alteration of his speech and manners. I realize that with the GOP controlling the House and the Senate, this is in Trump's favor as far as holding onto power, but I'm wondering if the GOP is already thinking ahead to 2018 and a potential decline in power due to losing House and Senate seats? What do you'all think? Rob
What does "last a full four years" mean? Are you contemplating him resigning, or having a medical issue, or...?
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-17, 4:57pm
What does "last a full four years" mean? Are you contemplating him resigning, or having a medical issue, or...?I'm thinking more along the lines of impeachment, or possibly resigning if he doesn't get his way. Rob
What specific charges do you envision him being impeached for?
I'm thinking more along the lines of impeachment, or possibly resigning if he doesn't get his way. RobI know I've asked this here before without receiving a response but I'll try again. What high crimes or misdemeanors do you see happening to justify an impeachment?
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-17, 5:01pm
I know I've asked this here before without receiving a response but I'll try again. What high crimes or misdemeanors do you see happening to justify an impeachment?I don't know at this point, Alan. I'm just asking what folks here think - do they see Trump lasting the full four years of office or not, based on his behaviors? Who knows what his next action/actions will be? Rob
I don't know at this point, Alan. I'm just asking what folks here think - do they see Trump lasting the full four years of office or not, based on his behaviors? Who knows what his next action/actions will be? Rob
So it's more wishful thinking? I wouldn't be at all surprised if an effort isn't made to initiate impeachment, but it will have to be based on something more than a personality conflict.
At this rate, he may be there 8 years...
I think he will last four years, but it will be a busy time for lawyers. If you feel like taking a little risk, Vegas is giving odds.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/trump-impeachment-odds-betting-site
What specific charges do you envision him being impeached for?
At this point it would seem likely, or at least plausible, that he's in violation of the emoluments clause, although who knows to what extent, since he won't release his taxes or anything else detailing just what his financial entanglements are. But in any case I certainly don't see the current congress worrying about this in the least.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.cd0dac4da69c
If lying about sex constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor," certainly Trump has or will have committed much worse, given this list: (from Wikipedia):
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. In fact, I'm guessing he'll commit all of these before his first 100 days are up. Misuse of assets is a no brainer, since he won't put his in a blind trust, conduct unbecoming, ditto--berating judges and heads of state, tweeting nonsense, his Russian pals rigging the election, bribery and intimidation, check...Just give him time. But jp1 is right, with his corrupt yes-men in charge of both houses, there's little chance he'll pay a price for anything he does.
What is the process for impeaching and convicting a sitting US President?
What is the process for impeaching and convicting a sitting US President?
Here's the last one, but he was acquitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Here the House Resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-resolution/611/text
No one has been impeached and convicted, but "The actual trial on such charges, and subsequent removal of an official upon conviction, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. " I'm not clear on procedures here.
At this rate, he may be there 8 years...
Based on protests?
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-17, 11:18pm
So it's more wishful thinking? I wouldn't be at all surprised if an effort isn't made to initiate impeachment, but it will have to be based on something more than a personality conflict.No, not wishful thinking....I'm just genuinely interested in what other people think, if he will last the four years he's been voted in for or not. That is all. Rob
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/02/02/youre-fired-four-ways-donald-trumps-presidency-might-not-last-four-years
flowerseverywhere
2-5-17, 9:13am
I could see him resigning. It is very different running the giant business of the US where every move is scrutinized and challenged than a giant corporation where you can fire anybody who does not follow your direction. In a company people tend to rise that follow your ideology and vision. He is faced at every level with people who may have little of his vision and have no problem saying so. I was surprised there was not more of an outrage at the AG firing when she disagreed with him. Reading the credentials of the Washington judge who stopped the Muslim ban showed he was doing his job. It was not outrageous. It was doing his job. He might be right, he might be wrong but he did what the checks and balances were put in place for. I think he and Spicer were genuinely shocked they could not fire him. Plus Saturday Night Live must be driving the man crazy. And the Apprentice Boardroom is not the best training for the Oval Office.
flowerseverywhere
2-5-17, 9:27am
What is amusing to me is how many people talk about the constitution like they are experts. I hear or read people,saying about Obama or Trump that they are or did "shred the constitution" like they are experts. There are very smart people who spend many years studying constitutional law and practice law who still disagree on what the interpretation is. It cracks me up that all of a sudden everyone is an expert on the constitution because of what they read on fox, CNN or an Internet forum.
Sometimes a little bit of information can lead to very big errors. I honestly think if the whole travel ban thing had been reviewed by well experienced lawyers and counsel was followed there would have been far fewer problems. Perhaps that is one of the problems with "draining the swamp". You need some insiders who know the rules and customs of the swamp, who is the biggest predator, where are the dangerous areas, or someone is going to eat you.
Maybe he'll have a breakdown. According to Howard Stern, this scenario is the LAST thing he wanted: a huge portion of the population hating him. His ego demands praise and adoration.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/media/kfile-stern-on-trump/index.html
Kind of what I've suspected all along. I still believe he really didn't expect to win, and wasn't thrilled when he was.
iris lilies
2-5-17, 9:54am
I could see him resigning. It is very different running the giant business of the US where every move is scrutinized and challenged than a giant corporation where you can fire anybody who does not follow your direction. In a company people tend to rise that follow your ideology and vision. He is faced at every level with people who may have little of his vision and have no problem saying so. I was surprised there was not more of an outrage at the AG firing when she disagreed with him. Reading the credentials of the Washington judge who stopped the Muslim ban showed he was doing his job. It was not outrageous. It was doing his job. He might be right, he might be wrong but he did what the checks and balances were put in place for. I think he and Spicer were genuinely shocked they could not fire him. Plus Saturday Night Live must be driving the man crazy. And the Apprentice Boardroom is not the best training for the Oval Office.
I thought early on that if he won, he might well resign only a couple of years into his term. He would say "Ive done all I can do, and look at how We cleaned it all up! We did grwat work!!!"
But here's the thing:I am always wrong with predictions. So you can pretty much bet he will not be resigning. Always believe my predictions as the opposite of what will happen.
I could see him resigning. I think he misses playing in his gold pile.
Miss Cellane
2-5-17, 10:39am
My take is that he will chafe eventually at the restrictions that come with being president--the security, the lack of freedom of movement.
If he were to be impeached, it could be for the emoluments clause, or because he tweeted classified information to the world--which I would not at all be surprised at.
What I think is more likely to happen is that after the first rush of power from being president dies down, and he gets bored, he will basically turn the running of the country over to his subordinates, and just bask in the glow of the worship of his followers, while not doing a damn thing. Depending on which subordinates are in control, this could either be good or horrible for the country.
What is amusing to me is how many people talk about the constitution like they are experts. I hear or read people,saying about Obama or Trump that they are or did "shred the constitution" like they are experts. There are very smart people who spend many years studying constitutional law and practice law who still disagree on what the interpretation is. It cracks me up that all of a sudden everyone is an expert on the constitution because of what they read on fox, CNN or an Internet forum.
....
Well said. We have Supreme Court justices with extensive backgrounds in law who read the Constitution, each through their own lens, to arrive at decisions--often contentious ones. It's a document that invites interpretation--especially in this era, vastly removed from the 18th century,
Trump may try to shred the Constitution, but by the looks of it, he won't succeed. At least not easily.
Maybe he'll be like the Half-Governor Palin and resign halfway through his term to cash in on the speaking circuit. That would give him the 2 things he loves: money and a rapturous audience.
Trump may try to shred the Constitution, but by the looks of it, he won't succeed. At least not easily.I think one of the good things about a Trump Presidency is the sudden interest many people are taking in Constitutional limitations of government. I'm sure that if President Trump tries to infringe on religious liberty or forces private citizens to purchase products from private businesses or use the prosecutorial might of the Federal Government to punish ideological slackers, we'll see a whole new group of armchair constitutionalists telling us why that's no longer cool.
I think one of the good things about a Trump Presidency is the sudden interest many people are taking in Constitutional limitations of government. I'm sure that if President Trump tries to infringe on religious liberty or forces private citizens to purchase products from private businesses or use the prosecutorial might of the Federal Government to punish ideological slackers, we'll see a whole new group of armchair constitutionalists telling us why that's no longer cool.
Good point. All the people who once told us the Bill of Rights is obsolete since the invention of television and automatic weapons will be dusting off those creaky old checks and balances.
Side question - has Trump given any clues as to when he will fix the misreported unemployment rate? Hasn't he said it's really upwards of 40% or so?
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/02/02/youre-fired-four-ways-donald-trumps-presidency-might-not-last-four-years
Good, informative article. Thanks.
This appeared today in the local paper. All I can say is .... WOW!
ATTACH=CONFIG]1694[/ATTACH]
Teacher Terry
2-5-17, 1:28pm
I think he will be gone by the start of the 3rd year either by resigning or impeachment. His own administration is leaking things about him all the time. For instance, deciding at a dinner with 7 people including his son in law to conduct the bombing. Those types of decisions are always made after a meeting with many experts that know the situation. He has no interest in learning how government works. Obama was a lawyer so he knew the law.
This appeared today in the local paper. All I can say is .... WOW!
ATTACH=CONFIG]1694[/ATTACH]What does that mean?
I think he will be gone by the start of the 3rd year either by resigning or impeachment. His own administration is leaking things about him all the time. For instance, deciding at a dinner with 7 people including his son in law to conduct the bombing. Those types of decisions are always made after a meeting with many experts that know the situation. He has no interest in learning how government works. Obama was a lawyer so he knew the law.
I've heard it said Obama studied the Constitution for the same reason WC Fields gave for studying the Bible. He was looking for loopholes.
Teacher Terry
2-5-17, 1:40pm
Sorry I hit post twice.
iris lilies
2-5-17, 1:51pm
What does that mean?
All it means is that librarians in the People's Republic of Madistan have decided to perform a civic duty by hosting groups of people who will rage and shake and cry, somethng to do with Donald Trump, but nothing will be accomplished.
Free Speech reigns and all that, but I am so very thankful I am no longer working. The morning after the Presidential election would have been our weekly administrative meeting at work, and I am sure opining about the bleak road ahead would have consumed this meeting.
ApatheticNoMore
2-5-17, 2:16pm
The best you can say about the Constitution (mostly talking about the Bill of Rights and a few following amendments here) is that it's better than nothing but that's not saying much.
Because just because something is a clear violation of the Constitution. at least from a layman's (and from some lawyers) perspective, doesn't mean it will EVER be stopped. It might continue uh indefinitely. Take Obama's signed NDAA law on indefinite detention without trial, you can read the whole progress of a case against it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama), but clearly even though you and I reading the Bill of Rights would say it is clearly unconstitutional, it's clearly still there.
So maybe there is no point AT ALL in talking about what you are so sure the Constitution will protect because you aren't at all sure what will be ruled legally. Mind you you can at best say: it is possible this might be overthrown as un-Contitutional but then again it might not. And if you think you have a case nothing wrong with consulting a lawyer - but the outcome will be determined by the progression of the case and not by what you think will be ruled unConstitional - and remember like in that case different jurisdictions will disagree on what is and is not legal and the Supreme Court doesn't have to take the case.
The best you can say about the Constitution (mostly talking about the Bill of Rights and a few following amendments here) is that it's better than nothing but that's not saying much.
Because just because something is a clear violation of the Constitution. at least from a layman's (and from some lawyers) perspective, doesn't mean it will EVER be stopped. It might continue uh indefinitely. Take Obama's signed NDAA law on indefinite detention without trial, you can read the whole progress of a case against it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama), but clearly even though you and I reading the Bill of Rights would say it is clearly unconstitutional, it's clearly still there.
So maybe there is no point AT ALL in talking about what you are so sure the Constitution will protect because you aren't at all sure what will be ruled legally. Mind you you can at best say: it is possible this might be overthrown as un-Contitutional but then again it might not. And if you think you have a case nothing wrong with consulting a lawyer - but the outcome will be determined by the progression of the case and not by what you think will be ruled unConstitional - and remember like in that case different jurisdictions will disagree on what is and is not legal and the Supreme Court doesn't have to take the case.
I think you're right that constitutional safeguards (or any laws) are only as good as our willingness to observe and defend them. When a president decides not to enforce the parts of the emigration law he finds politically uncongenial; or an activist judge decides a particular outcome is so important he makes a creative interpretation to legislate from the bench; or when a legislature passes ambiguous laws and lets the executive or the administrative bureaucracy decide what it means, that chips away at the rule of law.
Plenty of despotic regimes have had beautifully written constitutions that only the very brave or insane would ever invoke. I don't think we're close to that point, however.
I've heard it said Obama studied the Constitution for the same reason WC Fields gave for studying the Bible. He was looking for loopholes.
That's nothing we need to worry about going forward.
That's nothing we need to worry about going forward.
There is little evidence he's very familiar with either.
gimmethesimplelife
3-1-17, 12:24pm
Maybe he'll be like the Half-Governor Palin and resign halfway through his term to cash in on the speaking circuit. That would give him the 2 things he loves: money and a rapturous audience.I could very much see him doing this, yes. Rob
The web of intelligence gathering must be extremely complex. I think the NYT and Washington Post might be on a fishing trip hoping to hoping to strike gold with another Watergate type breakthrough, but this is still pretty interesting. Trump's Trumpbles are not over quite yet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The "resistance" can rest easy. America's witches are taking action.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/24/are-witches-casting-spell-donald-trump/nmR3ReQV9mJXGL6ojbhoVL/story.html
gimmethesimplelife
3-2-17, 10:56am
The "resistance" can rest easy. America's witches are taking action.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/24/are-witches-casting-spell-donald-trump/nmR3ReQV9mJXGL6ojbhoVL/story.htmlI -read about this online. More power to them I say, and I also believe they are free to believe in such and I don't judge, other than to say this is not my cup of tea nor my type of resistance. But if this helps them deal with what America has become, who has the right to judge? Rob
I don't see a lot of difference between spells and prayers. All a group wish fest.
If only.... we could stop him from harming people and/or nature?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.