[Pops]

The bookies are giving 9-4 odds of trump being impeached or resigning early.

My thought is he thinks he was elected king, and having no self control, will proceed to leverage his power for personal gain and vengeance. The Rs will use him like a rubber stamp to enact legislation the base will hate and then sacrifice him as a goat. They have already shown absolutely no spine or moral fortitude and will simply say he forced himself on them, grabbing them by the policy.

I'm going to guess before 1 year, though I think the odds are long.

[vtsnowedin]

My vote is the first one for hell freezing over first. He has seen Hillary fail by committing crimes in office. He has no need to follow in her footsteps. He is already rich and 70 years old so has no need to plunder the treasury. He also has plenty of top line lawyers at his beck and call to keep him well advised about how to stay within the law.
He dose have the issue of his foreign property holdings but has time before inauguration day to find a legal means of divesting himself of them without taking a fire sale loss. He probably can't just sign those properties over to his children without paying a lot of taxes on the transaction. They are most likely trying to find the cheapest totally legal way to do it from a tax standpoint.

[Newfie]

I'I'm kinda with VT.

I hoping he moderates his persona and does OK.

But moreso the last thing we need right now is the distraction of an impeachment. It base T been discussed but I wonder how many folks Hillary was sure to be impeached and saw her as a failed Presidency from the start. At least Trump has the possibility of avoiding it.

Someone elsewhere noted that we don't hope and pray our pilot crashes and burns.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The bookies are giving 9-4 odds of trump being impeached or resigning early.

My thought is he thinks he was elected king, and having no self control, will proceed to leverage his power for personal gain and vengeance. The Rs will use him like a rubber stamp to enact legislation the base will hate and then sacrifice him as a goat. They have already shown absolutely no spine or moral fortitude and will simply say he forced himself on them, grabbing them by the policy.

I'm going to guess before 1 year, though I think the odds are long.

Maybe the libs should do something constructive. One example: tell the libs in Washington state to WAKE UP and work to get a carbon tax PASSED, instead of voting against one (prop 732) with one hand, while pointing at the GOP as the source of all climate ills with the other.

After all the crying that went on over the GOP (i.e. via McConnell) admitting they wanted Obama to be a one term president, you'd think it was tacky or politically incorrect to actively root against the POTUS (or POTUS elect).

But no. If it's the Dems, they claim one set of rules. If it's about the GOP, it's full on attack mode all the time.

[Pops]

Maybe the libs should do something constructive.

LOL

[Outcast_Searcher]

Maybe the libs should do something constructive.

LOL

Oh, that's right. I forgot. Your ilk considers things like the epic failure of the 50+ year "War on Poverty" constructive.

Not that I like Trump, but every time I remember that HRC isn't going to be POTUS, it just makes my day.

[Pops]

My "ilk" — that's good.

tsk tsking Ds for not "doing something constructive" is pretty rich after the last 8 years. You all can continue to invoke HC like some juju mantra from now on, but that is all in the past, you actually have to govern now.

you broke it, you own it

[KaiserJeep]

Impeachment? Dream on. The R's have the White House, the Senate, the House, and a majority of state houses. The D's have squat.

[Pops]

The D's have squat.

don't rub it in!

[Outcast_Searcher]

My "ilk" — that's good.

tsk tsking Ds for not "doing something constructive" is pretty rich after the last 8 years. You all can continue to invoke HC like some juju mantra from now on, but that is all in the past, you actually have to govern now.

you broke it, you own it

And that's rich when the dems. don't want to give the Trump administration a chance, but to bash everything at every turn and root for impeachment, before he even takes office.

As I said, I forgot, the dems. consider wasting lots of other peoples' money to buy votes constructive, so naturally, you'll call the last 8 years constructive. $9 trillion in new national debt, a completely screwed up health care system, ongoing wars in the middle east, lots of killing of innocent civilians via droning, and on and on. Just think what the dems' reaction would be if it were a GOP POTUS while that occurred.

But no, we can't be intellectually honest enough to admit it, if "our team" isn't at the helm. So be it.

Disclosure: I voted libertarian as a matter of principle, as I strongly disliked both candidates. But I at least wish Trump success on some things I think he has a chance at making progress on, and giving him a chance. Just as I gave Obama a chance, foolishly believing things like "a different and more open administration", various spurious claims about the ACA, that he was going to close Gitmo and get out of the active middle east mess, etc. etc.

...

And as a moderate I think it's unfortunate he's a climate change denier, etc. But aside from the CAFE standards and lots of hand wringing, it's not like the dems actually did much about AGW while Obama was in power.

[Pops]

Washington — Stock prices for U.S. automakers rose sharply Thursday amid signs that fuel economy standards could be weakened under the administration of President Donald Trump.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/busine ... /93603504/

lol, there is nothing to root for.
Voting for "an independent on principle" was a vote for trump
you own it

[Sixstrings]

He has seen Hillary fail by committing crimes in office.

VT -- what if Trump actually thinks he can be an even HUGER "crook" than the Clintons yet get away with it? Did you ever consider that? Do you really think he's as straight and narrow as "honest Jeb," you really think that?

In today's New York Times interview, I noticed that Trump just threw it out there bald-faced that in his legal view "there are no conflicts of interest for the president:"

Trump on his businesses/conflict q's: "The law's totally on my side, the president can't have a conflict of interest."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html

So that's pretty bold, there. He's not even giving any lip service, whatsoever, to conflict of interests (pay to play) concerns. He's essentially just flat out saying, "sorry guys, the law is on my side, I can mix the two if I want to."

And, the law was on the Clintons' side too, with that.. it was gonna be legal if they wanted to keep doing their charity foundation while in office too. Although at least the Clintons were giving in and more responsive to ethics concerns, whereas Trump is just saying he doesn't care and is gonna do the max he can do legally.

Instead of the Clintons which had a CHARITY foundation thing on the side -- now we have a president that's got a BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ***for profit*** global business. (with the Clintons, at least the money was actually going to CHARITY.. with Trump family, it's just all 100% profit for them, it's not a charity, it's a total for profit mega business)

Why were you R's so obsessed about "pay to play" with the Clinton charity, yet you don't care when a president is running a massive FOR PROFIT global business?

It's like we're Ukraine, now. Except even in Ukraine, I think oligarch Poroshenko did some more "blind trust" kind of things then what it looks like the Trump family will do. (Poroshenko actually SOLD OFF his chocolate factories.. so far, it looks like Trump won't sell anything off, he's gonna keep it all)

He has no need to follow in her footsteps. He is already rich and 70 years old so has no need to plunder the treasury.

Clinton took money for speeches and she had a charity foundation. Well, Trump has a huge for profit global business. His personal business interests / personal business situation could affect government policy.

Trump has already mentioned to Nigel Farange that he'd like the British government to get the wind turbines off his golf course in Scotland.

Donald Trump used his meeting with Nigel Farage to bring up wind farms
President-elect claims his business interests were well known prior to the election, but does not mention his campaign promise to separate himself from the Trump Organisation before taking office
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-used-his-meeting-with-nigel-farage-to-bring-up-wind-farms-a7431336.html

And THEN, he did a tweet saying that Her Majesty's government should appoint Farage as ambassador to the US!

Obama sure never did anything like that! Like trying to tell the British government who to pick for ambassador, when it's someone that even the Brexit government (Theresa May, Boris Johnson) very much does not WANT to appoint to anything in government, at all.

And it's just not right.. to just outright tell our allies which ambassador to pick.

Obama, Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton never would have done such a thing.

Then, there were also allegations that in his conversation with the president of Argentina, Trump brought up some building permits he'd like approved for himself, in Buenos Aires. To be fair, Trump and the Argentine prez later denied this was discussed. And also, it's not clear if maybe this phone convo was before election day.

Just to note by the way -- Ivanka was present in the meeting with the Japanese PM, and also on the phone call with the Argentine president.

Also the other day, Trump met with his Indian business partners, that are building Trump towers in India. (they flew over to meet with him just because he's president elect now, and they outright say that "president elect" is a new kind of valuable "brand.")

There's also been news stories saying that foreign diplomats feel like they need to stay at the new Trump hotel in DC, so that they can tell the President they stayed in his hotel and how beautiful it is.

He also has plenty of top line lawyers at his beck and call to keep him well advised about how to stay within the law.

Yep, just like the Clintons, right vts?

He dose have the issue of his foreign property holdings but has time before inauguration day to find a legal means of divesting himself of them

It doesn't look to me like he has any intention of doing that.

Trump also sent a tweet out, saying that everybody knew all along he had all this business, so that's just how it is.. you guys voted for it! lols

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 18h18 hours ago
Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!

P.S. -- this "oligarch for president" kind of thing really is a lot like Ukraine, and we've never had it in our country before, EVER. This is a first. In Ukraine, Poroshenko really did sell off the chocolate factories (I think some were in Russia) just so it wouldn't look like there was any influence on his foreign policy.

With Trump -- *he has never even released his tax returns*, so NOBODY KNOWS what money he may owe to Russia or China.

To be clear -- I don't care so much about his business making a fortune / playing a role in his foreign policy, *when it's in our allies*. (and neither did I ever care too much about the Clinton Foundation, though at least that was a CHARITY and only SMALL amount of profit for the Clintons but the VAST BULK was going to real charities).

Where MY concern would be, is just how Trump's business interests influence his foreign policy views in countries that are NOT our allies. Like in Russia.

Do you guys see that point? Like, it wouldn't be right to have total Kremlin view foreign policy, if maybe it's really because a president owes money to the Russians? And then, maybe democratic nations in the Blatics get run over?

It's not right. Foreign policy should be for the NATION's interests, and also our AMERICAN constitutional human rights pro democracy values -- it SHOULDN'T be about whatever particular business the president has.

[careinke]

Maybe the libs should do something constructive.

LOL

Yea I thought that was funny too. Libs doing something constructive Ha Ha

[Sixstrings]

I'll give the guy a year before he trips himself up.

Gas

Gas, what do you think about the UK stuff? Like Trump mentioning the wind turbines issue with Farage? (Trump's been in litigation for years in the UK, fighting windmills on his golf course).

What do you think about his tweet saying that Nigel Farage should be ambassador to the US? How's that going over there in the UK? Are you comfortable with that?

I'm an American, but not even *I* would feel comfortable about Farage being in government. Farage is just a total anti-Europe guy, Farage is nothing but total division and he's got Kremlin ties too.

Meanwhile for the US, *there's no logical nor values-based reason for us to start picking on Europe* the way the Brexit people do.

The two situations are different. UK had a right wing faction wanting OUT of Europe.. but the US has a different position.. we obviously weren't even in the EU, so we're already "brexited." Fine don't do the trade deal, *but any further picking on Europe* is really just weakening democracies and weakening NATO.

UK is our ally, but Europe is supposed to be too. EUROPE HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING bad to us, for goodness sake.

The far right in the US has just totally copied / taken on the Brexit ideology but what's so crazy about it is that that's a ideology that applies to the UK but doesn't even apply to us.

As for Farage and the UK -- from what I can tell, even the Brexit government in the UK (Theresa May, Boris Johnson, etc.) doesn't want Farage appointed to anything.

U.K. Dismisses Trump Suggestion of Nigel Farage as Ambassador to U.S.
Downing Street says no vacancy for outspoken leader of UK Independence Party

LONDON—The U.K. government gave a cool reception to a suggestion by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that Nigel Farage, the outspoken leader of an anti-immigrant party, would make a good ambassador to Washington.

In a break from diplomatic protocol, a post on Mr. Trump’s Twitter account late Monday said “many people” wanted Mr. Farage, chief of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party, to be Britain’s envoy. “He would do a great job!” the tweet said.

The administration of British Prime Minister Theresa May responded Tuesday with a statement saying the post isn’t vacant. “We already have an excellent ambassador to the U.S.,” a Downing Street spokeswoman said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-dismisses-trump-suggestion-of-nigel-farage-as-ambassador-to-u-s-1479827160

UKIP chief Nigel Farage eyes job in Donald Trump White House
https://www.rt.com/uk/365827-farage-job-trump-president/

Vladimir Putin's inside job: Russia’s ‘Trojan horse’ war to destroy UK and Europe revealed
VLADIMIR Putin is waging a secret war to crush Europe and the UK – without firing a single nuke, top academics have revealed.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/563139/vladimir-putin-trojan-horse-war-destroy-uk-europe

[Sixstrings]

Some breaking news:

Trump: I could run both my business and be president 'perfectly'

President and businessman at the same time? Donald Trump thinks he can do it.

"In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There's never been a case like this,” the president-elect said in a meeting with The New York Times Tuesday, according to a reporter who attended.

Trump is right in that he is going into unprecedented territory. The businessman runs a multi-billion dollar empire. But running a business at the same time as ruling a country would raise some serious questions.

Trump previously said that if elected his children would run the business and after the election one of his lawyers said they would run it via a blind trust.

But the transition team hasn’t provided any details about the process and in the interview Tuesday Trump didn’t seem to see the urgency in handing over the reins.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/22/trump-organization-white-house/94292010/

Back in the campaign, Trump always said he'd turn the business over to his kids and that just being president is what was most important.

Now his tone seems to be changing, now he says it's constitutional for him to be president AND run his business too.

P.S. I just saw on CNN they were reporting that the $100 million Trump hotel deal in Argentina had been stalled for a long time. And then on election night, Jared Kushner was with the Argentine developer business partner.

Trump and Ivanka had a call with the President of Argentina. And then after the election, the Trump / Argentine developers released a statement saying the Trump towers will start construction in June. So, not "stalled" anymore.

[Sixstrings]

are giving 9-4 odds of trump being impeached or resigning early.

What's that mean, 4 out of 9 odds of resigning early or impeached? Or the reverse?

I actually didn't answer the poll in this thread.

It's really hard to predict what will happen. I THINK.. the most likely thing that will really trip up the Trump administration is that it's so ardently TOTAL KREMLIN worldview. THAT is what is going to clash so much with Congress -- Democrats, AND Republicans.

Trump has been most ardent about the Russia stuff, and pro Putin. To avoid impeachment, he will HAVE to keep congress happy enough to not impeach him (and that's always been the situation, set up by our Constitution and forefathers).

I think Trump would compromise on a lot of other things, but for some reason he's really strident on the Russian worldview stuff.

So, that could be the thing.. it's just so diametrically opposed to everyone in Congress (we're talking about very deep core values, about democracy and freedom).

The trouble could come, if Russia were to make a move on the Baltics and then if Trump administration is all pro Putin.. Congress wouldn't like that at all and they'd be saying "wtf, wtf" ... and THAT is when they'd start saying "let's take a look at some things here" and start caring about the possible pay the play stuff and all the business and government mixing.

Essentially -- ANY president can get away with a LOT.. but if they're making congress unhappy too / really crossing the whole congress and their own party, then that's when impeachment is more likely.

Impeachment is so rare, only because presidents wisely bend *just enough* to avoid it and things getting that bad.

But I'll say it again -- the Russia stuff is the big sticking point. Trump's never bent on that, it's the only thing he's been solid about.. and it's in direct opposition to everyone else in our government.

[careinke]

What 'Russia stuff'? What evidence is there that Trump is a Russian agent. Trump has business dealing in Russia. Trup had business dealing in most countries in the world? Does that make Trump everyone's patsy?

"So, that could be the thing.. it's just so diametrically opposed to everyone in Congress (we're talking about very deep core values, about democracy and freedom)."

To all you Russia haters: what about the Russian form of government, or its elections is so diametrically opposed to our supposed freedom? Just some real world examples would do, thank you Six

Holy crap P, we agree on TWO things in less than a week. The world truly is coming to an end....