Yeah, good point. I wasnt' thinking about the setting up of even-further-right-wing media. Fortunately they'll be mainstream so people know not to believe anything they say...
Dont know. From what I see he is completely obsessive about this Only if the subject is pertinent to the case I imagine. So limited?
He may drag it on to rally the troops but to what end? The main parties won't be interested in that narrative once he's gone, with the expection of a few notable exceptions, unless they thing it has enough political capital next time around. Even if they drag Trump out at rallies to whip up support from his base, impeachment will prevent him from having any real power, which seems to be the most important thing to him. A point not lost on the Democrats, no doubt.
If they can get him out of office hes done. Problem is he is not undone. Whether or not his changes have been good or bad for the USA will be discussed for years. https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...019-12?r=US&IR=T#accomplishment-space-force-2 Edit. Its interesting to me to note that Trump's motives and plans are so open to interpretation. Shirley, his agenda, his aims, and goals, as a politician, should be public knowledge.
I won't shoot at the ambulance. I've been hard hitting, that is perfectly assumed. That is not with the man himself, but with all the things he carries: intellectual dishonesty, manipulation, perpetual change of angle, masking an evident right wing conspiracy view etc.. What is the goal? Get noticed, recognized, feel intellectually superior. Narcissistic? That works on a certain public that saw in all this screen of smoke a "massive intellect". From the moment you take one point of all the rubbish and concentrate on facts, burden of proof, he is down every time, and he immediately makeup into verbose interludes, .... and flood again, quickly changing the angle from the recent fail. Usual process. I would have absolutely no problem to meet in real, already met a few from the same clay. It's sometime interesting (rare). My final words about.
Actually, Chevy, there are very few who are posting nearly exclusively on this thread. Most are at least reasonably if not quite active in other areas of the forum as well.
@DCS222, it's highly implausible that impeachment proceedings would give Trump a platform, especially for the amount of time you suggested. Also, Trump wasn't able to present any evidence to all the courts regarding election fraud so, even if he has any to present regarding impeachment and his fitness for office, I don't think there'd be much. I did do some poking around about the history of impeachment in the U.S. Only three presidents through our history have been impeached and none were convicted. Trump is the only president to ever have been impeached twice. Richard Nixon would most likely have been impeached and convicted but chose to resign before that could happen. Here's a bit of background from Wikipedia if you're interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachments_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
A 2/3 vote of the Senate is required for conviction, @Octoberon, so even with a majority that could be difficult. We here in the U.S. are paying close attention to what the current leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell does and says in these next days.
Are not "all the things he carries" that you listed actually "the man himself"? If not, who is he? That could be another thread unto itself. Seems to me that we are our character, values, words, and actions.
Oh yes, I'd forgotten it needs a 2/3 majority. So much for my theory then. How many Republicans would have to vote for it to pass?
He continues to throw his "loyal fans" under the bus. To name just a few in the past couple of weeks..... Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, Rudy Giuliani. Trump's MO is to like and support loyalists right up until they disagree with him. We here in the U.S. have lost track of the numbers of administration officials who have come and gone in the last four years under Trump.
Everything seems to be hinging on what Mitch McConnell does. If he votes to convict, it looks like he'll take enough Republicans with him to swing it.
At the risk of sounding like Cal, is that an opinion or is there evidence to back up the assertion about Reps following McConnell's lead? I ask out on genuine interest, not to be awkward.
Not only does there need to be a 2/3 vote to convict but 2/3 of the members of the Senate also need to be present for to vote. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state.
Good question. In just doing the math, 2/3 oof 100 is 66.66. So I'd say 67 since no Senator would only count at .66. Although there are a few that seem that way.