cc_rider wrote: 
Hey, it's only been a year (I know it seems longer). And there are only 3 to go.  Well Maybe 7 - seriously, look how bad things were when Bush got re-elected, and we weren't really in a rosy place when Obama got another shot. If the Republican party had picked some one a little better than Mittens (and Ryan), the landscape would look different. A cautionary tale - while respecting her service and the obvious nuttery in her opposition, Hillary Clinton was far from a great candidate. 

 islander wrote: 
Unfortunately Trump has done neither. Hopefully the electorate will, before it ruins everyone's dinner.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
If we had more parties and were forced to make coalition governments it might:
a) give more times between reigns of terror cycles of control.
2) when forced to make compromises in forming coalitions, some form of forgiveness for previous wrongs may come about.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I'm of the opinion that he was elected. Unless some one can demonstrate that he did something impeachable or he has areal mental break (no, just being nutty and contrary doesn't cut it), he gets to serve his term. That's our system. That's how we roll. For the same reasons the conservatives didn't throw out Obama when they didn't like him, and the liberals on bush, and the conservatives on Clinton... we don't get o throw out Trump. Yes he's worse, but he hasn't violated the rules, so he stays. Don't like it, change the electoral college, or some other rule, but still - You've got Trump until he wants to leave, he does something demonstrably against the rules, or he loses the next election (and kids, hang on, because if he runs again he has a really good chance at being re-elected. Look at the history here). 

I also think it's sort of a good thing. You have to take your medicine. 4 full years of colossal fuck ups will show the conservatives how much they really do need some government, and it will give the opposition time to think about finding a really good candidate. Neither side seems to have reached this point yet.  So I, as the rational stand in for America's adults volunteer us to sit outside the restaurant with the screaming toddler while everyone else in the world enjoys a nice dinner. Eventually they will settle down or grow up right?

 miamizsun wrote: 
Unfortunately, there's a strong element of revenge at work. This is payback for Ken Starr, that was payback for Ollie North or Watergate, I'm sure there were more episodes of back and forth... every 4–8 years, there's a wrong that needs to be righted.

 VV wrote: 
i think what steelyd and turley are in essence pointing out that this is going to take a long time and be extremely difficult, if not impossible

if the opposing forces waste a lot of time and resources and whiff, then it may give their opponent a sense of victory (and some leverage going into an election)

would those resources be put to better use on fielding and reinforcing a better choice in the near future?

regards

 VV wrote:  Good point. But The President has things like the National Guard and launch codes. I like to imagine he would be stopped before going that far, but I've been waiting for someone to stop him for quite a while now.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Obviously, but just how much destruction are we willing to tacitly endure over the next three years? That and the fact that I really don't want Trump chirping about how great he was after he leaves office. If we can be removed before that happens, a lot of us will be able to sleep better at night.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Now that is just nonsense, it would never work.

i'll suggest this path again...

How do you get rid of Trump? An election, not the 25th Amendment.

The provision is in place in case a president becomes incapacitated, not to eject him from the White House if he’s loathed by the majority.

 cc_rider wrote: 
As opposed to Trump’s normally reserved and measured demeanor?

 cc_rider wrote: 
Three thoughts:
1) We've already been subjected to the idea that all criticism is FAKE NEWS and should be ignored, so it's gonna be impossible to sway the minds of those who chant that mantra with their fingers in their ears. Instead of looking out for the country, those folks will be looking out for their king.
2) Mueller has to go very very slowly on this with nothing but scads of incontrovertible repeatedly confirmed facts due to the magnitude of what it is they're trying to understand, so this is gonna take a long long time.
3) If impeachment is a possibility, none of this should start up until the Congress is no longer GOP controlled, or they'll be throwing away their shot. 

 VV wrote: 
I'm worried if Mueller really starts tightening the noose, Trump and his supporters will lash out like a cornered animal.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I'm hoping Mueller sets in motion the domino that triggers all the others and brings about his resignation. He will never let the possibility of an impeachment further taint his failed  "legacy". He would rather resign and blame the deep-state and everyone else for his downfall and do his best to try and save face with his brain-dead base who always appear eager and ready to follow him into the abyss.
 
 

 kurtster wrote: 
If the first one happens, I look forward to your gymnastic twists of logic that explain how it was all foretold in Hillary's emails.
If the second one happens, no matter what flavor of nutjob it is, will be the result of dithering and foot-dragging and flat out refusal to solve the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands. But I'll get blamed because I contributed to the air of hostility toward the president that egged the nutjob on.

 kurtster wrote: 
And those were just his staff! 

 VV wrote: 
While watching the WH press briefing, I've never seen so many people disappointed to hear that someone is healthy.

 Steely_D wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
Physically... maybe. Mentally? Absolutely not. 

 Steely_D wrote: