I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia.

You all are drinking too much liberal koolade. The socialists aren't invading the republican party. They know dems will believe anything their party higher ups tell them. Their news feeds keep them up up date on the latest propaganda that they think will overthrow the current potus.

I heard last week, that some firmly believe that only bureaucrats should remain in power. To me, that sounds a lot like a monarchy. Our ancestors left Europe because they hated the king's rule. We fought a war because we wanted to be independent. Are we gearing up for another one? I think it's already started.

President Trump isn't going anywhere, no matter what paranoid , mindless dolts throw at him. He has done so much good for this country that the law abiding and America loving people will NOT let soulless democrats fulfill the unpatriotic agenda by spreading filth and lies to remove a successful president just because he makes the last president look like a joke( albeit a bad one). With Obama on the stump bosting of himself on the Trump economy , he's sure to get the republicans to the poll for a victory in November.

Oh, this is GOOD. Socialists INVADING the Republicans? Are you serious? It looks like the Republicans themselves are trying to figure out how they can move on from Trump. Trump might be making them nervous with all the pissing off of the allies, etc. I am not sure, but the party might be breaking ranks with the president.

"I heard last week, that some firmly believe..." Cite your sources, or admit that that sounds like BS. I mean, I heard a bunch of stuff last night from a drunk in a bar, but I am not leading with that here.

"We fought a war because we wanted to be independent. Are we gearing up for another one? I think it's already started." That's exactly what I am saying, I think the Republicans are realizing that the demagogue at 1600 might not be in their best interest to keep around, and that they are planning to put another Republican in the chair. Like I say, I saw it on FoxNews, the Republican mouthpiece. If I saw it anywhere else, I could discount it as you all would, but it is coming from the oracle...

where is the name calling? Making things up doesn't steer people to your side. We know the game being played by liberal dems. And our refusing to follow your rules and play your game is pis* ing off the democrats and making them so volatile that they are hurting their chances in the November election.

Again with the name calling? And stating he has done "so much good for this country" is a hollow opinion. Prove what he has done.

Then you try to change the subject with BLM? WHERE did THAT come into the conversation about the 25th Amendment? HOW is that even close to being relevant? My god, you are arguing like the president now, rambling and grasping for anything.

Oh, and I will tell you AGAIN, you assume I am a Democrat. You are WRONG.

I will agree with you that "President Trump isn't going anywhere", because he just goes around in circles, blaming Obama, blaming this, blaming that, while nothing is getting done. N Korea denuked yet? Nope. Mexico paid for that wall? Nope. All of Obama's unconstitutional EOs rolled back? Well, yes, because it comes to pass, there weren't any. The list goes on, he is a fraud, and his followers are too scared to admit as much.

I don't know if Trump will finish out his term. It just seems that there are Republicans now that are examining ways to get him gone... Like I say, I heard it on Fox News, so it MUST be true.

I don't know where that BLM crap came from. I did not text anything about BLM . Some how the quote area bleed into that quote . ??? Sorry about that! But if you want proff of trumps success just look at the Econ. Numbers. Surly you can't argue w/ that.

not sure about agenda but the text reads:

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3]


it SOUNDS as if the President can submit a written declaration that he is able.

BUT THEN, within FOUR DAYS, the VP and a majority of officers can submit to Congress that he is unable.

and THEN "congress shall decide the issue" within 21 days, with a two thirds vote of Congress if President continues or if VP continues as acting President.


,,, according to the text. It can be argued that having VP take over as 'acting' President is not actual removal, but the effect is generally the same thing.

Thanks for the clarification on BLM. No problems!

And the economy is doing good, but Trump can't take credit for it, he is riding off of the success that the previous administration had in pulling us out of the Bush Recession. If it had been 8 years of McCain Palin that faced down the same mess and fixed it, I would be giving THEM the credit. Trump has done nothing to spur the economy, you just have to look at the charts and see the straight line growth. There WAS a big bump in November 2016 that he can possibly take credit for (however, it happens every time the House, Senate and Exec Office are the same R or D), but those gains were again lost in Q1 2017, and the economy fell right back into the same line of growth they had been seeing in the last years of Obama.

Like I say, no matter which team won in 2008, they had a tough job ahead of them. Obama had to take some tough actions: when he took action and stopped the automatic re-upping of unemployment benefits, it started whittling down the unemployment numbers. One can argue that it was a "false improvement" because it just meant the long term unemployed were no longer being counted, so the number improved by attrition, but it broke a lot of folks off the dole too.

I get it, conservatives hate Obama, but only someone who doesn't understand economics can say that Obama and his team didn't take on a tough task with the economy and get it tuned up again. And Trump is just riding those results by taking no action.... As ANY succeeding president would have.

Oh, and as a postscript to my last posting:

If the last months of Obama's presidency showed that we were heading for recession, the resulting recession, even though it happened during Trump's presidency, could not be blamed on Trump. It is the way it goes.

For example, some Dems say that there were TWO Bush recessions, one the beginning of his term, one near the end. That is not a valid statement. The market was cooling after the dot-com bubble burst, and a lot of money was taken off the table, by many means. Mostly it was people who didn't understand the market, and who should not have been in the market, buying stocks they disn't research because of "Fear of missing out" Clinton's previous Laziez faire (somebody correct my spelling) approach to the market during the bulk of his term was not a correct approach at the end. Lots of things like e-trading were also new, so it was a bit of uncharted water.

In any case, W inherited a tough economy which was not his doing. The "second" recession of his 8 years was all his, however.

Comments attacking other members have been deleted..kindly
address the topic and leave personal drama off the forums.

soufie
Site Admin

I have to disagree...when Clinton was in office, the economy was great gas was at 87 cents a gallon, there was no big deficit.... Things started to go bad after 9/11....but Clinton did do something somewhat suspicious - one of the last bills he signed was lowering the score for credit worthyness for people who can't afford homes to get a home...take a guess whos corporate names were on that bill.. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/28/is_clinton_the_real_housing_crash_villain_130707.html

As shown by these big barns people put up, and had the nerve to call them houses. They are currently finding out that those aren't bringing them the vast riches that they were told they would reap.

These grand dumps don't look so hot when they find out the materials that put them together aren't available anymore.

Clinton also at the same time travelled with top Enron executives to countries like Russia. Another thing that makes you wonder...…..

Ahh, disagreement from a man who self-admits in another thread that he doesn't know economics. And another biased article? The cheers for Trump in it should have given it away. If it was the Clintons that caused the "second" Bush recession (the first one, as I have already stated, can't be blamed fully on Bush, but on the burst dot-com bubble), why was the action not taken by the Bush administration until 2005, as clearly stated in the article? That is after Bush's second term started. Possibly Bush was under pressure from his friends on Wall St to leave it just so?

Gas was indeed .87 a gallon under Bill Clinton, and shot up to over $4, when W invaded Iraq. One could speculate that a president in the oil business would KNOW that gas would go way up if they invaded a country (one which had nothing to do with 9/11), and what effect it might have on the economy. Hey, his advisors (which were mostly advisors from his dad's administration) didn't think they would make the same mistake twice....

Hmmm, now that you bring it up, I am trying to think, did the price of gas go UP or DOWN during the Obama administration? I seem to recall it was under $2 for a most of Obama's second term.

I am going to need a citation on that one. Enron CEO Ken Lay was a big friend of Chaney, who was having meetings with him in the White House after the election (Read the book "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"). Enron and Dynegy were not big fans of Bill's, and they both wer big backers of the Bush-Chaney ticket. WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers (or as I referred to him in meetings at the time, "Uncle Bernie") was a Clinton guy, but never traveled to Russia.

yea, all the repubs I talked to back all said the same thing - "what does the president have to do with oil prices?" Bushes family owns just about every oil well in Texas, and his VP built them all... Not to mention the desiel fuel is a by product from making gas, and should never be higher than gas... But what people didn't think about was 95%of all the war machines ran on desiel fuel...

Well, the joke about Howard Dean (that idiot from Vermont, a dairy state) was "He just wants to get in the White House so that he can drive the price of MILK up, like Bush did for oil".

War in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which were connected to 9/11) was not as productive to Bush family fortunes as going into Iraq. The Saudis were not feuding with Afghans and Pakis, no oil there. But the Saudis had a big beef with Iraq, and had W come over to destroy the oil fields so that Chaney's companies (like Haliburton) could rebuild them... big money there for them. It is funny, they never found the great underground subway/ bunker system in Iraq (where Powell told the UN Saddam was hiding the WMDs, tunnels supposedly built by American firms)... unfortunately, that was a set-up, ruined Colin Powell's chance to run for president.

Also, War along the Straits of Hormuz upset shipments of oil, further raising the price. Reps can claim that a president can't influence the price of oil, but by waging war on the highway from the oilfields, the pres certainly can.

N JULY 5, 1995, Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant. Enron, then a growing giant in energy trading, practically had a reserved seat on Clinton administration trade junkets. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who egregiously linked political donations to government assistance, accompanied Enron chairman Ken Lay on a mission to India. Enron president Joseph Sutton was on the trip to Bosnia during which Brown lost his life in a plane crash (Sutton was not on Brown's plane at the time). After Brown's death, Enron's Terence Thorn, a $1,000 donor to the Clinton-Gore campaign, traveled with Commerce Secretary William Daley to South Africa. Ken Lay also traveled with Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary on her trade trips. There were other contacts between Enron and the Clinton administration. Ken Lay was a close friend of Mack McLarty, Clinton's first chief of staff. In his 1993 disclosure statement, Robert Rubin listed Enron as one of the firms with which he had had "significant contact" while at Goldman Sachs. Enron was represented by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the firm where Clinton advisers Robert Strauss and Vernon Jordan worked. And Enron benefited from its government contacts during the Clinton years. After Lay's trip to India with Ron Brown, Enron received nearly $400 million in U.S. government assistance so that it could build a power plant south of Bombay. According to reports in the Houston Chronicle at the time, the Export-Import Bank kicked in $298 million, while another federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, put up $100 million. In February 1995, David Sanger of the New York Times wrote a fascinating insider account of how the deal had been consummated. Enron had been the lead bidder to build the new power plant. Jeff Garten, then undersecretary of commerce for international trade, created what he called "our economic war room" to push the American firm's interests. The State and Energy departments were enlisted to press Enron's case. According to Sanger, the U.S. ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, "constantly cajoled Indian officials." The CIA performed some risk analysis and investigated rival British companies. Clinton himself was involved in starting the India effort for Enron. According to Michael Weisskopf of Time, Clinton scrawled a note to McLarty telling him to help with the project. Support for the Bombay power plant was just a small part of the help Enron received from the Clinton administration. All told, Enron received over $4 billion from OPIC and the Export-Import Bank for projects in Turkey, Bolivia, China, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Under Clinton, the Commerce Department was proud that it was finally using the might of the U.S. government to assist favored firms. But the enterprise was plagued by constant criticism that somehow it always seemed to be big political donors that got most of the help. According to the Boston Globe, all but three of the recipients of OPIC aid during Brown's tenure were substantial Democratic donors. According to a study by the Center for Public Integrity, Enron, U.S. West, GTE, McDonnell Douglas, and Fluor donated a combined $563,000 to the Democratic party during 1993 and 1994 and received $2.6 billion in foreign contracts secured with government help. The Globe found that during the first Clinton term, 27 firms had donated $2.3 million to the Democrats and received nearly $5.5 billion in federal support. All of this is not to deny that Enron was primarily a Republican donor. Nor is it to minimize the connections between Enron and the Bush administration. Rather, the connections between the Clintonites and Enron remind us that the scandal is not the donations. The scandal is what gets done by federal officials in return for the donations.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/david-brooks/enron-and-the-clintonites-2065

Wrong again. Gas was up over $3 a gallon in 2008, and then again from 2011 to 2014. It NEVER got below $2 a gallon during obama's tenure.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/