Trump longevity poll, evening of 5/17

I think Pence will probably come through this relatively unscathed. The GOP may want to kick Trump out of office, but Pence is definitely what they want, at least that's what they were pushing during the primaries. Pence will be seen as the reasonable middle, even though he's a fruit loop too, and I think the churning and bubbling from the news media will die down, even though it should be just as vigilant. People want a comfortable relationship with the President, whether it's as a supporter or detractor, they just want things to be "normal." So yeah, Trump out, Pence takes Presidential office, runs in 2020 and is defeated by a block of Muenster cheese.

I'm not so sure. Pre-internet there was one Overton Window, massaged by the media, today it seems there are multiples of them and within increasingly isolated viewpoints. I'm genuinely unsure if the mainstream is what is once was, the concept of an overarching one in a region is rapidly being replaced with parallel ones that aren't defined regionally, but by political viewpoints.

Take a look at the Republicans, go back to the 90's and the crazies were always being chased down by the press for an interview because they made good viewing. Fast-forward to today, and those same crazies are now actually becoming mainstream in conservatism.

We speak about terrorists being radicalised, but I think entire segments of political viewpoints are too, and it's not healthy. I enjoy disparate viewpoints, even ones I vehemently disagree with provide food for thought, but I'm finding myself in a rapidly diminishing population willing to respect (overall, not necessarily in a debate/argument! ) opposing views.

I agree, to a point, because I do find that some opposing views are malevolently ignorant, to the point where following through on them, or making them popular, leads to harming innocents.

Politically, the US is certainly going through the Chinese definition of interesting times.

I'm wondering what effect this will have on future elections though, will the eventual Trumpectomy be so painful to the Republicans that they'll lock down the nomination process in the future a la Hillary? And will the Democrats repeat the last nomination process so no Sanders can make it through lest they inflict similar trauma on the US?

I just want someone who is scientifically literate, and willing to reason on either side, while also refusing to entertain the unreasonable.

I find even those ignorant ones offer information. I live in a town where a few years back we had a lovely riot, which was a culmination of a couple of decades of racial issues which had been brushed under any available rug until it all exploded.

We then had the neo-nazis pile in, and I had an opportunity to chat to some of their supporters and it was pretty illuminating how many of their lives had differed by mine only slightly, but slightness being that which had driven them down that path.

You didn't make an assertion. You accused. If you want discussion, start over and rephrase your assertion. Don't tell my I've highjacked something that hasn't been highjacked.

Both sides have their crazies. The trouble is they seem to dominate discussion forums.

Back when I first started taking part in discussion forums you had the crazies but there were a good number of fair minded people around that allowed you to ignore the trolls. Now with social media the majority of fair minded people have left and all we have left are crazies calling each other names.

Uh-oh. Santorum is saying that while there isn't enough to impeach Trump, when there is it will show that Republicans are better people than Dems b/c the Dems stuck with Clinton.

John was doing just this last night. Agree with me or I will call you names and put you on ignore. He is such mod material.

Stop playing games.

You either speak/type with respect always, or you get what you give. Neither of you, nor I have always spoken to other wordforge members with respect. So crying about it only makes you the snowflakes.

Shut up and deal with it.

That includes T.R. above.

I just posted a reply on Facebook a couple of hours ago along a similar line.

If the evidence becomes too damning to ignore, the GOP will be faced with a choice - resist action and lose the House, then watch him be impeached in 2019 anyway and watch the ensuing procedures drag right in to the beginning of the 2020 campaign season - OR concede the inevitable and impeach him before the mid-terms and attempt to claim the high moral ground in the mid-terms (and in 2020) by, basically saying, "look, we're so statesman -like we impeached a president of our own party, so we can be trusted"

This isn't even on the same level as Clinton. While I didn't appreciate him doing it in the oval office, I don't think it was grounds for impeachment.

And let's be honest, the republican establishment NEVER liked Donald Trump so there isn't that established level of respect and trust that most winners have with their party. I honestly think that many of them are hoping for this to happen quickly so they can have Pence.

Hey if you're not interested in discussion and prefer to use this forum for attacking people with different ideologies have at it.

Personally I think carrying grudges across time is petty and petulant. Anc and some others have made some rather "not friendly" remarks about me in the past but I still find their views interesting and occasionally agree with them on some things. I don't chase after every comment they make in every thread so I can call them the same name over and over again. That's just sad.

But by all means, flame away. Just don't be surprised if you wind up a poster without many people to talk to.

Yes they should. But then, the election cycle in the US is two years and not four. They are thinking midterms already. Let's say impeachment proceedings start this fall, the likely hot phase will coincide directly with the 2018 elections. Given the seats that are up it seems clear the GOP will 'win' (as in keeping existing seats and governors). But they saw what just a few swing votes can accomplish. I mean, Trump was elected because of 70.000 to 100.000 idiots in a country of 320 million.

There is no realistic way to install Pence as president before the 2018 elections. Except Trump fucks up so badly they can invoke the 25th and have a shot at success. Even that is a prolonged process, probably including a constitutional crises.

sorry I put you under the bigger liberal umbrella. I think I should have said most liberals not all liberals.

Once again, invoking the 25th Amendment to declare President Trump unfit for office or unable to perform the duties of his office WOULD NOT remove him as president.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office

Thus simply invoking the 25th Amendment and making Pence the Acting President while removing Trumps official powers would still leave him with the title and completely free to rant and rave in speeches and Twitter.

Would it then be of any practical advantage to the Republicans to do so. ?

This side of assassination or dictatorship, everything will leave him free to rant and rave wherever he likes; that's the First Amendment.

So? Still the fastest way to get him out of the picture. I'm well aware it's not that simple to get rid of him invoking the 25th (I wrote as much).

In case of a major fuckup that doesn't warrant a bullet in the head (like launching nukes because he didn't like his morning Cornflakes), how else would you remove him quickly? I'd probably simply make him disappear while leaving the nuclear football behind. After a while and with no imminent danger of incinerating the planet, the line of succession should kick in, should it not.

and of course you yourself are the judge of what views are malevolently ignorant/harmful.

Whom would you suggest?

There is approximately zero chance that if President Trump ordered the launching of nuclear weapons without open obvious provocation that such orders would be obeyed.

The mechanics of American constitutional government and succession deliberately make it difficult to remove a president once the electoral votes have been counted and certified.

Which is as it should be.

indeed. yet there's not much standing between his temper and the guys who turn the keys. a few hand picked marines, a few maybe over-hawkish generals? the lower echelons wouldn't refuse the order.

he's not the type for armageddon, though. the upside of being corrupt - there's nothing to gain from a nuclear war.

This podcast answers the question nicely.

nobody - nobody has the right to think that "their sides" views are inherently superior/safe and that other views should be shut out to "protect" society. That sets a dangerous precedent.

That's called Stalinist.

I get her sentiment, though. All old ideas were once radical and new, including and especially the founding of our very country. And even after all the shit the colonists went through, there were still people willing to bend over for Great Britain to insert it's cock into their collective spread cheeks.

Do I agree with every progressive idea? No. But I agree that we live in a different country now than we did in 1776 and our nation can and should change accordingly.

That is an argument for allowing and considering every opposing view, not adopting and promoting it, which is what @Coloratura was discussing.