LAAMike

With several old candidates, some of which are leaning toward dementia, the Veep pick would seem to be more important than usual.

The chokepoint is the Straights of Hormuz. They can basically disrupt the oil supply from the middle east.

Good to see a Stanford Cardinal on the Angels. At least he is not a dummy.

...and well before the September 30 deadline. Again, this was just a delay and ultimately the aid was not withheld.

Trump seems to be a little late with the wave - could he have been distracted by the fan in pink?

I rather think that Mulvaney was spot on when he said that there was an intended quid pro quo and that this is a standard part of dealing with foreign governments - we want something and they want something. Clearly the quid pro quo did not happen as Trump is smart enough to know that going through with the withholding of aid would have been an illegal act and the OMB could not come up with a legal way around this. I still contend that this kind of political consideration is involved in just about everything that all Presidents do as they are the head of their respective political parties and getting reelected or staying in power is and should be one of their goals. This partisan and clearly political activity does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Having personally met four Presidents, I can tell you that being intelligent is not a requirement for that office. Trump seems to have pretty good political instincts so I would not support your statement that Trump doesn't understand anything. Yes, Trump can be a jerk but I merely attribute that to him being a New Yorker. I certainly support less government but I voted for Trump for two reasons - Mrs. Clinton and the Supreme Court. The only Democratic candidate I support is Andrew Yang. As you can probably tell, I am fairly old and have too much time on my hands but I certainly enjoy politics and I spend a lot of time reading about the current situation and trying to understand it and I do not "just make up bullshit".

It is a very real concern of mine that most voters will feel the same way and tune out the whole impeachment process. Fortunately November, 2020 will bring all of this to a conclusion. With the media coverage being so partisan (both ways) I cannot imagine how the independent voters will decide. If this results in lower turnout (voter fatigue) which party will that help?

I am not in a position to comment on the CIA's activities. But it certainly seems that our enemies and some of our allies are not hesitant to use their intelligence resources towards all sorts of ends. This may be more effective and certainly more cost effective than sending our troops. I would think in general that any government selected by its people in a fair election should not be the object of the CIA's activities. I am also not impressed with the CIA's track record when we did engage in these activities. This forum is focused on all things Trump and what I think about these matters is not of great import.

Why is it a problem when the POTUS and his party are merely using politics to advance his and his party's agenda (which most certainly is to get reelected or to remain in power among other things)? It seems like this happens all the time in politics. I cannot see any laws that were broken and certainly do not regard this kind of activity as rising to the level of an impeachable offense.

I do not support the use of US troops for regime change or regime supporting efforts. I do feel strongly that we should defend our embassies and their personnel. At the end of the Iraq war we had over 100,000 troops in country. Today we have less than 5,000.

What's illegal about delaying aid as long as the disbursement does occur within the prescribed time limits (which was the case here)? Delays happen all the time and are certainly not limited to this administration.

The aid was not withheld it was simply delayed as a hammer to further the President's agenda. You may not like Trump's methods ignoring the State Department and his Ambassadors (who were not supportive) but he is not afraid of doing things in an unconventional manner. Trump is a fighter and his base certainly sees this and responds.

Although I am not a big fan of sending our troops overseas, this is certainly better than the previous administration's support of Benghazi.

In an attempt to refocus this topic on Trump, I would like to argue that the argument made by the pro impeachment folks that the "call" was an attempt to advance the President's personal interests is too expansive. All presidents are the head of their respective political parties and as such have an interest in keeping themselves and/or their party in power. Getting reelected is not a personal matter but a key political matter. All decisions made by the President should be mindful of those decisions effect on reelection and politics in general. I am not saying that politics should be the primary driver behind any decision but politics should certainly should be a factor. We vote for a President or a party based on our perception of his and his party's agenda and we are poorly served if the party or the President is not kept in power to carry out this agenda.

I certainly apologize for using the Bold function in error.

The question in my mind is whether those living in crippling poverty are well served by federal government programs. The only good reason for the federal government to be involved in welfare is to make sure that the safety net is relatively uniform across the country. Trump does not seem to fall into the normal conservative goal of limited government and he is certainly not fiscally conservative. I think that as voters we are concerned about our personal financial situation rather than the overall economy. I am personally somewhat well off (a combination of luck, my parents, hard work and some good choices) but the Trump tax cuts have not helped me as I live in CA and the SALT limits have adversely affected my family's taxes.

It would be better if we just concentrated on Tdawgs mother's problems with SNAP. Was her award diminished and if so, why? We all know that you can only have very few assets and qualify for SNAP and that the disqualifying limits on income are very low (130% of the poverty line). But it seems that the mother's qualifying stipend went down for some reason. I cannot blame Trump for this without knowing the surrounding facts. The fact that Tdawg's mother is sharing her SNAP dollars with her son definitely has nothing to with Trump. I would think that we all would be better served if we understood the facts and possibly concentrated on helping Tdawg's mother (GoFundMe?) rather than assuming that Trumps to blame.

Defeating ISIS on their home turf is far superior to waging that battle in the USA. After 9/11 I would have thought that fighting global terrorism would be something we all supported.

In the case of fire departments and police, through local taxes and/or property taxes. Public education should be paid for and administered as close as possible to the local level (the role of federal taxes for education should be limited to funding for the disabled). Infrastructure should be the only case where there is a strong need for federal involvement. Most of our federal tax dollars go to defense, foreign aid, financing the national debt and various entitlement programs.

You do realize that these airstrikes are retaliation for bombs that killed an American citizen and wounded several other Americans?

I think that we can all agree that this is another government program that is screwed up beyond belief. I do not understand how some states allow the deduction of child support from gross income (in determining income thresholds) and some states do not. I do not know where your mother and your brother reside and what state your brother's divorce adjudication was finalized but I have a hard time understanding why your brother must pay his ex wife's mortgage payment unless that was agreed to by both parties in the divorce settlement. Tank is right that your brother may need a good divorce attorney to revisit the divorce settlement.

Gotta love the AW "Trumped" forum. There is something for everyone here from discussions about Nancy Pelosi's tits to Mama Mia movies and some great "gifs".

I love that bald Cory Booker introduces legislation to make discrimination over "black hair" unlawful.

I strongly disagree. If Trump was to get 20% of the Black vote, it would be a landslide for Trump.