Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the 5/1 that President Trump will be impeached during his
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the 5/1 that President Trump will be impeached during his first term is not an attractive bet
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Have I missed something?
Clearly if Trump falls then Pence takes over, and I'm not sure which is the worse choice. Pence hasn't, so far as I know offended anyone personally, especially senior Republicans, and might not get into the same amount of bother with Congress as Trump has the capacity to do.
http://news.sky.com/story/imaginary-man-comes-second-in-list-of-best-known-meps-in-wales-10660086
I agree with your logic of waiting to see how the new president's first few months in office go before considering the bet. Trump's first 100 days in office will be very interesting to watch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38008471
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38008954
It does look an unlikly process, with the only real prospect being that Trump being so extremely incompetent and erratic that a fully controlled Republican Congress and Senate would depose him. That would require them putting country before party, so very unlikely.
The media are making a tremendous fuss about Trump appointing two by Day 7. Look at previous post holders.
Ari Fleischer
Based on history, don't expect news yet about most major appointments. I just found this from my transition files. https://t.co/GF2NIcIXeE
For the reasons Fishing sets out it is highly possible that we might have a repeat with the process starting but an actual impeachment? I would say no chance.
I wonder if there is a fly-on-wall camera crew following the President Elect around? Now that I WOULD watch....
Would I take the bet at 10/1?
Probably not even then. I'd be looking for something closer to 20/1. A successful impeachment is far less likely than the proceedings alone being initiated.
But it would have to be for something significant that passed the sniff test, with broader nationwide unpopularity, so I'd still be looking for something aroundabouts 20/1.
It's intended use is if the President was incapacitated, but it was discussed with Reagan to invoke S4 on the grounds of him being unable to fulfil the duties required of the job. It's also much easier than impeachment and can be done very quickly if required. It's not impossible, if the Republican leadership around him think he's completely nuts.
So declaring the President mad for his actions in government could be seen as punishment of the gulity by the guilty, unless the President peformed a completely mad action by himself.
Another big disadvantage is that the process has to declare the President "disabled", and if he is obviously NOT disabled, just lacking in judgement, it would of course get tied up in the Supreme Court. I'm no lawyer, but it would strike me that it would have a good chance of winning.
Excellent thread by the way.
Trump isn't going to be impeached. But the fact that he lost the popular vote by what is clearly going to be a substantial margin is going to be repeatedly thrown at him as well as giving a lot more prominence to the movement in states to overturn the Electoral College in future (by passing state laws requiring delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if the total of electoral college votes in states requiring this exceeds 270). As such that I think it has the potential to do serious damage to Trump's legitimacy as President especially if and when things start to go off the rails, causing serious damage to his prospects in 2020.
One example from the other day, this guy was CEO of an IT security company!
http://mashable.com/2016/11/15/ceo-fired-trump-facebook-threat/#ZyB9SABoGEqx
"I'm going to kill the president. Elect. Bring it Secret Service."
He'll be getting a visit from the SS every time the President visits San Diageo - for the rest of his life.
Interesting thread, Mr. Fishing. I'm always a bit wary of long-term bets, because the money's locked away for a long time and the value gets partially devoured by inflation too.
Michel Barnier's negotiating approach for the EU appears to favour not settling anything at all that's permanent as part of the Article 50 talks. We'll haggle over a transition agreement.Whereas the UK government wants to get an all encompassing settlement in place.
If the agreement is term limited with guillotine clauses it could depress confidence in investments the UK. eg banks can continue to trade on the current basis, for a fee, until 2025. After that it will depend on what's negotiated in treaty talks. When it comes to investment decisions, companies could think Britain is just not worth the uncertainty, we'll go to France or the Netherlands instead A possible reason for accepting Barnier's approach would be that the transition agreement is good enough from our point of view not to walk away from it and end up with the so-called WTO default,*. It may also be that the EU side is constitutionally and practically constrained from agreeing to British proposals in the timeframe, even if they wanted to. And it holds out the prospect of a better permanent deal layer.
* Which would also have to be negotiated with the EU and others. Negotiations that would be complicated by not having a prior agreement with the EU
Wind back to about 07:07.
Several options here - including AV!
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#proportional
So many have lost their minds. TBH, I put much of the responsibility at the feet of the media. They've spent months demonising Trump - no wonder those who are overly susceptible to confirmation bias have a totally warped fear of him.
The interviews with many of the protestors demonstrate that they've nothing but the vaguest idea why they hate him. But they HATE HIM !!!! It's like Salem witch trials in 2016.
It's a joke.
One thing I remember from university in the early 90s is that my American politics professor was convinced Clinton would be impeached. This was before the 94 mid-terms, long before anyone had ever heard of Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky or stained dresses. I've always admired him for that call, just as I've always admired an American friend who tipped Apple as a great company to buy in 1997!
There's a huge difference between saying you wish someone ill, and saying that you personally are going to go and kill them - this guy is in the crap big time.
I imagine that a President Clinton would have been just as difficult for the SS to protect - those who really hate her are also traditionally the ones who love their firearms!
Personally, I find them much more reasonable now than just after 9/11. Maybe it's because I'm older, but I think also the fact that they can check you out with ESTA before you get on the plane.
Anyway, after experiencing Israeli immigration, I'm never badmouthing Britain or America again.
Political Tweets: A Play in Three Acts. https://t.co/OsnPWDk6Kp
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
A guy who worked for me back in the late 80s made a stupid joke whilst waiting in line at Miami - he got pulled out, quizzed for hours in a box room, strip searched and deported the same day. He was only there for a day between transfers. He couldn't get a visa to go back. No messing about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/16/busy-tories-are-reason-pollsters-keep-predicting-wrong-results/
I once got 'caught' trying to smuggle an apple into Canada (I'd forgotten to eat it on the flight) and had to strain every sinew not to respond with incredulity and sarcasm to the customs officer.
Look at what happened here for years, fewer and fewer people voted, all the same they said, won't make any difference to my life.
Last time round, there was a solid difference - Cameron was going to have to give the people a referendum on the EU. Suddenly it's not just management, it's a real chance for a vote to change something.
The USA in that respect is probably no different. For years, the choice has been one of only cosmetic importance.
Out of 44 Presidents so far a grand total of 0 have been successfully impeached. I'd want odds of at least 45/1 to be tempted.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/colour-psychology-and-anatomy-of-advert.html
""They've spent months demonising Trump", wasn't that mostly just reporting what he said and did?"
No doubt.
Actions seems to be irrelevant nowadays. Trump says he's going to build an impossible wall (just think of the construction costs, and unless you shoot those trying to get in cf Berlin, it won't be effective), stop all Muslim immigration (until you've sorted out the problem) - not going to happen, etc. And all dependent on him being elected. It's rhetoric, and similar to what some people would say in a bar. And as likely to happen.
It's all a bit Monty-Pythonish. Like the Piranha brothers .. "He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes. "
Suggesting you're going to shoot the president deserves censure, but I doubt very much if they're serious. There's plenty in the UK who do that. I suspect they won't be threatened with extradition.
Also in their defence, it looks like they swung hard in the last week.
Despite being the most pacific and sweet looking person I always get stopped by security at airports - setting off alarms everywhere, despite taking everything off which could possibly trigger them. It is becoming quite tiresome having to strip off every time. It's getting to the stage where I'm just going to go to the airport in my nightie, bring my clothes and get dressed after I've had security clearance.
Not exactly lies. More ... "If I were President, I'd soon sort out those (insert appropriate villain here)." But exact details can wait for another time.
Autres temps.....
That's nice, All numbers looking excellent this week.
That said, Trump is not Nixon in character or in politics. He is not of his party and it might more easily desert someone its establishment never wanted in the first place than someone like Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, had they entered the White House. Similarly, Nixon resigned because he knew the way the wind was blowing. Trump has triumphed against the odds, against the opinions of commentators and so-called experts, and might well feel confident that he would do so again, were he faced with impeachment proceedings.
I reckon that 20/1 would probably be par for the bet.
I reckon they think most terrorists won't fly luxury.
Best story I ever heard was a pal's Pa who received a stern talking too after having tried to get 6 shot cartridges through security that were in his favourite Barbour.