Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

....but Barr was not an honest man, as has been shown repeatedly since then (and many times before)


You disrespect every member of the administration - and any man running for president (should have boosted someone in the primary) on the Republican line
Then you favor them when they leave Trump's side.
Sad consistency.

No, but you can believe that if you want to.

Everything I said about Barr from before he was appointed was known to be true. And everything he has done since getting the job has illustrated my point, with his outrageous misrepresentation of the Mueller report merely one of many instances of his mishandling of his position.

And I still think Mitt is a slime puppy, even though he is not beloved of or by Trump. I did not stop respecting Mad Dog or Kelly while they worked for Trump.

But as long as he hires lobbyists to be in charge of their regulation, I will have problems with them.

As long as he hires people who use their positions to advance their own interests ahead of Americas, I will have problems with them.

As long as he hires sexual predators, I will have problems with them.

And that you don't says far more about you than it does about me.

[josh]

Grifter-in-chief

Go prove it.

You say that immediately after looking at the proof.

I dont see the Presidential seal on the tweet

When was the last time you did see one?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1191409674656059392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1191409674656059392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdonald-trump-book-promotion-donald-trump-jr-triggered_n_5dc1289ee4b03d0aacff7a4e

[josh]

Grifter-in-chief

You are looking for the wording "while in office"

Cannot "while in office" endorse any.....

Isnt worded that way, sorry.

No, his Twits are official correspondence, Kid. That's already been established. You must have been sleeping.

[josh]

kiidcarter8 has read some Trump Tweets about Turkey/Syria so is now an expert in the region.

Don't read em - sorry

You post them without reading them?

Color me skeptical.

[josh]

What should "kill" everyone who loves this country is that the whistleblower, a hero whose vigilance in protecting democracy should be universally acclaimed by all patriots, must stay anonymous for fear of violent reprisal against his family and himself.


Thats not why he is anon.

It's not all of why s/he is anonymous, but it surely is part of it.

But with the GOP lying about what the law says and doing everything it can to get the person's name into the press, what do you think is the purpose of the anonymity?

[josh]

Who is the candidate?

Don't know yet, REDSTATEWARD.  I know you exist in a WSJ bubble, but you should know the Democrats have not yet nominated a candidate.

Naturally, who that person will be matters.  But the point I was making stands:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/year-election-day-democratic-presidential-contenders-extend-leads/story?id=66664948

LOL.
Then why run the risk of screwing up a sure thing by an Impeachment failure?

Because Trump is betraying this country.

Duh.

[josh]

Who is the candidate?

Don't know yet, REDSTATEWARD.  I know you exist in a WSJ bubble, but you should know the Democrats have not yet nominated a candidate.

Naturally, who that person will be matters.  But the point I was making stands:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/year-election-day-democratic-presidential-contenders-extend-leads/story?id=66664948

LOL.
Then why run the risk of screwing up a sure thing by an Impeachment failure?

I know you saw because you are such a good reader where I noted that there are battleground states where Democrats have their work cut out for them.  At no time did I claim that anything was a "sure thing." 

Well I guess you learned that lesson from Hillary.

What I was pointing out was the absurdity that anyone would see Trump as so electorally invincible that impeachment would be the only way to unseat him when, as I said (again) he is the least popular POTUS in history.

Again. Why put the country through a farce of Impeachment? Why not coalesce around a democrat message that would defeat a highly unpopular President?
Does the party have a message beyond hating trump?

Ask Lindsey G about the farce question.

And yes, tons of messages, but you ignore them whenever convenient, then complain about them when it is not.

[josh]

82%, not 92%.

However, 18 percent of GOP respondents indicated they want Trump removed from office by impeachment, a number that has increased in recent weeks from single digits.   

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-support-trumps-impeachment-rises-18-percent-poll-shows-1469234

I wonder if we should factcheck your other figures, as well. 

   Independents favor Impeachment at about 38%.   

47%, per the more recent polling.

Hmm.

Even at your numbers  the Impeachment/removal arrow still points to zero.

As did Nixon's at one point.

[Hairy Lime]

Who is the candidate?

Don't know yet, REDSTATEWARD.  I know you exist in a WSJ bubble, but you should know the Democrats have not yet nominated a candidate.

Naturally, who that person will be matters.  But the point I was making stands:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/year-election-day-democratic-presidential-contenders-extend-leads/story?id=66664948

LOL.
Then why run the risk of screwing up a sure thing by an Impeachment failure?

I know you saw because you are such a good reader where I noted that there are battleground states where Democrats have their work cut out for them.  At no time did I claim that anything was a "sure thing." 

Well I guess you learned that lesson from Hillary.

What I was pointing out was the absurdity that anyone would see Trump as so electorally invincible that impeachment would be the only way to unseat him when, as I said (again) he is the least popular POTUS in history.

Again. Why put the country through a farce of Impeachment? Why not coalesce around a democrat message that would defeat a highly unpopular President?
Does the party have a message beyond hating trump?

Yes. That the type of conduct Trump has engaged in as President is unacceptable and an abuse of the office.  As someone currently back pedaling furiously once noted, "Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

[josh]

An example of why I hold most of this president's senior appointments in disdain:

https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/08/23/trumps-new-press-secretary-has-2-dui-arrests-was-fired-for-plagiarism-and-cheating-on-expenses/?fbclid=IwAR2_jyZ1zsfZ6xbYUYUzRWAjzlVlms6fqOT2uH-Tb6_oBU-DbDG9Tc4N7qc

[REDSTATEWARD]

Who is the candidate?

Don't know yet, REDSTATEWARD.  I know you exist in a WSJ bubble, but you should know the Democrats have not yet nominated a candidate.

Naturally, who that person will be matters.  But the point I was making stands:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/year-election-day-democratic-presidential-contenders-extend-leads/story?id=66664948

LOL.
Then why run the risk of screwing up a sure thing by an Impeachment failure?

I know you saw because you are such a good reader where I noted that there are battleground states where Democrats have their work cut out for them.  At no time did I claim that anything was a "sure thing." 

Well I guess you learned that lesson from Hillary.

What I was pointing out was the absurdity that anyone would see Trump as so electorally invincible that impeachment would be the only way to unseat him when, as I said (again) he is the least popular POTUS in history.

Again. Why put the country through a farce of Impeachment? Why not coalesce around a democrat message that would defeat a highly unpopular President?
Does the party have a message beyond hating trump?

Ask Lindsey G about the farce question.

Why?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Even at your numbers  the Impeachment/removal arrow still points to zero.

A few things. 

1)   I don’t know why you would assume that these numbers stay static.  A plurality of Americans support impeachment and removal before there is a single public hearing on the matter.  That’s further along than Nixon was at this point. There are four witnesses on record supporting that there was quid pro quo/extortion.  That’s four opportunities, at least, for Dems to put Trump’s corruption front and center and four times that America will see Republicans utterly unable to defend it.  Those numbers are going to get worse for Trump.

2)   There is almost no number that will lead to Trump’s impeachment because it isn’t public sentiment preventing it from happening (again, most support it already) but congressional Republicans that will endure any amount of corruption if it means they can pass more tax cuts and ram in more unqualified judges on the courts.  Sure, if say 90% of America supported it Republicans would come around for their own survival, but they seem content to carry only the 40% Trump base at the moment, and that isn’t going anywhere.

3)   Obviously, no one is going in to this expecting enough Senate Republicans to vote for removal.  But anyone who cares about the rule of law and fairness of our elections is concerned that doing nothing sets the precedent that these misdeeds are acceptable, and they are not.  And it forces Republicans to at least face the possibility of paying a political price for their support of corruption (which of course they absolutely should) and if having hearings and forcing the facts to come out about Trump’s corrupt dealings cost him nothing politically then there is something wrong with America.

[NeedsAdjustments]

An example of why I hold most of this president's senior appointments in disdain:

https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/08/23/trumps-new-press-secretary-has-2-dui-arrests-was-fired-for-plagiarism-and-cheating-on-expenses/?fbclid=IwAR2_jyZ1zsfZ6xbYUYUzRWAjzlVlms6fqOT2uH-Tb6_oBU-DbDG9Tc4N7qc

I'm more concerned with her backing that people who disagree with Trump's politics are "human scum" but yeah, Trump isn't getting the best people.  The best people wouldn't work for him.

[bambu.]

BUILD THAT WALL!

VOTE FOR TRUMP!

MUST keep Mexican drug cartels OUT of America!

Mexican drug cartels will hijack your car and slaughter you and your whole family!
Adults, children, babies, they slaughter the lot!

Mexican drug cartels are the scum of the earth!

BUILD THAT WALL TO KEEP THEM OUT!

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/us-mum-bravely-saved-her-baby-as-9-family-members-killed-by-mexican-drug-cartel/ar-AAJSVQb?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000

[REDSTATEWARD]

Even at your numbers  the Impeachment/removal arrow still points to zero.

A few things. 

1)   I don’t know why you would assume that these numbers stay static. 

I never said they would. But right now they are not helping your cause.

A plurality of Americans support impeachment and removal before there is a single public hearing on the matter.  That’s further along than Nixon was at this point. There are four witnesses on record supporting that there was quid pro quo/extortion.  That’s four opportunities, at least, for Dems to put Trump’s corruption front and center and four times that America will see Republicans utterly unable to defend it.  Those numbers are going to get worse for Trump.

Your Nixon comparison is laughable. But you are right the numbers could change.

2)   There is almost no number that will lead to Trump’s impeachment because it isn’t public sentiment preventing it from happening (again, most support it already) but congressional Republicans that will endure any amount of corruption if it means they can pass more tax cuts and ram in more unqualified judges on the courts. 

Tax cuts and judicial appointments that require congressional or Senate approval are “corrupt” ?  Are you serious ?

Sure, if say 90% of America supported it Republicans would come around for their own survival, but they seem content to carry only the 40% Trump base at the moment, and that isn’t going anywhere.

So what does that say about the democrat numbers?

3)   Obviously, no one is going in to this expecting enough Senate Republicans to vote for removal.  But anyone who cares about the rule of law and fairness of our elections is concerned that doing nothing sets the precedent that these misdeeds are acceptable, and they are not.  And it forces Republicans to at least face the possibility of paying a political price for their support of corruption (which of course they absolutely should) and if having hearings and forcing the facts to come out about Trump’s corrupt dealings cost him nothing politically then there is something wrong with America.

Then prove an Impeachable offense.