Wow, highest Poll Numbers in the history of the Republican Party. That includes Honest Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. There must be something wrong, please recheck that poll!
----------
In truth ( a foreign concept in Trumpworld) the fact that Republicans like Trump in high numbers is more of a disturbing anomaly exhibited by that tribe than an indication that he is a good president or even a good guy.
Despite his approval among Republicans approaching 85% in some polls, his overall approval hovers around 40% , which means that the only people who can stand him are his "base". The higher their approval of him goes without the overall total approval rising much , the more we know that the rest of America is rejecting him.
There was no polling when Abraham Lincoln was president, so that comparison is narcissistic fantasy on the part of Trump. As for Reagan, the true comparison would be not who had the higher approval among Republicans at their own time, but which of the two would be preferred by Republicans in a head to head contest. I looked to see if there has been such a poll but couldn't find one.
As usual, it turns out though that Trump is wrong or lying , even within the context of his self created parameters.
“You know, a poll just came out that I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican Party,” Trump told British tabloid The Sun in an interview during his trip to the U.K. “Beating Lincoln. I beat our Honest Abe.”
A Gallup poll released earlier in July found that 90 percent of Republicans approved of Trump in June, which would make him one of the most popular modern presidents with his own party at this point in his first term. However, former President George W. Bush had a higher approval rating with his own party shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
I am waiting for someone to come up with the mother of all polls though - who is more popular among Republicans , Donald Trump or Jesus Christ. They had polling in 33 AD didn't they?
Psychiatrist: Trump Mental Health Urgently Deteriorating
As someone else stated on here - might have been you JR, not sure - he is as popular as anal warts and dental abscesses, except among his supporters.
'Wow, highest Poll Numbers in the history of the Republican Party. That includes Honest Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. There must be something wrong, please recheck that poll!'
Hey you dumbfuck Rump - there were no presidential polls in Abe Lincoln's time. They didn't come about until around 1935 - about 70 years after Abe died.
Uh, no.
50% in the minds of folks with an I.Q of below 60 and a propensity to suck on the barrels of their loaded weapons. This man is a TRAITOR, a pawn of Putin, an individual that will do anything for money.
opinion, that are richly held by me.
He is another Jim Jone, but, more deadly.
There is nothing redeeming, or, legal about the ORANGE BABOON, in my humbled by the years'
That image reminds me of what I've seen when I've made the mistake of looking into the toilet of a porta potty after an all day festival. Yeah, same shit.
I have made that mistake, too. I produce a number of outside events and we had to rent those things. Even the most expensive could not get past that Trump look, or, smell.
Thanks for bringing that image back to mind.
It's interesting that no matter the look on his face his eyes are always dead. It's the stare of a sociopath.
I've seen better heads on boils.
The face of evil personified.
Trumpy gets mad when he finds out that ANYONE ANYWHERE thinks that there is another human being, dead or alive, better than he is at.....ANYTHING.
I get having a big ego, but trump literally thinks he is the greatest human being to ever walk the face of the Earth. His ego comes before everything else, even his family. Look at how trump deals with issues as president.
1) Insult someone, or some country...
2) Meet with them..
3) Come out and claim that he saved the world.
It's nothing more than a way for trumptard to boost his own ego.
Remember when trump found out he lost the popular vote by ~3 million votes? He literally formed a commission to investigate illegal voting, (which he claimed, was the exact same number of votes he lost the popular vote by...weird...LOL). He did this DESPITE the Bush administration doing the exact same thing and found that the incidence on illegal voting was so small, it literally had no impact at all. Trumps commission found nothing, and quietly disbanded 6 months ago. Again, the only reason her did this? To protect his pathetic ego.
Who can forget trump pushing a world leader out of the way so he can be front and center for the cameras.... EGO.
Lincoln better than Trump? Pffft....not in trumps eyes.
lincoln freed the slaves and trump freed the morons
Trump has called his supporters "idiots" to their face, and they just keep on cheering.... I find that...deplorable.
Not really but Hillary did call a big percentage of Americans deplorable and lost an election over it. Who’s the idiot now?
That was, indeed, a very stupid thing for her to say, and it pissed me off the second I heard it. Disparaging your opponent's voters is the last thing you want to do. She was overconfident about winning or she wouldn't have said it.
And yet, it appears no one learned from Abuela's gaffe, as many on the left still are engaging in the same exact thing.
Evidence is clearly written on your computer screen on this article.
What's that one definition of insanity--doing the SAME thing and expecting different results?
LMAO and SMMFH!
I've been disparaging the ( deleted )for years and will continue to, but I wouldn't be if I was running for office. Get it now? Duh...
yeah, you would.
A zebra doesn't change his stripes.
And your continued name-calling shows me who you really are.
Hypocrite much?
Ok, I give up, who are you referring to?
I was referring to the name calling. Learn to follow a thread.
While you're at it? Tell us what Hillary has to do with donny's thinking he is better than Lincoln? I mean, other than fucking nothing?
Very true. Plus Trump is far more like Andrew Johnson than Lincoln. Johnson was a racist Birther too.
That's true, but not only was she correct about those voters but she was off by a factor of two.
I seriously doubt the deplorables would have voted for a smart and ethical woman anyway.
Too bad the loonies didn’t nominate a smart and ethical woman instead of Hillary.
Too bad that the loonies on the right did not nominate one of the far smarter and ethical men instead of the egotistical moron now representing their party.
No, they elected a feckless retard with no morals at all instead.
It is nice to see that you finally admit that Hillary was neither smart nor ethical. The first step in rehabilitation is acknowledgement
Um, nope. She called half of trumps supporters, (at the time, 23% of eligible voters), deplorable. 11.5% is not a "big percentage". Sorry.
It was a big enough percentage for her to die the election .
But he won and Hillary didn’t. If you don’t want that “egotistical moron” in office for four more years, then you’ll need a better candidate than Hillary who has a message that somebody other than the looney left wants to hear.
But the alternative was Hillary fucking Clinton, a woman who’s been lying and conniving her ass off for longer than many people have been alive and kept doing it right through the election.
deleted
Your assuming that I am a Democrat is laughable, pretending to know my political affiliation when you don't know Jack about me personally. I did not vote for Hillary, nor did/do I think she was a good candidate for the Oval office.
So climb down off that High Horse you like to ride and don't make assumptions about others when you don't know anything about them on a personal basis.
Also, if the GOP wants to win in 2020, they will need to pick a more suitable candidate for the Oval office, as it will be permanently stained by Trump by that time, and in need of a new occupant. One that is experienced in what the job requires, has a modicum of class and acumen the job requires, one who knows the real difference between our allies and our enemies, and one that knows how to show humanity toward all Americans, not just their base.
Then, the GOP might have a chance to continue occupying the Oval Office. If not, then there is no one to blame for the loss of the Oval office but the GOP itself.
I’ll be more specific. If you (singular or plural) expect to get rid of Trump, then you (singular or pural) will need a better candidate than Hillary (or any other candidate that ran against Trump).
I’ll get down off mine when you jump down off yours.
That’s obviously not true. He can be just as stupid tomorrow as he is today and beat any candidate you (singular or plural) run against him the same way he did before. Why? Because the alternative is worse.
Those that are happy with him winning won’t be looking for anybody to blame. That’s what the losers do.
HRC did not loose because she called Trump supporters just what they are....deplorable. Three million more popular votes than what Trump had proves that.
The GOP party first loyalty in disregard of what is good for our country and all Americans is what will be the downfall of both Trump and the GOP party itself in the long run, or...it could be the short run.
Being as I am not a Democrat, nor have I ever been, it is not up to me to determine who they will pick for their candidate. I am a former Republican who left when the Tea Party took over the GOP. I vote for the person I think is best qualified for the Oval Office and it's responsibilities. As I am not affiliated with any specific political party, I am not blinded by any party loyalty.
I know that my not being a Democrat disappoints those who live to denigrate the 'left', but, life's a bi*ch and then we die. And they should not be so quick to try and define people when they don't know anything about them on a personal basis. It only makes them look very desperate and foolish.
That's why I said she underestimated by a factor of 2.
Ummmm.....why? She got millions more votes than he did. All we need to do is insure that the Russians stop meddling in our elections by swaying the vote to conservative morons, stop improper and unethical disclosures by the DoJ and its agencies, and take more direct and immediate action against those who conspire with hostile foreign governments. For example many of Trump's campaign workers including members of his family should have been rotting in jail well before the 2016 election.
I just vote democrat in every election lol
And you think that moronic lying POS in the Oval office thinks more highly of his base or supporters?
It is not just the Democrats that vote in lying POS's , but, none has been on the level of insanity as Trump. However, I am glad that it makes you think so.
When there is no candidate that I think is worthy of my vote, I write in my Uncle's name.
I bet your uncle is a democrat
Ah yes I remember the left saying for years that the GOP was history and Hillaryious Hillary was a shoe in.
How did that work out for you?
deleted
Good people usually are.
If it was good enough for her and her campaign, it is good enough for me.
It's just an added bonus that it seems to piss you off.
The WONDERFUL benefit of Trump illegally getting installed into the Whitehouse is that it is exposing how dysfunctional, corrupt and greedy the GOP has become. They are now the "GOVERNMENT OF PUTIN" (GOP).
The infestation of CORPORATE GREED, stupidity and religious bigots has now clearly been revealed.
America has a rare opportunity this November 6th to right the ship by KICKING every damn Republican out of office and kicking their cemented asses all the way back to their impoverished States with those silly, kids caps jammed up where the sun doesn't shine.
"Illegally installed"???
LMFAO!
Seems like we had an election. Trump won.
Sounds more like a case of sour grapes.
Bingo, that is the difference. It is like Hemingway wrote 10 bestsellers, and I wrote Hemingway's name on a blackboard once. And, all most got it right, too. That makes both of us "righters"!
Okay I give up, who are you referring to?
You should be sorry, making shit up after the fact. Fact is she didn’t clarify like you are trying to do for her now. Sad, all these months later and you’re still making excuses for her.
You could take a lesson from Lenny. He’s spot on. She would have won had she not done stupid things like that. I consider the results of her actions, karma in action.
Irrerelent in our representive republic. There is little doubt that comments like that were enough for her to lose the Electoral College vote .... which is all that really matters in the US Presidential election.
That is THE cogent point in this regard.
I admit I know some Democrats that are good people it's when it comes to politics they're not bright.
Lying and conniving about what? Give us some verifiable examples.
I assume you mean Hillary the women that wasn't smart and ethical enough to beat the worst Presidential candidate in history. While Donald was campaigning the blue wall states Hillary was ignoring them thinking all she had to do was put her name on the ballot to win. That was an epic miscalculation by someone that was supposed to be smart.
An interesting thing about that......it seems Trump changed his strategy and his ad buys just a few days after Russia hacked the DNC's campaign analytics.
So prove something instead of insinuating things.
Trump won, and many people seem unable or unwilling to accept it.
Funny thing is, I remember when leading Democrats declared that not accepting the results of an election was a threat to democracy. Too darn bad much of their base didn't listen to them.
Agreed. That's exactly why he lacks legitimacy.
You really shouldn't peddle conspiracy theories you hear from Rachel Maddow, you only end up looking foolish.
A few minutes of googling and looking at non crazy sites for loons will demonstrate how silly it is.
True, however we had the same thing the last go around. Some people still dont accept Obama was "Their" president.
Personally I didn't want either of the last two candidates as MY president.
I may be an American and trump is the president of the country at this time but he was not MY president by MY choice and I don't consider him MY president. My president I would feel comfortable defending, (At least most of the time, or I couldn't consider trump MY president) unfortunately, My president never even materialized last election.
That is freaking ridiculous.
One has NOTHING to do with the other.
The ones who can't accept it are simply acting like immature brats who lost a game and want to take their game and go home.
Too freaking bad.
But in one way I rather enjoy some of the whining. I know comments like yours are sure to turn independents away. And Democrats can't count on their base to turn out in large enough numbers to win enough elections to retake the Senate and House. Thank you sincerely for that. It is almost like a replay of Abuela's "deplorables" gaffe that cost her many votes. And, since I'm not crazy, I will expect the same results.
Now, that is far different than claiming Trump is an illegitimate President because you didn't like the outcome of the election.
Of course you're free to feel that way but it doesn't change the fact that most of the electorate voted against Trump and thus most Americans don't see him as legitimate.
.
So you're expecting the GOP candidate to lose the popular vote again? I agree.
By the way I seriously doubt that a homophobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, racist or xenophobe (or any of the other traits common to the deplorable Trump base) would have voted for the Dem candidate no matter who the candidate was.
So you wouldn't have seen Clinton as legitimate either since the majority of voters voted against her also.
She won the plurality of the votes like the winner of virtually all elections in the US. It's very unusual for the "winner" to be 2nd or 3rd in total vote count, thus the lack of legitimacy.
gee, most people would read that line "It is almost like a replay of Abuela's "deplorables" gaffe that cost her many votes. And, since I'm not crazy, I will expect the same results." and assume that "the same results" would be related to something in the sentence prior, namely "gaffe cost her many votes".
And try as you may, legitimacy has nothing to do with how many votes someone gets. And it DAMN sure has nothing to do with opinion.
Gee, most people get that Trump won the EC, which is how every single President in your lifetime has been elected. That sounds pretty damn legitimate to me!
yep, although I'm not happy with the outcome I'm actually less happy with the process.
IMO: Our political process has been corrupted by money and I see no way of fixing it.
Neither party truly represents my concerns so I dont give either party the power of my membership. I also research every candidate for every office and vote for the one I believe represents me and my concerns the best.
I don't think money is the bugaboo people think.
If money was all it takes to win, Clinton would have won easily, as she far outspent Trump.
And yet you admitted that "many people seem unable or unwilling to accept it", so apparently you're at least dimly aware that Trump lacks legitimacy.
It has happened at least 5 times in our history so it really isn't that unusual .
Oh and in all 5 cases the president was legitimate.
So my your apparent thinking, Obama was not a legitimate president because there were "many people seem unable or unwilling to accept it" . I fact by your standard there were probably few if any "legitimate " presidents .
In fact that's kind of the point. While Obama had the support of a large majority of Americans there was still a substantial minority which never could accept a black President. Those folks are the base of support for the King of the Birthers.
Well, to be fair, Trump did have the "bloody car wreck" advantage over Clinton so he didn't need to spend his own money to get more air time than she did since a shocked world gave him billions of dollars worth for free air time.
.
Donald Trump Rode $5 Billion in Free Media to the White House
.
Free media value total: Trump = $4.96 billion vs. Clinton = $3.24 billion
Money IS the corrosion that is destroying the democracy.
Now, politicians need so much money to spread their word (barring trump) that by time they raise that money to spread their word to get the votes, they actually end up beholden to the money handlers not the voters. And everyone of them want and need those big bucks every damn election to just keep their job. Money is now more powerful than the actual single votes. Our power is slipping away, one dollar at a time.
I see NO fix to this.
And the best part was it was almost all negative and the media thought they were hurting him and helping Hillary. The icing on the cake is they didn’t even learn from their mistakes and continue on the same path with their never ending smear campaign. That too will backfire on them just like it did with their propaganda against the tea party movement. They just keep shooting themselves in foot and I love it.
I wish you were just dimly aware of the fact that stupid people's refusal to acknowledge our President as legitimate has no bearing on his legitimacy.
There is NO connection between stupid people's opinions and facts.
Ah.
SO now it is the press' fault Trump won.
What is that?
Reason #389 of "Why Abuela Lost"?
Yeah, she said half. it's all of them.
'Funny.... he's keeping his promises to the best of his abilities. He's not a dictator after all, regardless of how much the leftists think he is.
Taxes.... check
Rescind Obamacare... half check but a work in progress.
Rebuild the military... a work in progress but a check none the less.
Get us out of the Paris accord.... check
NOT get us in the TPP.... check
Move American Embassy to Jerusalem..... check
Building the wall.... partial check
Of course, the members of the House and Senate who have continued the lies as they usually do are all obstructing what Trump was elected to accomplish.
Don't forget, Trump was not a politician regurgitating the same bullshit lies career politicians spew every election cycle.'
Taxes - for the most wealthy . . . check
Rescind the Affordable Health Care Act - and replace it with what? 'Who knew health care would be so hard'
Rebuild the military - how so?
Get out of the Paris Accord - bad move
Not get us in the TPP - bad move
Move American Embassy to Jerusalem - bad move
Building the wall . . .
He's talking about shutting down the government and having another tantrum because of the wall - half check indeed.
I didn't know some of these were even on his 'list'
What the fuck is a half check?
Wow, what a stunning list of accomplishments.
.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
.
Did the media help Trump win? Look at the numbers
By Thomas E. Patterson Dec 07, 2016
.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
........................
Figure 6: Month-to-Month Tone of Clinton’s Coverage
Figure 7: Volume and Tone of Top Candidates’ Issue Coverage
.
Harvard study: General election media coverage 'overwhelmingly negative' in tone
Oh my. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
But Hillary was correct. Trump and his supporters are deplorable.
Trump's thin skin is a result of being pampered all of his "Freakin' " Life.
The extreme nature of Trump's unpopularity needs to be considered here. Any president in the low 40s has lost 10-15% of the support from his own party. Not disastrous normally, low 40s isn't all THAT bad, but those not supporting Trump do not simply think he's not quite good enough. Every normal rational person is literally terrified about Trump being President, and most of the right wingers who don't like him will not be simply staying home, they will be voting a straight Dem ticket for the first time in their lives to put a check on the maniac in the White House.
I am curious why so many on the left are so focused on poll numbers for their President--like they actually mean something.
You keep focused on them there polls--I am sure doing that will win you many more seats, like they have over the last 9 years!
I think an average of the reputable polls accurately represents where the electorate is at the time they are taken. I've always been amazed by how accurate they are. People who disparage the polls always quote what they were a week or two before the election, but undecideds often don't make up their mind until the end. The polls were bang on for both Trump vs Hillary and Obama vs Romney.
I'm talking about Trump's popularity ratings which so many on the left seem hyper-focused on. They don't mean squat.
BTW, what effect does a poll on Congressional races right now have on the races themselves?
Don't polls change weekly?
The polls were pretty accurate across the board. MOST polls had Clinton winning the POPULAR vote, which she DID win by ~3%. You DID know that the polls reflect the popular vote and not the electorate, right?
"They"? "They" can proclaim whatever "they" want, it doesn't change the FACT that polls reflect the fucking POPULAR vote!
Since the president isn’t elected by popular vote, then polls that track them aren’t particularly important. However unpopular Trump may be, the question is whether the majority of voters in swing states will prefer him over the alternative. Personally, I can vote for someone I don’t like if the alternative is a candidate who supports policies I don’t like.
And your repeating the population vote nonsense does not change the fact that Clinton lost the election according to the rule and will never become president in this lifetime.
This is true, it's a gauge, nothing more because there is more than one person that affects the poll. When it's a poll about a president, it has far more meaning because we only have ONE president.
It doesn’t gauge much if the poll doesn’t reflect the electoral map. If every person in California hates Trump and votes against him, that would be an enormous number of popular votes but the state of California still only gets 55 electoral votes.
I can't believe that some people are still whining about Hillary's "popularity" vs. her documented failure to WIN enough Electoral College votes ! Even the BLUE states I've lived in are RED or mostly RED!
BTW ... Trump has been the duly-elected POTUS per the US Constitution for 1 year, 190 days and counting. It's time for some folks to stop dithering about Hillary's "popular vote".
They counted on the The Electoral College to use the one brain between them to elect who the people really wanted.
No polls that I know of do that.
I am not the one that brought Hillary up. Maybe you should talk to your cohorts that keep deflecting away from what the fucking article is about.
If that is the case why are the snowflake left still crying?
It is, after all, all they have.
Lenny is a right winger now?
Yea, like, "well, he won, she lost, deal with it"... Right? It really is all you have.
And that is exactly what the EC did.
Don't really need anymore than that. It was Clinton and the left that had to create dozens if not hundreds of lousy excuses as to why Clinton is a two time loser who was not even good enough to beat someone like Trump
Much better than whining about the popular vote as if it MEANS something!!
The fact that they elected someone with 3 million less popular votes proves they didn't.
If the election happened today, knowing what we now know about Trump, how do you think it would go?
Good question.
I think it would go about the same. No one I know has really changed their mind on trump yet. The real good or bad that comes from a president takes time to manifest. Time will tell.
I agree with Steve that things would go about the same. I didn't care much for Trump and I still don't. entirely but the alternative was just too horrible to contemplate. I would vote exactly the same way today as I did then.
I agree with Steve that things would go about the same. I didn't care much for Trump and I still don't. entirely but the alternative was just too horrible to contemplate. I would vote exactly the same way today as I did then.
I didn’t vote for Trump because I think he’s a dolt. However, the liberals are becoming so unhinged in their policies that I’m more afraid of them taking power than I am of Trump keeping it. Plus, I want non activist judges and I can’t get that from a Democrat.
By, "liberals" do yo mean everyone that didn't vote for trump? If that's the case, I would study upon what a liberal is, because you are mistaken.
The right has elevated the term, "liberal" to the point of being a (racial) slur and they use it the exact same way.
Well, you ain't going to get it from Trump either.
I already did. He nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch is a conservative judge but, he is fair, however, Kavanaugh has said in the past that a sitting POTUS CAN'T BE PROSECUTED, that he is above the law as long as he is president, he has also said that he would overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, do you believe that Kavanaugh is right and, a POTUS can't be prosecuted, that he is above the law? If you do then you believe that Clinton and, Nixon were wrongly impeached by the Congress.
He said no such thing.
First, Nixon wasn't impeached.
Second, your point makes no sense.
No, Nixon wasn't impeached but, he had articles of impeachment brought against him and, then he resigned in disgrace, if Ford hadn't pardoned him he would have been tried for obstruction of justice.
My point is this, Kavanaugh has stated that he doesn't think that any sitting POTUS should ever be under investigation both Nixon and, Clinton were sitting POTUS's when they were investigated, funny thing is Kavanaugh was part of Starr's legal team so, apparently he thinks it's OK to investigate a Democratic president but, not a Republican president, unless of course he came up with his current views since his time on the Starr investigation, in any case, if he is confirmed he needs to recuse himself from anything to do with the Mueller Russia probe since it involves a sitting POTUS because, of his views on investigations and, sitting POTUS's.
What Kavanaugh wrote:
A full detailed writing is here,
IMO, it is evident that Kavanaugh is being looked at by the Trump Administration for one thing and, one thing only, getting Trump out of hot water should Mueller indict him or, Congress try to impeach him.
Are you seriously suggesting that he wouldn't have been?
Because he agreed to resign....so, really no difference. You think his resignation was something honorable?
LOL, he might be but, everyone knows that it would just be another stupid remark from his side, even he would know that.
Read the link I provided in the post below.
That's a lie Kavanaugh never said he would vote to overturn Roe.
For those on the left who insist that Kavanaugh is dangerous because he supposedly won’t follow precedent when it comes to Roe v Wade – the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide – it seems clear that his critics haven’t read the book he co-authored on precedent.
Kavanaugh argues that precedents are particularly binding when they have been around for a long time, have had large majorities on the court, and have been the subject of a number of Supreme Court decisions. All those points surely apply to Roe v. Wade.
In addition, during his confirmation hearing to the D.C. Circuit Court in 2006, Kavanaugh promised, “I would follow Roe v Wade faithfully and fully.”
No he didn't.
arently he thinks it's OK to investigate a Democratic president but, not a Republican president,
No, he doesn't. And the essay you misread to claim Kavanaugh says a POTUS can't be investigated was written when Barack Obama was President.
Double Whoops!
i it is evident that Kavanaugh is being looked at by the Trump Administration for one thing and, one thing only, getting Trump out of hot water should Mueller indict him or, Congress try to impeach him
IF you actually read the paper, you'd know it says the exact opposite of what you claim. I've posted the essay explaining that from a liberal Conlaw professor at Harvard, but that's obviously a waste of time because no one will read it. Just know that the actual experts on the subject (liberals too), think the argument is ridiculous. I know spouting dailykos falsehoods is the thing to do on this site, but to anyone who doesn't fall for clickbait style argument they are ridiculous.
Moreover, you don't seem to understand the difference between impeachment and criminal prosecution. "POTUS can't be prosecuted, that he is above the law? If you do then you believe that Clinton and, Nixon were wrongly impeached by the Congress." This statement is bizarre. Impeachment is a legislative remedy that doesn't involve Associate Judges of the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh, whatever his beliefs, will have nothing to do with the impeachment process. It's totally separate from the question of whether a sitting a President can be prosecuted (which has been the position of every DOJ, democratic or republican, for over 40 years). That a sitting president can be impeached but not criminally prosecuted is the mainstream position on the subject.
No, I just think you should have a basic knowledge of the facts at issue when discussing them. To claim "Nixon was impeached" demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. If you don't know that, how can you possibly offer an informed opinion on the differences between impeachment and the criminal process?
Are you freaking serious?
Now Liberal is a Race to the left just like Muslim is a race....what a freaking joke.
You could spend weeks correcting the falsehoods the left uses in these arguments. It's exhausting. They jam pack more false information into a couple sentences then I'd believed possible.
And, that has what to do with what, whether it was written under the Obama administration or, FDR's administration it is still an opinion of this SCOTUS nominee who currently believes that a sitting POTUS shouldn't be investigated while he is POTUS because it would be too distracting, suggesting that because he is POTUS he is above the law. Do you believe that a sitting POTUS is above the law, that he can do anything he wants as POTUS? I want to know.
It does if the question comes up as to whether or, not the POTUS can be subpoenaed by the Special Counsel or, a court of law. It does if the Special Counsel decides to refer charges against the POTUS for not answering a subpoena.
If he is placed on the SCOTUS it could have everything to do with it, especially if charges come down from Mueller's investigation against Trump.
So, you do think that Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York and, nothing could be done about it? You think that he is above the law? Please answer, Yes or, No.
Because you said this , "apparently he thinks it's OK to investigate a Democratic president but, not a Republican president." When you write crazy things with no basis in reality, don't be surprised if they get corrected.
e question comes up as to whether or, not the POTUS can be subpoenaed by the Special Counsel or, a court of law. It does if the Special Counsel decides to refer charges against the POTUS for not answering a subpoena.
That has nothing to do with impeachment, that's a criminal law question. Congress, not associate Judges on the Court, decides what an impeachable offense is. Impeachment and indictment are two completely separate matters, and conflating them is causing you all sorts of confusion.
is placed on the SCOTUS it could have everything to do with it, especially if charges come down from Mueller's investigation against Trump
Again, the Supreme Court (other than the chief Justice) plays no role in an impeachment. Congress can impeach Trump today if it wants. Or it can decide not to impeach him no matter what crimes Mueller alleges Trump committed. Congress can impeach and remove Trump from office even if Mueller says no crimes were committed. Once you stop linking impeachment to indictments, you will be significantly less confused.
Kavanugh, or Kagan or Ginsburg have no roles to play in the impeachment process. It's as simple as that.
So, you do think that Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York and, nothing could be done about it
Of course not. He'd be impeached, removed and arraigned within a week, I'd think.
He worked on Ken Starr's investigation and, then worked for the Bush administration, when he worked on Ken Starr's investigation it was alright to impeach a sitting POTUS but, after he worked in Bush's administration he decided it wasn't alright to impeach a sitting POTUS or, to investigate him. Clinton is a Democrat, Bush is a Republican, DO YOU SEE THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE NOW?
Let me help you with this part, even I a layman knows this isn't true,
A US president can be impeached for committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives can bring charges against a president for the above crimes. A trial of the president in the Senate then takes place. A conviction results in the removal form office of the president.
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, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
Yes, they are two different things but, Mueller can come before Congress and, tell them that he fully intends to indict the president and, that he needs them to impeach him, with the way the House stands now I find it hard to believe that even if Mueller had video of Trump killing someone on Fifth Avenue that the House would file articles of impeachment which would then force Mueller to bring it before the SCOTUS for a ruling, with Kavanaugh on the court and, it already leaning toward a conservative court, I find it hard to believe that the court would rule in favor of Mueller.
Refer to what I put in red above.
I'm not confused, what I am is angry that people like you continue to support someone that has all the earmarks of being a traitor to this country.
Then why did it take a SCOTUS decision before to decide if a president could be subpoenaed?
You think so with the current Congress? Think about it.
in Bush's administration he decided it wasn't alright to impeach a sitting POTUS or, to investigate him
This is fucking crazy talk. He never said anything remotely like that. I honestly can't fathom how a person can believe that Kavanaugh doesn't think a President can be impeached.
Every time you want to mock conservatives for what they believe, recall that you wrote this and be humble.
Let me help you with this part, even I a layman knows this isn't true,
The amazing thing is this even is more batshit crazy than what you wrote above. This is grammar school level civics. Honestly, if you think Judges on the Supreme court decide what impeachable offenses are, you are beyond hope. It's actually depresses me that an American citizen can possibly believe this.
But since comedy is the best remedy for depression, please show what role the Rehnquist Court played in the Clinton impeachment. I'd love to see what you come up with.
i Mueller can come before Congress and, tell them that he fully intends to indict the president and, that he needs them to impeach him
Mueller can submit a report to Congress containing his opinions about possible impeachable offenses. That's all they are, opinions. You understand Congress is an independent, coequal branch of government right? Mueller can't tell Congress to do anything with regards to impeachment. All he does is offer opinions that Congress can either act on, or ignore, as it chooses.
Refer to what I put in red above.
Nothing in red contradicts what I wrote. The Supreme court plays no role in impeachment, (other than the Chief Justice). Just read the Constitution, it doesn't get any more clear than that. it gives the House the SOLE power of impeachment and the Senate the SOLE power to try impeachments. There is no role for the Associate Judges in impeachment proceedings.
Galen,
Here's where you made your mistake. These two statements are referring to two completely different things. Kavanaugh is absolutely correct. A sitting President cannot be PROSECUTED for a criminal offense. He can, however, be IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives and, if convicted by the Senate, be removed from office. Once he is no longer a sitting President, he can be prosecuted. Kavanaugh said nothing about impeachment; you simply took one thing that he said about prosecution, and, intentionally or unintentionally, turned it into something else, about impeachment.
Got to make it fit what they THINK instead of just being a true representation of what he actually SAID.
Ummm, Sean, what I wrote was the part about being a layman, what you seem to miss is the part that came after that, Congress deciding what is a "high crime", "treason" or, a "misdemeanor" is stated in law, if you shoot someone, that is a crime, if you get a ticket or, bribe someone, that is a misdemeanor or a crime, if you commit treason that too is a criminal act against the country and, there are laws already on the books to cover what constitutes a crime, Congress can only look at what is already on the books and, say yep, that's a crime or, nope that's not a crime, they can't say, "Well, it's a crime for a regular citizen but, not for the POTUS". If someone, even the president works to undermine the Constitution or, his oath of office or, our elections with a foreign power then that is treason, just the same as if I did any of those things. You are arguing that a POTUS is somehow above the law that Congress can say yep, that's a crime, except if the president does it.
It depresses me to see an American citizen who thinks the president is above the law.
Clinton and the requirements of a civil case
Paula Jones pressed a civil suit against Clinton for making unwanted sexual advances when he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton’s lawyers fought the suit from every angle they could. The question that went to the U.S. Supreme Court was whether civil suits against a sitting president had to wait until his or her term ended. A lawsuit, Clinton’s lawyers said, "could distract a president from his public duties."
Without a single dissenting vote, the court rejected every argument from Clinton’s side. Good planning, the justices concluded, could take care of anything that might interfere with Clinton’s official work.
That pragmatic approach allowed the court to sidestep the key constitutional question of "whether a court may compel the president's attendance at any specific time or place."
So what’s the significance for Trump?
If the court green-lighted a presidential interview in a civil suit such as the Jones case, it might be even more likely to do so in a criminal investigation.
"The interests of the grand jury are generally regarded as far weightier than the interests of any private civil litigant," University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck and Benjamin Wittes at the Brookings Institution wrote in a recent blog post. "It’s hard to see how the courts could contend that the president must answer a civil complaint from Paula Jones but then contend that he need not answer a criminal investigative subpoena."
But the opposite could also happen with a criminal case. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel suggested in 2000 that the criminal aspect could actually make it less, not more, likely that a president could argue against testifying. Because there’s less on the line with a civil suit, there’s more flexibility in scheduling interviews than there would be in a criminal case.
So, again you are saying that Congress and, you consider the president above the law, well, why don't we just declare the other two branches of the government null and, void and, make Trump Dictator.
Not according to you and, others on the right, the POTUS is as good as a king or, a dictator with Trump in office.
So, you're saying Congress would ignore the presidents committing a crime or, treason?
I'm not talking about just impeachment here and, I haven't been, that is what you are missing, I'm saying that if it is proven that Trump committed a crime or, treason or, is called before the Grand Jury to testify and, refuses to do so, it would be up to the SCOTUS to compel him to do so and, with Kavanaugh on the court and, a Republican Congress that is kissing Trumps ass at every turn it would be impossible to get justice for the United States. So, with that in mind, do you really want Trump to become president for life and, then be a dictator and, shred the Constitution? This is where we are heading or, are you too blind to see it?
Actually that hasn't been decided yet.
Congress has the sole power to decide what is or isn't a High Crime or misdemeanor worthy of removing Trump from office. That's not debatable.
You are arguing that a POTUS is somehow above the law that Congress can say yep, that's a crime, except if the president does it.
I'm stating that the Constitution delegates the sole power of impeachment to Congress. It's 100% up to Congress whether any particular action is worthy of impeachment and removal. The Court plays no role in that process, and that's not debatable. Congress absolutely had the power not to remove Bill Clinton from office for perjuring himself, even though it's a crime for ordinary Americans.
me to see an American citizen who thinks the president is above the law.
Show me one who said so without grossly misrepresenting or simply making up evidence of the belief. I'd like to see it.
Not sure what you think the Jones ruling has to do with the Court's role in impeachment proceedings.
, again you are saying that Congress and, you consider the president above the law, well, why don't we just declare the other two branches of the government null and, void and, make Trump Dictator.
No, I'm explaining how the Constitution works. Although it's amusing that you think Congress's power to remove the President makes it "null and void." Where do you get this stuff?
ording to you and, others on the right, the POTUS is as good as a king or, a dictator with Trump in office.
Can you try and argue in good faith? No one is making that claim.
o, you're saying Congress would ignore the presidents committing a crime or, treason?
No, I'm saying it's up to Congress and Congress alone to determine what considers an offense worthy of removal from office. It's in the Constitution!
not talking about just impeachment here
No, you keep conflating the two things which are not the same and arguing, falsely, that Kavanaugh would play a role in any impeachment proceeding, which he would not.
This is how you think impeachment works:
even if Mueller had video of Trump killing someone on Fifth Avenue that the House would file articles of impeachment which would then force Mueller to bring it before the SCOTUS for a ruling, with Kavanaugh on the court and, it already leaning toward a conservative court, I find it hard to believe that the court would rule in favor of Mueller.
It's spectacularly wrong
'Gorsuch is a conservative judge but, he is fair,'
Gorsucks, he's not a good pick, IMHO. He rules for the corporations over the little guy every time.
Maybe, I think that Garland should have been given a chance myself and, I would have preferred someone less ultra-conservative but, at least he picked someone in Gorsuch that has experience. God that is so sad, we've come to the point were we accept someone that Trump picked simply because they have experience, not because they are good for the position.
Please define. Fighting against fascism is now unhinged?
Make that, a "Blue Ticket," lennylynx@5, to save their bruised egos. Even the Republican thieves in Congress, you know, of whom I speak, those supper rich Multi-Millionaires REPUBLICAN, Christian, Right Wingers that got richer by the day, the longer they stayed in Congress fleeching the public, conning the rubes out there in the WHACK-WHACK land.
Services.
Whatever your politics, boys, and girls of the Corn Hole Degeneration it is time to throw the riff-raff out. Time to tell "Stupid" to STFU!
Because someone watches Fox TV Network Noise, Rush or listen to the Crazy Conspiracy Theorist, Alex Jones, does not make you politically smart.
It turns you into an angry, easily manipulated follower of the Tea Party, or, the Neo-Nazis.
It is time we stood up to these "know nothing" bullies who shout, carry weapons and never served on G-D day in the Armed
I have a neighbor that dresses like that to go to Safeway. I guess you just never know when the next civil war might break out because they ran out of avocado's.
This liberal who owns a ranch also owns an AR-15 as well as other rifles, shotguns and pistols. Quit the NRA years ago when they got political, even though they taught me how to shoot as a young Boy Scout 50 years ago.
I didn’t vote for Trump and I am not a “liberal.” As for the term being a slur, it’s the bed they made so they should be comfortable lying in it.
But shilling for republicans like that sort of blows your attempt to seem "independent."
Cowardly Re-Puritans always claim to be Independent, because, for the most part, they cannot spell Republican.
"I am really not a Republican. I don't believe in locking babies in cages. I am more of an INDEPENDENT dope, that a Republican dope".
To be clear, I’m independent of both parties and align with one or the other on each issue as I see fit. Taking a position against one side on an issue is not shilling for the other. If you think otherwise, then we can agree to disagree but, between the two of us, I’m the only one who actually knows what I think.
Yeah, right. That's the standard disclaimer for the "independent" who's clearly well to the right and maybe, maybe, who has voted for the most conservative D in a local election twice in the last 5 elections.
deleted
Q.E.D.
Proud to be a centrist gun owning liberal.
Who cares???? After all..Obama used to COMPARE himself to Lincoln and FDR.
Difference is...two of them actually loved this country and wanted the best for it. The other??? Not so much..
Still not the president.
Thank God half this country went in a better direction after that fiasco.
Pretty sure that Trump and my idea of God have nothing in common.
Childish rhetoric. No president would put up with the BS that office carries if they didn't care about the USA, that goes for the current disaster we have in the WH, too.
Sorry, Obama left almost 2 years ago, but, yeah, he was a disaster. Glad you agree.
Only if the definition of "disaster" is not a single scandal (cue the myriad invented rightwing ones which are sure to follow this comment), allowing millions of people who couldn't afford health insurance to finally get it, dragging us out of the second worst (by a hair) recession in our history and re-establishing the U.S.'s leadership and dignity in the world after the Bush/Cheney Catastrophe. In other word, the rightwingers definition of "disaster" which comes from their famous upside-down, inside-out, backwards dictionary.
41% is FAKE PERCENTAGES. FAKE, FAKE FAKE! Pass it on. Are you aware that some of these polls are taken with less than a 1000 people? How scientific is that?
These were followers, too.
Find the dirtiest, nasty, toughest bar in any city and you will find the hang out of toothless Trump Supporters ready to pick a fight because they do not have jobs, front teeth and would rather go to jail to get something to eat than return to their hotel home with their wife and 18 children.
That poor lady put on her nice blue slacks and shit all over them..
Bingo, that is the difference. It is like Hemingway wrote 10 bestsellers, and I wrote Hemingway's name on a blackboard once. And, all most got it right, too. That makes both of us "righters"!
I really do think that the man is off his rocker. His family lets him live a fantasy and goes along without getting him any help because they don't want to be disinherited.
When I look at the actual videos and there are many, many recorded instances of his strange behavior that can only be attributed to early dementia, I wonder why the press doesn't assemble and present all of these instances in a collective manner to drive home how unfit he is for office.
His wandering and confusion in Israel with Trump's inability to understand that Israel is actually in the Middle East, his wandering off the plane where he was so confused he did not see the car in front of him then wandered away until security grabbed him and point him toward the car, his rambling and incoherence recorded in many speeches, his rambling and incoherence in writing tweets, the videos of him in meetings where he has a compulsive weird moving objects around for no reason, his meeting with business leaders who were expected to allow Trump to walk down the aisle and hear each one praise him with his daughter following behind cueing the attendees to clap for her Dad.
Trump has constantly lied to allow him to create his own fantasy and expects everyone else to live in his created fantasy, whether it's his Abe Lincoln reference or the many, many times he has repeated lies about the votes, the inaugural crowd, his popularity, his absent achievements and the list is a long one of fantastical false claims.
The evidence is truly overwhelming that he has some serious mental issues probably due to his age and may be dementia, his family and Republicans ignore the actual evidence.
How can anyone let this man suffer, how his family can let him suffer, I believe it will come out. It will because the sundowning effect from his disease cannot hide forever, he cannot last another 2 years, let alone 4.
Not just early dementia......Trump is a petulant sociopath with early dementia. It's a very bad combination.
I just LOVE it when all the faux doctors decide what is wrong with people without ever having even met them!
The real doctors also think Trump is a sociopath, but one doesn't need to be a psychiatrist to see that Trump suffers from a variety of mentally illnesses and has become much less coherent than he was just a decade ago.
Yes, because every one of those "doctors" have put hands on the President and conducted the necessary tests to determine a diagnosis. s/
I bet you believe everything on the internet must be true, especially if a lib posts it.
No reputable doctor would ever give a diagnosis of a patient they have never seen.
Psychiatrists are not allowed to offer their opinion on ...
www.businessinsider.com/does-trump-have-a-psychiatric-diagnosis...
It's also "intellectually dishonest for a mental health professional — or any physician — to give a diagnosis without examining the patient," as the psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman argued in The New York Times. And such armchair diagnoses could be used as "a political weapon to denigrate an opponent," he added.
That's one view anyway. The contrasting view is that mental health professionals have an obligation to speak out in cases like Trump's where his obvious mental illnesses pose a serious threat to national security and our democracy. In fact many highly respected mental health professionals are now saying that the "Goldwater rule" is misguided and should be repealed or revised given that it prevents APA members from speaking out in such cases despite the fact that their expertise and observations about Trump's odd behavior would be particularly relevant.
.
Heck....even a former president of the APA who defends the Goldwater rule, Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, said that Trump shows signs of incipient dementia and possibly a personality disorder.....and he faced no sanctions for those statements.
Well, you go right ahead believing in conjecture and guesswork. while I am more comfortable with fact.
More like quack Ronny Jackson (a.k.a. "Candy Man" for dispensing all sorts of psychotropic drugs on request) allowed Scumbag to take the mental function test he requested (which is available online and which Scumbag obviously practiced before what was laughingly called his "physical"). It's almost a certainty that the topic of Jackson being nominated to be Surgeon General came up before that exam along with the clear message of how the results would be reported to the public--à la "Dr." Bornstein's famously non-medical assessment that:
To absolutely no one's surprise, Bornstein later admitted:
In that same article Bornstein revealed that in 2017 Scumbag's thug (Keith Schiller) and a couple of other goons "raided" his office and removed all of Scumbag's medical records. Apparently, the trigger for that is Bornstein's public comment that he'd been prescribing the hair growth drug, Propecia, for Scumbag for years. The ever reliable lie enabler, Huckabee-Sanders claimed this was just the standard transfer of a president's medical records to the WH Medical Unit. Yeah, any time we want to transfer our records from one doctor to another the proper procedure is to hire a couple of mopes to walk into the former's office and ransack the place.
But the MSM allows us to meet everybody. Trump, I have met way too many times. No wonder he hates MSM.
That is laughable.
Just because you have heard of someone has nothing to do with KNOWING someone.
I am sure you have heard of Oprah, but probably have never met her. Do you KNOW her, too?
I actually do know Trump and wish I could hate him. (he's kind of a nice guy in a private setting).
Never met Oprah but I hear she is nice.
Dad used to work for Brownback and I didn't much care for him. He seemed evil.
The KBI asked me to stop going around armed.
Don't get comfy, Mikey.