How corrupt is the Trump administration?
Very
29.8% (14)
29.8% (14)
Incredibly
8.5% (4)
8.5% (4)
The most, believe me.
17% (8)
17% (8)
OK, maybe not quite as bad as Somalia.
12.8% (6)
12.8% (6)
But still pretty close.
4.3% (2)
4.3% (2)
Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
27.7% (13)
27.7% (13)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Day 100 and Donald Trump still embezzling, violating Constitution

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

He still owns his businesses, including many in foreign countries. He also has one of the most expensive security details in history and much of that expense goes right into his pockets because it's a matter of renting spaces from his businesses.

I mean, seriously? What? How?

Seriously? What do you even say about this? It's literally one of the worst precedents of all time.

Remaining in ownership of his businesses is obviously a conflict of interest: not only do his own policy proposals affect his businesses, he can be negotiated with about foreign and domestic policy by offers related to his businesses rather than the country. And lo and behold, whether intentional or not, Trump's businesses have magically gotten favorable treatment from foreign countries whose leaders he meets with. Or who his daughter meets with. Wonder what assurances she traded for that.

I'm not even going to ask if anyone can defend this, because it's obviously indefensible. It's a matter of how bad, not whether.

That being said-- straightforward embezzlement and abuse of power on behalf of one's business is at least more efficient (for the politician) than accepting bribes for policy concessions. Cutting out the middle man is very forward-thinking!

Seanchaidh:

That being said-- straightforward embezzlement and abuse of power on behalf of one's business is at least more efficient (for the politician) than accepting bribes for policy concessions. Cutting out the middle man is very forward-thinking!

Draining the swamp, I think it's called: why let lobbyists take bribes, when they could go straight to the pres?

A while ago I remember there was a minor burst of outrage when it was found out that Obama was going through multiple bottles of hand sanitizer per day at the taxpayer's expense. If Obama had pulled half the shit Trump is doing, the MAGA crowd would have burned the fucking country to the ground.

There ya go! Good for you Sean.

Trump needs to be sued of every penny to pay back to the American people. Seriously, this guy is the person who in paste eras would get the guillotine, or the Lu Bu'd.

Alot of new laws will likely be passed next Presidency (or next Government) that will outlaw this. Like how 2 terms was tradition...until FDR ignoring it then it became a law of only 2 terms.

Agema:

Seanchaidh:

That being said-- straightforward embezzlement and abuse of power on behalf of one's business is at least more efficient (for the politician) than accepting bribes for policy concessions. Cutting out the middle man is very forward-thinking!

Draining the swamp, I think it's called: why let lobbyists take bribes, when they could go straight to the pres?

Ah, like a pipeline. Must have been a suggestion of Rex Tillerson.

Frankly, someone just needs to upend the White House and shake all these guys out of it, then put in new people who talk some sense.

Also like to throw in the astounding notion that not only does Trump still retain ownership of his businesses, he also has clear and open lines of communication between his business interests and his political authority. That's kind of what happens when you have a couple of your kids run your businesses, and a daughter and son-in-law handle the government side of things. The only bulwark separating the two sides is a pinky promise that when the Political Trumps get together with the Business Trumps, they shall discuss neither. Totes swear! You can trust us!!

When this is combined with the fact that Trump is remaining extremely secretive with regards to his financial assets, at the moment it seems that President Trump has easier access to his business interests than even the people who are theoretically supposed to act as a check to his authority, let alone the American public.

As for how he gets away with it? Near as I can tell, the man just lies a lot. If asked, he would insist that he is totally and properly divested from his assets, and the majority of his supporters would believe his word alone. So even when stories and reports come out detailing how tenuous this supposed split is, it will rarely, if ever, convince anyone who already doesn't know that Trump is a liar. Everyone else just writes it off as fake news. The Republicans don't want to rock the boat too hard, likely in part because the individual congressman knows that Trump will quite happily throw them under the bus if they press too hard, and any dirt they dig up on their own president will likely hurt their party more than help it in the short term. The Democrats are perfectly happy to rock the boat in this case, obviously, but because they are in the opposing party it doesn't really have the same impact.

It also wouldn't surprise me if some of his supporters were convinced that anything that benefits Trump's businesses would also benefit the country as a whole. Rising tide lifts all ships and such. Unfortunately for them, mutual benefit isn't exactly the central tenant of Trump's business credo. =P 'Screw You, Got Mine' is much more accurate.

It's grossly inappropriate, basically unconstitutional, and no-one is willing to do anything about it because something something draining the swamp something.

Two good articles on how Trump makes money just from being president:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-business-ethics-ivanka/519222/

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/28/15365438/donald-trump-100-days-kleptocracy

Everyone predicted that this would occur, much time and ink was spent elaborating how and why it would occur, many pleas were made to try and stop it, and...all failed, because the impudent bulk that is Donald Trump has so much inertia that nothing short of a heart attack will stop him from cheating people out of their money. Congress can't find their balls long enough to rein him in, there's no organisation with oversight over what he does with taxpayer money, and apparently the President is immune to lawsuits because he's the President.

I mean, listen to this shit: do we all remember when a department store chain named Nordstrom announced they were going to stop stocking Ivanka Trump's merchandise because of steadily declining sales? And then Kellyanne Conway went on Fox & Friends and literally said "go buy Ivanka's stuff?"

Online sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise increased by 332% in the month after that interview.

So after a criminal became president he used that office to commit crimes. The hell did you expect? The man has never not acted like a caricature of a corrupt corporate fatcat.

PsychedelicDiamond:
So after a criminal became president he used that office to commit crimes. The hell did you expect? The man has never acted like a caricature of a corrupt corporate fatcat.

It's less that we didn't expect it and more that it's super important that we draw as much attention to it as possible. Letting this shit get drowned out by the white noise of Trump's Twitter feed and routine gaffes would be a mistake.

Trump represents the blatant, unapologetic apex of US political corruption. Even Harding and Nixon were less obvious about it. If the US can't impeach Trump, it can't impeach anyone.

People still defend this clown...people still think he's good for this country...where did we go so very wrong....

erttheking:
People still defend this clown...people still think he's good for this country...where did we go so very wrong....

Well, of course, Search will blame Democrats and I will blame people, and the law of averages will favor me on that because there's more people than Democrats in the US to screw things up.

Seanchaidh:
Or who his daughter meets with.

Well, looking at the story, it appears she got the right to sell things under her own name as a Trademark. Why would she not be granted that regardless of meeting Xi or not? I'm not quite clear of why this appears to be a direct result of the meeting, rather than just a coincidence. Unless this has been on ongoing legal battle, or something.

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, listen to this shit: do we all remember when a department store chain named Nordstrom announced they were going to stop stocking Ivanka Trump's merchandise because of steadily declining sales? And then Kellyanne Conway went on Fox & Friends and literally said "go buy Ivanka's stuff?"

Online sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise increased by 332% in the month after that interview.

Okay, for the sake of debate, how is this any different to the preceding bit where people went around asking people to not buy Ivanka's stuff because of her links to her father? If you start asking people to buy politically, you can't complain when it turns out more people on the other side are doing it.

PsychedelicDiamond:
So after a criminal became president he used that office to commit crimes. The hell did you expect? The man has never not acted like a caricature of a corrupt corporate fatcat.

Plenty of people didn't expect his crimes, and some of them refuse to admit them. I think the idea is to maybe remind them.

Alternatively, to keep reminding people that this is a bad thing, rather than business and usual and people accepting it as normal.

This is by far an incredibly disappointing state of US politics. The republican party have shown their true colours as morally spineless, completely lacking in any integrity whatsoever and willing to accept a victory at whatever cost, yet they are now realising just how easy it is to get away with it. And seeing this continue, it's like watching a family member return for the thousandth time, in denial, to an ever-escalating abusive relationship while there is nothing you can do except wonder exactly how bad it must get before a breaking point occurs.
Except, this is far more publicised and just so very depressing.

Get some fucking standards for fuck's sake. Ah who needs standards when you've already won, right? That's one less mask to worry about holding up all the time. This is just a vast embarrassment of the human species.

When he said he was going to outdo past presidents, I didn't think he meant Harding.

Xsjadoblayde:
This is by far an incredibly disappointing state of US politics. The republican party have shown their true colours as morally spineless, completely lacking in any integrity whatsoever and willing to accept a victory at whatever cost, yet they are now realising just how easy it is to get away with it. And seeing this continue, it's like watching a family member return for the thousandth time, in denial, to an ever-escalating abusive relationship while there is nothing you can do except wonder exactly how bad it must get before a breaking point occurs.
Except, this is far more publicised and just so very depressing.

Get some fucking standards for fuck's sake. Ah who needs standards when you've already won, right? That's one less mask to worry about holding up all the time. This is just a vast embarrassment of the human species.

This really reminds me of the twilight days of the Roman Republic. Expectations and standards were held of the Tribunes, which gave way to spreading misinformation and corruption. And once something like that is broken, you can't fix it.

Xsjadoblayde:
This is by far an incredibly disappointing state of US politics. The republican party have shown their true colours as morally spineless, completely lacking in any integrity whatsoever and willing to accept a victory at whatever cost, yet they are now realising just how easy it is to get away with it. And seeing this continue, it's like watching a family member return for the thousandth time, in denial, to an ever-escalating abusive relationship while there is nothing you can do except wonder exactly how bad it must get before a breaking point occurs.
Except, this is far more publicised and just so very depressing.

Get some fucking standards for fuck's sake. Ah who needs standards when you've already won, right? That's one less mask to worry about holding up all the time. This is just a vast embarrassment of the human species.

If this is what is publicized, I shiver to the thought of what's being kept out of the public knowledge. My father always used to say that when the government announces something highly controversial, it's distracting the public from the real issues. Half of the stuff Trump has said in Twitter and in public is media-bait. WTF is happening at the white house?

Saelune:
There ya go! Good for you Sean.

Lu Bu'd.

Not to be a downer, but if you read alot of the shit surrounding Lu Bu, the guy was a massive scumbag. I mean, he went and killed like three people he pledged his life to, two of them considering him a great friend before he went and stabbed them in the back.

Also, back on topic, if the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted? I mean, again, not to be a downer, but if you read much on Hoover, people sorta were saying about the same stuff, and it turned out the guy didn't really do the majority of the things people were saying he needed to be sued and made to pay for...

Redryhno:

Saelune:
There ya go! Good for you Sean.

Lu Bu'd.

Not to be a downer, but if you read alot of the shit surrounding Lu Bu, the guy was a massive scumbag. I mean, he went and killed like three people he pledged his life to, two of them considering him a great friend before he went and stabbed them in the back.

Also, back on topic, if the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted? I mean, again, not to be a downer, but if you read much on Hoover, people sorta were saying about the same stuff, and it turned out the guy didn't really do the majority of the things people were saying he needed to be sued and made to pay for...

What things are you actually doubting here? That his own business are getting money from space being rented to his security detail? Are you disputing the conflict of interest concerning his businesses? Or is your question whether it's actually illegal or not?

@Redrhyno: I am saying that maybe Trump's defeat wont even be at someone who hates him for a good reason. Maybe Putin will grow tired of him. Maybe Pence will. Maybe one of hid kid's will. Despite much of what I said would happen with Trump did happen, I really am not able to predict the future like that.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, listen to this shit: do we all remember when a department store chain named Nordstrom announced they were going to stop stocking Ivanka Trump's merchandise because of steadily declining sales? And then Kellyanne Conway went on Fox & Friends and literally said "go buy Ivanka's stuff?"

Online sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise increased by 332% in the month after that interview.

Okay, for the sake of debate, how is this any different to the preceding bit where people went around asking people to not buy Ivanka's stuff because of her links to her father? If you start asking people to buy politically, you can't complain when it turns out more people on the other side are doing it.

Kellyanne Conway was speaking on CNN because she's a figure in the White House, not because CNN is an advertising arm of the Trump organization. Conway is, in fact, paid by the government-- her and by extension the Trump administration used her position to advertise Ivanka's merchandise. This is by far the least of the sins of the Trump administration, though.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
I mean, listen to this shit: do we all remember when a department store chain named Nordstrom announced they were going to stop stocking Ivanka Trump's merchandise because of steadily declining sales? And then Kellyanne Conway went on Fox & Friends and literally said "go buy Ivanka's stuff?"

Online sales of Ivanka Trump merchandise increased by 332% in the month after that interview.

Okay, for the sake of debate, how is this any different to the preceding bit where people went around asking people to not buy Ivanka's stuff because of her links to her father? If you start asking people to buy politically, you can't complain when it turns out more people on the other side are doing it.

Are you pretending not to know the difference between people not buying something and using your political position to advertise something, for the sake of debate? Because it's a pretty stark difference to use your political position to help you advertise your boss's family member's junk over boycotting something as an average nobody. I mean surely you realize the problem with this is the advertising it and not just buying shit for political reasons, yes?

Catnip1024:
Okay, for the sake of debate, how is this any different to the preceding bit where people went around asking people to not buy Ivanka's stuff because of her links to her father? If you start asking people to buy politically, you can't complain when it turns out more people on the other side are doing it.

For the sake of debate...because the person telling people to buy Ivanka's merchandise was a White House official. White House officials are not supposed to endorse the sale of merchandise that profits the President personally. If a grassroots Trump voter had gone on the internet and started www.buytrumpfortrump.com or #GrabYourWalletAndGiveItToTrump, the situation would be comparable. If Ivanka had advertised her own goods in her own capacity, it would still be comparable.[1] But a White House spokeswoman shilling her boss' daughter's products on-air? That's advertisement. The White House is not an advertising agency.

The point I was making when citing the statistic is that this kind of shit coming out of Conway's mouth has a tangible effect on how much money the president's daughter is making. Not just tangible; dramatic. Tens of thousands of people watching TV that day went "Right on!" and immediately bought Trump shoes on Amazon. Each of those shoes costs about a hundred bucks. Amazon doesn't release actual sales numbers, but it's fair to say that when Kellyanne Conway said "Go buy Ivanka's stuff," she could probably charge five grand per word and still give Ivanka a good deal.

Donald Trump and his asshole kids are making serious cash off of being the President. To the extent that it's hurt his businesses, he's drawing in ten times that much off of his supporters, his hotels, his club that he owns and visits on the weekend and the rich idiots who get to see the President have breakfast if they poney up $200,000. (Plus $14,000 annual fees. And $2,000 to stay the night.)

And if he ever wants to make like a million dollars for like, pocket change or whatever, he doesn't even have to give a speech; he just has to take a weekend off. Which he does every other weekend. Not counting golf.

[1] At least before she became a White House official too, for...reasons.

Redryhno:
Also, back on topic, if the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted? I mean, again, not to be a downer, but if you read much on Hoover, people sorta were saying about the same stuff, and it turned out the guy didn't really do the majority of the things people were saying he needed to be sued and made to pay for...

1. For the President of the United States to be "ousted" would require that he be impeached. Impeachment requires a majority in the House of Representatives, which the Republicans control, and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which the Republicans control, in order to succeed.
2. The contemporary Republican party is unwilling to impeach their own president, no matter how egregious his excesses, because the legislative and executive branches of the party have become so intertwined that Trump's collapse would likely take the Republican majority in Congress with it.
3. Much of Trump's excesses are not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. For example, the writers of the Constitution did not predict that the president may spend weekends at an expensive hotel that he owns and charge the bill to the taxpayers. They did not predict the rise of the international trademark system that saw Trump's trademark requests in China approved the day he met with Xi Jinping. They did not predict the possibility that the President would have Congress write a tax bill that cuts his own tax burden in half. When they wrote of emoluments, they were thinking of ambassadors being bribed by gold watches given to them by the King of France, not the massive, tentacled leviathan that is the Trump Organisation.

The point is, asking us "If the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted?" is pointless, because we're asking the same question. How did the US get to such a point where the voters tolerate this kind of blatant, boondoggled teabaggery of political ethics?

bastardofmelbourne:
The point is, asking us "If the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted?" is pointless, because we're asking the same question. How did the US get to such a point where the voters tolerate this kind of blatant, boondoggled teabaggery of political ethics?

The only hypothesis which isn't riddled with logical holes seems to me to be this: they are tolerant of corruption because they are only very rarely given a choice of someone who is not corrupt, and the parties do their best to smear such candidates before they get off the ground. Since they expect corruption on both sides, many are willing to tolerate it from their own side. "I can have a corrupt person I seem to agree with, or a corrupt person I seem to disagree with. Guess I'd better choose the lesser of two evils."

Now, is Donald Trump breaking records on this front? Absolutely. This administration is plutocracy and kleptocracy at its most brazen. And it has correspondingly low approval ratings, let's not forget (though of course they ought to be much lower even than they are). What lends support to my above hypothesis is that the Democratic Party also has low approval ratings. And Bernie Sanders is the only federal lawmaker with an approval rating above 50%-- he's the one guy who is both well known enough to have an approval rating above 50% and ethically clean enough to have an approval rating above 50% (though ethics likely isn't the only thing driving his popularity).

The American people have become tolerant of a government they know is corrupt because increasing corruption, just like expansion of executive power and domestic surveillance, has been gradually normalized as the decades wear on.

bastardofmelbourne:

Redryhno:
Also, back on topic, if the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted? I mean, again, not to be a downer, but if you read much on Hoover, people sorta were saying about the same stuff, and it turned out the guy didn't really do the majority of the things people were saying he needed to be sued and made to pay for...

1. For the President of the United States to be "ousted" would require that he be impeached. Impeachment requires a majority in the House of Representatives, which the Republicans control, and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which the Republicans control, in order to succeed.
2. The contemporary Republican party is unwilling to impeach their own president, no matter how egregious his excesses, because the legislative and executive branches of the party have become so intertwined that Trump's collapse would likely take the Republican majority in Congress with it.
3. Much of Trump's excesses are not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. For example, the writers of the Constitution did not predict that the president may spend weekends at an expensive hotel that he owns and charge the bill to the taxpayers. They did not predict the rise of the international trademark system that saw Trump's trademark requests in China approved the day he met with Xi Jinping. They did not predict the possibility that the President would have Congress write a tax bill that cuts his own tax burden in half. When they wrote of emoluments, they were thinking of ambassadors being bribed by gold watches given to them by the King of France, not the massive, tentacled leviathan that is the Trump Organisation.

The point is, asking us "If the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted?" is pointless, because we're asking the same question. How did the US get to such a point where the voters tolerate this kind of blatant, boondoggled teabaggery of political ethics?

I'm well aware how and what would be required, I'm simply asking if it is as bad and illegal as people are making it out to be, then how the hell is he still in office? I'm just wondering, considering how pretty much every President has been "impeached" for much less, even with party dominance that actually like them in the house(which we sorta have to agree isn't something Trump has). If it's actually as bad as people are saying, then him being in the office sorta seems like a bit of an oversight by pretty much every governmental body and enforcement agency out there...I mean, this is random internet peeps who are a bunch of college students and service industry employees, you'd think if they could see it and find the links that they could then the people who have jobs dealing with this shit could actually act on evidence much more damning....

Redryhno:

bastardofmelbourne:

Redryhno:
Also, back on topic, if the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted? I mean, again, not to be a downer, but if you read much on Hoover, people sorta were saying about the same stuff, and it turned out the guy didn't really do the majority of the things people were saying he needed to be sued and made to pay for...

1. For the President of the United States to be "ousted" would require that he be impeached. Impeachment requires a majority in the House of Representatives, which the Republicans control, and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which the Republicans control, in order to succeed.
2. The contemporary Republican party is unwilling to impeach their own president, no matter how egregious his excesses, because the legislative and executive branches of the party have become so intertwined that Trump's collapse would likely take the Republican majority in Congress with it.
3. Much of Trump's excesses are not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. For example, the writers of the Constitution did not predict that the president may spend weekends at an expensive hotel that he owns and charge the bill to the taxpayers. They did not predict the rise of the international trademark system that saw Trump's trademark requests in China approved the day he met with Xi Jinping. They did not predict the possibility that the President would have Congress write a tax bill that cuts his own tax burden in half. When they wrote of emoluments, they were thinking of ambassadors being bribed by gold watches given to them by the King of France, not the massive, tentacled leviathan that is the Trump Organisation.

The point is, asking us "If the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted?" is pointless, because we're asking the same question. How did the US get to such a point where the voters tolerate this kind of blatant, boondoggled teabaggery of political ethics?

I'm well aware how and what would be required, I'm simply asking if it is as bad and illegal as people are making it out to be, then how the hell is he still in office? I'm just wondering, considering how pretty much every President has been "impeached" for much less, even with party dominance that actually like them in the house(which we sorta have to agree isn't something Trump has). If it's actually as bad as people are saying, then him being in the office sorta seems like a bit of an oversight by pretty much every governmental body and enforcement agency out there...I mean, this is random internet peeps who are a bunch of college students and service industry employees, you'd think if they could see it and find the links that they could then the people who have jobs dealing with this shit could actually act on evidence much more damning....

What do you mean by "impeached"? Bill Clinton is the only one to have been impeached recently, and only by a Republican Congress. And they didn't even convict. And it was over bullshit. Bah, they should have impeached him for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall or deregulating telecommunications, not lying to his wife about getting his dick sucked.

bastardofmelbourne:
For the sake of debate...because the person telling people to buy Ivanka's merchandise was a White House official.

Ta. That's the bit I wasn't clear on. I was assuming Conway was a Fox host.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:
For the sake of debate...because the person telling people to buy Ivanka's merchandise was a White House official.

Ta. That's the bit I wasn't clear on. I was assuming Conway was a Fox host.

I can see how you'd think that given FOX is the only news network Trump hasn't outright declared war on, and it's is a nice safe space for people from his administration to visit when they don't want to be asked difficult questions.

It's pretty clear by this point that his staunchest supporters are going to forgive basically everything he does, falling back on "But Obama" and "But Hillary" every time they're asked to explain themselves. He could tear up the constitution and declare martial law on the entire country and they'll continue to sing his praises as our strong and wise leader. Maybe in 20 years or so when either a new administration has begun to repair the damage, or the billionaire dictator of the People's Republic of America finally dies of old age and passes his regime off to his son in law they'll start to think that maybe we took a wrong turn somewhere.

Lilani:
It's pretty clear by this point that his staunchest supporters are going to forgive basically everything he does, falling back on "But Obama" and "But Hillary" every time they're asked to explain themselves.

The number of people who are like that are thankfully not enough to guarantee winning an election. Other coalitions are available to be made. It just requires a messenger with the right message and early enough exposure. Or to put it another way: don't worry about those people. Worry about everyone else.

I simply don't care anymore. Everything he said, everything he promised, everything he threatened to do up to the election should have been a slap in the face for the U.S. public. Bragging about killing a random person and people would still vote for him, lamenting for the days when protesters would be carried out on stretchers at his gatherings, implying that armed people should overthrow/assassinate Clinton if she wins, saying that a religious group should be forced to wear identifying markers in public, promising to make another country pay for a U.S. multi-billion dollar project, threatening to destroy the very concept of freedom of the press...the list goes on and on.

And yet, he won. I do not care anymore. Obama said before the election that he has faith in the public to do the right thing, and the public didn't. So now...whatever. If people in my country are this dumb, nothing surprises me anymore. It doesn't surprise me about how many laws he breaks or what he does and everyone turns a blind eye to.

In fact, I will be more surprised if he doesn't make it for the full four years.

bastardofmelbourne:

Redryhno:
Also, back on topic, if the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted? I mean, again, not to be a downer, but if you read much on Hoover, people sorta were saying about the same stuff, and it turned out the guy didn't really do the majority of the things people were saying he needed to be sued and made to pay for...

1. For the President of the United States to be "ousted" would require that he be impeached. Impeachment requires a majority in the House of Representatives, which the Republicans control, and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which the Republicans control, in order to succeed.
2. The contemporary Republican party is unwilling to impeach their own president, no matter how egregious his excesses, because the legislative and executive branches of the party have become so intertwined that Trump's collapse would likely take the Republican majority in Congress with it.
3. Much of Trump's excesses are not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. For example, the writers of the Constitution did not predict that the president may spend weekends at an expensive hotel that he owns and charge the bill to the taxpayers. They did not predict the rise of the international trademark system that saw Trump's trademark requests in China approved the day he met with Xi Jinping. They did not predict the possibility that the President would have Congress write a tax bill that cuts his own tax burden in half. When they wrote of emoluments, they were thinking of ambassadors being bribed by gold watches given to them by the King of France, not the massive, tentacled leviathan that is the Trump Organisation.

The point is, asking us "If the guy is doing all this stuff illegally, why has he not yet been ousted?" is pointless, because we're asking the same question. How did the US get to such a point where the voters tolerate this kind of blatant, boondoggled teabaggery of political ethics?

How many advertisers will it take backing out to oust Trump? Cause that is what stops Republicans. Not being a rapist. That gets you a Fox news spot and the Presidency. But once advertisers all pull out, then justice(?) is served?

Sniper Team 4:
I simply don't care anymore. Everything he said, everything he promised, everything he threatened to do up to the election should have been a slap in the face for the U.S. public. Bragging about killing a random person and people would still vote for him, lamenting for the days when protesters would be carried out on stretchers at his gatherings, implying that armed people should overthrow/assassinate Clinton if she wins, saying that a religious group should be forced to wear identifying markers in public, promising to make another country pay for a U.S. multi-billion dollar project, threatening to destroy the very concept of freedom of the press...the list goes on and on.

And yet, he won. I do not care anymore. Obama said before the election that he has faith in the public to do the right thing, and the public didn't. So now...whatever. If people in my country are this dumb, nothing surprises me anymore. It doesn't surprise me about how many laws he breaks or what he does and everyone turns a blind eye to.

In fact, I will be more surprised if he doesn't make it for the full four years.

Well, this is what happens when you have the two least popular major party presidential candidates in American history. One of them has to win (apparently). "Just leave the post vacant and do-over the primaries" isn't an option. Around a fifth of Americans voted for Trump and around a fifth of Americans voted for Clinton. Repugnant novelty won out over somewhat less repugnant status quo. A lot of bad decisions led to this, not just one.

Thaluikhain:

PsychedelicDiamond:
So after a criminal became president he used that office to commit crimes. The hell did you expect? The man has never not acted like a caricature of a corrupt corporate fatcat.

Plenty of people didn't expect his crimes, and some of them refuse to admit them. I think the idea is to maybe remind them.

Alternatively, to keep reminding people that this is a bad thing, rather than business and usual and people accepting it as normal.

Moreover, many of us did expect this, and very loudly campaigned against him because of it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here