Robert Reich: Republicans Considering Impeachment of Trump

a reply to: Apollumi

Trump was the chosen proxy of the people. A people so angry they would elect Dracula out of sheer frustration in hopes of a leader carrying out their will. Have you thought about what will happen when people give up on somebody actually doing what is good for the people and what they want and decide to take matters into their own hands? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". If I were a Washington politician I'd hope I could read what the people are thinking well enough to kowtow to them and carry out their will. Before it's too late. As it is, they are like a bunch of tourists walking out on the beach confused as to where the ocean went.

Best post I have read here in a while.
Amazing how they have forgotten how angry the electorate was, and continues to be.
People want issues resolved.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Apollumi

Trump was the chosen proxy of the people. A people so angry they would elect Dracula out of sheer frustration in hopes of a leader carrying out their will. Have you thought about what will happen when people give up on somebody actually doing what is good for the people and what they want and decide to take matters into their own hands? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". If I were a Washington politician I'd hope I could read what the people are thinking well enough to kowtow to them and carry out their will. Before it's too late. As it is, they are like a bunch of tourists walking out on the beach confused as to where the ocean went.

Best post I have read here in a while.
Amazing how they have forgotten how angry the electorate was, and continues to be.
People want issues resolved.

But judging by approval ratings, its only about 1/3 of the country at this point.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah really speaks to the critical thinking side of Trump supporters that they would elect Dracula out of sheer anger and that you agree with that. Super thoughtful people. They really know how to weigh things... Nice they're willing to tear apart the country out of anger. Super inspiring. And no matter what anyone else says, that's not a retarded way to make decisions.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

My best friend is in high finance, and voted for Trump (we're both in our young 30's). When I asked what the hell motivated him to vote for Trump, he told me "because I will vote for anyone who makes me richer, and right now, Trump is the candidate that is going to gut the restrictions that have been holding me back from making huge money off stupid people".

Obviously one can't take that as an amalgamated opinion of all Trump voters, but it does shed light into the 'selfishness' mindset that I believe some of his supporters are driven by.

It's a metaphor you know. It says that people are increasingly very frustrated that no matter which way they have went (we've only had left and right choices, dem and repub) they have been ignored, increasingly enslaved. Tptb have had a fine ole time with the people. Control their thruths, keep them feeling insignificant, etc. So when that chance to break free came people jumped at it.

But time and patience is running out. Most people (the vote showed this) don't go all amuck wearing their emotions on their sleeve tearing down monuments. The people that voted Trump in, they call them the silent majority. That is why all the talking heads had it so wrong. The pollsters listened to people who talk too much and run their mouths about anything.

Those same people who talk too much are being emboldened to rant and rave right now. Why I don't know. Maybe they think they can make the true majority believe they are still irrelevant. I don't buy that though. I think these knuckleheads that control the media and think any of us give a rats about CNN and Wapo are playing with fire.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah really speaks to the critical thinking side of Trump supporters that they would elect Dracula out of sheer anger and that you agree with that. Super thoughtful people. They really know how to weigh things... Nice they're willing to tear apart the country out of anger. Super inspiring. And no matter what anyone else says, that's not a retarded way to make decisions.

Who's approval ratings? Lololol.... The media's numbers? Is that what you are going by?

People were forced to be quiet about voting for Trump. If you listened to the media Trump didn't have a chance. If you did vote for him you were a deplorable ignorant piece of crap. The politically correct stink in the workplace and our daily lives forced people to keep it to themselves.

You don't think that same majority is getting more and more pissed about the crap that is going on right now? All the same accusations, all the same bad reasons why we should just take their form of slavery. Things like McConnel telling the American people's hope for some sanity to shut up with the draining the swamp crap. "Mitch McConnell told Trump to back off his "Drain the Swamp" talk -- and says the GOP establishment is "trying to nullify" Trump's win"

You just go ahead and still with your self satisfying approval ratings handed to you as truth from people that have more than proven true journalism is dead. That's your choice. Me, I don't think it's a smart one.

It's not about Trump!! It's about the people's anger. That is why it goes bad for people that attack him!! That is why the NFL guy (sorry, I don't do football) backtracked about standing. That is why Kathy Griffin's career is pretty much done. Trump is the only card they have to play and every time you parrot the media and insist the people stay slaves you are spitting in their face. Do you not comprehend that?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Apollumi

Trump was the chosen proxy of the people. A people so angry they would elect Dracula out of sheer frustration in hopes of a leader carrying out their will. Have you thought about what will happen when people give up on somebody actually doing what is good for the people and what they want and decide to take matters into their own hands? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". If I were a Washington politician I'd hope I could read what the people are thinking well enough to kowtow to them and carry out their will. Before it's too late. As it is, they are like a bunch of tourists walking out on the beach confused as to where the ocean went.

Best post I have read here in a while.
Amazing how they have forgotten how angry the electorate was, and continues to be.
People want issues resolved.

But judging by approval ratings, its only about 1/3 of the country at this point.

a reply to: Apollumi

Your misunderstanding of polling doesn't make polling any more or less correct than it was.

Trump has an abysmal approval rating because a lot of people don't like what he's doing/done so far.

originally posted by: face23785
When Trump doesn't get impeached this time are the fairy tale peddlers gonna give it up finally? Or are we gonna get "Trump is getting impeached version 73" next week?

How many years did the Obama birth certificate crap go on? How many years did the Benghazi hearings and accusations against Hillary go on? And how many years did Republicans attack the ACA/Obamacare while using its revocation as a campaign rallying cry?

This is politics. If Hillary would've won, there would be just as much political tension and just as many negative stories against her.

Meh, even if Trump voters were all inbred, low IQ, moth breathers it still makes the person telling a room full of these same people how dumb they are pretty damn stupid. It just won't turn out well but they will feel smug for a few seconds, before the ass whooping. IMHO.

And how the media and some wretched shrew of a would be woman president could try making their side feel superior (talk about stupid female Hitler crap) and thus kicking off this current atmosphere thought this was a smart play. Good lord..... Could you imagine Hillary as a soccer mom? Nobody would be sitting next to her after the first game.

Well, if they actually tried to impeach Trump I think all hell would break lose. And there again I think that 50/50 split they have been playing for years in elections would be nowhere to be seen. K, done with this thread.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Your first post said they were building a case for "impeachment" but then you edited it to say "removal" instead.

Oh really? My first post responding to you (HERE) says it was posted Oct, 11 2017 @ 10:00 PM. And as you know, we can only edit posts within the first 2 hours after their initial posting. After that, we can't touch them (though I think Mods can).

Your first response to that post (HERE) says it was posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 05:02 AM. That's 7 hours after I made my post, and a full 5 hours after I could no longer edit it.

So how is this claim of yours possible?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Subsonic
It's always cool to believe things that make you feel good, but to blindly believe something makes you gullible, and sad.

You know that works both ways, right?
*cough* FOX NEWS *cough*

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: face23785
When Trump doesn't get impeached this time are the fairy tale peddlers gonna give it up finally? Or are we gonna get "Trump is getting impeached version 73" next week?

How many years did the Obama birth certificate crap go on? How many years did the Benghazi hearings and accusations against Hillary go on? And how many years did Republicans attack the ACA/Obamacare while using its revocation as a campaign rallying cry?

This is politics. If Hillary would've won, there would be just as much political tension and just as many negative stories against her.

False. And there's data to prove it. There's been several studies done recently about the tone of news coverage. Obama received much more positive news coverage than Trump has, even from Fox.

Edit: And the studies weren't done by conservative think tanks either.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: face23785
When Trump doesn't get impeached this time are the fairy tale peddlers gonna give it up finally? Or are we gonna get "Trump is getting impeached version 73" next week?

How many years did the Obama birth certificate crap go on? How many years did the Benghazi hearings and accusations against Hillary go on? And how many years did Republicans attack the ACA/Obamacare while using its revocation as a campaign rallying cry?

This is politics. If Hillary would've won, there would be just as much political tension and just as many negative stories against her.

False. And there's data to prove it. There's been several studies done recently about the tone of news coverage. Obama received much more positive news coverage than Trump has, even from Fox.

Edit: And the studies weren't done by conservative think tanks either.

This is true. A Pew study showed that the coverage of Trump's first 60 days had a 62 % share of negative assessments, compared to Obama, who only had a 20 % negative share.

Full study and more data here:
www.journalism.org...

originally posted by: ReadingOne

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: face23785
When Trump doesn't get impeached this time are the fairy tale peddlers gonna give it up finally? Or are we gonna get "Trump is getting impeached version 73" next week?

How many years did the Obama birth certificate crap go on? How many years did the Benghazi hearings and accusations against Hillary go on? And how many years did Republicans attack the ACA/Obamacare while using its revocation as a campaign rallying cry?

This is politics. If Hillary would've won, there would be just as much political tension and just as many negative stories against her.

False. And there's data to prove it. There's been several studies done recently about the tone of news coverage. Obama received much more positive news coverage than Trump has, even from Fox.

Edit: And the studies weren't done by conservative think tanks either.

This is true. A Pew study showed that the coverage of Trump's first 60 days had a 62 % share of negative assessments, compared to Obama, who only had a 20 % negative share.

Full study and more data here:
www.journalism.org...

There's also evidence that a turd in the punch bowl gets more negative coverage than steak and eggs on a plate.

What the hell do you think this proves? Let me help: That trump has the same negative relationship with the press that he's had his entire career, and it is largely by design. Blaming the press for bias when Trump is a walking, talking gaffe is absurd.

originally posted by: Apollumi
Meh, even if Trump voters were all inbred, low IQ, moth breathers it still makes the person telling a room full of these same people how dumb they are pretty damn stupid. It just won't turn out well but they will feel smug for a few seconds, before the ass whooping. IMHO.

This is the internet. There is no ass whooping. Lots of keyboard commandos though.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: ReadingOne

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: face23785
When Trump doesn't get impeached this time are the fairy tale peddlers gonna give it up finally? Or are we gonna get "Trump is getting impeached version 73" next week?

How many years did the Obama birth certificate crap go on? How many years did the Benghazi hearings and accusations against Hillary go on? And how many years did Republicans attack the ACA/Obamacare while using its revocation as a campaign rallying cry?

This is politics. If Hillary would've won, there would be just as much political tension and just as many negative stories against her.

False. And there's data to prove it. There's been several studies done recently about the tone of news coverage. Obama received much more positive news coverage than Trump has, even from Fox.

Edit: And the studies weren't done by conservative think tanks either.

This is true. A Pew study showed that the coverage of Trump's first 60 days had a 62 % share of negative assessments, compared to Obama, who only had a 20 % negative share.

Full study and more data here:
www.journalism.org...

There's also evidence that a turd in the punch bowl gets more negative coverage than steak and eggs on a plate.

What the hell do you think this proves? Let me help: That trump has the same negative relationship with the press that he's had his entire career, and it is largely by design. Blaming the press for bias when Trump is a walking, talking gaffe is absurd.

The same negative relationship his whole career, you say? Well, that's certainly strange, since I can not remember him ever being called a racist by the media, seriously, not EVER, before he run for president and Hillary Clinton's lapdogs in the MSM were ordered to start yapping. (Much like they sabotaged and spew out hit jobs on Bernie Sanders, by the way. WaPo still holds the record with 16 hit jobs on Bernie during 16 hours the day before a primary, yap, yap, yap!)

Anyway, it is very weird indeed how the media didn't think Trump was a racist and stuff before this president thingy began...

a reply to: Subsonic

About two sentences in it started matching basic lefty propaganda. How many times has trump been on the verge of insanity or impeachment? Needs to be more credible than this...

a reply to: face23785

You didn't address what I said. I literally said

This is politics. If Hillary would've won, there would be just as much political tension and just as many negative stories against her.

I didn't say Obama got more or less of a specific type of coverage. However, I did bring up several examples about Hillary and Obama to point out that people whine & moan about major politicians for years at a time. The birth certificate crap lasted around 8 years; the anti-ACA/Obamacare stuff lasted at least 6 years; and the Benghazi stuff was for around 4 years. My point is that Trump hasn't been in office for even a year now, so why would anyone think the negative coverage would stop after such a short period of time? (ETA: And yes, I think Hillary's email scandal would've become an even larger political issue if she'd won the presidency.)

And yeah, maybe Trump's getting so much negative media coverage because he keeps attacking the media. He's waged public beefs with Fox, NBC, and a lot of other media outlets and personalities. He's even attacked powerful members of his own party, including sitting Senators McCain, Graham, Susan Collins, Murkowski, Cruz, Rand Paul, and now Corker. And that doesn't even go into his constant stream of twitter beefs with celebrities, athletes, and damn near everyone else.

So yeah, he's going to get more negative coverage because he can't stop picking fights with famous and/or powerful people. Did Pres Obama say even half as many insults as Trump has?

originally posted by: ReadingOne
The same negative relationship his whole career, you say? Well, that's certainly strange, since I can not remember him ever being called a racist by the media, seriously, not EVER, before he run for president and Hillary Clinton's lapdogs in the MSM were ordered to start yapping. (Much like they sabotaged and spew out hit jobs on Bernie Sanders, by the way. WaPo still holds the record with 16 hit jobs on Bernie during 16 hours the day before a primary, yap, yap, yap!)

Anyway, it is very weird indeed how the media didn't think Trump was a racist and stuff before this president thingy began...

See, I remember the same thing. I want to defend Trump on this point... for most of his life he was definitely no racist. However, that is not how he's acted as President. You can excuse it as him just pandering to his base, but his actions and rhetoric since the campaign trail have been very racist. From promoting the Blacks for Trump guy (I might write a thread about this guy later tonight actually), to his reactions to Charlottesville vs Puerto Rico. His comments about hispanics and especially Mexicans. And a lot of random symbols... he even talked about what a great guy David Duke is.

Maybe Trump isn't a racist. I certainly don't think politicians believe 100% of the things they do, I think the opposite and that most of it is show for the voters. But even if we excuse Trump with that line of thinking, we're left with the reality that Trump built a significant portion of his base from a bunch of racists.