THE ERA OF TRUMP

[StCapps]

Trump, Trump, JFK, if the Democrats Pocahontas themselves in 2020, but then the window has closed in all likelihood for Pence, If I was Pence's people, I would be poised to take Trump down, right now, just do it deniable from the shadows and ride to the rescue as the Domestic Tranquility candidate.

Yeah best thing for Pence is a Trump impeachment and he gets to run in 2020, that's for sure. Good luck with that Pence, you are going to need it.

[Smitty-48]

Trump, Trump, JFK, if the Democrats Pocahontas themselves in 2020, but then the window has closed in all likelihood for Pence, If I was Pence's people, I would be poised to take Trump down, right now, just do it deniable from the shadows and ride to the rescue as the Domestic Tranquility candidate.

Yeah best thing for Pence is a Trump impeachment and he gets to run in 2020, that's for sure. Good luck with that Pence, you are going to need it.

The problem is, there isn't likely a smoking gun to take Trump down with, there is no Nixon tape to execute the coup de tat, whatever Trump has done, I seriously doubt it amounts to a felony, and only a felony, smoking gun tape to prove it, is going to take a President down in the senate.

They basically have to have Trump himself, smoking gun, cutting a deal with Vladimir Putin, what are the odds Trump actually did that? Obstruction of justice is not enough, that's just ends with censure and carry on, to remove a President from office, they need the whole kibbutz.

Trump himself, talking to the KGB, specifically committing a felony therein, or feggit about it, if you don't got that you got nothing.

[ssu]

Trump doesn't need a third party to smash Pocahontas, she stands no chance at all of beating him, hence the McGovern comparison.

Think so?

What did the election forcast for the 2016 election look like in 2012-2013?

We have been only one year into this Trump, so what happens in two or three years... who knows.

Yeah best thing for Pence is a Trump impeachment and he gets to run in 2020, that's for sure. Good luck with that Pence, you are going to need it.

If Trump is impeached (or resigns), Pence still has a lot of baggage of just what he knew etc. And Pence has to take somehow the GOP into control.

The problem is, there isn't likely a smoking gun to take Trump down with, there is no Nixon tape to execute the coup de tat, whatever Trump has done, I seriously doubt it amounts to a felony, and only a felony, smoking gun tape to prove it, is going to take a President down in the senate.

Never underestimate the stupidity and cluelessness of Trump and his inner circle.

[StCapps]

Trump, Trump, JFK, if the Democrats Pocahontas themselves in 2020, but then the window has closed in all likelihood for Pence, If I was Pence's people, I would be poised to take Trump down, right now, just do it deniable from the shadows and ride to the rescue as the Domestic Tranquility candidate.

Yeah best thing for Pence is a Trump impeachment and he gets to run in 2020, that's for sure. Good luck with that Pence, you are going to need it.

The problem is, there isn't likely a smoking gun to take Trump down with, there is no Nixon tape to execute the coup de tat, whatever Trump has done, I seriously doubt it amounts to a felony, and only a felony, smoking gun tape to prove it, is going to take a President down in the senate.

They basically have to have Trump himself, smoking gun, cutting a deal with Vladimir Putin, what are the odds Trump actually did that? Obstruction of justice is not enough, that's just ends with censure and carry on, to remove a President from office, they need the whole kibbutz.

Trump himself, talking to the KGB, specifically committing a felony therein, or feggit about it, if you don't got that you got nothing.

and that's why Pence need all the good luck he can get, and a miracle on top.

[Smitty-48]

You know it wasn't even Watergate that took Nixon down, Watergate was political dirty tricks, the GOP was actually prepared to ride that out to the end of the term, what took Nixon down, was ordering the plumbers to break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's doctor and spy on his medical records, that was the felony that blew Nixon up, that wasn't political dirty tricks against the Democrats, that was going after a private citizen, and that was the bridge too far for the GOP, that's when they all turned on him.

[ooky]

Our immigration law has traditionally had three stated primary goals: 1) reuniting families, 2) supplying employers and 3) protecting refugees.

I could not find this with Google. I don't remember it from Law School either. (In fact, I remember something else.) Could you please provide a link?

I remembered this from a poli sci course in school, but found this link:

https://cis.org/Rethinking-Purposes-Immigration-Policy

Predominant among these revealed goals is that of family reunification preferential admission of immediate and extended family members of citizens and legal residents. This goal has been an axiom of Congress in nearly four decades of immigration legislation (including the just-enacted Immigration Law of 1990), making kinship the determinant of the bulk of our immigrant selection.

Ranking second as a revealed objective is the admission of refugees. Underlying our generous refugee policy is an array of psychic motives: "affirmations" of American-ness, expressions of national generosity, acclamations of freedom, and votes of confidence in growth and change. These emotional underpinnings are expressed internationally as the need to vindicate particular foreign policies, to "embarrass" an adversary, or to celebrate America's status as the winning model of what a society should be.

A third revealed goal, distant in importance behind either family reunification or the admission of refugees, is to meet labor force needs. Although the 1990 Immigration Law more than doubles the numbers of skills-based immigrants, they will still constitute less than ten percent of the total.

[StCapps]

Trump doesn't need a third party to smash Pocahontas, she stands no chance at all of beating him, hence the McGovern comparison.

Think so?

What did the election forcast for the 2016 election look like in 2012-2013?

We have been only one year into this Trump, so what happens in two or three years... who knows.

Only two incumbent POTUS's have lost their second term re-election bids in the last 100 years, Carter and Bush Sr.

Elizabeth Warren is no Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, she's more like George McGovern. You do the math, because my math works out to = Pocahontas doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell against Incumbent POTUS Trump.

[Martin Hash]

Our immigration law has traditionally had three stated primary goals: 1) reuniting families, 2) supplying employers and 3) protecting refugees.

I could not find this with Google. I don't remember it from Law School either. (In fact, I remember something else.) Could you please provide a link?

I remembered this from a poli sci course in school, but found this link:

https://cis.org/Rethinking-Purposes-Immigration-Policy

Predominant among these revealed goals is that of family reunification preferential admission of immediate and extended family members of citizens and legal residents. This goal has been an axiom of Congress in nearly four decades of immigration legislation (including the just-enacted Immigration Law of 1990), making kinship the determinant of the bulk of our immigrant selection.

Ranking second as a revealed objective is the admission of refugees. Underlying our generous refugee policy is an array of psychic motives: "affirmations" of American-ness, expressions of national generosity, acclamations of freedom, and votes of confidence in growth and change. These emotional underpinnings are expressed internationally as the need to vindicate particular foreign policies, to "embarrass" an adversary, or to celebrate America's status as the winning model of what a society should be.

A third revealed goal, distant in importance behind either family reunification or the admission of refugees, is to meet labor force needs. Although the 1990 Immigration Law more than doubles the numbers of skills-based immigrants, they will still constitute less than ten percent of the total.

That’s somebody’s pipe dream.

[Okeefenokee]

Our immigration law has traditionally had three stated primary goals: 1) reuniting families, 2) supplying employers and 3) protecting refugees.

I could not find this with Google. I don't remember it from Law School either. (In fact, I remember something else.) Could you please provide a link?

I remembered this from a poli sci course in school, but found this link:

https://cis.org/Rethinking-Purposes-Immigration-Policy

Predominant among these revealed goals is that of family reunification preferential admission of immediate and extended family members of citizens and legal residents. This goal has been an axiom of Congress in nearly four decades of immigration legislation (including the just-enacted Immigration Law of 1990), making kinship the determinant of the bulk of our immigrant selection.

Ranking second as a revealed objective is the admission of refugees. Underlying our generous refugee policy is an array of psychic motives: "affirmations" of American-ness, expressions of national generosity, acclamations of freedom, and votes of confidence in growth and change. These emotional underpinnings are expressed internationally as the need to vindicate particular foreign policies, to "embarrass" an adversary, or to celebrate America's status as the winning model of what a society should be.

A third revealed goal, distant in importance behind either family reunification or the admission of refugees, is to meet labor force needs. Although the 1990 Immigration Law more than doubles the numbers of skills-based immigrants, they will still constitute less than ten percent of the total.

I'll take fakenews, for a thousand.

[Smitty-48]

and that's why Pence need all the good luck he can get, and a miracle on top.

They got nothing, if they had something, it would have come out by now, they don't got the smoking gun, because Trump didn't pull the trigger, anything Trump did, is going to be tangential, exploiting something somebody else did, no smoking gun of Trump doing it himself. At best, they'll take down some underlings, but it won't get all the way to Daniel Ellsbergs doctors office, I place the odds of Trump having personally ordered something like that, on tape, as being nil.