The impeach-trump conspiracy

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
THE IMPEACH-TRUMP CONSPIRACY


“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. … There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark.”

Where are the criminals? Where is the crime?

As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it appears that Trump wanted a “back channel” to Putin so he could honor his commitment to seek better relations with Russia.

Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what is criminal about this?

Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have used back channels. Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward House to talk to the Kaiser and the Brits. FDR ran messages to Churchill through Harry Hopkins.

As for Trump asking Director James Comey to cut some slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel rotten about having to fire the man.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Right now the Democrats don't have a case to impeach Trump. I think the Democrats know this and won't try to impeach him unless they find dig up some new unknown dirt on him. That said I think the Democrats like where things stand, they are on the offensive and can potentially keep negative press and story lines on Trump for the foreseeable future. If Trump is going to recover enough for the Republicans to keep the House in 2018 he is going to have to learn to be more politically saavy (which will be tough because he is an outsider to politics when its all said and done and not a professional when it comes to the nuances of how the game is played)
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Right now the Democrats don't have a case to impeach Trump. I think the Democrats know this and won't try to impeach him unless they find dig up some new unknown dirt on him. That said I think the Democrats like where things stand, they are on the offensive and can potentially keep negative press and story lines on Trump for the foreseeable future. If Trump is going to recover enough for the Republicans to keep the House in 2018 he is going to have to learn to be more politically saavy (which will be tough because he is an outsider to politics when its all said and done and not a professional when it comes to the nuances of how the game is played)

Maybe you should talk to this idiot. Al Green.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2GdZQrzPQ
 

philibusters

Active Member
Maybe you should talk to this idiot. Al Green.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2GdZQrzPQ

Well, who knows what the Democrats would do if they controlled both House of Congress. Maybe they would pursue impeachment. Right now they don't have the votes so individual Congressman will call for it, but their leadership is going to sit tight and enjoy being on the attack. 2017 is kind of like a flip of 2009. Obama didn't respond well to the Republican's offensive and the Republicans dominated the 2010 election. Trump is going to have to step up his game or the same thing will happen to him. With Obama the problem was he didn't do anything to counter the Republican offensive and let them control the narrative. With Trump the problem is not a lack of response. Its that his response is a bit crude and he is not politically saavy.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Well, who knows what the Democrats would do if they controlled both House of Congress. Maybe they would pursue impeachment. Right now they don't have the votes so individual Congressman will call for it, but their leadership is going to sit tight and enjoy being on the attack. 2017 is kind of like a flip of 2009. Obama didn't respond well to the Republican's offensive and the Republicans dominated the 2010 election. Trump is going to have to step up his game or the same thing will happen to him. With Obama the problem was he didn't do anything to counter the Republican offensive and let them control the narrative. With Trump the problem is not a lack of response. Its that his response is a bit crude and he is not politically saavy.

What I see in the mid term elections has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with republicans who refuse to back him. Hopefully they are primaried, but some of them are going down due to their own ignorance.
 

philibusters

Active Member
What I see in the mid term elections has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with republicans who refuse to back him. Hopefully they are primaried, but some of them are going down due to their own ignorance.

I can kind of guess (not passing an Obamacare replacement), but what are the instances where they have not backed Trump.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I can kind of guess (not passing an Obamacare replacement), but what are the instances where they have not backed Trump.

John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Susan Collins,Lamar Alexander they all would not back Trumps restriction on stopping unvetted refugees.
 

philibusters

Active Member
John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Susan Collins,Lamar Alexander they all would not back Trumps restriction on stopping unvetted refugees.

Okay, but he did that by Executive Order. Its the courts, not Congress causing him a headache on that issue.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
That said I think the Democrats like where things stand, they are on the offensive and can potentially keep negative press and story lines on Trump for the foreseeable future.

Isn't that wonderful? Let's keep spreading manure for the foreseeable future. This type of stuff is exactly why Trump won.
 

hotbikermama40

New Member
Isn't that wonderful? Let's keep spreading manure for the foreseeable future. This type of stuff is exactly why Trump won.

FB_IMG_1497131846154.jpg
 

littlelady

God bless the USA

:lol:

I think the leapfrogs and rinos are livid that their policy/agenda was rejected by the American people, and Trump is being punished for it. I, also, think there is no other explanation why Trump won, except for the fact that the American people were sick of all the shenanigans, and Trump was the ONLY choice. I am waiting for them to try to impeach him because he tans orange, and has bad hair. :lol: That is how ridiculous this whole impeachment thing appears to the American people; at least, the ones that still have functioning brains.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Isn't that wonderful? Let's keep spreading manure for the foreseeable future. This type of stuff is exactly why Trump won.

Maybe, but when Obama was in offensive, the same strategy in 2009 lead to major results in the 2010 election. The Republicans were going to probably take over the House in 2010 regardless of whether they went on the offensive are not because an employment rate of 9% is going to weigh down a President and the populace seems to prefer divided government. However, the conservative wing of the party launched an all out offensive against Obama that lead to probably a bigger swing than would otherwise have occurred. It is argued whether the Tea Party was a grass roots movement or a astroturf movement and the answer is it was both. The "mass" movement was fairly spontaneous, but the framework the organization of the movement was built on an already existing organization of the libertarian wing of the Republican party and the money of the libertarian wing of the party was key in getting some of the Tea Party candidates elected as often the candidates were not career politicians who would have lacked the traditional network to build a strong campaign but for the infusions of cash by the Libertarians (and by Libertarians I mean people like the Koch brothers).

The 2010 strategy is what I think the Democrats are trying to emulate.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Maybe, but when Obama was in offensive, the same strategy in 2009 lead to major results in the 2010 election. The Republicans were going to probably take over the House in 2010 regardless of whether they went on the offensive are not because an employment rate of 9% is going to weigh down a President and the populace seems to prefer divided government. However, the conservative wing of the party launched an all out offensive against Obama that lead to probably a bigger swing than would otherwise have occurred. It is argued whether the Tea Party was a grass roots movement or a astroturf movement and the answer is it was both. The "mass" movement was fairly spontaneous, but the framework the organization of the movement was built on an already existing organization of the libertarian wing of the Republican party and the money of the libertarian wing of the party was key in getting some of the Tea Party candidates elected as often the candidates were not career politicians who would have lacked the traditional network to build a strong campaign but for the infusions of cash by the Libertarians (and by Libertarians I mean people like the Koch brothers).

The 2010 strategy is what I think the Democrats are trying to emulate.

It always helps when the manure you spread has some basis in fact.
 
Top