Impeachment proceedings against Trump

Thank you Science chick - this sums it up for me:
"This is not about Democrats trying to find revenge for losing the election, this is about our country being under attack by an enemy and us needing to come together as Americans to defend ourselves."

Because that's really what it is for me. I don't vote for a party, some do, but I vote for who ever I think will do a good job. Many think as I think Mr. P does - that "this Russia thing" is about him. (it may well be - but I am still trying reserving judgment on that portion of this problem) The real problem is that our country is under attack and our president does not want to do anything about it. He does not even want to admit that there is a problem. "This Russia thing" - the "witch hunt" is about them trying to derail our system, influence our culture, mislead our people and maybe just create one generally gigantic problem of all of us arguing with everyone else over who is right and wrong. I don't know what their end game is, but when you have all of your intelligence agencies telling you in no uncertain terms that the Russians are doing these things and you refuse to do anything about it.... or to even confront him? are you acting as our president? Do I think he should have jumped up and down and yelled at the summit? no - that will solve nothing, but his response to this is also not going to solve anything and it really is not what I expect from an American president.

"In 2016, our country was targeted by an attack that had different operational objectives and a different overarching strategy, but its aim was every bit as much to devastate the American homeland as Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The destruction may not send pillars of smoke into the sky or come with an 11-digit price tag, and there’s no body count or casualty statistics—but the damage done has ravaged our institutions and shaken our belief in our immovability. But two years on, we still haven’t put any boats or men in the proverbial water. We still have not yet acted—just today, President Donald Trump, a beneficiary of this attack, exonerated the man who ordered it: Russian strongman Vladimir Putin."

I have not seen this level of hysteria since the last time someone not a democrat was in the White House.

My lifetime has spanned most of the cold war and for almost a third of it I was involved in it.
Some of you dare to tell me what I think. I say carry on. While you are at it continue to cast aspersions on every one who does not see it your way. I am sure it will change a lot of hearts and minds. I will wait for November seventh.

After months of attacks by the Left for every little thing. Example, they call President Trump a Putin puppet, but he just forced NATO to get stronger. A Putin puppet would not do that. Trump also increased the defense budget. Calm down.

Blazer Bob wrote: "In 2016, our country was targeted by an attack that had different operational objectives and a different overarching strategy, but its aim was every bit as much to devastate the American homeland as Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The destruction may not send pillars of smoke into the sky or come with an 11-digit price tag, and there’s no body count or casualty statistics—but the damage done has ravaged our institutions and shaken our belief in our immovability. But two years on, we still haven’t put any boats or men in the proverbial water. We still have not yet acted—just today, President Donald Trump, a beneficiary of this attack, exonerated the man who ordered it: Russian strongman Vladimir Putin."

I have not seen this level of hysteria since the last time someone not a democrat was in the White House.

My lifetime has spanned most of the cold war and for almost a third of it I was involved in it.
Some of you dare to tell me what I think. I say carry on. While you are at it continue to cast aspersions on every one who does not see it your way. I am sure it will change a lot of hearts and minds. I will wait for November seventh.

It's not clear whose thoughts you're using here, because you didn't attribute them. But those thoughts are indicative of concern, not hysteria. A concern that is entirely warranted for those of us who want to live in a society with a legitimately elected political leadership.

FredHayek wrote: Trump...just forced NATO to get stronger.

Explain.

Brandon wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Trump...just forced NATO to get stronger.

Explain.

Only person who has said that NATO is 'stronger' is trump, who now is setting new records for the lies per day, way than we have seen since he started his campaign. I believe trump, don't you?

And yet several NATO members, like Germany, are realizing they need to change how the view their relations with US from friend to adversary and are realizing they may not have the support of the US thru NATO moving forward.

It appears Fred and Bob are OK with this level of russian cyber warfare is OK as long as THEIR party is the beneficiary, I guess that the 8 years of derangement over things like President Obama wearing tan suites and asking for grey pupon are equal to our concerns over putin owning our american president and a good part of the gop. This is the clearest example of party over country that I think I have ever seen.

I think Bob and Fred are more thane happy to change their colors from Red/White/Blue to Red only to celebrate the putin/trump bromance. As long as it under a republican president.

driver8 wrote:
I think Bob and Fred are more thane happy to change their colors from Red/White/Blue to Red only to celebrate the putin/trump bromance. As long as it under a republican president.

Thanks Driver for helping me come out of the closet.

I am generally not one to wade into a heated debate, however, this topic is concerning me and I guess I feel compelled - I will probably regret it I am not going to attack anyone on here, as I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, as I believe I am. You do not have to agree with me, and I do not have to agree with you. As a general rule however, I feel like we should all be considerate of others regardless of whether or not we agree on certain issues, and as for me, I always try very hard to take other peoples thought processes into consideration, see ever side of an issue before forming an opinion. This argument to me however, comes down to the nuts and bolts of who we are as a country. We are Americans. Certainly there are many different religions, political parties, and so and so and so on, but when it comes down to the bones of it, do we not all believe that the US has the right to a free and fair election process (among other things of course) ? And if that process is being tampered with by a foreign country, Russia or otherwise, is it now the duty of our elected officials to remedy that, to ensure we truly have a free and fair election.
If in fact you do not believe our election is being tampered with, then I guess my argument here is not worth reading, or if you do not believe that if they are trying to tamper with it they will succeed then again, my argument is irrelevant.
But if you do believe, basically all of our intelligence sources, including the Presidents top appointed by him advisors, who all say that Russia is actually attempting to tamper with and has in some way or other infiltrated our elections process (and I am not talking about collusion here - the jury is still out on that one for me - I want facts before I weigh in on that argument) then should we not be 100% trying to put an end to that? Shouldn't our elected officials be trying to put an end to that?
So on to my argument: I'm reading the news early this morning, over breakfast and the President has said he meant to say "wouldn't" when he said "would"... ok, I'm not really buying that - he is supposedly a world class negotiator and that's a pretty big booboo to make, particularly in those circumstances, but ok, that's an admission and a correction and I can leave the rest of it where it is. I'm solution oriented. How ever we get to the solution... lets just fix it.
However, he then also says he has faith in our intelligence community and then undoes his own damage control: "I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place," Trump said during a meeting with congressional members at the White House, before couching his comments with: "Could be other people also; there's a lot of people out there."
Then around noon there is this interesting tidbit: "President Trump, who has been under fire for not aggressively confronting Russian President Vladmir Putin over election interference, on Wednesday said he believes Russia is no longer targeting the United States.
“Thank you very much, no,” Trump said in response to a question from a reporter about whether Russia is still targeting the United States. He also asserted no president has been tougher on Russia than him.
“I think President Putin knows that better than anybody, certainly a lot better than the media.” Trump told reporters."
In between those two stories, there is a story on Fox from Newt Gingrich where he says the President has corrected his error: www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/18/newt-...putin-and-obama.html
I can only suspect that Mr. Gingrish's story came about before Trump walked back his comments from this morning.
- So for folks like me, who try to read from multiple sources before forming an opinion, how is anyone, including those of you who believe everything he says, suppose to have a clue where he really stands on Russia and whether or not they tampered or are still tampering with our election?
from his own team: "Last week, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats said Russia and other countries are continuing to target American businesses, the government and other institutions and “the warning lights are blinking red.” “These actions are persistent. They’re pervasive, and they are meant to undermine America’s democracy on a daily basis, regardless of whether it is election time or not,” In his remarks, Coats said the intelligence community continues to see efforts by Russian actors to manipulate U.S. public opinion, including through the use of fake social media accounts. He also sounded the alarm about potential attacks on U.S. infrastructure or the financial system."
(Obviously I am copying and pasting out of numerous news articles - if anyone would like the citings I will be happy to provide those)
But how do those of you who are believers in President Trump muddle through the constant contradictions of what he says?
And can you see from my perspective that I have difficulty knowing what he says is true or won't be changed later to maybe the total opposite of what he said, when so much of what comes he says is repeatedly corrected, altered or what ever they want to call it to make sense of it? And then maybe, as in this case, it is changed again later? I have always been one to try to find the good in things, believe people until they give me a reason not to, be a glass half full kind of person, but I am really just to the point where I do not feel like I can reasonable rely on anything that comes out of the White House. Now if that makes me a hysterical leftist, I guess you can label me what ever you want. I'm not exactly packing my bunker at the moment, it takes a lot to make me hysterical, but that doesn't mean I feel like I want to just walk around believing what ever is said, when so often it changes, maybe before the next news cycle even starts.

Parkcobounty,
Please do not conflate interference in a political campaign with manipulating an election.

British odd makers have Trump being impeached by the end of the year at 2-1. I don't think the English understand that the GOP House and Senate are not in any hurry to get rid of President Trump. The only way I could see impeachment is if the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2018. And even then, it would probably take 6-9 months after they are seated in January of 2019.