Trump Is Not A Good President, Must Be Impeached By Candidates Running For Office in 2018, Billionaire Donor Says
This is noce. a Billionaire, who has bought 91 million in Dumbocrapic votes and influence, is now dictating policy. It is definitely time for term limits and an end to political donations. Bring on the Convention of States, please.
There is no objective standard and no judicial review.
It's not that I necessarily wanted him to win; to me, he was the lesser of two evils. Of course, if Satan was running against the Hildabeast, he would still be the lesser of two evils.
Anyway, what we've seen in terms of the left simply losing its collective mind has far exceeded anything I could have hoped for. I knew it would be ugly for a while, but never did I expect it to be going on almost 12 months after the election.
And their insanity shows no signs of abating. Should make the run-up to the 2018 midterms quite interesting.
Trump does not need to do that and it pisses the political class, and their supporters, off so bad they need to invent all kinds of crap as excuses to remove Trump.
I am open to a CoS because we're not following it right now. If we admitted that aloud, I'm not sure if that would be worse or better than the current situation.
Maybe that should include the article's writer.
We need amendments to limit the feds but the CoS is not a safe way to do it.
What we come up with is an unlimited stream of
Cash to buy an impeachment .Lets hope they never try to reform again it should be deformed.
Stating that any president is good and concerned about constitutional limits on power is like saying; ". . at least Hitler didn't kick dogs." Starting with the first one they all looked for ways around the constitution and ensuring that 'the law' benefited them at the expense of others.
It seems like the Constitution is more visibly coming apart. It would be dangerous if it were two groups, say the North and South or something, that were the basis of the partisanship. But it's political parties. To someone like me not involved in the parties, this seems just absurd.
It's shocking to see it happening with President Trump, who has mostly carried on the policies of the last president and the bipartisan consensus. He's off the charts on being crass and coming off as an attention-seeking clown. Is that the reason? Or will it become a fact of American life starting in early 21st century that a vote for Congressman of the opposite party of the president is a vote for impeachment, as a way to recall an unpopular president? And if so, what if the president really does something impeachable? It seems like our institutions are coming apart.
I have adopted the test that if someone voted for Hillary in 2016, they are dead to me and I dont listen to what they are saying. It takes too much time to try and subtract out their agenda from whatever they are saying.
I mostly don't believe that. Well, let me re-state. I agree that people who want certain policies think one person or the next will be slightly better. But I simply do not believe that for most people it makes any difference. So if you're concern is that gov't mandate "insurance" plans pay $10/mo for birth control, then I think some politicians are better than other. I just don't believe that's a real motivation for anything. Even if your grant is at risk or your base might be shut down, I agree that might make you vote one way or the other, but I don't see anything huge happening, like a 10-year plan to get gov't entire out of these things. So I say it's mostly theater.
I voted for Hillary, went to her fundraiser, put a sign in my yard, and urged people not to vote for Stein. I know Stein voters who were shocked that there weren't enough people like me voting for Hillary to win WI. I vowed not to comment for a while, but it sort of speaks for itself.
In one sense the outcome is good because having a total clown making a reality TV show of it exposes what I think of it being mostly for show. But I will still do what I can to get more Hillary-like people elected if a libertarian is not an option.
I voted for trump because I thought he could at least slow down this incessant march of collectivism for 4 years. I didn’t think he could change the country in accordance with objectivist principles. The swamp is far too wide and deep for that
Ayn Rand predicted the society needs to crash before it can be rebuilt as a truly free nation. It’s a shame it needs to decline so slowly while it wastes our lives
Did she predict this? I've only read three of her books. It's unfortunate if she said this because I really disagree. I think there's no guarantee at all that crash will lead a better world. It could just lead to more of the same. I don't know if I'm "a Hillary person" since I've never met her or been involved in politics outside briefly shaking their hands at events. But I did think she would be far-and-away better at kicking the can and keeping things stable, finding a way to keep gov't borrowing in the hundred billion range and not in the trillions. If I believe things falling apart would lead to a truly free nation, then maybe I would want clownish politicians. Having a clownish attention-seeking president is one small factor increasing the risk of things falling apart.
Hillary was going to lead us down the socialist road as Obama did, but she was going to do it "better". I think the more socialism there is, the worse off the country will be. Look no further than Venezuela to see how this works. Its Atlas Shrugged being played out. Unfortunately, there is no John Galt down there to show them a better way, and the culture is definitely socialistic.
As to kicking the can down the road, if she was truthful about expanding on Obama's policies, it wouldnt be good for the country. Obama's legacy is a healthcare system that is worse for the citizens and will bk the country; more racial unrest; doubled national debt ; and the rise of reactionary politics.
Trump I think will "kick the can down the road" as you say much more professionally than the democrats. He will in fact improve the economy, reduce regulations, and free up people to succeed better.
I have to tell you I would have closed my business if hillary or sanders had been elected. Its no big deal, but 10 employees would have been out of work.
Hillary is crooked, plain and simple. That whole clinton foundation thing was amazingly smart but totally crooked. She was selling access to the government that controls us.
There is a range of effort I can put out during the day working- depending on how I view the atmosphere around me. If my work is going to be taken away, there is a real question why I would work and not just have a good time on the beach...
All of this makes sense. Such a revolution might be more likely as it becomes more obvious there is a problem, e.g. like Venezuela. I also agree with the part that it could lead to a try at "better" socialism.
I think President Trump is more socialist than Clinton or Obama, but we're just splitting hairs. I don't think it's overwhelmingly different. They'll tolerate increasing spending and borrowing as much as the markets will tolerate. They'll support gov't spending and intrusiveness. I think Trump is more naked about it, depending on which comments you go by, and that could be good. I don't actually think he means any of it; he's just as a master at having an intuitive sense for what will get attention.
"I would have closed my business"
Everyone's free to do that, but I categorically disagree, unless you're involved in lobbying or something directly affected. What you do has a million times more impact than what politicians do. I think we have an absolute attention-seeking clown as a president, and I have taken almost no business decisions based on. I think it's a lot of hot air that won't affect me. I think I can do more to oppose President Trump just by being responsible in things I have direct influence over. I have no thought that going to political fund raisers makes any difference beyond meeting people out here actually taking action and making things happen.
Trump is definitely NOT more socialist than Obama or Hillary. I have no idea where you get that thought from. I do think that the country is basically socialist, and thats why a lot of people hate him so much. If the media hates him, that means to me that he is LESS socialist.
I do think that given the socialist leanings of most of the politicians, Trump cant make any substantive large changes in the direction of freedom. At least he got elected, which is more than we got with Ron Paul- who was soundly rejected when he ran.
Hillary would have run the country down with much more regulation and taxation. Maybe you are thinking that the faster the collapse, the quicker things can be made better. I can actually understand that, although I think no matter what, its going to take 50 years of misery for the collapse to be final, and that would mean I have to endure a lot of misery.
Opposing Trump for the next 3 years just means nothing will happen until some socialist gets into office in 3 years and the country takes a really sharp turn to socialism.
I think you minimize the harm that government can do in the short term. Look at Obamacare to see how destructive it can be.
Probably so. I don't think a major crash if forthcoming. I think US is like the Roman Empire and heading toward being the modern city of Rome. I don't know what lies between here and there. I do not predict a climactic crash though.
"Opposing Trump for the next 3 years just means nothing will happen"
No it doesn't. He could propose tripling the deficit. He could support asset forfeiture. He could fire up the worst elements of society to get attention, which in turn could justify more statist measures. He could make light of gov't abuses of power.
He's done those things. It wasn't a secret. He ran on being able to incite people in the gov't break the law. He ran on "we've gotta take the guns away" or words that effect. He probably said the opposite at other times because he admits he says whatever gets a reaction from his redneck crowds.
When I say it like this, I sound like his political opponents. But I don't think he's the problem at all. That's just become part of the job. People want change. So we elect the craziest person running, and government spending, borrowing, and intrusiveness carries on growing.
Oh, I meant like the fall of the Roman empire. We are in a bull market like the 90s, so it seems probably we'll have a bear market like the early 00s, possibly with inflation, deleveraging, and counterparty default in derivatives markets that you describe, i.e. a "financial crisis". I am bearish, with most non-business wealth parked in 1.15% short-term CDs (I used to laugh at those people), a little VWINX, a few tech stocks, and a small short position in SPY. I am a long-term optimist, but the bull market has gone on too long. I anticipate inflation coming on slowly, so I don't worry about the CDs. I have no precious metals, but I wouldn't rule it out. I see them as volatile compared to the protection they offer. I really wish I had a solid business plan that needed new equipment or another office or something. I have no real estate, but I have my eye on it. All the money is made on the buy in RE, and right now there's a RE boom in my area.
That's a lot of words to say I'm a bear. :)
People who have saved money will have a big surprise coming when the car they want becomes $70k instead of the $30k they expect. We have had price inflation before, and we will have it again.
Trump wont be able to stop government spending, but he will slow down the entitlements if he can. You can see the blowback in terms of reigning in Obamacare, so the congress can stop his plans to pull back from medicaid for everyone.
He is definitely against gun control, but again, the congress can over rule that in the interest of "public safety". He didnt run on the "take the guns away"- you arent right on that.
Crazy people dont get to be billionaires like he is. They dont run big companies like the Trump organization. They dont raise kids like his. The crazy people are the liberals like Obama who apparently thought that the radicalized islamists dont exist.
People dont want change for NO REASON. Just wait until 2020 when the dems take over and really give us change- all the way to socialism and medicaid for everyone.
I guess it depends on what you called spearheaded. I'd say it was spearheaded by President Bush and Congress months before Obama would be elected. President Obama approved and continued it, with borrowing peaking at nearly $1 trillion. Staggering. Then borrowing fell steadily to the $400 billion range. Of course this is new borrowing, so the hole is still getting deeper fast. Next President Trump takes office and proposes going back to 1 trillion per year, even during an expansion period.
"[President Obama's] printing of money is just starting to hit now from that."
That's monetary policy, set by the Federal Reserve. President Obama approved of the loose policy. People running for office criticized it. Once Trump was elected, he changed his mind and said he approved of loose policy.
"We will see price inflation big time in the next 12 months."
That's my sense too, based on seeing how often things ship Red or are expedited, and how I hear people say they only care about schedule, not cost.
"People who have saved money will have a big surprise coming when the car they want becomes $70k instead of the $30k they expect. "
I never understand this. Who keeps a significant portion of their wealth in cash? Cash isn't made for storing value and will do a very lousy job. I always hear these stories of people putting their wealth in cash and then being surprised that it's not a wealth-storing vehicle. Also the people telling these stories are always affected by instability in the prices of things they buy but not by the stuff they're selling. They never place a crazy high bid on something because they're near capacity, and then they win the project.
You probably can't explain it to me. I want stable prices and rates too. It just seems like people who really light tight policy, always seem to fit this pattern of putting their wealth in cash and then being confused. I think it's parable, maybe, not meant to be taken seriously.
"Trump wont be able to stop government spending"
He has proposed increased it. I don't know if he would be able to reduce it. He hasn't tried or mentioned it.
Actually, the federal reserve is cutting back on monetary policy as I understand it. At least Trump is expanding the economy, which should drive down the debt (unfortunately, spending will rise to meet income).
It would be nice to store wealth SOMEWHERE !!! The government made the US dollar NOT a place to do that. Stocks go up slowly and fall rapidly when the people in power decide its time. Gold and Silver are sort of long term hedges against money printing, but certainly not always. Housing just goes up and down with inflation, and often down more than up. Anyway, you cant sell it if you need money right now.
Sometimes I think that its best to borrow and take advantage of inflation. Then when you get overextended, file for BK and start over. Seems like a LOT of people do just that.
If the problem is the presidents we elect, why do we keep getting so many bad guys? If the character of the president determines if the executive branch gets more powerful and how much gov't expands, have we just had a run of bad luck since the income tax passed?
"the federal reserve is cutting back on monetary policy as I understand it."
It's still loose, but tightening. I think you're right about inflation, and the Fed will respond with further tightening. (I've been saying that for eight years, though, and it hasn't happened yet.)
"At least Trump is expanding the economy"
[sarcasm]It's like how President Obama grew the economy and tripled the stock market.[/sarcasm] He did not. The economy isn't controlled by the president, and it's simpler than people think of it. It's people meeting one another's wants and needs. The people who rolled up their sleeves and did it, people who took a risk, grew the economy.
"It would be nice to store wealth SOMEWHERE !!! "
Store wealth in one of those things that monetary policy is causing to shoot up in price. Store it in things that are producing value for paying customers. As you say, the price for commodities like precious metals and developed land fluctuate with supply and demand. If there's a particular thing you're going to buy, there are futures. If it's just a general basket of goods, there are instruments that track that. I'm just against defeatism and victim thinking.
"Sometimes I think that its best to borrow and take advantage of inflation."
This could be rational behavior for people with little net worth to lose. I think maybe some of them do it the same way I eat Taco Bell, knowing it's not a good long-term choice, but making little daily choices to borrow money. I actually try to go easy on junk food, but it's clearly a case of lack of discipline. It causes me to eat more energy than I consume, causes some people to spend more than they make, and it causes people to elect politicians who promise to help us pay for college, retirement, medical care, etc. I'm not sure how to put gov't on a diet-- maybe CoS. I'd try anything.
I went a trump rally. The energy was intense. He made people want to make America great again , which is why the economy and the stock market have boomed. It’s a psychological based boom
Its hard to root out who the shadow government is, because its so big and involves so many of us.
Defense contractors want war so they can sell more stuff. Politicians want "problems" that they can get more money from the citizens that make them "look good". Schools want education grants. Medical suppliers want more tax money to go into medical care so they can raise prices. It goes on and on.
If the constitution had a clause that it was illegal to take from one and give to another (admittedly difficult to word this effectively), the problem would be reduced drastically. This would mean that government would be a LOT smaller and not have the money to distribute.
term2: "the president has been puppet or front man for the power structure of the swamp that runs the government."
I have no evidence, but I really reject the idea of shadowy forces in favor of boring explanations. I think liberty is not the default state for people, and you need put work into the system to fight entropy.
If you're right, if we can just find the shadowing figures, the problem will go away.
If I'm right, we need to give the Constitution teeth, i.e. institutions to stop us from electing people promising to use gov't to fix things, And as ewv says, voters should a basic understanding (ewv would say a philosophy) of the risks of gov't "fixing" things.
"which is why the economy and the stock market have boomed. "
I tend to think it's not related to the president because the stock market was not shooting up while Bush was president, and it's almost a straight line starting when Obama was elected, and that trend continues today along that same line. It's a long-running bull, due to come to an end, and that won't be the fault of whoever's president. Get ready for the histronics when that happens from those whose memory only spans five years.
"I voted for Hillary, went to her fundraiser, put a sign in my yard, and urged people not to vote for Stein. I know Stein voters who were shocked that there weren't enough people like me voting for Hillary to win WI. I vowed not to comment for a while, but it sort of speaks for itself. "
Look up a few comments........
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/... or thishttps://www.google.com/search?q=photo+of+hill...
I mean I voted for her, but I don't get any benefit from her career. If they found out Trump cheated, and Clinton won (this will not happen), it wouldn't affect me. The same is true if turned out she cheated (also won't happen), and every policy she ever supported were discredited. Either way I get no direct impact on my life, and I still have an intrusive federal gov't that wants to increase spending beyond baseline projections. I see people get majorly fired up about it, but I don't get it. Either way I send the same quarterlies in to a gov't that uses the money often in ways that make long-term problems worse.
To win an election, a presidential candidate has to at least kind-of sort-of appeal to half the people. The results in candidates that most people do not find ideal but can live with. It also leads to promises of increasing gov't spending.
Before the election I knew Johnson wouldn't win. (I know. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.) I knew Trump was a clown, but I was afraid he might win by some fluke, which actually happened. To simplify the two mainstream party candidates down to one line, Trump was reality-show huckster clown. Clinton was the hardcore politician an expert at gov't and the status quo.
The only candidate on the ballot who talked about actually reducing the cost and intrusiveness of government was Gary Johnson.
Think of the president as the front man that the establishment puts up there to convince the voters of what the establishment people want.
Trump was NOT an establishment candidate, but he got people to vote for him against the establishment. Thats why they hate him so much, and precisely why he was a good choice to "drain the swamp". Not that the establishment will permit him wholesale draining- in fact they will try and stop him at all times and at all costs.
But, if he drains it a little, its better than what Hillary would have done. She sold access to her governmental powers TO the establishment so that she would grant them favors. It was so obvious.
Yes. He seemed to get angry when people asked him questions. Sometimes he could pull off cheerfully rejecting the premise or refuting the claims but other times he lost his cool. There was the time he stuck out his tongue while answering a question.
I was less concerned about his blanking on questions. Most politicians have ten answers memorized and they just give the one that's sort of closest to the question.
And Trumps attention-seeking racist idiot act is beyond the pale for me. I wouldn't work with him in any context. That means even if her weren't imposing increased spending, increased govt intrusiveness, and tripling the deficit, I couldn't abide him. The main reason, apart from the redneck idiot act being tedious to listen to, is that I suspect he craves attention so badly he might foment a crisis just to get more eyes on him. I've heard he drops the moron act in person, but I think the attention-seeking is real.
I say it's the fact the Constitution has no teeth, not an unlucky series of bad people. If the Constitution had powerful institutions that drastically limited taxation, you'd have a different run of a candidates appearing.
Yours is the more optimistic view because you think if we got rid of these bad people, the problems would get better.
I have not followed the news related to this, but I absolutely do not believe a few evil people are at the core of it. The institutions don't enforce the law. The people accept the notion of gov't intruding and spending large amounts of money. You're saying there are some bad people who believe in it. If that's true, what do we do about it? Bad people will come along from time to time. It doesn't ring remotely true though. The bad people theory is just the self-serving lies of politicians because the bad people causing it all their opponents. I do not believe it for a second.
We have most politicians living and working (NOT causing on their own) a system where the gov't intrudes in people's lives and is nearly a third of the economy. They all say the problem is their opponents. They all agree to reject anyone who says if the gov't weren't so large we would not be having battles over how to actions of that third of the economy. Is that because their all evil people? No, not at all. They got their job by being good at the current system. It's asking a lot to ask them to be absolute top players in the current system and then overthrow it.
I think you're saying there are more "we" than "lemmings". I lean toward the reason for growth in gov't being close to the reason many people spend more than they make. If you're right, though, someone could organize a plebiscite to reduce gov't spending across the board over 10 years or something, and people would vote to do it.
I actually think if you surveyed people if they want to cut gov't, most people would say yes. Then if you tell them their favorite programs would be cut, they would say that's too extreme.
You seem to believe they would vote for less spending. I think they might or might not, depending on how it's presented/structured.
I wish this rang true to me. I have no evidence so maybe it is true. It seems to me that most people are somewhat out of control in their personal finances, not using a budget, not executing a good plan for paying for medicine, childcare, kids' college, retirement, parents' care, and other things they desire, and these things turn into mini-crises. They elect people who run the country about the same way, actually a little worse because once gov't spending is a large portion of GDP it becomes easier to lobby for a share a little share of the pie than for across the board cuts. A 1 million dollar grant costs all tax payers $0.01 each, so they don't lobby, but the person getting it does. That's the only way he can get some of his taxes back.
The evil forces thing reminds me of a documentary I watched on the food industry that claimed evil companies are manipulating consumers with scientific research aimed at making food taste wonderful. They turn fruits and vegetables into smoothies and V8, giving us less healthful alternatives to heating our fruits and vegetables. I saw this and thought I know the facts. No one's stopping me from eating my vegetables but me. That's how I think of politicians promising gov't money/intrusion to solve problems.
I love the notion that of a majority of people voting for a balanced budget and smaller gov't. Who gets to control other people's money should not be up for a vote, but I am thrilled by the thought of average people en masse saying no.
It is moving more toward something like this. The D/R divide already mostly comes down to East/West Coasts vs. everywhere else.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Yes, but urban/rural dominates, so there aren't large area separated by one or two dividing lines.
It goes without saying that gong from "my ideas are better" to "lock them up" is a really bad trend.
Because of what progressivism is, it inexorably marches toward fascism.
It seems like this is simply re-defining the problem. We can call politicians debating locking one another up "fascism associated with progressivism". We still have the same problem by another name.
Just not sure how much deeper this rabbit hole is.
https://youtu.be/WANNqr-vcx0