It's not a suggestion, it's a long-standing principle which is supposed to prevent bad actors from interfering with the functions of the president using trumped-up (te-he-he) charges. It's a surprise to nobody but the Democrats. There are specific circumstances in which the president could be indicted - long story short he would have to be removed from his function first, which isn't going to happen.
Firstly, this assumes the president is a functioning one, which is no longer a given by your low standards for who could and should hold the position. Secondly, this is bullshit and you know it. Presidents have always been held to a higher standard, at least until Trump came along. That's why the precedent was set during the Nixon years that a president can and should be impeached for something as "little" as lying to the American people.
It only takes a simple majority from the House to initiate impeachment proceedings. If the Republicans in the Senate choose to ignore all the evidence presented in what will become a lengthy event, then they'll only be hurting their own chances for re-election. So impeachment does seem like a win-win for Dems regardless of what happens. If they decline to impeach, then they look weak in the eyes of their own base.
You do know that this is a rather immature response right?
Tit for tat, actually.
Trust me, the moment they do file articles of impeachment for real, I'll be right there with you holding streamers, blasting off fireworks and throwing confetti around, not because I want Trump impeached but because it isn't going to work and will bolster his re-election chances. Democrats know this, which is why they haven't gone so far just yet.
His numbers are already down just since the Mueller report was made partially public. You might be willing to ignore objective evidence as its presented, but that being the case, the Democrats know that you're not the type of voter they can win over regardless.
According to Reuters. Gallup has his numbers consistently around the 40% mark, and his betting odds (which apparently are more accurate than pollsters - who knew?) actually doubled his market value. All jest aside, any results are completely temporary. Welcome to the 24 hour news cycle - the report is going to be old news next week, there will be more things to talk about, no doubt.
so what is the value of this in political discussion? or is there just interest in "pwning" the other side?
Don't nominate Hillary Clinton?
No doubt. As I've said, there are nineteen other ongoing investigations, this is still just the tip of the iceberg. Republicans will try their best to change the topic, but I don't think most of America will be so easy to forget.
Oh no, the debate isn't productive not because I'm having a bit of fun and inserting a joke here and there, the debate isn't productive because we're discussing improbable hypotheticals. Here's how I see it - you guys want to land on the sun, I keep telling you that you can't do that as it's a literal ball of hellfire, to which you respond by telling me that you've got it all figured out and you'll fly at night. I treat this chat as entertainment, and so should you - lighten up.
I'm old enough to know that an election shouldn't be a popularity contest and people should vote for policy, not for the face representing it. I'm also old enough to know that pretending to be nice 24/7 can only take you so far and that fake niceties are not always the best method to push that policy through - sometimes you just need a hammer. Trump is a hammer in search of a nail, that's all I need.
That is hilarious. Trump had no policy ideas in 2016 and he still has no policy ideas now. He is literally nothing but a vapid face used to take all the heat for policies that the neo-cons enact.
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. He's looking for another illegitimate war to start?
I'm happy with the tax cuts, for a start. He's enacting policy that I support, I don't see a cause for this outrage. As for Trump being a warmonger, you can stop now - like it or not, he's responsible for de-escalating the situation in North Korea. Compared to his predecessors he is surprisingly peaceful. I have it on good authority that in the same time frame Obama would've drone-bombed at least five weddings.
I meant "another" in the sense that Trump is a neo-con just like GWB. He hasn't started a war himself yet, but he has threatened nuclear war on Twitter (more than once), and he insists on continuing to use US dollars to support the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
He's beholden to his wallet in nearly all matters, and his virtues/opinions are for sale. That's the epitome of neo-conservatism. Wallet > party > country.
