Trump's First 100 Days

Quote: 777

If you look at the 2016 Election thread, you will notice Trumpers' numerous oppositions to & highly critical of President Obama in the use Executive Orders. There is nothing wrong with these Trumpers' speaking out (or "whine and cry" if you are soo poo-poo about it) and letting their voice heard. What is wrong now is their hypocrisy. Where are the outcries from these Trumpers now?

P.S
To avoid any misunderstanding/misinterpretation, I'm providing a link to the Merriam Webster site.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poo–poo

I warned you yesterday about making member's names into mocking comments. You did it anyway. 3 days for personal insult.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I warned you yesterday about making member's names into mocking comments. You did it anyway. 3 days for personal insult.

Should get double. Just my opinion.

Watched a WH press conference
Who is this Sean Spicer guy?
He's not funny at all
Bring back Melissa

Quote: terapined

Watched a WH press conference
Who is this Sean Spicer guy?
He's not funny at all
Bring back Melissa

Apparently he might be hearing "You're Fired!" sooner than later. Donald isn't happy with his performance. And the SNL sketch didn't help matters...

White House rattled by McCarthy's spoof of Spicer

I said it this weekend: this sketch is an all-timer. The best SNL sketch in years by far.

Quote: rxwine

Trump says murder rate at highest in 47 years, even though FBI say it's at a 50 year low.

FBI not counting 3 million murdered dead voters probably.

#AlternativeFacts ...This is only the what, a dozen times now that the trump administration has told you to not use your eyes or science facts and to just trust what they said, right?

"The inauguration crowd was the largest in history!" ...Yeah our eyes showed us that was a lie. This was probably my favorite one because literally 2 sentences before this statement he proved himself wrong by saying "no one released numbers so we have no way of knowing how large the crowd was!"

Quote: ams288

I said it this weekend: this sketch is an all-timer. The best SNL sketch in years by far.

The upcoming SNL shoulld be worth watching, as Alec Baldwin is hosting again.

Love his impersonation of our Fearless Leader!

Trump will be the fodder for some great comedy as time goes by, and that's a damned shame.

I expected that a well-educated rich guy from NYC would be a bit suave and well-spoken, but lo and behold we get an urban red neck, an out of his depth uncaring lout who blithely stumbles from one gaffe to another

Next press conference (if any) he should wear a wife beater and a Caterpillar cap.

His slogan was right on, though: he has indeed made America GRATE again.

Incredible. Trump just bashed Nordstrom in a tweet for dropping Ivanka's clothing line. Is this guy for real? Am I dreaming? Can he really be the POTUS?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318478-trump-rips-nordstrom-for-dropping-daughters-clothing-line

How tweet it is.

Quote: lilredrooster

Incredible. Trump just bashed Nordstrom in a tweet for dropping Ivanka's clothing line. Is this guy for real? Am I dreaming? Can he really be the POTUS?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318478-trump-rips-nordstrom-for-dropping-daughters-clothing-line

lol annnnnd that's who the morons and ignorant alike elected...

Quote: lilredrooster

Incredible. Trump just bashed Nordstrom in a tweet for dropping Ivanka's clothing line. Is this guy for real? Am I dreaming? Can he really be the POTUS?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318478-trump-rips-nordstrom-for-dropping-daughters-clothing-line

Absolutely stunning
The greed of this family is disgusting
Nordstrom made the proper business decision and Trump is seething
wow
What a chump we have for a President

Quote: Romes

lol annnnnd that's who the morons and ignorant alike elected...

There's some forum members here, who I like and respect, that voted for Trump. Are you calling them ignorant morons?

Quote: RogerKint

There's some forum members here, who I like and respect, that voted for Trump. Are you calling them ignorant morons?

Of everyone I've met, know, asked, and discussed with... Not one person has voted for trump while not being either a moron, or ignorant to most things about him (from personal to political). I'm not calling any specific person specifically anything (good try), but it is rather obvious (not alternatively factual) that people who support trump are either morons, ignorant, or both. I would love to hear logical sound reasoning for electing an unqualified horrible human being as our president, and could even change my perspective on his supporters given this information (because that's what scientists do - they gather information and as new information becomes available they change their minds to what the logical facts support).

Look at what he's done already in the first 2 weeks... All the things that even his republican "friends" through the campaign constantly said on video "that's campaign talk, he's not really going to do that." There's clip after clip of video proof of them saying that about numerous things he's already done.

- signed orders to build the stupidest f!#/ing idea yet, the wall... which americans are going to pay for, and then americans are going to pay for AGAIN when mexico simply ups their prices to account for any import tax we put on them. This has got to be both one of his biggest campaign promises and one of the stupidest illogical ideas I've ever heard of in my lifetime. Anyone who thinks a) we won't pay for the wall, and b) that it will actually work are literal examples of morons.

- Keystone and Dakota access pipelines he's approved despite what the people want and the public outcry that forced Obama to take action to stop it. Why? Because he literally has stock in the company that benefits from running the pipeline. One would think this should be illegal, or some kind of conflict of interest?

- banning people from entering our country based on their religion... yes, their religion, not their country as it's 'worded'. He touted a muslim ban before he got elected and called it a ban 10 ways from tuesday and that's exactly what it is and what he's done. Also funny - there's been ZERO arrests and ZERO incidents from ANYONE from those 7 countries since 9/11... All of the terrorists/attacks were either from US Citizens or from OTHER countries. The other countries that he has business with and thus didn't ban. Hmmm, another conflict of interest perhaps?

- appointing a supreme court justice that he believes will help overturn roe v wade and a womans right to choose, setting the country back how many years in the process while a bunch of men in a room try to decide on what's best for women and their bodies and their health.

- has made claims of 3-5 million illegal votes against him, which is just preposterous. You LITERALLY have better odds of spinning a jackpot on a state minimum payback slot machine 1,000 times in a row, while in the ocean being eaten by a shark that's getting struck by lightening than you do of that many documented cases of voter fraud. He has literally zero evidence, admits this, and yet still goes on spreading his lies to the same moronic ignorant idiots that then believe what comes out of his mouth.

- violated the Geneva Convention by approving the use of waterboarding and torture.

- filled a cabinet of UNQUALIFIED millionaires (re:Betsy DeVos as a prime example) to head state departments. Oligarchy much? This is literally our democracy being torn apart and made fun of in front of our very own eyes.

- fired the attorney general and mocked a supremely qualified judge for doing their jobs. Again, simply removing anyone in his way who challenges his authority/"power"... dictator much?

- pissed off our allies and aggravated other countries such as china. Shocking someone with zero qualifications isn't good at foreign affairs.

- signed orders to review Dodd-Frank to strip the rules and regulations (such as actual qualified fiduciaries being required)... and this is on video from his own mouth... FOR HIS FRIENDS.

- if it wasn't obvious from above... he has literally openly LIED to the american people NUMEROUS times in the face of literal facts.

NONE OF THIS GETS IN TO THE FACT THAT HE IS A FACTUALLY PROVEN LIAR, RACIST, RAPIST, FEAR MONGERING BIGOT. This is just all "political."

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/04/513473827/yes-all-this-happened-trumps-first-2-weeks-as-president

If you support Trump, you are either a complete moron, ignorant, or both, or worse.

Quote: Romes

I'm not calling anyone specifically anything

Oh I thought you called someone something. My bad.

Quote: Romes

- signed orders to build the stupidest f!#/ing idea yet, the wall

Chill

Maybe this is why the raid in Yemen was a disaster?

When we have a terrorist attack here cause Donald was too busy hate-tweeting instead of paying attention to his briefings, you righties are not gonna be able to blame Obama like you know you'll try to.

Quote: terapined

Watched a WH press conference
Who is this Sean Spicer guy?
He's not funny at all
Bring back Melissa

I gotta give some credit to anyone who is actually sane and tries to be a spokesperson for Trump. They're earning every penny.

Not sure Spicer is sane, just sayin', if he is.

BTW, does a blind trust open your business dealings to strangers. I've been wondering if that's one of the reasons he resisted. I mean, if your business dealings are shady enough, you wouldn't want strangers peeking in behind the scenes.

Trump just blasted the 9th circuit judges over the travel ban decision BEFORE they even decided. Hes angry they are examining the facts instead of just blindly agreeing with him

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/08/trump-blasts-federal-judges-over-halted-travel-ban-a-bad-high-school-student-would-understand/21709750/

Trump is used to being the biggest bully in the room, the bull of the woods.

Thankfully the framers of the Constitution set up checks and balances to curb this tyrant.

Quote: Romes

There's been ZERO arrests and ZERO incidents from ANYONE from those 7 countries since 9/11... All of the terrorists/attacks were either from US Citizens or from OTHER countries.

At least I will be an informed and sourced "moron," thanks to the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, as opposed to the uninformed and unsubstantiated morons like Judge Robart and his supporters.

"WASHINGTON—Based on open-source research conducted on a list provided by the Department of Justice, the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest has determined that at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad.

"On August 12, 2015, December 3, 2015, and January 11, 2016, letters were sent to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State, requesting the immigration histories of individuals implicated in terrorism since early 2014. For over 10 months, the Obama Administration has refused to provide this crucial and easily accessible information. Since sending the last letter on January 11, however, the Subcommittee has identified 18 additional individuals implicated in terrorism since early 2014 – bringing the total to 131, of whom at least 16 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 17 of whom are the natural-born citizen children of immigrants.

"However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) did provide the Subcommittee with a list it maintains of 580 individuals not only implicated, but convicted, of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014. DOJ has deferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide immigration background information regarding these individuals, but to this day, DHS has not done so – despite having the information on the foreign-born easily accessible in its records and databases.

"Using this list, the Subcommittee conducted open-source research and determined that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas." Included were 21 from Somalia, 20 from Yemen and 19 from Iraq.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/6/at-least-580-individuals-convicted-in-terror-cases-since-9-11-at-least-380-are-foreign-born

Donald's Muslim Ban got shot down again in the Court of Appeals. Donald responded by tweet (of course):



We just saw you in court, Don. You lost.

Trump supports civil asset forfeiture
https://www.google.com/amp/www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/02/08/trump-says-hell-ruin-texas-senator-who-wants-to-keep-cops-from-taking-your-stuff%3fmedia=AMP+HTML

Quote: ams288

Donald's Muslim Ban got shot down again in the Court of Appeals. Donald responded by tweet (of course):



We just saw you in court, Don. You lost.

LMAO someone needs to show that man this video

https://youtu.be/T_foQoCHQq8

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: ams288

Donald's Muslim Ban got shot down again in the Court of Appeals. Donald responded by tweet (of course):



We just saw you in court, Don. You lost.

LMAO someone needs to show that man this video

https://youtu.be/T_foQoCHQq8

Nice...seems pretty apt right now.

Quote: Hunterhill

Trump supports civil asset forfeiture

Of course. And so does his buddy Jeff Sessions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/01/03/sessions-has-no-problem-with-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-thats-a-problem/#3324758e2d38

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-jeff-sessions-defends-seizing-property-without-judicial-process

Quote:

"The Sourovelises’ son, who lived at home, was arrested for selling a small amount of drugs away from home. Soon there was a knock on their door by police who said, “We’re here to take your house” and “You’re going to be living on the street” and “We do this every day.” The Sourovelises’ doors were locked with screws and their utilities were cut off. . . . No crime had been committed in the Sourovelises’ house, but the title of the case against them was “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. 12011 Ferndale Street.”

Don't sell drugs.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Don't sell drugs.


ZCore13

Don't be silly!

The parents owned a house. Their son sold drugs while not at the house. The parents had their house seized.

So, maybe you meant 'Don't have a son' or at a push 'Raise your son properly'. That latter argument has some, rather tenuous, merit, but your comment has none.

Quote: Zcore13

Don't sell drugs.


ZCore13

Or just don't be an innocent AP Traveling with legally earned cash.That you claim and pay taxes on.

Quote: OnceDear

Don't be silly!

The parents owned a house. Their son sold drugs while not at the house. The parents had their house seized.

So, maybe you meant 'Don't have a son' or at a push 'Raise your son properly'. That latter argument has some, rather tenuous, merit, but your comment has none.

There's a bit more to the story... like he was selling drugs out of the house. I don't agree the house should have been taken in this case, which when it was all said and done, it wasn't. But the parents need to put some blame where it belongs. On their kid.


ZCore13

So, the sins of the children are visited upon the parents?

Cute.

Quote:

Somehow, a crime had been committed by the house. In civil forfeiture, it suffices that property is suspected of having been involved in a crime. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving their property’s innocence. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” says the queen in Alice in Wonderland.

Locked out of your house is no small inconvenience.

You have to prove your property's innocence??

What country are we living in again?

The idea that you may lose your property after a legal battle at least makes some sense. This makes none.

Quote: rxwine

The idea that you may lose your property after a legal battle at least makes some sense. This makes none.

I just wanted to reiterate that Jeff Sessions is enormously in favour of the disgusting way Civil Forfeiture takes place in your wonderful nation. There is a time and place for civil forfeiture where for example the assets are clearly the ill gotten gains of a convicted criminal. However, it seems to be a system of theft perpetrated by 'law enforcement' officers of some US states.
There's plenty of threads discussing that topic here.

Again. Jeff Sessions is all for it. Donald Trump is all for Jeff Sessions.

And if you listen to the words in this video clip, any law enforcement officer who is against the process is to have his career 'destroyed'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-destroy-state-lawmaker_us_5899fde8e4b09bd304bdd5b9

President Donald Trump threatened to “destroy” the career of a Texas state senator after a Texas sheriff accused the lawmaker of getting in his way by promoting asset forfeiture reform.

“Want to give his name? We’ll destroy his career,” Trump told Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County, Texas.

So yeah. You voted for Trump: You voted for Civil Forfeiture.

Perhaps someone can sell drugs on a Trump property.

Quote: rxwine

Perhaps someone can sell drugs on a Trump property.

Nothing illegal EVER happened on a Trump Property. Never!

In the words of the great Bart Simpson. . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTbgsoHDc24
'I Didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. There's no way you can prove anything!'

Doesn't Bart grow up to be a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2033?
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Bart_Simpson

Quote: OnceDear

So yeah. You voted for Trump: You voted for Civil Forfeiture.

Despite them invoking it when it suits them, the Republican Party and the Constitution have been incompatible for quite some time.

Quote: gamerfreak

Despite them invoking it when it suits them, the Republican Party and the Constitution have been incompatible for quite some time.

Projection. Bait and switch. Only when it's convenient. No wonder they have such an attitude about activist judges.

Quote: ams288

Donald's Muslim Ban got shot down again in the Court of Appeals. Donald responded by tweet (of course):



.

Hey Orangeman:


The most recent report about the wall I've heard estimates it to cost 21 billion. First mexico was going to pay for it, then americans were going to pay 12 billion, then 15, now 21. Below is basically the effectiveness of the Tramp regimes first month, from the Yemen fiasco, to the travel ban that's been curb stomped, to the wall cost. Hopefully Sessions/Trumps plans for civil forfeiture go just as smoothly. He needs to drop Conway. Every time she opens her mouth she makes the party look worse.

Tramp regime effectiveness so far

It's really rich to see the APs who are backing Trump. APs who think the world of an ex casino boss? Can you believe it? And now he shows he wants to make sure that civil forfeiture is easy for cops to do. And APs are driving or flying around the country with lots of cash. Are we in the Twilight Zone? Are you out there Rod Serling?
Or is this the Outer Limits? Or maybe Chiller?

Okay, here you go. Trump's claim on illegal voting by immigrants. They actually found one case. That's one as in ONE. From Texas. She's a permanent resident with a 6th grade education who is saying she made a mistake due to confusion. Probably not fluent in English. She was convicted and sentenced to EIGHT YEARS IN PRISON and deportation to follow. There's quite a few armed robbers and rapists in this country who DON'T GET EIGHT YEARS. And guess what. SHE'S A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN. She voted for the Texas Attorney General who prosecuted her who is no doubt a despicable political hack doing this in an obvious attempt to brown nose Trump.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets-texas-woman-8-years-in-prison-and-certain-deportation.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus

Quote: lilredrooster

Okay, here you go. Trump's claim on illegal voting by immigrants. They actually found one case. That's one as in ONE. From Texas. She's a permanent resident with a 6th grade education who is saying she made a mistake due to confusion. Probably not fluent in English. She was convicted and sentenced to EIGHT YEARS IN PRISON and deportation to follow. And guess what. SHE'S A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN. She voted for the Texas Attorney General who prosecuted her who is no doubt a despicable political hack doing this in an obvious attempt to brown nose Trump.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets-texas-woman-8-years-in-prison-and-certain-deportation.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus

What a freakin' outrage.
One poor woman misinterprets her own legal status and gets thrown in the slammer forever. ( 8 years + deportation )

And she VOTED REPUBLICAN!

Is Trump going to build more prisons to house the other 3 million, or is he going to just have some camps with big ovens?

There's one election fraud that's getting overlooked. his name is Donald. He gets 4 years in the other Big House.

So let me get this straight. I didn't vote but I don't mind Trump in office so I am a moron or ignorant or both. I can live with that. Let's say Trump gets impeached in both the house and the senate which seems impossible but let us say it happens. So does Hillary Clinton take office? Does Bill Clinton get in? I think Mike Pence gets to become President so it would seem that Republicans still win!? If Trump is thrown out... do all of his appointees get thrown out as well? Do all of you Clinton supporters get to hold another election? Let's just have another civil war but this time it's Trump supporters versus everyone else. I'm armed and ready. Might be a good spot for some mercenary APing!

Just for the ignorant and morons like myself on this site... you should research how FDR tried to take over the Supreme Court and other issues that he should of been impeached for. Also notice Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton are the only Presidents up for impeachment and Bill Clinton was found guilty for "LYING" (Romes)! Later he was found innocent but we all know he's no less of a liar than Trump. I think it's pretty clear when us morons study history we find that many Presidents have abused power in one form or another.

Quote: monet0412

So let me get this straight. I didn't vote but I don't mind Trump in office so I am a moron or ignorant or both. I can live with that. Let's say Trump gets impeached in both the house and the senate which seems impossible but let us say it happens. So does Hillary Clinton take office? Does Bill Clinton get in? I think Mike Pence gets to become President so it would seem that Republicans still win!? If Trump is thrown out... do all of his appointees get thrown out as well? Do all of you Clinton supporters get to hold another election? Let's just have another civil war but this time it's Trump supporters versus everyone else. I'm armed and ready. Might be a good spot for some mercenary APing!

Just for the ignorant and morons like myself on this site... you should research how FDR tried to take over the Supreme Court and other issues that he should of been impeached for. Also notice Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton are the only Presidents up for impeachment and Bill Clinton was found guilty for "LYING" (Romes)! Later he was found innocent but we all know he's no less of a liar than Trump. I think it's pretty clear when us morons study history we find that many Presidents have abused power in one form or another.

I don't think anyone called you igornent or a moron, just Mr. Trump. But if your questions were sincere I can answer objectively...

If Trump was impeached, the presidency would follow the normal line of succession, starting with VP Pence. If something crazy happened and Pence was also impeached, the position would go next to the speaker of the house, Paul Ryan, and so on down the list of successors. Nothing would happen to Trump's appointees unless the new POTUS made that change.

That said, a president has never been removed from office, and it's within the realm of possibility that the people could push for a second election. But that's a roulette system level of speculation, it's completely uncharted territory. The line of succession would still be immediate.

So would impeachment benefit the republicans? Short term, possibly. I'd imagine a large portion of the house and senate are not big fans of Trump. But forcibly removing your party's highest elected official is a political nightmare, so it remains unlikely for a republican majority to do so, unless something really egregious comes up. Plus there's that whole uncharted territory factor mentioned above.

However, we have mid-term elections every 2 years, where 100% of the house and about 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election. If Trump remains unpopular for the first half of his term, there's a very real possibility that the democrats will take back a majority, in which case impeachment becomes a much more likely scenario. But again, barring something egregious, the benefit to the Democrats is arguable. Trump, at least on paper, is much more of a moderate than Pence.

It's also worth noting that impeachment is a political decision rather than a legal decision. The actual "standard" for a reason is pretty low, I think it's something very vague like "betraying public trust", which I'm sure someone could argue for any president. The house can more or less impeach for any reason as long as they have a majority vote. Once a president is impeached the process moves to the senate, who then runs a courtroom style trial, with the 100 senators being the Jury. It takes a 2/3 vote to "convict", and only then is the president actually removed from office.

Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached by the house, and then let off the hook by the Senate. Nixon resigned before the House could vote.

My new anti-trump and anti civil asset forfieture hero. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/10/state-senator-s-profanity-laced-tweet-to-trump-goes-viral/21711692/

Read the very scary explanation one DA gives in favor of asset forfieture at the end of the article

Quote: gamerfreak

If Trump remains unpopular for the first half of his term, there's a very real possibility that the democrats will take back a majority, .

Please show me one district which voted Republican (for Trump) in which Trump is unpopular NOW? I don't have the actual stats, but don't you think Trump's popularity rating in the usual Blue slum inner cities will be around 10%? And maybe in Liberal California he may be 25%? So in the districts that voted for him, which is an overwhelming majority of congressional districts, he is still POPULAR. So the districts that he had no chance in ever, will remain Democrat. Which districts that have a Republican Congressman, or states that have a Republican Senator, is Trump unpopular in? I bet very few. And of course it is not impossible, but the road to a Democrat Senate is extremely hard this midterm election, just due to the fact that more Democrat seats are up for election than Republican. The next real chance for the country to turn Democrat is 2020.

Quote: darkoz

My new anti-trump and anti civil asset forfieture hero. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/10/state-senator-s-profanity-laced-tweet-to-trump-goes-viral/21711692/

Read the very scary explanation one DA gives in favor of asset forfeiture at the end of the article

"A DA was testifying before my committee and said sometimes we don't have the evidence to convict someone, so this is a way we can punish people where we don't have evidence," Senator Leach said. "That's got to send a chill down the spine of anyone who cares about, freedom, America, civil liberties, and civil rights."

Quote: SOOPOO

Please show me one district which voted Republican (for Trump) in which Trump is unpopular NOW? I don't have the actual stats, but don't you think Trump's popularity rating in the usual Blue slum inner cities will be around 10%? And maybe in Liberal California he may be 25%? So in the districts that voted for him, which is an overwhelming majority of congressional districts, he is still POPULAR. So the districts that he had no chance in ever, will remain Democrat. Which districts that have a Republican Congressman, or states that have a Republican Senator, is Trump unpopular in? I bet very few. And of course it is not impossible, but the road to a Democrat Senate is extremely hard this midterm election, just due to the fact that more Democrat seats are up for election than Republican. The next real chance for the country to turn Democrat is 2020.

I'm haven't looked at said data, but your guess is probably accurate as of today. It's only been a few weeks though. It's going to depend on how he performs over the next 2 years, and if any lingering bombshells explode, such as taxes, Russia collusion, or business dealings, that non-fake sources say have some credibility.

Currently he is not gaining popularity.

Quote: gamerfreak

. . .that non-fake sources say have some credibility.

So far he's accused pretty much all mainstream media as 'fake news' sources and is not far off accusing the entire judiciary and next his own security organisations of being politically partisan and against him.

Pretty soon, the only news outlets to get his seal of approval will be RT and his own twitter account.

Funny that if you take the time to watch the KGB's news channel RT, they have been spouting their usual anti-America rhetoric quite gently but have not been critical of Trump and his administration. Indeed, they have pretty actively supported all the bull-5h1t espoused by Trump. did you see the pathetic way they covered 'riots' that were on the fringes of massive peaceful rallies, no doubt after the KGB stirred up said rioters.

Watching impartially from outside the US, it beats the hell out of me and fellow Europeans, how such a massive con can be committed in such bright spotlights, by Trump, Putin and their croneys. Are so many Americans really so freakin' dumb?

Can't wait till RT start their assault on Trump himself. That will get him so freakin' angry as hell. Bring it on.

Next stop, Radio Trump, coming soon by executive order.

Unfortunately, Americans are that freaking dumb. We WANT to be conned. We want to worship celebrity. And we want the misty past as opposed to the stark and scary future.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Unfortunately, Americans are that freaking dumb. We WANT to be conned. We want to worship celebrity. And we want the misty past as opposed to the stark and scary future.

I disagree. Of course I see the potential for a disaster with the current President but I am also familiar enough to understand the "Swamp" is not easy to drain, so he will likely be unsuccessful on the most controversial fronts. I think a lot of Hillary supporters, lefties, and others are way too worried and a lot of righties are way too overjoyed about what likely will be controversial Presidency but will not lead to the end of the world.

The biggest impact of a Trump Presidency may be on the Supreme Court. Recent Presidents have mostly gotten a couple of picks each, even with eight year terms. Trump's first pick is a Conservative/Originalist to replace a Conservative/Originalist. Where the difference might come in is if Ginsberg or another liberal leaves and he gets a second appointment. That could swing the court. he could also be a one term President and leave with only one pick and with several older Justices still on the Court.

Americans aren't "dumb"--Trump, who won narrowly, ran on "change" (didn't Obama run on "change", too?) and the people really do want change. Whether they ever get it or not is a whole different story...but make no mistake, most want the country to be a better place. I find it offensive when anyone considers the people of our country, as a whole, dumb or deplorable or whatever. That elitist bullshit attitude is part of the problem.

Quote: gamerfreak

I don't think anyone called you igornent or a moron, just Mr. Trump.

That is not the case. I specifically responded to just one such post last week using just those words.

Quote:

That said, a president has never been removed from office

That is also not the case, depending on the definition of "removed." Nixon was literally forced out, as you noted. See Robert Michel.