The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
I mean. The Senate basically gave Trump the thumbs up to do whatever he wanted after they acquitted him. Many cowards aka GOP Senators said he did what he was alleged and the phone call wasn't perfect and the conduct was impeachable but not merit him being removed.
What the hell were they expecting when they acquitted him?
What the hell were they expecting when they acquitted him?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Uh, wtf is going on.
VirginiaBrave
Well-known member
Striker, it is hard to have that expectation when Trump has trouble acting like an adult.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
That they cant get along is entirely on Trump. If I talk about you like IMPOTUS does about Pelosi I highly doubt you would get along with me either. Pelosi has shown far more patience with this clown than he deserves.
Runnin
Well-known member
So what happens now? Is this a chess move or are they giving up?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Its up to the judge. The DoJ filing admits about 32 months given for obstruction in other cases was appropriate. So that seems like the floor. Until today threatening witnesses was taken very seriously by everyone. Now the DoJ says its not that serious. I doubt the judge buys it. I will guess he gets 7 years give or take 6 months. If there is a very light sentence dont be surprised to see this Judge getting nominate for a higher court soon.
striker42
Well-known member
I think it's even more vital to have that expectation when Trump isn't acting like an adult. We need adults all the more.
Runnin
Well-known member
That's true but you can't take a pass on Trump's behavior and then go ballistic at there the reactions to it. Pelosi's actions were minor and secondary to the President blatantly and repeatedly lying during the SOTU.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Um... that's not "agreeing" with me. I don't agree with this at all; if Paul Ryan had done that to Obama, I think even most Republicans would have been kind of stunned. That was not the relationship those two had. That you don't see that scenario as having a different context that this one is interesting.
I in no way implied you were a right wing nut. I literally called you a disillusioned conservative, which would probably make you a standard center right guy (which may, a la Romney, make you a baby eating communist to Team Trump). "Pearl clutching" about how "both sides are bad" is something people in the center do so they can tell themselves that they are better than the "tribes." But it really just a way to avoid substance.
striker42
Well-known member
I'm not giving Trump a pass on any way. Nor am I going ballistic in reaction to it. Trump actions are frequently reprehensible. It's why we need adults to stand up and take charge instead of cheering Trump on or else responding in kind.
striker42
Well-known member
Um... that's not "agreeing" with me. I don't agree with this at all; if Paul Ryan had done that to Obama, I think even most Republicans would have been kind of stunned. That was not the relationship those two had. That you don't see that scenario as having a different context that this one is interesting.
I in no way implied you were a right wing nut. I literally called you a disillusioned conservative, which would probably make you a standard center right guy (which may, a la Romney, make you a baby eating communist to Team Trump). "Pearl clutching" about how "both sides are bad" is something people in the center do so they can tell themselves that they are better than the "tribes." But it really just a way to avoid substance.
I think Republican leaders would have been stunned had Paul Ryan done something like that (I would have been stunned as well as those two were able to keep things professional). I think Republican individuals would have cheered it. I think you underestimate just how radicalized the party bases had become at that point. It's a large part of why Trump won the nomination in spite of being opposed by the establishment.
I do think I'm disillusioned with politics in general. I don't think see many people on the national level that come close to representing my ideals or even being someone I can respect. I'd probably consider myself a moderate libertarian. I don't believe in all the fully privatized nonsense and fully recognize the essential functions government serves. I just want to see fiscal responsibility while also having the government keep its nose out of my business.
I don't think it's about feeling superior. It's more that I don't like anyone because no one represents what I consider important or even behaves in a way I can respect.
striker42
Well-known member
I'd give a lot to have that election choice this November. I don't see anyone on the ballot who I'd prefer over either McCain or Obama.
In 2008 I favored McCain. If I could go back and vote again I'd still vote for McCain but for different reasons. I was only 23 in 2008 and so was still an idiot about many things.
acesfull86
Well-known member
IMO, there'd be no better evidence that the two party duopoly sucks than a Bernie/Trump presidential race.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Fox News is the reason we have a Trump Presidency. Trump Presidency is causing young disenfranchised people to vote. If Bernie is their voice good on them. Bernie is doing what everyone wanted Ron Paul to do. But much more successfully.
McCain. He was a strong candidate that crossed party lines. I also feel like, in general, former military have made very good Presidents. McCain letting the party choose Palin as his running mate ultimately was his undoing. Lieberman should have been the choice, but I suppose R's thought that ticket was far too liberal for conservative Americans. Romney also would have been a solid choice for the Conservative side, but would not have had the mass appeal Lieberman did.
I freely admit to hating Obama in 2008. But by 2016 I had come around.
Last edited:
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
While not perfect, if we look at presidents in the top quartile aggregate rankings you have
Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Granted I'm baffled that Reagan is a top 10 aggregate, but it makes sense because so many republicans revere him. I also disagree with Jackson as he was a criminal. But anyway
Washington, Jackson, Teddy, Truman, Reagan and Eisenhower were ones with Military experience, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Wilson without any. Granted Reagan's Military service was very limited, and similar to Teddy as he joined the Cuba War as a volunteer not a member of the military.
Bottom quartile has
Harrison, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, and Harding.
Harrison is a bit harsh because he died so soon so I won't count him one way or the other.Anyway, only Harding didn't have some form of military service.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I voted for Obama in 2012 partly because I did not like Romney (I have come around). In 2008, I supported McCain. He is the only politician I've given money to. And then he chose Sarah Palin. So when they called me to ask for a second donation, I asked for my money back. It was a memorable conversation. I was on vacation and having dinner at a swanky restaurant on the water. I stepped out because it got a bit heated and remember walking on the beach and yelling at some poor lady who was calling on behalf of McCain that I wanted my money back.
Last edited: