BookTalk.org

Cattleman, I didn't know that about impeachment. What I'm really wanting to ask is when he will be removed, against his will, from his position as POTUS. It seems likely with all the turmoil but so far he is dodging bullets left and right so maybe I'm wrong.

I did like what he said about requiring new immigrants to the US to not receive welfare for the first 5 years. This makes so much sense. Of course Democrats won't like this because every new immigrant that comes into this country that receives welfare assistance is one new voter that will likely vote Democratic.

Chris OConnor wrote:I did like that he said about requiring new immigrants to the US to not receive welfare for the first 5 years. This makes so much sense. Of course Democrats won't like this because every new immigrant that comes into this country that receives welfare assistance is one new voter that will likely vote Democratic.

Uhh... you DO realize that this is already the law, right? The 1996 welfare reform stipulates that "With some exceptions, non-citizens entering the United States after August 22, 1996, the date of enactment of the welfare reform legislation, are not eligible for most welfare benefits, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), until they have been in the U.S. for at least five years."

More specifically: "The second factor is date of entry into the United States. Specifically, qualified immigrants who entered after August 22, 1996 are barred from SSI and food stamps until they become citizens and from TANF, Medicaid, and SCHIP for five years after entry."

https://www.brookings.edu/research/welf ... -citizens/

I'm assuming that since this passed under Bill Clinton, Trump is pretending it's his idea now for the first time. As usual, he tries to take credit for things already done so that he can do as little as possible. Maybe because he's now realizing how exceedingly difficult it is to get any legislation passed as president even when your own party controls both houses of congress and the Supreme Court.

Chris wrote:Of course Democrats won't like this because every new immigrant that comes into this country that receives welfare assistance is one new voter that will likely vote Democratic.

Every new immigrant that is denied assistance by a Republican would vote Democrat also. I don't think the Democrats in office need to worry about votes on this one. As long as they're about helping the poor, deservedly or not, they'll get the vote of the poor. At least the ones with an entitlement philosophy. I'm not sure how prevalent that is amongst immigrants.

Is this a question of documented vs. undocumented? Why a legal immigrant to the U.S. should not be able to take advantage of the programs that others do, I can't see. I can't see why citizenship should make such a big difference. As DB said, it is already unlawful for undocumented people to receive TANF, food stamps, health ins. through the ACA, etc., though some manage to anyway, but the drain on federal resources is very small. Also to be taken into account is the billions of dollars undocumented immigrants contribute to Social Security retirement/disability, while not being eligible to receive any benefits down the road.

http://econofact.org/do-undocumented-im ... t-benefits

Trump is completely disgusting and should be impeached for publicly attacking citizens whose leader he is supposed to be. His "misdemeanors" such as his twitter assault on the "Morning Joe" duo have mounted to a level that represents a crisis for the country. Will we tolerate such a man as our highest representative? We should not.

All right, calm down folks. Again, we must remember history and not repeat the mistakes Republicans made with President Clinton. Impeachment involves much more than Twitter insults and adolescent behavior, it requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." House Republicans knew they didn't have sufficient weight to convict in the Senate even with a charge of perjury against Clinton, but impeached anyway in order to damage him. It backfired and they paid a heavy price in the next election.

We should resist, but lay low on impeachment until the Mueller's investigation and others are complete. Those investigations may not come out how we expect. Remember the eight investigations into Benghazi came up with nothing and the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails also drew a blank.

I'll go much further and state we must steel ourselves for eight years - yes I said it - eight years of President Trump! If these investigations do not result in an overwhelming clamor for his removal, Trump could gain sympathy and all it will take to win a 2nd term is for Trump to start a war. Trump must do that anyway anyway for several reasons. 1. Trump believes he is a great President and all Presidents that we perceive as great presided over major wars. Trump is incapable of resisting that. 2. As we have seen with previous administrations, the popularity of a President skyrockets once a war is started. Trump's popularity could reach over 90% by 2020 under those conditions, such is the state of the American electorate. 3. With a thin-skinned angry adolescent as commander in chief, is another war possible to avoid with so many juicy targets to select?

I think you're probably wrong about the 8 years, Landroid. The president hasn't shown that he knows any real limit to to norm-breaking behavior, and besides that he could easily step much farther into abuse of power and illegality. It has only been 6 months, for pity's sake, and look what we've gotten. I think it's entirely fitting, furthermore, to act with appropriate disgust at his leadership, even if, politically, impeachment can't happen just yet. If the key thing to be determined is fitness for office, we know right now, don't we, that he's unfit. Symptomatic of his unfitness is the recent tweetstorm against the news anchors. Engineering his exit takes some maneuvering and patience, I do take your point there.

Trust me, I hope I'm wrong about 8 years too! But W got re-elected after starting and mismanaging the Iraq war, so clearly we need to seriously consider that possibility.

The 25th amendment is another way of removing the President. That is gaining momentum, but it would require approval from his cabinet. If you saw that video clip of his cabinet sycophants where Reince Priebus stated it is a "blessing" to serve Mr. Trump, you know this will go nowhere.

Four more House Democrats have signed on to a bill to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump after his Twitter rampage against MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski. Yahoo News reported Saturday that 25 House Democrats are now working on the bill, which has been in the works since April. The bill's primary sponsor is Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). The bill would create a congressional “oversight” commission that could declare the president incapacitated, leading to his removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... each-trump

HAPPENING TODAY: ‘Impeachment’ march on Capitol steps at 9 a.m.
A march in support of the impeachment of President Donald Trump will be held Sunday morning starting at 9 a.m., according to the Facebook page and website for Impeachment March Austin.
...“On July 2, 2017 in Austin, Texas, we march in solidarity with Impeachment March across the country to demand the removal of Donald J. Trump from the office of the president.”
http://www.statesman.com/news/happening ... qE1qbpEyH/

Looks like Democrats will screw it all up by repeating the mistakes Republicans made under Clinton: proceeding before you can deliver the goods.

Just to add, I also think that his latest tweet against the MSNBC presenters is impeachable. When the time comes to list the articles of impeachment, that should be on it. We might be at risk of becoming desensitized to his misdemeanors. To use the power of his office to viciously attack two citizens who exercised their constitutional right to speak out shouldn't be allowed to continue. One Republican summarized: "This is not normal." That conviction could spread further in Trump's own party.

Pres. Trump will not be impeached unless he does something blatantly illegal, which I don't believe will happen. The Constitution makes impeachment and conviction of a President very difficult for a reason. As previously posted, only 2 presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been impeached-neither one convicted. In Johnson's case it came down to one vote. Clinton's wasn't even close.

Trump opponents don't have the votes to do this right now.