The Tragedy in Las Vegas

[Al Swearegen]

It's not about his personality (although I'll agree that it's odious), it's about his thin skin and his dangerous unpredictability along with his fixation with never ever admitting he was wrong. Some speculate there is a mental disorder and I wouldn't disagree, although there is no way to confirm it, and if that is even a remote risk (and I'd say it is, along with quite a few people who are better placed than I am to make that suggestion) then it is the duty of the other two pillars the US constitution rests on to investigate and possibly remove him from office.

Those of us without that particular burden can safely and reasonably accurately observe that we are talking about a 70-yo man-child with impulse control issues, someone who would have been deemed unsafe if he had applied for a job with any kind of direct responsibility over other human beings--think pilot--but was voted into office by people who've never had to make that kind of decision.

As for NK nuclear testing, how dd you come to the conclusion they have stopped?

Trump was voted in by a pretty substantial portion of America. It was not a City Council voting him in. It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out. Six two million Americans said yes to his agenda and a what? One 310000th of that number wish to vote him out? I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.

As for having a thin skin, I do  not think so. I am not at all saying that he does not choose his battles and that he reacts strongly on everything, I think he does, I just do not think that necessarily means he has a thin-skin.

One thing I learned in life (as it pertains to me) is that if you let people shit on you, they will. If you push back hard against everything, then people will accuse you of being thin-skinned but it is better than the alternative (which is to give the appearance that whatever thrown at you was justified or deserved - no dignity in that). I also find it very poor form where people can say whatever they like to him, and that is all fine but it is unPresidential for him to throw it back in their faces. That seems a little unfair.

I speculate that he has no mental disorder. I do think he is flawed and eccentric but not mentally disordered. I think he is arrogant and egotistic but not a narcissist. I think he is driven and high energy but not manic. I think he can be cold and brutal when he feels he need to be but I do not think that Sociopathic. I think anyone inferring that their presumption of any of these types of things, or if him making decisions or in fulfilling an agenda that is not aligned with their politics, is NOT any kind of a basis or impeachment or declaring him unfit for office.

North Korea has three things going on. They have: a country whereby the peasants are about at breaking point and will revolt in the next ten years no matter what Kim Jong Un does or does do; an entitled authoritarian used to getting his own way and people kowtowing to him; and he will continue his nuclear program and continue to refine and test nuclear capabilities. What I think is very clear though, is that in the past he occasionally goes a little crazy and launches a few rockets or otherwise causes trouble and concern in order to intimidate the world and show his power and authority. To get other nations cowed by him and willing to placate him. It feeds his ego and lifts his status. Calling him "Rocket man" does not. Nor does effectively saying that should they really push things, they will be unceremoniously wiped off the face of the globe. He has not had that level of disrespect and disregard before.

Trump is pretty predictable he just is not behaving in a way that most would like him to. That does not mean he is unpredictable. Lash out at him and he will lash back. Completely predictable. You may say that such things are UnPresidential or unexpected or wild or whatever else but it really isn't. It is completely expected. Him backing friends and pushing his agenda and doing things consistent with his values are not revelations or out of left field either. The media playing any of this to be so is simply saying they do not approve of it and want to pressure others to make him stop or the masses to rail against what they do not like. But it is not unpredictable.

[Jack]

It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.

Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.

[Al Swearegen]

It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.

Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.

My understanding is that this is not entirely true. My understanding is that all they have to do is make the accusation and vote him out. Enough show of hands on both sides of the aisle and he is gone ...all for the greater good. A charge and a conviction sure make things easier, gives them good reasoning and they can face their constituents better. But I do not think it is necessarily required

[Jack]

It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.

Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.

My understanding is that this is not entirely true. My understanding is that all they have to do is make the accusation and vote him out. Enough show of hands on both sides of the aisle and he is gone ...all for the greater good. A charge and a conviction sure make things easier, gives them good reasoning and they can face their constituents better. But I do not think it is necessarily required

No these processes are detailed trials with evidence and witnesses and federal judiciary committees and defense attorneys. It's certainly not a simple matter of anyone voting based on a mere accusation. A president must be both impeached and convicted to be removed from office. Impeachment is really more like the process of being indicted for a federal crime; it's the trial before the trial where a jury determines the validity of a formal charge of a crime. It's the house's responsibility to hold a hearing and vote to formally charge the president with a crime, and if it passes the house then that's an impeachment. The senate's responsibility is then to hold trial based on the evidence of impeachment presented by the house with a two thirds senate majority required for a conviction. A president convicted by congress can then be removed from office and be charged in federal criminal court. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why there have been a couple of instances of presidents being impeached in the house but not removed from office because they were never convicted in the senate. It's probably not even as simple as all that, but these are times the forum could benefit from a Semicolon.

[Al Swearegen]

It ought not be a show of hands in Senate to vote him out.

Why ought it not be? If it were left to public vote then impeachment would turn into a popularity contest like elections. Presidential impeachment hinges on acts of crime. Congress are elected representatives of the people and it's their job to hold impeachment trial in situations of criminal acts of the president.

My understanding is that this is not entirely true. My understanding is that all they have to do is make the accusation and vote him out. Enough show of hands on both sides of the aisle and he is gone ...all for the greater good. A charge and a conviction sure make things easier, gives them good reasoning and they can face their constituents better. But I do not think it is necessarily required

No these processes are detailed trials with evidence and witnesses and federal judiciary committees and defense attorneys. It's certainly not a simple matter of anyone voting based on a mere accusation. A president must be both impeached and convicted to be removed from office. Impeachment is really more like the process of being indicted for a federal crime; it's the trial before the trial where a jury determines the validity of a formal charge of a crime. It's the house's responsibility to hold a hearing and vote to formally charge the president with a crime, and if it passes the house then that's an impeachment. The senate's responsibility is then to hold trial based on the evidence of impeachment presented by the house with a two thirds senate majority required for a conviction. A president convicted by congress can then be removed from office and be charged in federal criminal court. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why there have been a couple of instances of presidents being impeached in the house but not removed from office because they were never convicted in the senate. It's probably not even as simple as all that, but these are times the forum could benefit from a Semicolon.

No, I get the two-thirds majority thing. But Trump is HATED by the Democrats and HAted by the Establishment Republicans. The impeachment sought against him is based around Russian collusion and around the Obstruction of Justice.

I have said all along there was no Russia government collusion to win the Presidency in the Trump Administration, but many in Congress and Media were banging that drum. In fact, some here were.

The obstruction of justice argument seems based on Trump asking if Comey could let Flynn go because he is a nice guy. Comey not doing so and starting proceedings against him anyhow and Trump not stopping the proceedings.

In both cases, there seems there is nothing there as the proceedings are coming to completion. It looks like Podesta is in trouble and maybe the DNC.

However, prior to any of this, people like Maxine Waters and Al Green have demanded Trump's impeachment. Trump IS seen as a threat. He is thoroughly disliked. They will try getting a show of hands to vote him out whether it is through impeachment or through a pretence of him not being fit for office, again without psychological evidence to back this. It is essentially approximately 130 people trying to invalidate the votes of 62 million Americans, because they do not like him.

It would be a travesty BUT it would be pretty cool in one sense. Imagine any time that the Democrats get Presidency to an overwhelming Republican majority in the Senate and House. Having set the precedent, The Republicans would do a "Remember Trump" and vote out the Democrat President" whenever they pissed them off. It would be hilarious.

 

[Jack]

Impeachment is only a formal charge. There's a difference between being charged and convicted, and if there's sufficient evidence the president has committed a crime then he should rightfully face those charges. Only being impeached wont remove him from office. The accusation of being unfit is a different matter. To even get the ball rolling, it would take the vice president and the majority of the president's own personally appointed cabinet, or the vice president and the majority of congress, to formally declare the president is unable to fulfill his duties of office, and again a subsequent two thirds majority in both the house and senate. Then the president can simply formally declare he isn't unfit, there's room for appeal if he's voted as unfit, both of which puts him back in charge, and an appeal starts the congressional voting all over again. See this as less likely to happen than impeachment.

[odeon]

I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.

I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?

I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.

[odeon]

And speaking of the Russian probe, charges have now been filed in the investigation. Is this what you knew all along too?

[Al Swearegen]

And speaking of the Russian probe, charges have now been filed in the investigation. Is this what you knew all along too?

Yes, Mueller did not take on his role to come away empty handed.

[Al Swearegen]

I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.

I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?

I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.

Yes the pollsters are the same pollsters that were being relied upon to inform us of Hillary vs Trump's chances to win the Presidency and using the same skewed techniques and for the same reasons. You are not giving them credibility they do not deserve, are you?

[Jack]

A number of US polling organizations quite reputable and credible, and their techniques are not considered as skewed. Poll results did well reflect the popular vote, but it's difficult to determine how the popular vote will translate to electoral votes. Comparing two states with the same number of electoral votes, it doesn't matter if a candidate wins one state by 60%, while another candidate wins the other state by 90% and thus having more popular votes; they still each get the same number of votes. The electoral college process in no way reflects negatively on the accuracy or methodology of a polling organization's results.

[odeon]

I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.

I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?

I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.

Yes the pollsters are the same pollsters that were being relied upon to inform us of Hillary vs Trump's chances to win the Presidency and using the same skewed techniques and for the same reasons. You are not giving them credibility they do not deserve, are you?

No need. Jack already did.

You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.

[Al Swearegen]

I think you know as well as I that if the election was redone, that he would still beat Hillary and likely get the popular vote as well. It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.

I think it very likely that he would lose, given his approval ratings, so no; I don't know "as well as you do". Also, a "handful of people"? Really?

I think there are quite a few people who want to remove this president because they consider him to be harmful to the country. I wouldn't disagree.

Yes the pollsters are the same pollsters that were being relied upon to inform us of Hillary vs Trump's chances to win the Presidency and using the same skewed techniques and for the same reasons. You are not giving them credibility they do not deserve, are you?

No need. Jack already did.

You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.

What WOULD be stupid is for someone like....perhaps yourself...misunderstand that the "handful of people" is the Congress NOT the voting public nor any part of it. Being that 60 million people + voted for him and a significant portion of the 100 people are trying to re-decide the election results to suit them, my point is VERY valid. I think Jack got it. You obviously did not. Why is that? Is it because YOU are stupid, Odeon?

Are YOU going to stick with pursuing the "handful of people" point and look for a gotcha moment in this discussion? No? That moment passed? Good.

[odeon]

I didn't say "a handful people". You did. Own it.

It basically is a handful of people wanting to undo the result of an election which had results they did not want. That is it.

Highlighting that for your benefit. Did you know that Trump lost the popular vote by a wide margin? Do you think they all want to keep him now?

Now, I said sticking to this false claim would be stupid. You replied by calling me stupid, which at once makes this personal again. do you try to pick a fight or is it simply that this, too, is a bit subtle for you?

[Al Swearegen]

A number of US polling organizations quite reputable and credible, and their techniques are not considered as skewed. Poll results did well reflect the popular vote, but it's difficult to determine how the popular vote will translate to electoral votes. Comparing two states with the same number of electoral votes, it doesn't matter if a candidate wins one state by 60%, while another candidate wins the other state by 90% and thus having more popular votes; they still each get the same number of votes. The electoral college process in no way reflects negatively on the accuracy or methodology of a polling organization's results.

Nope. Just no.

There is a number of ways they will skew the polling and they will all do it in unison because they do not want to appear as a freak outlier. Firstly they will poll the percentages not to be aligned with the voting makeup of the US. They may for example poll 900 people of which 280 are Conservatives 290 are Independents and 330 Liberal. They will overrepresent women to men. None of these things unto themselves are huge things but with small skewings it paints a picture that is not accurate.

Why would they do this? Because they are, like the media, like Hollywood and so on, biased. They are trying to influence Trump. If Trump does something that they like, they will skew things back and "reward" him with "nice" poll results. If he does something they do not like they will "punish him". But they are also trying to create a climate whereby the public becomes disillusioned with him. Thus influencing the public to adopt the results they created. Social engineering. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Only it did not on election day. It was SUPPOSED to be that none of the key states was, according to state polling, going to be close. The national polls the day before had Hillary to comprehensively win and not ONLY the popular vote. These are the same pollsters that we are supposed to humour now. Their reason for their skewed polling was the same. They were wanting to influence the voters.

Even IF we consider the popular vote Clinton 65,794,399 and Trump 62,955,202, did anyone predict it was going to be close? Even with this 2 700 000 or so votes.

http://prntly.com/2016/11/25/californias-millions-of-illegals-who-voted-causing-hillarys-popular-vote-count-to-rise/

<**Cannot copy paste this but have a read, it is interesting**>

http://cdjnews.com/2016/10/california-disqualified-2016-elections/#.WfZPlFuCzcs

By enacting Assembly Bill 1461, the State of California created a circumstance in which it allows illegal aliens to vote in the 2016 elections, thereby abridging the legal right of every legal American citizen living in California to enjoy the full weight and power of their vote, countered by illegal votes making it  impossible to identify “legal” versus “illegal” votes in the State of California.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/illinois-counties-have-mo_n_852141.html

"An analysis of census figures and voter registration numbers in Illinois reveals a baffling conundrum: fourteen of the state’s 102 counties have more registered voters than voting-age residents.

Rock Island County is the largest county with such a discrepancy: its elections website lists 125,875 registered voters, while the latest census figures list only 114,359 residents 18 years of age or older. That’s a difference of 11,516 people."

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/voter-fraud-much-more-widespread-than-virginia-pennsylvania/

A new report by a national watchdog organization found evidence of major voter fraud going on in Virginia and Pennsylvania, but the problems are likely affecting many more states, says the group’s leader.

The same organization that uncovered fraud in Virginia and in Philadelphia – the Public Interest Legal Foundation – is also filing lawsuits claiming voter fraud is taking place in Broward County, Florida, and in Wake County, North Carolina.

And, WND has learned, an investigation by a separate watchdog group in Maryland has uncovered major irregularities there.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s report found more than 1,000 instances of illegal immigrants or non-citizens being registered to vote in just eight Virginia counties



https://clashdaily.com/2016/10/trump-votes-tossed-make-sure-vote-counts/

In addition to this I hear anecdotal reports of DNC surrogates having people in psychiatrist wards getting people who are citizens but not in a place they can understand what they are doing, to vote for Hillary and likewise people in aged care facilities with Dementia voting for Hillary. "Guiding their hands to vote right".

So Hillary got 2 700 000 and we know this because the polls said so. The statistics bear that out. But with ALL of the above and more that I have not touched on, I am thinking that the 2700000 difference may not be accurate.

I think that scepticism is what we should all have. They tried to push a narrative that Trump was completely out of his league and could not win the electoral college because he was double digits behind in every state that mattered and was even behind in previously solid red states. Then he won BUT lost the popular vote and now the narrative is that they were actually sort of correct and proof is "3 million votes difference". Only it wasn't 3 million. Probably not even close.

I will grant she likely won the popular vote...I do not know (given the above) but I think that the difference is large enough that even allowing for illegal voters, electoral inconsistencies and fraudulence and incompetance, and dirty tricks, probably will not wipe out 2700000 votes.

So what does it mean? It means that both Trump and Clinton were VERY close and out of the 128,749,601 votes they were close to even and after factoring all the above to account, they will be closer still.

No one predicted these two candidates were close or anything close to close. So I dispute you saying that the polls were right or kind of right or nearly right. They were wrong. Their methodology and reasoning behind it are faulty. I also predict that they will get it wrong on the 2018 midterms and for similar reasons. After next US election, there will be a reckoning for them when they get it wrong again. There will be too many questions asked and they will not be able to feign embarrassment or play off their attempts to influence the public politically.