If Trump fires Mueller - Impeachment?

[Perotista]

You also can't take it for granted that even if Trump is president for four years that he will be the nominee in 2020.

I totally agree. Ted Kennedy came close to unseating Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Ronald Reagan came within a whisker of ousting Ford in 1976. LBJ choose not to run again as did Truman in 1952. There are indications out there, although it's way too early to firm them up that the Republicans are going to take a whipping in the midterms. All Trump related.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I totally agree. Ted Kennedy came close to unseating Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Ronald Reagan came within a whisker of ousting Ford in 1976. LBJ choose not to run again as did Truman in 1952. There are indications out there, although it's way too early to firm them up that the Republicans are going to take a whipping in the midterms. All Trump related.

Won't matter, Wall Street/the donor-"job" creator class always has it covered "both" ways.

 

[Perotista]

Won't matter, Wall Street/the donor-"job" creator class always has it covered "both" ways.

Neither party will ever bite the hand that feeds it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Neither party will ever bite the hand that feeds it.

I'm not sure "neither" is accurate, but yeah, you're right.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I understand the "kids" posting here who might not understand what draft-dodging means, but YOU have no excuse. From Mirriam Webster: a person who ILLEGALLY avoids joining the Armed Forces. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draft dodger

My best friend, older and now long gone, wasn't a "fortunate son," and because he had a bad number, he enlisted so that he had a bit of a choice.

Others secured deferments--Phil Gramm because he thought he could best serve his country by finishing a Ph.D. in economics, Bill Clinton, and the list goes on. And I'm about to provide a link to a list.

Do I necessarily respect those who received a LEGAL deferment? Not necessarily when Mark went even though he opposed the Vietnam War and came back alive and protested it. They didn't. And such is the world.

But calling Trump or anybody else who received a LEGAL deferment a "draft dodger" makes me sick.

Draft Deferment: Vietnam

I agree. I see those who use the term "chickenhawk" as less then mature. I personally sweated out the draft pool, drew a high number and then enlisted. However those who suggest that a given politician has no moral right to support military moves if he/she did not serve in the military are just void of any rational argument.

 

[Perotista]

I'm not sure "neither" is accurate, but yeah, you're right.

Neither, either, both, whatever. As long as you got the idea.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Neither, either, both, whatever. As long as you got the idea.

They are one and the same, these parties.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I don't see how Trump and his supporters were underestimated. Nationwide polls gave Clinton a three point lead, RCP average in the popular vote, she won by 2 points. You can't get any closer. Besides, Hillary Clinton is not there anymore. Trump is on his own. He doesn't have Clinton for the voters to take their wraith out on anymore. Clinton won't be there against Trump in either 2018 or 2020. It's one thing to go up against a candidate as disliked as you are and pull out a surprising win. It's another to go up against a candidate that is well liked. I have a feeling the Republicans and Trump will find this out in the future. Basing one's performance against Clinton, baggage laden, not liked, doesn't mean the same thing will happen against the A team. That is if the Democrats are smart enough to nominate someone from that team which remains to be seen. After nominating Clinton, I wouldn't guarantee it.

I will give you that both parties seem to have failed to learn from their own successes and failures. When they nominate old tired "it's my turn establishment candidates, they lose." For the democrats, that would be Gore and Hillary. They won with younger charismatic newcomers like Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama. The republicans failed with McCain and Romney. They won with populist candidate Reagan, younger charismatic Bush(W) and populist Trump. We will have to wait and see who the democrats run against Trump in 2020. If they nominate "Warren"(pochohontas) or some other establishment candidate, I expect it will end badly for them.

 

[Moderate Right]

I totally agree. Ted Kennedy came close to unseating Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Ronald Reagan came within a whisker of ousting Ford in 1976. LBJ choose not to run again as did Truman in 1952. There are indications out there, although it's way too early to firm them up that the Republicans are going to take a whipping in the midterms. All Trump related.

Not sure about the last part, although that is pretty much standard procedure for the party in power to lose midterms. However, I wouldn't make any bets that the Republicans will lose much in the midterms. My guess is that they will hold their own in the Senate and lose some ground in the House. I think Kasich might consider running in 2020 and the number two man, Ted Cruz, might very well make another run as well. If Trump turns it around I don't see either one of them winning but if Trump disintegrates the nomination may be up for grabs. I don't think it is a slam dunk either that Trump will actually run in 2020. He and the Republicans made Obama's terms a living hell but somehow they were all under the delusion that with full power after this last election that the resistance would be nominal. Trump may not have enough stomach for another four years of the rabid liberal left resistance.

 

[MAGAnificent]

You also can't take it for granted that even if Trump is president for four years that he will be the nominee in 2020.

We cannot take it for granted that he will want to run for re-election in 2020. However there is little doubt that he will be president for at least 4 years. The democrats have nothing on him despite the inquisition, and any impeachment proceedings would have to be approved by a republican congress.

 

[Perotista]

They are one and the same, these parties.

Agreed. I heard a long time ago that it was said that in the United States there was but one political party. But it had two wings, the Republican wing and the Democratic wing. I'll be dang if I can remember who said it.

 

[Perotista]

I will give you that both parties seem to have failed to learn from their own successes and failures. When they nominate old tired "it's my turn establishment candidates, they lose." For the democrats, that would be Gore and Hillary. They won with younger charismatic newcomers like Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama. The republicans failed with McCain and Romney. They won with populist candidate Reagan, younger charismatic Bush(W) and populist Trump. We will have to wait and see who the democrats run against Trump in 2020. If they nominate "Warren"(pochohontas) or some other establishment candidate, I expect it will end badly for them.

History, I would advise the Democrats to stay away from nominating anyone from the Northeast. Hillary, New York, Kerry Massachusetts, Dukakis Massachusetts all lost. The last time the Democrats had someone from the northeast win was JFK back in 1960. But in that era the Northeast was Rockefeller Republican territory. I would suggest a fresh face from flyover country. Obama, Illinois, Carter Georgia, Bill Clinton Arkansas, LBJ Texas, they all did alright although Carter lost out on a second term and LBJ dropped out in 1968.

 

[Moderate Right]

We cannot take it for granted that he will want to run for re-election in 2020. However there is little doubt that he will be president for at least 4 years. The democrats have nothing on him despite the inquisition, and any impeachment proceedings would have to be approved by a republican congress.

However, if Trump is hypothetically found guilty of obstructing justice (I'm not being a rabid lefty here), Trump doesn't have many friends in the Republican congress. There are a good many of them who would be happy to throw Trump under the bus and have President Pence instead.

 

[Kobie]

I'll buy the asshole part, that can't be refuted. He still is. He doesn't have an idea of how to play the political game and refuses to listen to those who know. Trump in my opinion shouldn't have come within a million miles of the White House. But way too many Republicans thought the Republican congress just laid down and rolled over giving Obama all he wanted. Obama was hard to stop when he continued to bypass congress. Besides, the Republican congress didn't have the votes to over ride a veto and common sense should have told them, with out the votes, that fight is one you would end up on the losing end.

Politics is the art of the possible. Trump won the GOP nomination getting 30-35% of the votes in most primaries. He had the largest faction among many and rode that rather small faction to the nomination. He beat Clinton by out working and out campaigning her in the states that counted. Where Hillary was spending time and money in places like Georgia, Iowa, Arizona, trying to run up the score. Trump was in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania playing the electoral college game. It worked.

I didn't really give Trump a chance, Nate Silver was one who did, a 30% chance. I gave him a lot less chance. Perhaps one in ten. But like the 16-0 New England Patriots losing to the 9-7 Giants in the Super Bowl, one is all you need once the game is played.


I'm still peeved at the choices given us last year. How in the world could the two major parties come up with two candidates so disliked by America as a whole and expect to win? Well, one had too. That one was Trump, a candidate where only 36% of all America viewed him in a favorable light vs. 38% for Clinton. I can only shake my head. I knew whomever won, nothing good would ever come out of last years election. One can't govern with 60% of America against you or disliking you or at the very least have a very hard time. I said as much many times on this site. What we have is a direct response to the choices given last year.

I don't disagree with any of this.

 

[Kobie]

Perhaps, that possibility exists and I never denied it. But the Democrats went into the full attack mode the day after the election and has been relentless since along with most of the media. Is there something there, I don't know, there isn't anyone or anything one can trust these days coming out of Washington. I prefer to sit, watch and listen. Far as I can tell, there is no there, there. As of yet anyway.

It is absolutely no different than the Republicans convening on Inauguration Day 2009 and vowing to obstruct Obama on everything. That, unfortunately, is how politics works (or doesn't work) now.

 

[Perotista]

Not sure about the last part, although that is pretty much standard procedure for the party in power to lose midterms. However, I wouldn't make any bets that the Republicans will lose much in the midterms. My guess is that they will hold their own in the Senate and lose some ground in the House. I think Kasich might consider running in 2020 and the number two man, Ted Cruz, might very well make another run as well. If Trump turns it around I don't see either one of them winning but if Trump disintegrates the nomination may be up for grabs. I don't think it is a slam dunk either that Trump will actually run in 2020. He and the Republicans made Obama's terms a living hell but somehow they were all under the delusion that with full power after this last election that the resistance would be nominal. Trump may not have enough stomach for another four years of the rabid liberal left resistance.

Makes sense to me. Here's the history of first midterm loses going back to FDR. FDR and Bush II were the only presidents not to lose seats in his first midterm. But 9-11 happened during Bush's first term which united the country around him and his party. Bush paid the price in his second midterm losing 33 seats and control of the House.

First midterm house losses

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934.

The Republicans should be okay in the senate, they have only 9 seats up for re-election vs. 25 for the Democrats. Most Republican held seats are safe with maybe the exceptions of Arizona and Nevada. The Democrats don't really have that many at risk seats up either. Indiana, Missouri could change hands, perhaps Florida with a huge Cuban-American turnout.

The house, right now it varies from pundit to pundit, but on average the Republicans have 25 at risk seats to 10 for the Democrats. I would say a ten seat loss would be very acceptable. But I expect numerous changes to that. The bad news for the Republicans is their party affiliation has dropped four points according to Gallup over the last month.

Democratic Edge in Party Affiliation Up to Seven Points | Gallup

But there again, all of that is dynamic with constant change. But it is an indication which is unknown if it will last or if it is a trend.

 

[Perotista]

It is absolutely no different than the Republicans convening on Inauguration Day 2009 and vowing to obstruct Obama on everything. That, unfortunately, is how politics works (or doesn't work) now.

I'll go with the doesn't work part. It seems to me we have entered an era where everything revolves around political party and America as a whole get forgotten. Yes, outside of Obama's first two years where he had huge majorities in both chambers, the Republicans tried to obstruct everything he did. It just seems worst this year.

I have often wondered if the Democrats had listened to the American people when they said no to the ACA back in 2009 and 2010, I bet the Democrats would have remained in control of both chambers. How much more President Obama could have accomplished. If that tone deaf ear he turned to America as a whole to get the ACA passed against objections of the majority of Americans that most of his accomplishments could have been written into law, treaties passed, not just using the phone and the pen, EO's for short.

Was it worth it? The ACA I mean. Trump can undo most of the things President Obama accomplished because Obama bypassed congress. We seen with the Paris Climate thing, perhaps even with the Iran deal. Surprisingly, Trump is going to leave the Dream act in place, it was one of those things he campaigned he would reverse. Then there is the repeal and replace of Obamacare. There again, repeal and replace is going against the majority of Americans, perhaps Trump and company ought to take a look back in history to 2010.

 

[MAGAnificent]

However, if Trump is hypothetically found guilty of obstructing justice (I'm not being a rabid lefty here), Trump doesn't have many friends in the Republican congress. There are a good many of them who would be happy to throw Trump under the bus and have President Pence instead.

it would have to be something a lot stronger then Comey claiming he was Trump pressured him to drop the Flynn investigation. That is weak to the point of laughable.

 

[MAGAnificent]

It is absolutely no different than the Republicans convening on Inauguration Day 2009 and vowing to obstruct Obama on everything. That, unfortunately, is how politics works (or doesn't work) now.

However obstruction by not voting for leftwing Ponzi schemes like Obamacare is not the same as pushing phony Russian collusion and obstruction of justice fantasies.

 

[lurchadams]

I don't support impeachment purely for political reasons. The longer Trump remains in power the more that the GOP will "own" Trump being a failure and the better the Dems' chances are in winning back seats in upcoming elections. Additionally, due to the constant drama Trump creates the more roadblocks will be put in the way of the GOP passing their agenda, such as repealing consumer financial and environmental protections.

If Trump gets removed from office, that will leave us with President Pence. With Pence at the helm, say "hello" to the social moral judgement of the 1950's and say "goodbye" to any hope of any non-billionaire being able to have a say in the direction of the nation.

 

[haymarket]

Makes sense to me. Here's the history of first midterm loses going back to FDR. FDR and Bush II were the only presidents not to lose seats in his first midterm. But 9-11 happened during Bush's first term which united the country around him and his party. Bush paid the price in his second midterm losing 33 seats and control of the House.

First midterm house losses

Obama lost 63 seats in 2010
Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 But lost 33 seats in 2006
Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994
Bush lost 8 seats in 1990
Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982
Carter lost 15 seats in 1978
Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970
LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966
JFK lost 22 seats in 1962
Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954
Truman lost 28 seats in 1950
FDR gained 11 seats in 1934.

The Republicans should be okay in the senate, they have only 9 seats up for re-election vs. 25 for the Democrats. Most Republican held seats are safe with maybe the exceptions of Arizona and Nevada. The Democrats don't really have that many at risk seats up either. Indiana, Missouri could change hands, perhaps Florida with a huge Cuban-American turnout.

The house, right now it varies from pundit to pundit, but on average the Republicans have 25 at risk seats to 10 for the Democrats. I would say a ten seat loss would be very acceptable. But I expect numerous changes to that. The bad news for the Republicans is their party affiliation has dropped four points according to Gallup over the last month.

Democratic Edge in Party Affiliation Up to Seven Points | Gallup

But there again, all of that is dynamic with constant change. But it is an indication which is unknown if it will last or if it is a trend.

love it when I learn something from your posts as they are filled with great data.

 

[Perotista]

love it when I learn something from your posts as they are filled with great data.

I like to base forecasts, the midterms next year on the numbers available. There are many different number categories to take into consideration which but one is history. Favorable ratings of the president, congress, political parties, the candidates themselves, polls, direction of the country, party affiliation/identification, mood of the country, where the contested districts are, plus plenty more.

Using numbers if done correctly tends to take the partisanship out of the equation. But then again, whatever prediction or forecast one comes up with is only as good as the data, numbers provided. History usually gives us an indication. But when it comes to congressional elections, in most elections the old adage of, "I love my congressman, it is the other 434 that are the problem usually applies."

 

[haymarket]

I like to base forecasts, the midterms next year on the numbers available. There are many different number categories to take into consideration which but one is history. Favorable ratings of the president, congress, political parties, the candidates themselves, polls, direction of the country, party affiliation/identification, mood of the country, where the contested districts are, plus plenty more.

Using numbers if done correctly tends to take the partisanship out of the equation. But then again, whatever prediction or forecast one comes up with is only as good as the data, numbers provided. History usually gives us an indication. But when it comes to congressional elections, in most elections the old adage of, "I love my congressman, it is the other 434 that are the problem usually applies."

I would agree with you that the GOP will hold the Senate because of the few GOP seats up compared to Dems.

On the House side, I think it all depends on what happens to Trump in the next 14 or so months. If he continues as he has been and his approval ratings are in the mid to low 30's and Dem anger is still riding high, it could well be a wave election that sees the Dems take the House. Right now it looks like a slightly less than 50-50 proposition but that could change.

 

[Socrates1]

Word this Friday afternoon is that many observers in DC will not be surprised if Trump orchestrates the firing of Robert Muller to thwart the investigation which apparently is broadening and will look into Trump business concerns as well as obstruction of justice. A tweet this morning appeared to be setting the stage for this development which would be akin to the infamous Saturday Night Massacre of Watergate era fame.

A simple question: if that happens, will you then support impeachment of Trump by the House of Representatives?

Two clear choices --yes or no.

The election is OVER , SO GET OVER IT , ONLY 7.65 YEARS TO GO !! :lol: :lol:

 

[haymarket]

The election is OVER , SO GET OVER IT , ONLY 7.65 YEARS TO GO !! :lol: :lol:

That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.