Does a single day go by…
…without an MSM article on this sort of theme: “Inside the ”˜adult day-care center’: How aides try to control and coerce Trump”?
There’s a steady stream that never flags. They all seem more or less the same to me. Some focus more on Trump’s immaturity, some on his craziness, but I believe they are designed to keep readers on the left (and/or those on the right who detest Trump) in a constant state of anxiety, fear, rage, and hope.
The “hope” for Democrats is for Democratic control of the House in 2018 and the resultant impeachment of Trump. That drum is being beaten with greater vigor than ever lately.
And then we also have this article from Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that basically says “be careful what you wish for in impeaching Trump.” It tries to stir up fear about Pence. The article is incredibly long and incredibly boring. I tried to skim it in order to glean its main content, but what I mostly got was “Pence is in the pocket of the evil Kochs.”
I’ve read quite a few of these “Trump could be impeached after 2018” articles, and haven’t seen any of them dealing adequately with the question of what would happen next in the Senate after impeachment. If it’s mentioned at all that the conviction and removal of a president can only be accomplished by a 2/3 vote in the Senate, the lack of probability of that happening with Trump and the fact that if it didn’t happen his impeachment would be practically meaningless is rarely if ever dealt with. I find that a bit puzzling, except when I reflect that the purpose of these articles is mainly psychological, and that the authors are probably banking on the fact that most readers may think that “impeachment” is equivalent to “removal from office.” The Clinton impeachment and failure to convict/remove is probably ancient and nearly-forgotten history for a great many voters today.
They aren’t concerned with being right. They just want to keep the pot bubbling.
Yesterday I read a couple of those Trump impeachment articles to learn if the writers knew something I didn’t.
They don’t.
The left loves to demonize the Kochs, who are libertarian rather than conservative, as well as generous philanthropists who have donated hundreds of millions to museums, hospitals, universities and other non-political organizations; meanwhile Dr. Evil himself, Soros the speculator, continues to sow discord and chaos and violence with the full cover of the MSM.
j e: Re: Kochs.
That’s a curious business. I’ve never had the impression those on the left have any idea of who the Kochs are.
To the left the Kochs are simply the “Great Satan,” as Iran refers to America, to be invoked and denounced at any slightly opportune moment in their rhetoric.
I’m just sick of all the superficial BS that come from the Dems and the media.I can’t wait till they all eat one another.
I live in deep blue San Francisco peninsula and my sense is that the lefties are barely hanging onto their sanity, especially in the wake of the Weinstein “revelations,” (and all the unspeakable cognitive dissonance that goes along with that) and they need a steady diet of fake realilty in order to keep hanging on. Thus the clearly false BS narrative. Truthiness is all they’ve got left. From the outside, it’s looking more and more insane.
Lets be honest here: The fact that Trump IS a boisterous loud immature, insulting in articulate bully, may have something to do with it.
“Lets be honest here: The fact that Trump IS a boisterous loud immature, insulting in articulate bully, may have something to do with it.” Yep, after all, that’s the profile of a man who took a modest sized real estate business and turned it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise that employs 20,000 people. It’s why people just flock to work for a man like that and stand in the lobby of his headquarters waiting for a chance to meet him and ask for a job. Right you are.
Harry the Extremist:
Of course it has something to do with it. A story has to be credible to work. That doesn’t make the story true.
Hey, it’s even possible that all the stories are true. But we have absolutely no way to know, except perhaps ex post facto over time. So far, I see no evidence of truth. I am sure, however, that Trump sometimes frustrates those who work with him. He is who he is.
A number of factors lead me to consider it a real possibility that the dems will win back control of both the House and Senate in 2018.
33 Senatorial seats will be up for re-election in 2018. If half of them go to the democrats due to internal fighting within the GOP, the Senate democrats will then hold 62-63 seats and will only need 3-4 RINO votes for a veto proof majority.
If that happens, Trump’s impeachment is IMO a virtual certainty. While his conviction in the Senate will be dependent upon the political cover the particular “high crimes and misdeameanors” he’s charged with offer to the RINOs.
They’ll vote for his conviction in a “new york minute” if they think they can weather the political backlash and Trump’s actual guilt won’t be even a minor consideration.
If Trump is removed from office, I’ve seen nothing substantive to distinguish Pence from George Bush and I believe that ‘compatibility’ with the GOPe will result in either Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris being elected the First Woman President in 2020.
If that scenario plays out, I expect Senate approval of a U.N. Treaty that will both gut the 2nd amendment and institute “hate speech” laws in America. As International Treaties supercede Constitutional guarantees, I see this as the most achievable and effective means for the Left to neuter those on the Right fighting for Constitutional governance.
Which will result in a 2nd American Civil War.
Geoffrey Britain:
I suppose anything’s possible, but I don’t know why you are that pessimistic about the Senate. The math favors the Republicans, because all the seats up for grabs in 2018 are not equal:
How you get from that to an estimate of 62-63 Democratic seats is beyond me. In fact, it would take Democrats keeping every single one of their seats and winning every single one of the Republican seats that are up for grabs, and even then the highest Senate total Democrats could get with a clean sweep of every single race would be 56, by my calculations.
Geoffrey – I don’t see Americans that anxious to return to an under 2% growth economy which is exactly what would happen with Democrat’s destructive policies. The next election cycle will undoubtedly be a surprise to everyone but I think it’s more likely to be a really bad surprise for the Democrats.
I’m a well known Trump detractor, but I don’t believe he’ll be impeached and I also want to tell people waiting with bated [sic?] breath for Mueller to drop the other shoe that they need to keep their hopes low. Trump’s here for at least three more years. Maybe seven more.
I should have said “I’m well known around here as a” Trump detractor. I’m not a “well known” Trump detractor because I’m not “well known” at all :-).
neo,
I did qualify it as a possibility. One that obviously I hope does not manifest, so I’ll be happy for events to work out otherwise.
The Senate currently has 46 democrats. The upcoming internal GOP turmoil I referred to is the developing conflict between the McConnell and anti-GOPe arms of the party. The GOPe candidates are going to be primaried like never before and the GOPe is going to fight a ‘scorched earth’ policy, just as they did in the Alabama primary over Session’s replacement.
What I foresee as a result is two sides of the same coin; if the GOPe side wins, the other side will refuse to vote for that candidate and, after the majority GOP Congress’s recent pathetic performance, the still valid argument that sitting out the election/voting for 3rd party candidates only hands the election to democrats will now be even less persuasive than previously.
Whereas, if the anti-GOPe side wins… since the future survival of their gravy train is threatened, the GOPe side will refuse to contribute $$$, time and labor and also sit out the election.
They’ve proven they’re comfortable being the minority party, selling their votes to the democrats when political cover allows and so being reduced from a majority to a minority is not a concern.
I see the same dynamics working out in the House.
I also see contributions up on the democrat side and as described, one way or the other, down on the republican side.
I’m not claiming this will happen, merely that it’s a very real possibility and even arguably a probability.
Irv,
That’s absolutely a factor and will be a definitive one for some voters. Will it be for enough voters is the question, especially in denying the democrats control of the House and/or the Senate.
However, if democrats overall gain just a stronger minority, it allows the RINOs even more political cover, offering them the out of not enough votes to pass legislation even with simple majority votes. That would offer the GOPe the best of all worlds. They favor that slower March to the Collective because its to their personal advantage to do so. Oligarchies also fiercely hold on to power…
neo: “Of course it has something to do with it. A story has to be credible to work. That doesn’t make the story true.”
Its still a destructive narrative that sticks because its so easy to believe and what we need to do is present moral and ethical counter-points to todays false liberal narratives. In short, feeding into the narrative is not what we need.
As for Paul in Boston, Trump is President of the United States now. Its a different freaking calling that requires more than just New York bluster and immature name calling. He represents America now. He needs to act the part.
Geoffrey Britain:
Even if you project a complete and 100% disaster in which NO GOP senators are re-elected and ALL the Democratic senators are re-elected (hardly likely), it is mathematically impossible for any scenario whatsoever to lead to 62-63 Democrats in the Senate in 2018. So your projection is quite literally impossible, as far as I can see.
Which will result in a 2nd American Civil War.
That civil war bandwagon is pretty popular, I see.
But I’ll be the one that decides the accuracy of various analysis, since I never got on those band wagons. Too much bias going on.
neo,
Oops. My mistake. And I used to be good at math ;-(
But that’s great that the dems cannot get that many seats. Once again a theory goes down in flames…
GB: Ditto on neo. The math doesn’t work.
Furthermore, as I’ve said before, I think Democrats have misjudged the historical moment. Doubling down is not going to win this time like it did against George W. Bush.
Trump may not be reelected, but unless he causes WW III, the country is not going to rebound hard left in 2018, 2020.
In my opinion, two solid years of hysterical propaganda can’t be sustained. The constant flood of stress hormones will ruin the health of the left, and if they have another devastating loss in 2018 their voters will be in open rebellion.
Since they have no ideas, what you’ll see after that is a purge of party leadership and probably a slide to the hard left. Not to worry though, this will also be accompanied by a loss of support. Turning the Democrats into a regional rump party.
Voters overwhelmingly view Congress in general unfavorably. However they also tend to like their reps and senators. My magic 8 ball says the gop will gain at least 4 seats in the senate and the house will easily remain under the control of the gop. From my POV, the real question is what type of newly elected senators in 2018 will we see; a gope supported candidate or an actual conservitive?
P.S. My projections say the GOP will gain somewhere between 4 and 9 seats. I see no way short of a major scandal that they’ll win fewer than 4 Senate seats.
I haven’t handicapped the House.
vanderleun Says:
October 16th, 2017 at 3:07 pm
They aren’t concerned with being right. They just want to keep the pot bubbling.
* * *
Could have stopped the thread right there.
This commentary by John Ringo, while focused on the Weinstein Whine & Cheesecake Club, could also be extended to the position of the Left (and Democrats) in general, that is: Trump and the Right are evil evil evil because we’ve seen how bad our side is and we KNOW they have to be worse.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/278180/
Deflection in abuse syndrome: Are Hollywood Actresses really angry at Conservative men? Or is it all just a sham?
The simple answer to the question is: Yes. But not because conservative men have abused them. Because they are forced to be silent, for various sociological and psychological reasons, about their abuse at the hands of the ‘in-crowd’ of liberals by which they are surrounded. And they lash out at any convenient target….
It’s all part of abuse syndrome, people. I’d wondered about it for some time but the ‘revelations’ about Harvey Weinstein just make it crystal clear. People who are subject to long-term abuse MUST find an outlet for the anger that bubbles in them all the time. They don’t, dare not for various reasons, lash out at their abusers. Think of children in abusive homes. How can they lash out at their parents who are abusing them? They are powerless. So they become bullies in turn.
Conservatives are an easy target. OBVIOUSLY they are worse than the ‘good’ and ‘decent’ liberal men who talk about how important feminism is all the time. Then abuse them. Conservatives HAVE to be worse! They HAVE to be! It’s just not getting reported, just as the abuse they are subjected to by the Harvey Weinsteins of the world is not reported. And since the people around them are ‘their’ tribe, they must, for various psychological reasons, be ‘good’ or at least ‘better’ than the enemy tribe.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t conservatives just as shitty as Harvey Weinstein. There probably are. But they are MUCH more likely to be outed by the news media. …
So do liberal actresses and models and all the rest really think conservative men are the worst human beings in the world?
Yes. Yes, they do. Because they have to work every day with some of the ACTUALLY worst human beings in the world. And they have to believe conservative men are worse. Otherwise, there’s no point to being on the ‘good’ side.
…
Because Trump has to be worse. They can’t really be slaves to some of the most vile human beings on the face of the planet.
Got news for you ladies: Yes, yes, you are. You enable them every day and by doing so you not only support the abusers, you directly or indirectly tell all the hurt new cheerleaders: Welcome to the bigs, sis. Now shut up and act.
You’re blaming the wrong side.
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 12:30 pm
And while the MSM keeps its attention (and ours) on the school-food-fights, really serious things go unnoticed within the progressive bubble.
I’m feeling very Drudge-y tonight.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2017/10/16/irans-move-creates-pretext-peremptory-establishment-kurdish-state/
https://libertyunyielding.com/2017/10/15/congress-upset-facebook-twitter-deleted-data-russian-troll-accounts/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/how-obama-holdovers-are-sowing-the-seeds-for-another-subprime-collapse.php
https://www.allenwest.com/2017/10/14/people-notice-something-strange-whats-going-obama-library/
And not least of all, this.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2017/10/16/facebook-decides-needs-employees-national-security-clearances-spot-trolls/
The reporting is a bit garbled, but it sounds like Facebook means these people should maintain their clearances while they’re working for Facebook, and receive information from national intelligence sources as a routine part of their job description.
…
Let’s take a moment, meanwhile, to parse what Facebook’s proposal would mean for social media operations in the United States….
Would Facebook employees with the requisite clearances have their own user accounts on the national intelligence ICITE network – the one that gives access to the vast NSA database of communications data collected on Americans?
It would actually be remarkable if they didn’t, since the purpose of this whole exercise is to be “spotting trolls.” The NSA database contains exactly the kind of information that would help an employee do that. (The real purpose of collecting the data is to track foreign threat actors, like Russians assuming false identities online. Collecting on U.S. persons is incidental.)…
Interacting directly with that database would be the efficient way to stay ahead of troll accounts. Waiting around for someone at NSA – or worse, CIA – to send you a polished product based on the same research, a week later: not so much.
It isn’t possible to contemplate this move by Facebook and not go there. Giving Facebook employees primary access to national intelligence information on the world’s communication data, including Americans’, can be the only rational end-purpose for this idea.
We’d be deep in Big Brother, Stalin-could-only-wish territory with this one. Facebook is in a league of its own as a social media platform; it already watches you like a hawk, and has you pegged and categorized six ways to Sunday within nano-level tolerances; and now it wants (or somebody wants it) to be on an umbilical cord to the highly networked U.S. intelligence community, Samantha Power’s and Susan Rice’s handmaiden in unmasking Friends of Trump in 2015 and 2016.
What could go wrong?
The problem with the impeachment of Trump (absent a real reason for it) would not be the resulting Pence presidency. The problem would be that half of the country would completely, absolutely furious and frightened. They would feel betrayed, held in contempt, you know the drill. They wouldn’t even have to be Trump supporters to see the country falling apart after such a thing.