well he shui it down, took the mantle and america hostage now he back padalled he dug a hole, jumped in it head first, and came out with his tail between his legs stop whining
This is where I disagree. Provided the DNC doesn't screw the pooch like they did last election, there is a good chance Trump is out...however this is a completely different discussion for another thread. The 'we shouldn't negotiate with terrorist' type of mentality only serves to show the Democrats lack full confidence in winning 2020. IF the wall/fence/barrier is that big of an abomination, we can tear it down after 2020. If Trump only gets 5.6 billion to fund his little pet project, I would consider that a good win for Democrats. Trump has a massive ego and only sees the short game. The Democrats could have used this to get something they typically wouldn't get when they are up against hard line Republicans. Whether Trump gets his 5.6 or not, nothing changes either way. This is just another diversionary tactic to keep the daily spotlight on him.
If you give Trump his wall to avoid a shutdown, you have effectively laid a blueprint for Republicans to get whatever-the-hell-they-want until the end of time. Not smart.
I sincerely doubt there is any statistical evidence relating to popularity of the opposition speaker and winning the presidency. Trump won with Paul flipping Ryan in opposition to Obama in 2016. Also Trumps approval rating took a nose dive during the shutdown and Pelosi’s increased. Maybe she fouls up in the future and delivers him some political wins, but so far the polling suggests he’s weaker since she took the gavel. Plus Pelosi is the most publicly opposed to impeachment as I’ve seen of any Democrat. My assumption is that likely has to do with strategizing for him becoming more poltically weak through the normal process these next few months leading up to the primary season. Lastly there is the 2018 election where the two enemies the right fear mongered about were brown people and Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats won a historic amount of seats. 2020 will be decided on the strength of the top of the ticket and based on the success Trump has to divide the Democrats. He needs an independent to pull Dem votes, and a bloodied up candidate like Hillary was. Nancy Pelosi will have very little impact on 2020 imo.
I respect that she is content kicking ass in the House and doesn't seem to feel compelled to somehow parley that into a presidential run.
Doesn't have to be. How you think Obama passed all his executive orders? Just has to be enough of one to. I am curious, though...just exactly how much crime/drugs would you need to see coming from illegal immigrants in order for it to constitute a crisis in your mind? Because the crimes are in the hundreds of thousands...just in Texas alone. So, millions nationwide. Not a crisis in your mind??
I would like to see Trump declare a national emergency over this. It's certainly within his crack riddled rights. sniifffff Then we can all glory in the fallout and poll results to confirm our hot take beliefs and opinions that run counter to common sense
For the Dems, this may be her greatest strength. While I see impeachment catering to the hard left...I don't see it being a winning political strategy beyond that. It may well swing moderate voters the other way. But so many of the new Democrats campaigned hard on impeachment, that may be hard for her to prevent.
The Dems won in 18 because of Healthcare which was by far the #1 campaign issue. There’s a good lesson in that win that gets votes in the places you need them. I think the hand full of freshman like AOC get the most attention but there are far more Dems that won on bread and butter issues. Plus I feel and I’m sure leaders like Pelosi also believe a 2020 rebuke of Trump is far more powerful and actually sets up a better field of play for Senate control as well as the presidency. That sharp rebuke could pull every race up. But it’s their constitutional duty to impeach him if they have to. We cannot have a Democracy anymore if a president that breaks the law just gets presidential immunity because it’s better politics. You’d feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.
Pelosi is a pragmatist not an ideologue which will clash with the more progressives. As someone center left, I like Pelosi and understand she is by no means perfect.
Note: I'm not necessarily in favor of him doing so....but how exactly does doing so run counter to common sense? Also, where exactly do you get off on 'crack riddled' for someone who doesn't even drink, much less do any drugs? I guess 'get off' is probably exactly the right phrase. never mind, moving on.that's an image I don't need.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors are easy to define. I don't think there has to be presumption. Its what is fact, and what is fiction. What is fact is that Trump did order "high crimes" via the Michael Cohen sentencing. You could technically impeach with that if you wanted to, so even then, I think the Democrats & to an extent the electorate, deserve some credit for stating a high bar for impeachment that doesn't mean just starting the impeachment with a crime that can be excused by the Trump electorate. There's at least an effort to get as many facts out there as they can to make an overwhelming case, and they might still not succeed with overwhelming evidence which will lead to a real constitutional crisis for Pelosi & the Dems. Yes... people on the left are royally ticked off about the Russian conspiracy which they should be. But I think Trump fans far too often confuse "we should all be outraged" with "Congress should impeach".
The GOP is in the process of doing exactly that to try and prevent anyone from mounting a primary challenge to Trump.
Timing is suspect for him to push this fight only when Democrats regained House control to years into his presidency. If the nation was truly in the state of national emergency wrt border security, then what has changed right now compared to last year or the year before? Does holding the government in a state of disarray with this present day situation warranted out of national security concerns, or is doing so the new normal? These are questions a sane person should be asking, or at least someone considering those working under him who aren't getting paid but are forced to out of public responsibility or necessity
