Conservative Lawmaker Accuses Trump of 'Selling' U.S. Troops to Saudi Arabia for Cash

I argued that trump could not have been impeached unless he also ****ed up enough to lose the majority in the House during the midterm. But the reason he was impeached and Obama was not is because Trump also ****ed up further and had a whistleblower catch him cheating.

Trump's midterm losses were slightly worse than normal, for an unpopular president. And his losses in terms of the popular vote set an all time record. The Democrats were never going to win the Senate in a year where they had 26 seats on the chopping block. But they could have lost so many that it would take another decade to change the majority. Now they can realistically change it in 2020.

But the (non-existent) risk of a future Republican Congress deciding it wants to impeach a future Democratic President because Trump got impeached is one that I gladly embrace.

MERRY IMPEACHMAS!

 

Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi would have impeached President Trump if he ate a bowl of Cheerios. Face it, the fix was in as soon as they possibly could. Ukraine is just an excuse. They don't care one bit about Ukraine or anything having to do wit defense. If they did, they would have impeached Obama for withholding weapons as he sent Ukraine blankets as Russia invaded.

Nancy and her left wing radicals are the new 3 dollar bill.

 

Nancy was sworn in as speaker in January. The impeachment vote was December.

 

Impeachment started before he even took office. Confirmed by Democrats, themselves.

 

He has been ****ing up for a very, very long time.

But every president faces some support for impeachment by the other party. In fact, support for impeachment is almost guaranteed to reach at least 25% at some point in every president's tenure. The fact that trump started at such a high floor is because he ****ed up. The fact that trump is now around 50% support for his impeachment is because he realllly ****ed up.

 

I addressed your majority argument. Just because you ignored my points and repeated it doesn't give your rebuttal more validity. The whistle blower didn't wee or hear anything. It was hearsay. as a self proclaimed "attorney" you should know how lame that is.

Again, Obama lost more seats than anyone in a mid term election. He lost even more seats than Clinton. Do you think that it's a good and productive practice to make this a precedence for the future to have a totally partisan vote and declare that an impeachment should take place based on hearsay given by a whistle blower that never had any direct information about the situation? Is it good to set a precedence for the opposite party to vote for the impeachment of a Democrat president without any votes from the other party? If that happens I bet the Democrats would raise holy hell. I hope it does.

 

Even after Obama lost all those seats...or at any point in his presidency, do you know how high public support got for his impeachment?

Would you like to know how that number compared to trump?

 

Nice deflect. Just ignore my whole post and don't answer any of my questions. Just nevermind.

 

I am answering your questions by trying to get you to reflect on something entirely related, but I will make the answers more direct.

The reason that "losing the majority status in the midterm" is not being set as a precedence for the impeachment of future Presidents is because you still need tremendous amounts of public support to push Congress into risking their jobs over impeachment.

And that is especially true if the impeachment vote is going to be wholly partisan. There is zero additional risk of impeachment for a future Democratic President by a future Republican majority House if the public support for impeaching that future President never gets above 33%. If you can get public support to near 50%, then he has probably done something which warrants impeachment.

As for the whistleblower, he is the guy that called the "fire department." The fact that the firemen showed up and found a fire is the reason trump got impeached.

What is the 2019 Politifact Lie of the Year?

 

I'm not aware of any other President renting out American soldiers as mercenaries--ever. To send innocent young soldiers--many of whom are fathers or mothers to young children--in harms way, for profit that would always benefit those already wealthy only, & NEVER benefit the soldiers themselves or their families, is nothing less than CRIMINAL. Trump has already been impeached. Now he needs to be found guilty or innocent based strictly on the evidence available. And, that evidence should be made available to the Senate, along with testimony from new witnesses for & against Trump.

 

Politifact is an extremely left leaning organization that wouldn't know the facts if they ran over them with a truck load of them. A new standard has been set where an extremely partisan impeachment only takes the house to hold a majority to impeach, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.

The fact is that the impeachment is based on a bias opinion that is designed to remove the elected president from office regardless of legalities. They have been saying Trump will be impeached since he was "President Elect". Hell, he wasn't even in office yet.

 

Indeed. There are so many reasons to impeach trump.

 

Every soldier we ever sent anywhere was bought and paid for by us to no benefit to us. So we get some benefits fir what wed already do anyway.

At least we aren't bombing Eastern Europe to hide clintons unzipped pants.

 

1. Just because a political organization leans left doesn't imply it's ignorant or dishonest. Impeachment involves investigations of some POSSIBLE wrong or illegality, & issuing charges based on the evidence found. Impeachment does NOT involve a trial, or a verdict. Those come later, in the Senate (now beginning).
2. EVERY Congressional investigation possibly leading to impeachment begins with biased opinion. That was true with every impeachment process in American history. Until now, only one of three previous Congressional investigations preceding impeachment gathered enough evidence to force a President out of office. The current impeachment process has been taken over by politics, & in spite of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, Trump will probably be kept on as President by his Republican majority in the Senate. How that will reverberate down into the future is something getting far too little attention.

 

Solid argument. I like it.

 

If you wish, but need for it no more, you’ve already made Trump a martyr and contributed toward his reelection. For this, I thank you.

 

But of course Obama was universally liked. I mean, how do you not like clean-shaven, articulate, mainstream African American?

 

And calling for impeachment long before that January she did.

 

everyone likes a money tossing bitch

 

And with a highly flexible spine

 

Prove it.

 

Oh boy...

 

Trump is so dangerous we cannot let him run for reelection, therefore we have to delay the process until we can fabricate and leak more fake news and be sure that it gets spun properly.

 

but Your argument is just double talk babble. Politifact was being presented as a non bias entity. They are left leaning but try to pass themselves off as non bias. That is the very basis of dishonesty.

 

What evidence do you have that politifact is left leaning, let alone extremely left leaning?

And I caution you against using a far right leaning sources conclusion to tell you that Politifact is left leaning.