Not really. Trump’s base is a small portion of the population.

He’s at 40%. Obama was at 46% at this same point in his presidency. Your partisanship is showing.

Um, no. Stop burying your head in the sand. There is no such thing as a “minor” violation of the Constitution.

Oh, I quite agree. I simply don’t think that a presidency should be taken down for a hotel room. God help us if the Ambassador from France had come in to George Washington’s office and said “Hey, Mr. President, I bought a bushel of apples from your orchard the other day, and they were great!”

Shit, by your metric, we would have had to impeach Washington. :-)

And come on: he asks everyone out of the room, including the attorney general, and then asks the director of the FBI to drop a federal investigation? Then later tweets that he fired Flynn because he lied to the FBI. Yeah, that’s a coverup.

Not in my book. I need something more than impulsive behavior to create a Constitutional mess. Besides, you’’re arguing out of both sides of his mouth. I Trump an idiot, or is he this evil genius who crafted this complex coverup?

How many excuses for this administration are you going to make? It’s hardly “common practice,” the lying about it was illegal, and then Trump deliberately crafted more lies to cover up the nature of the meeting. Tame? Head in the sand again.

Wrong. It is common practice, and the meeting you;re referring to Trump was not in attendance at. Do you remove a sitting president because his son tells a lie?

Right. So the President issuing literally 5+ lies per day for an entire year is normal?

No. but being half nuts is not impeachable. The people have a right to elect somebody that others think is crazy. We do it every four years. :-)

Are you kidding me?

Nope. Dead Serious. You;re arguing this:

See that teeny weeny teensy tiny line in that sea of gold? That’s the Russian ad spend on Facebook compared to the total ad spend on Facebook by them and the two campaigns.

Thinking that THAT swung the election is pretty close to UFO-territory, bubbala.

You really think that’s all there was to it?

Nope. I think this is Standard Operating Procedure in the information age. It’s part of the world we live in, you have as much chance of snuffing it out as you do ending computer viruses, and you need to do it better than the other guy.

That’s just shameful. And please elaborate on how exactly our behavior towards Russia and Israel’s elections are (a) similar to what we experienced, or (b) relevant to this discussion.

Damn, when did you lefties become some jingoistic? :-)

Now you’re carrying water for Russia, too. What’s going on there?

Ah, yes. Any disagreement with the Russiagate narrative automatically means that the person is “carrying the water for Russia”. Nothing like a logical fallacy to shut down

Fox News, as they are so fond of exclaiming, has been the most-watched news channel for a decade. Right-wing radio has essentially no competition from the left. Where do you come up with 5–10% from?

The three evening news broadcasts combined get about a 21–22 share according to Neilsen. Shep Smith gets a 1.4 share, which is 6% of the total viewership at that time. AM radio is an entirely different duck, because it’s listened to in an automobile, on and off.

How much positive coverage of Obama were those outlets presenting?

All he deserved.

You missed my point. That was 15 years ago, and precisely because it was such a big mistake it is even more unreasonable to think that the IC didn’t make any changes to the way it digests and acts on information.

My point is that the errors and the questionable behavior of the FBI and the intel agencies go back sixty years at least. There is a consistent pattern of behavior there that indicates that Americans should always be in a “trust but verify” mode with them. No agency should be considered above oversight, ever.

Interesting you should mention that…

Yea, I saw that. Spies to counter spies. :-)

No, 39% is the statutory rate. The AVERAGE rate was much lower than that.

Yea, that’s what I said. In more accurate language. :-)

Corporate welfare absolutely plays a role. Nobody would argue about cutting the rate to some lower number, as long as it was a floor that could not be circumvented like the major corporations do. But no, the GOP would rather give their corporate donors more money in their pockets, while continuing to screw the little guy.

Well, it’s the little guy who benefits from the corporate tax cut, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. Multinationals use corporate welfare, the nonterritorial tax system, and all sorts of tax breaks available to international companies to lower their effective tax rates. These gimmicks were NOT available to your auto repair shop down the street, who had to pay the entire 39% rate.

You’ve clearly been reading too much lefty propaganda about the corporate tax cut.

Yeah, there is: Trump did it by exploding the deficit instead of offsetting the revenue loss. We already covered this; Trump “getting credit” has nothing to do with it.

Uh-huh. The increase in the federal deficit comes from the changes on the personal side, not the corporate side, which is largely revenue neutral. But, here’s a nice picture of what you’re calling an “explosion”:

Regrettable? Yes. An “EXPLOSION”? :-) Please.

Huh? How does“corporations don’t pay enough taxes” translate to “fuck the little guy?”

Explained above.

Gay people might disagree with your assessment that nothing was accomplished in Obama’s 8 years.

What would they point to as an “accomplishment”?

As would the millions of people who now have health insurance they couldn’t afford before. Stop being so pessimistic. It’s like you’re ingesting nothing but conservative media.

I do my own math . The ACA is not sustainable going forward, as it has failed to deliver any semblance of cost control. Unless you get cost control, you can try any health care scheme you like; all you’re doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks.

Revisionist history. There was a revolt from Republicans, and democrats tried to compromise. An ideologue would have kept the public option in play.

And gotten nothing.

I’ll be more direct now, and I’ll even use your favorite argument: the recovery in GDP growth wasn’t great, but it’s a whole lot better than what we had going into Obama’s tenure.

Obviously. The question on the table is if the Obama “measures” leading to “recovery” were the best we could do.

The housing market was collapsing, banks were going under, the automotive industry was on the verge of failure, and we were losing 700,000 jobs MONTH, but sure I’ll just take your word for it that another Depression was “never on the table.”

Never was. The events of 1929 were a sharp but not unexpected stock market correction. The DEPRESSION did not start in 1929, as many mistakenly believe, but was the result of several ham-handed policies which our government was never at risk of repeating.

Here, I made a table for you. See why we were never at risk of “going there?”

You’re obviously intelligent enough to critically examine your own opinions; you should do more of it.

And I think you should grow up a little bit, become less emotional, and realize that there is no “win” in impeaching the President elected by the people for any other reason than GROSS malfeasance. This “death by a thousand paper cuts” strategy you people have fails to consider the big picture of what occurs to a nation’s integrity and economy if we start acting like Argentina, Brazil, or the City of Chicago, and start jailing all the ex-presidents.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store