Putting on my non-partisan hat, though, I am nervous about the precedent of removing a president from office iff it is seen as a partisan move. The removal of Trump without widespread Republican support (as opposed to a small defecting faction) might be seen as precedent for a higher frequency of partisan impeachments - a danger to be weighed against (in my not-very-objective opinion) the dangers of a Trump presidency.
Downvote only if the comment detracts from the discussion, not just if you disagree.
Impeach only if the President commits crimes while in office, not just if you dislike the President's politics more than the VP's.
We already have a one-party state in which the Republican Party plays partisan hardball, as much as possible, to prevent elections from altering their control over the government. Why not fight back for once?
Pence is no foreign policy wiz but I'm not worried about him precipitating huge geopolitical shifts against America's interests.
If nothing else, it at least provides some stability.
So yes, Trump stepping down wouldn't mean much difference when it comes to his role as a head of government since his team seems to be handling that, but the head of state is still a very important role. Don't forget, he said,
"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything[,]"
essentially describing sexual assault, emphasized by me. Not to mention his poor demeanor, his lack of likeability, his unpopularity, the fact he was a reality-TV star. Having such an individual represent the nation is an embarrassment and does not inspire confidence in the nation nor does it abroad. Understand, no international body would respect Trump if he weren't the President. He does not prop us up as a country, he receives respect because we prop him up, and even then, he still depreciates his image by trying to project and strengthen his fragile pride and by involving himself in frivolous engagements on Twitter.
So yes, having a different head of state would be beneficial for us, at least in our view. It would not make much of a difference in terms of actual policy, but it would give us with a better representative, which isn't a difficult bar to exceed.
EDIT: I almost forgot, despite the politics of it, I do personally feel that a conflict of interest as a President is detrimental to the role as the head of government. We have already seen for example his orders on DAPL, which he still owns some shares of, a direct conflict of interest. And worse, of course, there are his foreign investments, which is worse from a national security standpoint. Sorry, but a head of government should represent us, not their own personal financial interests. You don't even need all my feeling about Trump as a figurehead, although that is important, but his conflicts of interests are a significant issue with him as an elected official.
Which is pretty much exactly how you would expect a "I have no idea what I'm doing but I don't want to fuck it up so I'll fill my cabinet with people who know what they're doing and let them do their thing" administration to work.
>Not to mention his poor demeanor, his lack of likeability, his unpopularity, the fact he was a reality-TV star. Having such an individual represent the nation is an embarrassment and does not inspire confidence in the nation nor does it abroad.
Are these seriously that much more important than how well the job gets done. On some level I don't care if the president is a member of the goddamn KKK if the job gets done well enough.
Sorry, but have to actually seen his cabinet? Ben Carson heading Housing and Urban Development. Betsy Davis heading Department of Education. Rick Perry, a guy with a bachelors degree in animal science, heading the Department of Energy... these people are some of the least qualified people on the planet.
You should
The fact that he is openly racist is one of the biggest marks against him
That's very true, if they're the sort of person you trust to put their personal feelings and opinions aside when they make decisions. If you don't feel they're that sort of person, you better hope their values align to your own.
I'm not so sure. I almost get the impression that he doesn't really care about a lot of those things except as a means to get that part of the republican base to the polls.
You're delusional if you think Trump will perform a first strike. That's complete nonsense.
He's a businessman, not a warmonger. His rhetoric is entirely along those lines as well.
Pence is at least a sane conservative theocrat
Trump is a lying corrupt racist who is extremely unpredictable and may or may not blow up markets, start wars, abandon our allies, or deport millions of people
Whenever I read something like this, I always wonder whether people posting it legitimately think this kind of rhetoric will advance their argument, or is it all just about social signalling.
If I was to criticize someone with the intent of changing others opinions about the person in question, the last thing I would do is interject my criticism with a bunch of derogatory and emotional labels. It would simply make me sound biased, irrational or extremely partisan/dogmatic.
And yet, this is exactly what people do, even in the media, who has all kinds of incentives to project a rational and detached image. Extreme social signaling is the only explanation I can come up with.
He may be (most likely is) corrupt but, as has been extensively discussed elsewhere, it is not clear that has done anything strictly illegal, which makes it tricky to say definitively.
He definitely spouts outrageous lies all the time, though.
Legalized corruption remains corruption. It was when Clinton did it, and it is when Trump does it.
I'm not the one who commented that, but I think it's simply true and easily demonstrable given any widely-accepted definitions of the terms. Will saying it "advance an argument"? I don't know. But it is true.
If you are correct, you must know something that most people who are willing to bet money on their opinion do not.