It was mostly the use of the word "holistic" that got me. *shudders*

I'm sure the evidence backs up the concept that they were generally healthier than the modern American or Mexican, but I think there are some confounding factors like availability of food and daily physical demand required just to survive.

Yes, a president can basically do anything. It's the public perception thing that's the issue. His numbers keep tanking and republicans are jumping off of his coattails left and right. Word is that GOP folks are freaking out behind closed doors and that they're about to come out of the closet. Most of these are folks whose jobs are up for grabs next year.

Basically it's like rats jumping off of a sinking ship. Just saw John Dean interviewed (WH counsel for Nixon) and he basically said this is on par, and maybe even worse than Watergate.

I get that. I'm just considering whether or not there's a legitimate legal basis for impeachment.

It's going to come down to Comey being called before congress as a private citizen. And he's a tough dude that Trump just **** on. Impeachment is not a question of legality. Congress can vote to do it regardless of whether any laws were broken. Clinton getting a BJ didn't break any laws.

And if Democrats win back the house and senate in 2018, Trump is going to be roasted worse than a pig at a Hawaiin luau.

Latest bombshell is that Trump asked Sessions and Pence to leave the oval office prior to giving the Russians private intelligence that was gathered by Israel.

Political theater just doesn't get any better (or scarier) than this.

Nah, my money is on him getting re elected.


If it was anyone else in the White House they would be screwed but the president is the only one that gets a pass.

How are you coming to this conclusion?

DJ, funny you are.

http://www.chip.de/ii/3/7/2/9/7/5/0/...da99ad0d0.jpeg

I'm being pessimistic but the democratic party has done nothing so far to address the issue of why they loss.

They are still pushing establishment democrats. Even with the most recent vote for the new chair of the DNC.

Have you seen our country?

Right but even the idiots are pissed off.

But the added fact that the democrats (like DJ said) have done basically nothing to stop him, he's pretty much in as far as I can tell. Unless they are able to come up with somebody truly great on the dems side that can take him down. Honestly, I don't see that happening.

That isn't true. Trump voters said they would still vote for him. I know it is based of a recent poll and I hate polls in general now after Trump won but they still back their man.

They also need to win over working class voters that they lost to Trump. They aren't even talking to them.

Ja there's a lot of bitter partisanship, but impeachment is absolutely a question of legality. Also, Clinton was impeached for perjury, not the BJ.

Putting that aside, if the Dems impeached Trump on a legally flimsy grounds it would be political suicide and would turn Congress almost entirely red. Total conjecture though.

Nope. One party consent applies to everyone. That's how laws work.

See, this is where I love that I agree with you. When you actually make sense.

BINGO!!!!!

It took a while to bring the idiots around but as Penny Lane said in the movie Almost Famous, "It's all Happening!"

https://68.media.tumblr.com/378e05b1...4o1_r1_250.gif

You do have a failing memory. Obstruction of justice and perjury in front of a grand jury breaks the law and this is why the House impeached him.

You'll have to forgive me for playing devils advocate here, but I don't see how whatever fraction the idiots take up will stop Trump from being elected again. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm sure there are still plenty of people who fall in the middle that will gladly vote him in again just because of the lack of fight from the Dems. Of course, if this is the case and the dems decide that a third party is better for whatever reason, that gives the dems even less of a chance of getting one of their own into office. It's not more about whether they will still vote for him, it's more about whether the Dems are ready to finally get out of their safe bubble and fight him. That doesn't mean getting another Hillary Clinton to run against him, because let's be honest, she was one of the worst examples of the Dems trying to fight back. The people that supported him are still going to support him, and while we still have the out of date electoral college process, his chances of winning are still going to be nearly as good as they were when he took office.

Nope.

Idk, I'm thinking there will be an increased anti-Trump voter turnout that will heavily affect who gets elected. Honestly I consider that pretty dangerous considering that Trump also won because of who he is not, but I still think the voting landscape is going to be massively different next election.

He said "I did not have sex with that woman." He didn't lie. Look up the definition of sex.

I want to reach into my TV and punch Jason Miller in the ****ing face right now. Trump could walk into a movie theater and murder 50 people and the ****ing guy would back him and blame it on the democrats.

So did you miss the part about crime in there or did you ignore it because it contradicted your point? It's a legally based decision. Congress makes the laws. Obviously there are ways for that relationship to be abused, but come on dude, it absolutely is a matter of legality. I'm done moving forward with this stupid ass disagreement. If you're not, out your thoughts on a ledger somewhere and just take my word that you're wrong.

Legal definition of sex

Based on the first sentence, blow jobs count.

Reading comprehension is again failing you.

The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant. In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Stop being a dullard just to argue with me.

Well that's also true. However I don't see what the chances are that it'll make such a big impact. I imagine that in the next election, people are legitimately going to be so fed up with the process that they won't even bother voting. That's at least where I would be if that were the case. However I know that's a double edged sword because if you don't vote, you're basically voting for the person that doesn't deserve it. The election process does need a rework, but in the way that it's good for everybody. I don't see that ever happening but if the turnout for voting starts to become less and less, this country is going to have to start really thinking about how seriously they take the election process. I hope I'm making sense here.

Now you're just being ridiculous for ridiculous sake.

Are you even reading the quotes you're posting? Because you keep unintentionally backing up my point.

Chula, I'm actually on Frown's side this time. I read your post and thought "did you miss the part about crime?" Considering crime is pretty much directly related to law.

Frowny

Get back to us after life has been beating your ass for 30 more years. A couple runs of bad luck... just that you respond with that **** tells me haven't seen how ****ing hard it gets.

So when I get to that point, will I start thinking that seeing a therapist, eating healthy, and excercising are bad ideas?

Jeez.

And stop poking fun at my reality you *******s. Really a pretty dickish thing to do.

As determined by the law of the time. Geez.

Just curious, who's doing this? If you say me, know that you're wrong and just being a sensitive bitch, which would surprise me because that's not your nature.

Go suck on mommy and daddy's teets some more. What would you do without them?

Wow, solid point. I guess impeachment doesn't have anything to do with the law then.

Why don't you go ask Mike the same question?

And here I was hoping to have a really good discussion with Frownland (which I was genuinely hoping we could have a well mannered debate) only to be pushed out by the Chula vs Frown nonsense. Thanks guys. Now I know why I don't come in here.

Not really much to discuss on that subject, given that they're just predictions.

Fair enough. So...who wants to **** Trump? amirite or amirite?

Mod insults my mentally ill son. Nice. You mentally ****ed up dude? Spill the details.

*walks out of thread for good*

It was a good one though you know it.

I know you've heard my music, you should know already. Also my family has a long history of schizophrenia and I'm at that age...so rain check on that for a couple years.