islander wrote: 
So, by extension, it sounds like you are saying that the Mueller investigation is just an empty exercise because even impeachable results will likely not result in impeachment. I stil can’t go along with that train of thought. If there are impeachable offenses then they should be surfaced and Trump should have to answer for them. The best case scenario is that impeachment proceedings (against all odds) are initiated. If not, his already poor reputation takes a further hit and it makes it even harder for him to get reelected. I guess I‘m delusional, but I still hold onto some shred of hope that there is a limit to what people will tolerate (including some of his “base”). There is a reason that his approval rating is the lowest of any president in their first term and some of it surely has to do with the investigation. Anything that can possibly negatively influence his reelection... has my full support.
 
 

 Lazy8 wrote: 

 maryte wrote:
We're number one! That's why we have to be made great again.

We also have too many people certain we are suffering from problems we don't actually have. Like...an inadequate military, or a crime wave, or Sharia law breaking out, or Toxins! In our food!

The Venn diagram overlaps a great deal between people crying wolf, actual wolves, and people raising money on Kickstarter for a Save the Wolves fund.

 islander wrote: 
Indeed - but part of the problem as I see it (YMMV) is that far too many people in this country think that we already are "the best."  American Exceptionalism as a primary component of what passes for patriotism these days is what has contributed to the problems this country pretends it doesn't have.

 VV wrote: 
I just don't see a lot of options for getting rid of him. Impeachment is a long way away, and assumes the Democrats make some amazing gains in 2018 (which even with Trump 'helping' them out is a hard slog due to the math). Mueller can't move without rock solid evidence *and* a cooperative legislature, and those aren't sure things. So in the end you have 2020 as your next real chance to get rid of him unless you pull something that is against the rules of the system as it is structured now. And for whatever you want to say about him, he's not a quitter and he does know how to motivate a certain segment of the populace, so I think he's even odds or better to win 2020 as of today.

On when exactly our standing floundered, it's hard to say. I have a cousin in Luxembourg who refused to visit when Bush was pres. He did make a trip during Obama, but was still dismayed at our military adventrurism. I am looking forward to the day when we can get over the need to be "the best" and just be "our best". A few of the Europeans seem to have gotten around to this, but it seems to take 50-100 years after your peak of power.  I still think it was somewhere around the New Hampshire primary that the rest of the world started really giving us the side eye more than normal. 

 islander wrote: 
The downside of a multi-party system is that the minor party ends up with inordinate power. Say you have three parties with two large ones and one small far right one. A large one will make a deal with the small one yanking the policies way over in their direction, even though far more people wanted results in the other direction. The large parties would rather fight each other because that's where the real threat to control is. Meanwhile the small party needs to be the disrupter because that's where their power is.

Australia's government is a coalition of Liberal and National parties. They actually have a formal agreement and campaign together so it's more like one party, but it gives the Nationals a lot of power. Probably the worst for the downside of a multiparty system is Israel. You would think that having lots of parties would balance things out but actually it makes for an incentive to splinter.

Maybe it's different in the US system than in a parliamentary one, but if I recall the biggest effect of a small party there is when one of the big ones grabs enough of their policies to keep them small. I think that is what happened with Eugene Debs. And the Libertarians for that matter.

I think the optimum is probably three or four parties but it really depends on how crazy they are. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I get that it's a long shot but I disagree that it is bad money spent. If Mueller finds sufficient evidence of collusion and brings charges then I still say damaging Trump ahead of 2020 is still reason enough to move forward with an impeachment even if it never happens. At best impeachment gains steam and he is removed or resigns before his first term is over... at worst... he is damaged and his chances of reelection become slim.

 islander wrote: 
Not sure how you got "destroying the system" out of my post? I wasn't advocating any kind of destruction. I was only talking about the destruction the prez was doing. I just want Mueller to take his shot if he has one to take before any more damage is done.
 
I believe I did essentially say that we did lost our world standing so saying "Sorry to tell you" doesn't make sense when I'm the one who brought it up. It didn't start when he got the nomination but when he was elected. You can nominate any number of knuckleheads but they don't mean spit until they are elected.

 VV wrote: 
I understand your concern, but if we destroy our system because we don't like the outcome, then what are we left with?

Mueller will run his course (probably), but it will take time. Look at how long it normally takes:


It is rare that it wraps up within a single term of president.

As to losing our standing in the world. Well, sorry to tell you but that horse is out of the barn, escaped the pasture, jumped the stream and was last seen headed over the hills. It all started the day he got the nomination.

 VV wrote: 
The soonest impeachment will happen is 2019, when and if the Democrats are in charge of both houses of congress, and a conviction requires 2/3 of the senate. That's a high bar and the next campaign season will be in full swing or nearly over by the time it's done. Time, money, energy and goodwill are better spent in finding great candidates for 2020.

 islander wrote: 
So in the meantime we "wait it out" while our relationships with our allies get further damaged and we lose our place at the head of the "world" table while our allies cut us out of economic and diplomatic deals because of our isolationist President? How long will it take for the next administration to try and repair the damage that this one is doing? Career diplomats have been racing for the doors since Trump became president and the brain-drain continues at an alarming rate and diplomats aren't being replaced. It's clear Trump doesn't trust/value our diplomats. He doesn't understand the part they play. The longer this goes on, the longer it will be to ever get back to the footing that we once held. I haven't even touched on the total destruction of the EPA that he is sanctioning and his stand on global warming.  

Sorry but I'm too concerned about what I see happening to say... oh well... only three more years to go. A F*ck-Up can only create more f*ck-ups.

If Mueller has the goods to get him impeached or have him tender his registration then I'm all for having him take that shot... the sooner the better.   

 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.