PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on November 20, 2019, 04:15:54 PM
-
The radio, and Fox news no less, I just listened to the report; that was the opening line of the 5:00 news!!! I just finished hearing the guy's testimony myself and that is NOT WHAT HE SAID. He said that it was his own presumption that it was QPQ and that nobody else told him that but that "everybody knew it" meaning everybody presumed it, but when he actually talked to Trump and asked Trump what he wanted with Ukraine Trump said, "Nothing, no quid-pro-quo." And when asked if he had any evidence that it was QPQ his answer is no.
Sounds to me like the headline should be "It was NOT quid-pro-quo!"
-
The radio, and Fox news no less, I just listened to the report; that was the opening line of the 5:00 news!!! I just finished hearing the guy's testimony myself and that is NOT WHAT HE SAID. He said that it was his own presumption that it was QPQ and that nobody else told him that but that "everybody knew it" meaning everybody presumed it, but when he actually talked to Trump and asked Trump what he wanted with Ukraine Trump said, "Nothing, no quid-pro-quo." And when asked if he had any evidence that it was QPQ his answer is no.
Sounds to me like the headline should be "It was NOT quid-pro-quo!"
They're grasping. The dims were stupid enough to go along with Schitt, and he assured them this was going to work. And the MSM is all in with them.
Yet the normal people simply aren't buying it.
-
It's not working. Impeachment failed. Next scandal.
-
It's not working. Impeachment failed. Next scandal.
should we have a betting pool on what the next "scandal" will be?
-
should we have a betting pool on what the next "scandal" will be?
NYT is investigating an incident where the President may have ripped the tag off of a mattress several years ago.
-
-
I'm reminded of the farside cartoon, What we say to dogs, What they hear.
All the TDS-ers can hear is "Trump" and "Quid pro quo"
-
What's wrong with Schiff's eyes? They look...normal...
-
Did they not abandon QPQ in favor of bribery after it didn't focus group well?
-
Did they not abandon QPQ in favor of bribery after it didn't focus group well?
Yeah, but then they moved on to extortion because it sounded worse.
-
The Media continues to call Opinion, Innuendo, and Anonymous sources FACT, and EVIDENCE in an attempt to make Trump look guilty. If they had anything real, we'd know by ,now. This is another Mueller style Media/Democrat Coup attempt.
The Media lies need to be exposed, and broadcasted to the American people, and NO PBS, and NPR are NOT credible news sources.
-
Found this....
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1197491328206213121?s=20
-
groundhog day....
-
I guess it wasn’t QPQ:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/20/sondland-no-one-said-trump-ukraine-aid-investigation/
-
I guess it wasn’t QPQ:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/20/sondland-no-one-said-trump-ukraine-aid-investigation/
How come Fox couldn’t report it that way?
-
How come Fox couldn’t report it that way?
Paul Ryan, Board of Directors, Fox News.
Need I say more?
-
Paul Ryan, Board of Directors, Fox News.
Need I say more?
Well, as you know, the Murdoch sons are leftist, Progressive, Globalists. They probably wear skinny jeans, have man buns, drink lattes and eat avocado toast. I don't get FNC anymore but I do read about them , go to their website as well as CNN's, NBC's and others. It is obvious Chris Wallace of FNC is now full blown, Trump hating Progressive. He's just like his Dad. An inside the beltway, leftist CLOWN.
-
I'm surprised Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson haven't been fired.
-
I'm surprised Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson haven't been fired.
Ratings.
-
Ratings.
This.
-
I thought the left didn’t care about ratings.
-
I thought the left didn’t care about ratings.
Money talks. Bullshit walks.
Just ask hunter biden
-
-
I thought the left didn’t care about ratings.
Somebody’s got to pay the bills to keep the lights on. Those people are called Carlson and Hannity.
-
should we have a betting pool on what the next "scandal" will be?
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
Are you talking about Obama?
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
BTW, My world never "came crashing down around me" as you predicted. But yours sure did. ;D
-
BTW, My world never "came crashing down around me" as you predicted. But yours sure did. ;D
LOL! Trump will be re-elected. The Dems have no one that can touch him. Plugs? No. Crazy Bernie? No. Fauxcohontas? No. Gay Pete? No.
Go Trump, best President since Reagan, and a better all around President. Russia, Russia, Russia! Fake effing news!
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
Sucking on the cocaine straw again?
Check you sit line to see why so few respect your blind, partisan attack.
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
Welcome back Kristin. From some of the other replies you received, I don't expect you to stick around, but I hope you do. It gets boring agreeing with everyone all the time. I don't think I will have that problem with you.
Oh, btw, if I had an army of reporters that hated me, sniffing around everything I do, say, or throw away 24/7, they would surely come up with something they could call a scandal too.
-
Yes, welcome back Kristin! :) :) :)
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
This from someone who claims she is “Militantly moderate?” Right.
I presume you have proof of such corruption? I ask because the democrats and MSM have spent millions of dollars and three going on four years in investigating Trump, and have come up with exactly nothing.
Since you’re looking at a 30-year timespan, do you consider Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to investigate Conservatives to be corrupt? How about the Clintons, who used their Foundation to launder money for influence and personal gain? (Read the book “Clinton Cash” if you haven’t heard this before.). Is that “corrupt” in your world?
-
This from someone who claims she is “Militantly moderate?” Right.
I presume you have proof of such corruption? I ask because the democrats and MSM have spent millions of dollars and three going on four years in investigating Trump, and have come up with exactly nothing.
Since you’re looking at a 30-year timespan, do you consider Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to investigate Conservatives to be corrupt? How about the Clintons, who used their Foundation to launder money for influence and personal gain? (Read the book “Clinton Cash” if you haven’t heard this before.). Is that “corrupt” in your world?
Better yet, stay tuned for the Durham Investigation. We are about to see the very definition of corruption be exposed.
-
So it's been three years and one of our liberals that fled after election night has returned.
Is JeffDG far behind?
-
So it's been three years and one of our liberals that fled after election night has returned.
Is JeffDG far behind?
I'd like to see Jeff come back too.
-
LOL! Trump will be re-elected. The Dems have no one that can touch him. Plugs? No. Crazy Bernie? No. Fauxcohontas? No. Gay Pete? No.
Go Trump, best President since Reagan, and a better all around President. Russia, Russia, Russia! Fake effing news!
Support for Trump among blacks has doubled since 2016. If this is a continuing trend, 2020 is completely sewn up for Trump. If blacks flip en masse, the Democrat Party is dead.
-
I'd like to see Jeff come back too.
He's still suffering massive butt hurt. And he has a massive butt, so, makes sense. ;D
-
This from someone who claims she is “Militantly moderate?” Right.
I presume you have proof of such corruption? I ask because the democrats and MSM have spent millions of dollars and three going on four years in investigating Trump, and have come up with exactly nothing.
Since you’re looking at a 30-year timespan, do you consider Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to investigate Conservatives to be corrupt? How about the Clintons, who used their Foundation to launder money for influence and personal gain? (Read the book “Clinton Cash” if you haven’t heard this before.). Is that “corrupt” in your world?
Yes indeed, Kristin, back up your statement. I’m listening.
-
Tried to have breakfast with Jeff while passing through Knoxville bit he had an early meeting so we couldn’t make it happen.
-
This just in!!!!
New Scandal for Trump!
Washington, DC-
Today President Trump "pardoned" two turkeys presented to the WH as gifts. An anonymous whistleblower immediately filed a complaint with the IG Office alleging a phone call was made between the President and the farmer that owns the turkey farm. This phone call, which was heard by a friend of a guy who's cousin works in the WH stated there was a "Quid Pro Quo" in exchange for the pardon.
Upon hearing this, Adam Schiff has cut short his holiday and is enroute to Washington to prepare subpoenas for the farmer, and his farm hand Elmer.
-
Are you talking about Obama?
Of course not! Trump learned his art from the mafia, apparently.
-
Of course not! Trump learned his art from the mafia, apparently.
Kristen,
I'll make it easy for you....
You disappeared when your hand picked Corrupt-o-crat got destroyed at the voting booth.
Now you reappear and make insanely stupid claims about our President and think you should be taken seriously?
Go back on your meds, sister. Your psychosis is showing.
-
Of course not! Trump learned his art from the mafia, apparently.
Ah, ok.
Care to explain?
-
BTW, My world never "came crashing down around me" as you predicted. But yours sure did. ;D
My world is fine. The country is worse off. As for crashing, stand by for next November. I have always considered, as I have stated many times, the disaster will be making the GOP a minority party and letting the Dems take the country further left that would be good.
-
Ah, ok.
Care to explain?
Progressive whack jobs don't explain.
They emote.
-
My world is fine. The country is worse off. As for crashing, stand by for next November. I have always considered, as I have stated many times, the disaster will be making the GOP a minority party and letting the Dems take the country further left that would be good.
Oh great!
So you're back for a repeat performance? So which one of the dims will you be casting your vote for come next November?
-
Kristen,
You disappeared when your hand picked G5 demo shell to you on SO 10888150Corrupt-o-crat got destroyed at the voting booth.
Now you reappear and make insanely stupid claims about our President and think you should be taken seriously?
Go back on your meds, sister. Your psychosis is showing.
I hope you have some idea what you are talking about. I certainly don't. I have no idea what a "G5 demo shell" is? ENGLISH! Do you speak it!
-
My world is fine. The country is worse off. As for crashing, stand by for next November. I have always considered, as I have stated many times, the disaster will be making the GOP a minority party and letting the Dems take the country further left that would be good.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
Blabber, Blabber, Blabber,,,,
Rinse repeat.
-
Oh great!
So you're back for a repeat performance? So which one of the dims will you be casting your vote for come next November?
Whichever one isn't Trump! Preferably not Bernie or Warren, but even then, the Congress won't support their most socialist aspirations as the country doesn't support them.
-
LOL! Trump will be re-elected. The Dems have no one that can touch him. Plugs? No. Crazy Bernie? No. Fauxcohontas? No. Gay Pete? No.
Go Trump, best President since Reagan, and a better all around President. Russia, Russia, Russia! Fake effing news!
Sure! You bet! That is why the Dems got control of the house. All because everyone loves Trump.
This election will be all about Trump. All the policy stuff is going to be irrelevant to the presidential race. I don't even think that it will be all that close.
-
Whichever one isn't Trump! Preferably not Bernie or Warren, but even then, the Congress won't support their most socialist aspirations as the country doesn't support them.
So you are willing to elect a Marxist type who is hell bent on destroying the economy and taking us back to the dark days of BHO?
So far the dims have told us they want free healthcare for illegals, open borders, free college, higher taxes on the middle class, oh, and " Medicare for all!". And don't forget all the promises of "free stuff".
And to add in, let's kill babies up to the day of birth.
And you seriously support this?
-
Sure! You bet! That is why the Dems got control of the house. All because everyone loves Trump.
This election will be all about Trump. All the policy stuff is going to be irrelevant to the presidential race. I don't even think that it will be all that close.
It won't be close. Trump will score even higher in the EC this next round.
TDS is very real, isn't it?
-
This from someone who claims she is “Militantly moderate?” Right.
I presume you have proof of such corruption? I ask because the democrats and MSM have spent millions of dollars and three going on four years in investigating Trump, and have come up with exactly nothing.
Since you’re looking at a 30-year timespan, do you consider Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to investigate Conservatives to be corrupt? How about the Clintons, who used their Foundation to launder money for influence and personal gain? (Read the book “Clinton Cash” if you haven’t heard this before.). Is that “corrupt” in your world?
No answers, Kristin? Certainly you can back up your claims.
If you’re trying to be a troll, you have some work to do in that regard.
-
So Kristen...
Other than in the tiny, closed minds of people with your lack of realtionshop with reality, what is it about record low unemployment, lowest unemployment of blacks and outstanding economics makes the country in such bad shape???
Your pathetic attacks against our President are as transparent as they are dishonest.
The only thing stirring your single brain cell, outrage is that he beat your hand picked, corrupt pig of a progressive without your permission.
What about the obama economy was SO much better than the Trump numbers?
NOTHING. That's what.
It's all in your tiny, malfunctioning brain.
-
Welcome back Kristin. From some of the other replies you received, I don't expect you to stick around, but I hope you do. It gets boring agreeing with everyone all the time. I don't think I will have that problem with you.
Oh, btw, if I had an army of reporters that hated me, sniffing around everything I do, say, or throw away 24/7, they would surely come up with something they could call a scandal too.
Thanks!
I was just too busy and may get that way again, but have a bit of time so thought I would see what the Always Trumpers were up too. I see that the new trend toward civility has yet to take hold here.
Press has always dogged the POTUS. That is their job. Trump just keeps throwing them raw meat. But is one listened to any of the hearings last week, it is pretty clear that the press is not making this up. Blaming Trump's problems on the press is a lie of Goebelian proportions.
-
Thanks!
I was just too busy and may get that way again, but have a bit of time so thought I would see what the Always Trumpers were up too. I see that the new trend toward civility has yet to take hold here.
Press has always dogged the POTUS. That is their job. Trump just keeps throwing them raw meat. But is one listened to any of the hearings last week, it is pretty clear that the press is not making this up. Blaming Trump's problems on the press is a lie of Goebelian proportions.
You Are LYING to make believe that your lie is true if you repeat it enough.
-
So you are willing to elect a Marxist type who is hell bent on destroying the economy and taking us back to the dark days of BHO?
As Trump has proved, the POTUS is not a dictator, despite his best efforts. Bernie would never get his crazy ideas past Congress.
So far the dims have told us they want free healthcare for illegals, open borders, free college, higher taxes on the middle class, oh, and " Medicare for all!". And don't forget all the promises of "free stuff".
Of course, if you were completely informed and honest, you would know that it is only Bernie who is going that far. Warren is about 80% that far left and the rest of the field doesn't share all those extreme programs. Ultimately, the majority will prevail, assuming our Republic continues to function in accordance with the Constitution.
And to add in, let's kill babies up to the day of birth.
The majority will decide. Expect for early term abortion to be available and legal for the rest of your life.
-
You Are LYING to make believe that your lie is true if you repeat it enough.
This sentence needs a subject, not just adjectives and adverbs. ENGLISH!
-
As Trump has proved, the POTUS is not a dictator, despite his best efforts. Bernie would never get his crazy ideas past Congress.
Of course, if you were completely informed and honest, you would know that it is only Bernie who is going that far. Warren is about 80% that far left and the rest of the field doesn't share all those extreme programs. Ultimately, the majority will prevail, assuming our Republic continues to function in accordance with the Constitution.
The majority will decide. Expect for early term abortion to be available and legal for the rest of your life.
Thanks for evading my question (as you are evading others here). All bark, no bite.
TDS is real, right?
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh today!!
-
Thanks!
I was just too busy and may get that way again, but have a bit of time so thought I would see what the Always Trumpers were up too. I see that the new trend toward civility has yet to take hold here.
Press has always dogged the POTUS. That is their job. Trump just keeps throwing them raw meat. But is one listened to any of the hearings last week, it is pretty clear that the press is not making this up. Blaming Trump's problems on the press is a lie of Goebelian proportions.
I did watch the hearings. They were PATHETIC in that nothing was proved, it was a clown show.
But I'm sure you were all enthralled with your fellow attorney Schiff and his legal prowess. ::)
-
So Kristen...
Other than in the tiny, closed minds of people with your lack of realtionshop with reality, what is it about record low unemployment, lowest unemployment of blacks and outstanding economics makes the country in such bad shape???
All of this will go away if our Republic fails. Trumps constant attacks on our democratic institutions sows the seeds for future problems. Including the recent slowing of the economy. Pretty much the only thing Trump has done for the economy is to borrow a vast amount of money from our children in the form of higher deficits. No different that a welfare family getting a new credit card with a line of credit that they immediately go out and spend to the max. Just as that temporarily boosts the family's economy at the expense of the future.
What is it that you think Trump has actually done that has made this country great again?
The only thing stirring your single brain cell, outrage is that he beat your hand picked, corrupt pig of a progressive without your permission.
If Trump has been doing such a great job, how come you are as angry as ever?
What about the obama economy was SO much better than the Trump numbers?
Right now, we have about the same growth rate as the one that Trump inherited.
It's all in your tiny, malfunctioning brain.
Anger is a major malfunction. How do you explain yours?
-
I did watch the hearings. They were PATHETIC in that nothing was proved, it was a clown show.
But I'm sure you were all enthralled with your fellow attorney Schiff and his legal prowess. ::)
So Sondlund lied when he testified that everyone knew that Trump was squeezing Ukraine to make a public statement that they were investigating Biden, etc, so that Trump could beat that drum? What conspiracy theory accounts for a guy that gives Trump $1M and then lie to America? Love to hear the spin on that one.
-
Anger is a major malfunction.
Care to explain yours? Or are you just having a relapse of TDS?
BTW, that was real classy how you bolted and ran after the election 3 years ago. I suspect we will see a repeat in 2020.
-
I presume you have proof of such corruption? I ask because the democrats and MSM have spent millions of dollars and three going on four years in investigating Trump, and have come up with exactly nothing.
Let's see! Making money off a hotel he owns. Using taxpayer money, or the withholding thereof, to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection. Spending a ton of taxpayer money playing golf at his own resorts. And lest we not forget him calling out Obama for playing golf too much and then going on to play more than Obama did. That last is hypocritical. Using his own courses is corrupt.
Since you’re looking at a 30-year timespan, do you consider Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to investigate Conservatives to be corrupt? How about the Clintons, who used their Foundation to launder money for influence and personal gain? (Read the book “Clinton Cash” if you haven’t heard this before.). Is that “corrupt” in your world?
I haven't researched enough to know if Obama had his fingerprints on that one, but it was corrupt on some level. As for the Clintons, they did that after Billy Bob was out of office and you miss the corrupt part. It was not the foundation as their is no proof that the Clinton's personally pocketed any of that foundation money. What was shady was Billy getting paid $.5M for speeches that were only being paid in anticipation of Hillary being president.
-
All of this will go away if our Republic fails. Trumps constant attacks on our democratic institutions sows the seeds for future problems. Including the recent slowing of the economy. Pretty much the only thing Trump has done for the economy is to borrow a vast amount of money from our children in the form of higher deficits. No different that a welfare family getting a new credit card with a line of credit that they immediately go out and spend to the max. Just as that temporarily boosts the family's economy at the expense of the future.
What is it that you think Trump has actually done that has made this country great again?
If Trump has been doing such a great job, how come you are as angry as ever?
Right now, we have about the same growth rate as the one that Trump inherited.
Anger is a major malfunction. How do you explain yours?
How do you know when a progressive has ZERO credible argument?
They do what you are doing, which is pathetically regurgitate other people’s points and pretend that they are the opposite way around.
Did you sleep thru the weaponization of our government under the pathetic little princes obama? The attacks on freedom and liberty were virtually non stop, from SWAT teams at federal agencies with no reason, or logic, other than to suppress liberty.
Do you remember the painfully high unemployment numbers, or the way china and russia (your party’s favorite scapegoat for the lies you make up about our President) manipulated his little highness?
Of course not, because you have a closed mind and the only legitimate (that would be defined as - not a lie) thing you can accuse our president of is saying, “pussy.”
I remember the IRS targeting any organization that failed to support the failed dictator, princess barrack.
I remember $4 a gallon gas and your little hero saying he thought it should be twice as high.
I remember Fast and Furious and Benghazi, but you lost your mind on election night 2016 and still think pussy is an offense worthy of impeachment...
but only because you lost on election night.
I don’t explain my disdain for your mental illness. It explains itself, over and over again...
Your hatred of the rest of the country makes you sad, pathetic and disgustingly blind to anything smacking of truth, or reality.
Progressive is simply defined. It is another word for delusional.
By the way, not to undermine your carefully constructed house of lies, but if EVERYBODY knew that the President did something, how come there is no proof?
And if saying that there is no proof is good enough for you to excuse the corrupt-to-cart Hillary, how come it isn’t for the actual President?
Your hypocrisy is enough to choke an elephant to death,
-
Let's see! Making money off a hotel he owns.
He's removed from his family business. I guess you missed that part.
Using taxpayer money, or the withholding thereof, to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection.
Guess you missed the part where no money was withheld.
Spending a ton of taxpayer money playing golf at his own resorts.
What law does that break?
-
Care to explain yours? Or are you just having a relapse of TDS?
BTW, that was real classy how you bolted and ran after the election 3 years ago. I suspect we will see a repeat in 2020.
I am not the running around hurling childish insults and all butt hurt because someone disagrees with the echo chamber.
I moved to Alaska and had a nice busy time flying in one of the most beautiful places on the planet. Then the company shut down and I took a job back in the lower forty eight. Now I have a bit of time over the holidays so thought I would see if anyone had a cogent argument for Trumpism. I am beginning to think none of you have any.
-
He's removed from his family business. I guess you missed that part.
Guess you missed the part where no money was withheld.
What law does that break?
Removed, with his sons at his beck and call. You think that is removed?
Not all corruption is illegal, but the cases going forward on the emoluments clause will answer your question more definitively. It is interesting that you think what the Clinton's have done with their foundation to be corrupt, which is also legal. I suppose it would hurt too much to apply the same ethical standards evenly.
-
How do you know when a progressive has ZERO credible argument?
They do what you are doing, which is pathetically regurgitate other people’s points and pretend that they are the opposite way around.
Did you sleep thru the weaponization of our government under the pathetic little princes obama? The attacks on freedom and liberty were virtually non stop, from SWAT teams at federal agencies with no reason, or logic, other than to suppress liberty.
Do you remember the painfully high unemployment numbers, or the way china and russia (your party’s favorite scapegoat for the lies you make up about our President) manipulated his little highness?
Of course not, because you have a closed mind and the only legitimate (that would be defined as - not a lie) thing you can accuse our president of is saying, “pussy.”
I remember the IRS targeting any organization that failed to support the failed dictator, princess barrack.
I remember $4 a gallon gas and your little hero saying he thought it should be twice as high.
I remember Fast and Furious and Benghazi, but you lost your mind on election night 2016 and still think pussy is an offense worthy of impeachment...
but only because you lost on election night.
I don’t explain my disdain for your mental illness. It explains itself, over and over again...
Your hatred of the rest of the country makes you sad, pathetic and disgustingly blind to anything smacking of truth, or reality.
Progressive is simply defined. It is another word for delusional.
By the way, not to undermine your carefully constructed house of lies, but if EVERYBODY knew that the President did something, how come there is no proof?
And if saying that there is no proof is good enough for you to excuse the corrupt-to-cart Hillary, how come it isn’t for the actual President?
Your hypocrisy is enough to choke an elephant to death,
You need to take your blood pressure meds and lie down. You are spouting nonsense.
-
Care to explain yours? Or are you just having a relapse of TDS?
BTW, that was real classy how you bolted and ran after the election 3 years ago. I suspect we will see a repeat in 2020.
What about moving to Alaska was not classy? Don't you like Alaska? I wish I was still there, but my job went away.
-
I am not the running around hurling childish insults and all butt hurt because someone disagrees with the echo chamber.
I moved to Alaska and had a nice busy time flying in one of the most beautiful places on the planet. Then the company shut down and I took a job back in the lower forty eight. Now I have a bit of time over the holidays so thought I would see if anyone had a cogent argument for Trumpism. I am beginning to think none of you have any.
And you started out hurling childish insults, and now you act as if no one here has the right to question you. And you want to convince us that TDS is mainstream. ::)
It's also not surprising the latest progressive tactic is attacking Trump supporters in dire hope to separate the President from his base. And like everything else the dims have tried, that too will fail.
-
What about moving to Alaska was not classy? Don't you like Alaska? I wish I was still there, but my job went away.
I've spent time in Alaska. No thanks.
-
Removed, with his sons at his beck and call. You think that is removed?
Not all corruption is illegal, but the cases going forward on the emoluments clause will answer your question more definitively. It is interesting that you think what the Clinton's have done with their foundation to be corrupt, which is also legal. I suppose it would hurt too much to apply the same ethical standards evenly.
Those allegations on the "emoluments clause" have been debunked, long ago. Apparently they didn't teach constitutional law where you got your JD, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a a lame remark.
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
What is your source for making such claims about President Trump?
-
What about moving to Alaska was not classy? Don't you like Alaska? I wish I was still there, but my job went away.
I've spent time in Alaska, and would like to live there for a while. The hunting and fishing is great.
-
What is your source for making such claims about President Trump?
TDS
-
You need to take your blood pressure meds and lie down. You are spouting nonsense.
So....
Can’t respond with anything but bullshit and insults, while you whine about feeling insulted, and we’re supposed to be impressed?
Are you sure you’re not steingar’s other log in? The strategy is unmistakable.
Were you stoned throughout the obama administration? Is that how you fail to recognize any of it?
Or did your masters tell you your opinions AGAIN and forget to give you anything to back them up?
-
...
Or did your masters tell you your opinions AGAIN and forge5 to give you anything to back them up?
They couldn't forge5[sic] to give what doesn't exist...
-
So....
Can’t respond with anything but bullshit and insults, while you whine about feeling insulted, and we’re supposed to be impressed?
Are you sure you’re not steingar’s other log in? The strategy is unmistakable.
Were you stoned throughout the obama administration? Is that how you fail to recognize any of it?
Or did your masters tell you your opinions AGAIN and forge5 to give you anything to back them up?
Stop, please just stop. Give her a chance. Yes I am on your side, but just let her speak. PLEASE.
-
Stop, please just stop. Give her a chance. Yes I am on your side, but just let her speak. PLEASE.
Kristen took his ball and went home to cry and whine about evil republicans...
-
Kristen took his ball and went home to cry and whine about evil republicans...
Yes I know, and too bad for them. but Kristin earns my respect because she is a PILOT, and Steingar earns my respect because he is a PILOT, and others here earn my respect because they risk their lives to fly with PILOTS. That's who we are. I may not agree with them. but they all put their asses on the line as do you and I.
-
Yes I know, and too bad for them. but Kristin earns my respect because she is a PILOT, and Steingar earns my respect because he is a PILOT, and others here earn my respect because they risk their lives to fly with PILOTS. That's who we are. I may not agree with them. but they all put their asses on the line as do you and I.
In all fairness, Kristin did start this off with an inflammatory post, with no substance. And she has yet to back up any of her assertions, defaulting to worn out talking points.
-
In all fairness, Kristin did start this off with an inflammatory post, with no substance. And she has yet to back up any of her assertions, defaulting to worn out talking points.
Yes, OK, fine. But, we can call her out on that in a respectful manner. You want activity here? Be respectful. Yes. I am GUILTY as anyone.
We are Pilots and aviation enthusiasts first!!
-
I disagree.
The ONLY thing liberals want is to shut down all dissent to the Marxist agenda. Their behavior has been increasingly ugly, violent, corrupt and dishonest to the point that the republican majority has given ground until nearly all free speech has been destroyed.
Don’t believe it?
Try saying pussy and see what happens.
Make a queer joke.
Be overheard saying that their are only two genders on a college campus.
Call a whore a whore.
Mention black n black violence when liberals blabber about gun violence.
Say that fathers should be required to support the children they create, that women should buy their own birth control, and that skin color does not automatically entitle anyone to respect.
-
I disagree.
The ONLY thing liberals want is to shut down all dissent to the Marxist agenda. Their behavior has been increasingly ugly, violent, corrupt and dishonest to the point that the republican majority has given ground until nearly all free speech has been destroyed.
Don’t believe it?
Try saying pussy and see what happens.
Make a queer joke.
Be overheard saying that their are only two genders on a college campus.
Call a whore a whore.
Mention black n black violence when liberals blabber about gun violence.
Say that fathers should be required to support the children they create, that women should buy their own birth control, and that skin color does not automatically entitle anyone to respect.
OK, agree for the most part. But is scaring them away going to promote discussion? The reason we have pilot forums, I think is that we can discuss things with people that understand risk, reward and other VALUES., which we all adhere. Let's welcome dissenting voices.
-
Listening to Andrew Wilkow today, he had a caller that started in on him. He challenged Andrew on Trans genders saying "Trans genders are normal". Andrew told him there was no normal behavior with regards to trans gender, and the guy exploded. The segment ended with the caller in a tirade yelling "you're an asshole!!!!"
This caller just wanted to talk down and shout down Andrew. To Wilkows credit, he did try to engage the guy, but it was obvious the caller just wanted him silenced.
-
Liberal, progressives want everyone silenced and will resort to anything and everything, including violence to get it.
Exactly how many senior citizens have been assaulted by conservatives for attending liberal rallies?
How many senior citizen republicans have been assaulted by progressives for attending Trump rallies, or Anne Coulter speeches, or any other unapproved by liberals, political events?
How many registered democrats have committed mass shootings in the last two decades?
How many registered republicans?
What is the likelihood of being a black gun violence victim, with the shooting committed by a black person?
What is the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime committed by a white person on a black person?
When did it become toxic to recognize that transgenders needs psychiatric help, and not transitional surgery?
Why is it politically incorrect to mention that there are only two genders?
Why are ONLY. Conservatives urged to respect the opinions of progressives but not the reverse?
It’s all bullshit put in place to help helpless progressives win arguments without the slightest shred of integrity, truth, or facts on their side.
-
But is one listened to any of the hearings last week, it is pretty clear that the press is not making this up.
“Everyone knew it was quid pro quo.”
“Who told you that?”
“No one. But it was my opinion.”
“Did Trump tell you that?”
“No.”
“What did Trump tell you when you asked him what he wanted from the Ukrainians?”
“He said, ‘I want nothing from them. No quid pro quo. I just want them to do the right thing.’”
“So if Trump didn’t tell you (to withhold money in return for something) and no one else told you that’s what Trump was doing, then why did you say you believed it was quid pro quo?”
“It was my presumption.”
That was the only witness that actually talked to Trump. All other witnesses were hearsay and opinions.
Now you tell me how the headline that evening: “It was quid pro quo!” is the media not making stuff up.
-
OK, agree for the most part. But is scaring them away going to promote discussion? The reason we have pilot forums, I think is that we can discuss things with people that understand risk, reward and other VALUES., which we all adhere. Let's welcome dissenting voices.
Thank you Anthony. I disagree with Kristin too, but I have largely refrained from jumping in because with all the childish insults being hurled, anything I say would sound like more of the same. There are cogent arguments against everything she says, and some of them have been expressed, but it is hard to find them in between all the school yard taunts.
Rush's last post was a good one. No insults, just facts.
-
Kristin, let's take one point.
You said Trump increased the deficit. Are you aware that after the tax cuts, total Federal revenue increased. The reason the deficit increased was because spending increased faster than revenue. Yes, some of this was Trump's doing, but most of it was beyond his control.
But how does one blame tax cuts for increasing the deficits if revenue increased during that time? What would the deficit have been if the tax cuts had not been enacted?
-
I hope Trump addresses the deficit and debt second term, but I am not holding my breath. It is really up to Congress and we all know the Establishment Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats.
-
I hope Trump addresses the deficit and debt second term, but I am not holding my breath. It is really up to Congress and we all know the Establishment Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats.
I think Trump will get an awful lot done in his second term; assuming he wins and takes back the House.
I believe he was blindsided by the deviousness and tenacity of "the swamp".
I think the reason the Rs lost the House in 2018 was because of the energized Hillary supporters turning out en-mass. And because a lot of people were surprised and turned off by his style. But now, I think, a lot of people are starting to understand him more. And I think "the Squad" and Bernie and Lizzie are the best things to happen to Trump, outside of the impeachment farce.
If I am right, I think we are in for a few more good years. If I am wrong, :'( :o >:(
-
Thank you Anthony. I disagree with Kristin too, but I have largely refrained from jumping in because with all the childish insults being hurled, anything I say would sound like more of the same. There are cogent arguments against everything she says, and some of them have been expressed, but it is hard to find them in between all the school yard taunts.
Rush's last post was a good one. No insults, just facts.
She is a troll.
Just like steingar,, pretending to argue a point, but only repeating what she knows is a pathetic lie.
Projection is her only argument and it’s pathetically weak.
-
She is a troll.
Just like steingar,, pretending to argue a point, but only repeating what she knows is a pathetic lie.
Projection is her only argument and it’s pathetically weak.
Never-the-less, she is a human being and she is a pilot and the party line goes "everyone is welcome here".
Here's an idea; try to counter her position with facts and try to do that without using the words "pathetic" or "communist". I know you can do it. I have seen it two or three times from you.
-
Never-the-less, she is a human being and she is a pilot and the party line goes "everyone is welcome here".
Here's an idea; try to counter her position with facts and try to do that without using the words "pathetic" or "communist". I know you can do it. I have seen it two or three times from you.
Agreed. I can be a hot head at times, but I’d rather see spirited debate even with a Troll than listening to 7 call someone names.
-
With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191127/070ad334769657ec0b7000efd8d5f09a.jpg)
-
Our Founders knew that the best leadership would come from people who had made a success of their lives and were in a position to devote time to the running of the country. By default this means successful people of business will be in positions of power.
President Trump has consistently cooperated with all regulations regarding separation of his business activities from his governing activities. Thank God, he is also consistently cooperating with the Constitution and defending it, and is working tirelessly each day on behalf of America and its citizens. FOR NO PAY. He donates his salary to charity each year.
I watch his schedule and Twitter feed and honestly don’t know when he sleeps, much less plays golf. His accomplishments in office so far are legion. He deserves a break, should he decide to take one, without constantly being harangued by media and haters.
Kristin, look at the patterns. President Trump constantly defending and supporting America and its citizens, and the Democrats and their media thugs constantly attacking him.
Confirmation bias goes both ways, but you have to really try to make President Trump seem like something he isn’t. He’s always been Trump, he stands up for America, he’s outside the swamp and refuses to protect it, and all that is becoming clear to Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike. Just not to you yet, apparently.
-
Our Founders knew that the best leadership would come from people who had made a success of their lives and were in a position to devote time to the running of the country. By default this means successful people of business will be in positions of power.
President Trump has consistently cooperated with all regulations regarding separation of his business activities from his governing activities. Thank God, he is also consistently cooperating with the Constitution and defending it, and is working tirelessly each day on behalf of America and its citizens. FOR NO PAY. He donates his salary to charity each year.
I watch his schedule and Twitter feed and honestly don’t know when he sleeps, much less plays golf. His accomplishments in office so far are legion. He deserves a break, should he decide to take one, without constantly being harangued by media and haters.
Kristin, look at the patterns. President Trump constantly defending and supporting America and its citizens, and the Democrats and their media thugs constantly attacking him.
Confirmation bias goes both ways, but you have to really try to make President Trump seem like something he isn’t. He’s always been Trump, he stands up for America, he’s outside the swamp and refuses to protect it, and all that is becoming clear to Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike. Just not to you yet, apparently.
This is what amazes me. Here, for the first time in a long time, we have a President who puts our country first, and puts our citizens first. He has remained within his constitutional authority and actually encouraged congress to pass legislation rather than he using his "pen and a phone" that his predecessor preferred.
We have a robust economy. Lowest unemployment in 50 years, we now have more jobs than people to fill them. Our President has rolled back regulations more than his predecessors. He is trying to level the playing field on unfair tariffs from countries that have abused our trade. And he has made NATO members pay their share rather than relying on the US to make it up for them.
Remember when the dims were anti war? Now we have a President that wants to keep us out of non sense endless wars, and the dims are freaking out and demanding we create some new wars. WTF?
-
https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2019-03-09-the-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-so-far/
How can any sane person argue against this?
-
And what to the Democrats promote and represent?
Identity Politics. Defining everyone by Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Ethnicity, Religion, etc. Also, instead of supporting American CITIZENS, they promote ILLEGAL ALIENS. Free healthcare, free college, probably UBI and other stuff for ILLEGAL ALIENS. Yet they expect us citizens to PAY FOR IT ALL, and just smile, and FEEL good about it.
-
Lowest unemployment in 50 years, we now have more jobs than people to fill them.
More like more jobs than people that want to get off "free money" and work.
-
More like more jobs than people that want to get off "free money" and work.
That is true. But if I still owned my business and was still hiring people, I would not want to hire those lazy parasites.
That is where government "make work" comes in. If they are going to suck at the government teat, they might as well help clean up after it.
-
https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2019-03-09-the-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-so-far/
How can any sane person argue against this?
I’ve rarely met true progressives that remotely resemble someone sane.
The true progressive spends their lives hating those of us that fund their whims and provide for their needs, just like the ignorant, selfish, spoiled, assholes they tend to be.
-
And you started out hurling childish insults, and now you act as if no one here has the right to question you. And you want to convince us that TDS is mainstream. ::)
It's also not surprising the latest progressive tactic is attacking Trump supporters in dire hope to separate the President from his base. And like everything else the dims have tried, that too will fail.
Let's see! I show up after a few years, makes some comments about Trump, get immediately attacked, and you call me the attacker? Seriously! Reread the thread from the beginning.
-
Those allegations on the "emoluments clause" have been debunked, long ago. Apparently they didn't teach constitutional law where you got your JD, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a a lame remark.
Debunked by whom! They are still in the courts. Fox News is not the final arbiter of Constitutional Law.
-
What is your source for making such claims about President Trump?
I listed several in another post. Everything from funneling taxpayer dollars to his resorts, like Mar a Lago, to extorting Ukraine with taxpayer money for his own benefit.
-
I've spent time in Alaska, and would like to live there for a while. The hunting and fishing is great.
Beautiful country, especially in the SE. Everyone should see it at least once in their life. We got one over one the Russians that time.
-
So....
Can’t respond with anything but bullshit and insults, while you whine about feeling insulted, and we’re supposed to be impressed?
Are you sure you’re not steingar’s other log in? The strategy is unmistakable.
Were you stoned throughout the obama administration? Is that how you fail to recognize any of it?
Or did your masters tell you your opinions AGAIN and forget to give you anything to back them up?
I am only responding to you in the vein in which you respond to me. You still haven't given a cogent, factual argument as to how Trump has made America Great Again.
-
Yes I know, and too bad for them. but Kristin earns my respect because she is a PILOT, and Steingar earns my respect because he is a PILOT, and others here earn my respect because they risk their lives to fly with PILOTS. That's who we are. I may not agree with them. but they all put their asses on the line as do you and I.
Thank you and I prefer to fly than argue online. As I still have my health and my medical, I shall continue to do so.
-
In all fairness, Kristin did start this off with an inflammatory post, with no substance. And she has yet to back up any of her assertions, defaulting to worn out talking points.
Here was my post: "With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia. "
Did I insult anyone? No! Did I offer and opinion! Yes! Do the rest of you offer opinions without attaching a dissertation of facts and analysis? Without exception! So my crime is clearly that I don't agree with the echo chamber. Grow up guys!
-
Liberal, progressives want everyone silenced and will resort to anything and everything, including violence to get it.
You seriously need to look in the mirror.
-
I listed several in another post. Everything from funneling taxpayer dollars to his resorts, like Mar a Lago, to extorting Ukraine with taxpayer money for his own benefit.
I asked for sources, not what you think President Trump did. On what basis do you claim President Trump funneled taxpayer dollars to his resorts? On what basis do you claim President Trump extorted anyone?
-
“Everyone knew it was quid pro quo.”
“Who told you that?”
“No one. But it was my opinion.”
“Did Trump tell you that?”
“No.”
“What did Trump tell you when you asked him what he wanted from the Ukrainians?”
“He said, ‘I want nothing from them. No quid pro quo. I just want them to do the right thing.’”
“So if Trump didn’t tell you (to withhold money in return for something) and no one else told you that’s what Trump was doing, then why did you say you believed it was quid pro quo?”
“It was my presumption.”
That was the only witness that actually talked to Trump. All other witnesses were hearsay and opinions.
Now you tell me how the headline that evening: “It was quid pro quo!” is the media not making stuff up.
You are ignoring the forest for the trees. Trump as prevented those who could directly testify that he gave the order. Trump is clever enough to hide behind the attorney client privilege and has done so throughout his career. But we don't need to have a recording of Trump saying it as we know that Giuliani was working to make that happen and Trump told Sondlund, et al to work with Giuliani. We also have Trump on the conversation memo for the July 25th phone call asking for "a favor" from the Ukrainian president. Also, when Trump told Sondlund "no quid pro quo" he knew that the whistleblower had busted him and he was covering his ass. The preponderance of the evidence is quite clear.
-
Thank you Anthony. I disagree with Kristin too, but I have largely refrained from jumping in because with all the childish insults being hurled, anything I say would sound like more of the same. There are cogent arguments against everything she says, and some of them have been expressed, but it is hard to find them in between all the school yard taunts.
Rush's last post was a good one. No insults, just facts.
Sorry you think I ran away. I went to bed and had work to do today. I still have a life. This is merely a hobby.
See my response to RUSH. Glad to have a factual discussion.
-
Here was my post: "With the most corrupt POTUS in at least the last three generations, we can be sure that there will be another scandal. What it is, is anyone's guess. If I were going to bet, I would bet it will have something to do with Russia. "
Did I insult anyone? No! Did I offer and opinion! Yes! Do the rest of you offer opinions without attaching a dissertation of facts and analysis? Without exception! So my crime is clearly that I don't agree with the echo chamber. Grow up guys!
I don't think you understand.
The problem isn't that you offered an opinion. The problem is that you are apparently not willing to back up your claims with actual facts.
-
I don't think you understand.
The problem isn't that you offered an opinion. The problem is that you are apparently not willing to back up your claims with actual facts.
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
THIS!
-
Kristin, let's take one point.
You said Trump increased the deficit. Are you aware that after the tax cuts, total Federal revenue increased. The reason the deficit increased was because spending increased faster than revenue. Yes, some of this was Trump's doing, but most of it was beyond his control.
But how does one blame tax cuts for increasing the deficits if revenue increased during that time? What would the deficit have been if the tax cuts had not been enacted?
First of all, did it really increase adjusted for inflation? Second, did the tax cuts cause the increase? And three, how much of the increase in spending was baked into the system by automatically indexing entitlements and how much was additional discretionary spending, like Trump's championed increase in military spending?
If expenditures were set to increase anyway, such in no way shifts responsibility for the additional deficit, away from Trump and the GOP.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-itself-2018
-
Debunked by whom! They are still in the courts. Fox News is not the final arbiter of Constitutional Law.
Where did I mention Fox News? What is it with you and liberal talking points?? You sound like a CNN dialogue.
-
I think Trump will get an awful lot done in his second term; assuming he wins and takes back the House.
I believe he was blindsided by the deviousness and tenacity of "the swamp".
I think the reason the Rs lost the House in 2018 was because of the energized Hillary supporters turning out en-mass. And because a lot of people were surprised and turned off by his style. But now, I think, a lot of people are starting to understand him more. And I think "the Squad" and Bernie and Lizzie are the best things to happen to Trump, outside of the impeachment farce.
If I am right, I think we are in for a few more good years. If I am wrong, :'( :o >:(
Trump won in 2016 because a lot of Dem supporters couldn't stomach Hillary and stayed home. About 80-90K voters in PA, MI, and WI won it for Trump. Likely had all Dem supporters voted we would have Hillary in the WH. I don't think that they will make the same mistake twice.
Even if Trump wins again, he has little hope of getting the House back. GOP members are bailing like crazy.
-
Trump won in 2016 because a lot of Dem supporters couldn't stomach Hillary and stayed home. About 80-90K voters in PA, MI, and WI won it for Trump. Likely had all Dem supporters voted we would have Hillary in the WH. I don't think that they will make the same mistake twice.
Even if Trump wins again, he has little hope of getting the House back. GOP members are bailing like crazy.
There are 31 districts that have dem reps that voted Trump by large margins. These districts are hanging by threads, and with the latest Schitt Show going on dem support is slipping away.
The dems have damaged themselves with Pelosi and Schitt. Polling (reputable) backs this up. The Pelosi led Congress has been the biggest loser since 2018 and is chaotic and out of control. The dem walk aways are growing in number, and the last Trump rally in Florida 1 out of every 4 participants were democrats. Add that to the 30+% black vote now behind Trump and having the dems controlling anything is a long shot.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/11/27/trumpukraine-impeachment-fiasco-theres-more-bad-news-for-democrats-coming-out-of-wisconsin-n2557201
-
Our Founders knew that the best leadership would come from people who had made a success of their lives and were in a position to devote time to the running of the country. By default this means successful people of business will be in positions of power.
If you have read any of the Federalist Papers and contemporary writings, much more was written about the need to not have a monarch. The founding fathers would not have been happy that Congress over the last century has ceded some much power the the presidency and they would be positively horrified by Trump's power grabs and refusal to abide by the Constitutional requirement of cooperating with Congressional investigations.
President Trump has consistently cooperated with all regulations regarding separation of his business activities from his governing activities. Thank God, he is also consistently cooperating with the Constitution and defending it, and is working tirelessly each day on behalf of America and its citizens. FOR NO PAY. He donates his salary to charity each year.
What regulations are you speaking of? Do you have a citation to the Code of Federal Regulations? As for the Constitutional requirement, the cases involving the Emoluments Clause is still ongoing in the courts. Time will tell if he violated them or not. However, clearly he is getting money from private individuals and other countries because he is POTUS, and that smells bad.
Kristin, look at the patterns. President Trump constantly defending and supporting America and its citizens, and the Democrats and their media thugs constantly attacking him.
How is he constantly defending America? Are we being defended when he screws the Kurds? Are we being defended by tariffs on Canada and the EU? Are we being defended when he ignores his constitutional obligations to Congress? Are we being defended when he ignores Russian interference in the 2016 election? Are we being defended with he trashes NATO as an alliance? Please explain how he is defending us everyday and still doing all these things.
Confirmation bias goes both ways, but you have to really try to make President Trump seem like something he isn’t. He’s always been Trump, he stands up for America, he’s outside the swamp and refuses to protect it, and all that is becoming clear to Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike. Just not to you yet, apparently.
Trump is clearly standing up for Trump. That much is clear. He is not acting from too many deep seated beliefs about America as he has changed his mind on many things over the years depending on his audience. I try to get information from as many sources as I reasonably have time for. How many sources to you use on a daily basis?
-
https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2019-03-09-the-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-so-far/
How can any sane person argue against this?
They couldn't EXCEPT for one minor, but crucial point. There is no showing which, if any of those statistics were directly related to Trump's policies. It should also be noted, that the first few of these bullet points were just after the tax cut injected a ton of money into the economy. The latest figures on economic growth for last summer was 2.1% rise in GDP. That is about what was happening when Trump took office.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/us-gdp-q3-2019-second-reading.html
-
I asked for sources, not what you think President Trump did. On what basis do you claim President Trump funneled taxpayer dollars to his resorts? On what basis do you claim President Trump extorted anyone?
Read my other posts.
-
They couldn't EXCEPT for one minor, but crucial point. There is no showing which, if any of those statistics were directly related to Trump's policies. It should also be noted, that the first few of these bullet points were just after the tax cut injected a ton of money into the economy. The latest figures on economic growth for last summer was 2.1% rise in GDP. That is about what was happening when Trump took office.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/us-gdp-q3-2019-second-reading.html
You didn't even bother to read it.......................... ::)
-
I don't think you understand.
The problem isn't that you offered an opinion. The problem is that you are apparently not willing to back up your claims with actual facts.
Read my other posts. How come you all get to spout invective and "opinions" constantly without citation to authority?
-
Read my other posts.
Kristin, you have yet to cite any sources to back up anything. All you're doing is regurgitating liberal talking points.
-
Read my other posts. How come you all get to spout invective and "opinions" constantly without citation to authority?
How about taking a few days and catch up on your reading here?
"You all"............. LOL!
-
There are 31 districts that have dem reps that voted Trump by large margins. These districts are hanging by threads, and with the latest Schitt Show going on dem support is slipping away.
The dems have damaged themselves with Pelosi and Schitt. Polling (reputable) backs this up. The Pelosi led Congress has been the biggest loser since 2018 and is chaotic and out of control. The dem walk aways are growing in number, and the last Trump rally in Florida 1 out of every 4 participants were democrats. Add that to the 30+% black vote now behind Trump and having the dems controlling anything is a long shot.
Do you have any facts and sources to back this up? You demand from me what you are unwilling or unable to provide yourself.
I assume that you think it is just an MSM lie that Dems keep winning all these local elections.
-
Do you have any facts and sources to back this up? You demand from me what you are unwilling or unable to provide yourself.
I assume that you think it is just an MSM lie that Dems keep winning all these local elections.
Have you actual kept up with local elections since 2018? If you have, it hasn't been so rosy for the dems.
What's it like in that little fantasy world you live in? 24/7 CNN and MSNBC? NYT? WashPo?
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/11/27/trumpukraine-impeachment-fiasco-theres-more-bad-news-for-democrats-coming-out-of-wisconsin-n2557201
This is just an opinion piece devote of facts and from a pro-Trump outlet. Where are the polling facts to back this up in Wisconsin? How about the other critical swing states like MI, PA, OH, FL, AZ? We can do dueling opinion pieces all day, but they are not facts.
-
You didn't even bother to read it.......................... ::)
I did! No causal link was offered that I saw. If it was there, I am sure you can point it out to us.
-
Have you actual kept up with local elections since 2018? If you have, it hasn't been so rosy for the dems.
What's it like in that little fantasy world you live in? 24/7 CNN and MSNBC? NYT? WashPo?
I thought that Kentucky elected a Dem governor? No true! I thought Louisiana kept its Dem Gov. Am I wrong? I thought that the Dems won practically everything in Virginia. Was all the MSM and other source wrong here?
-
This is just an opinion piece devote of facts and from a pro-Trump outlet. Where are the polling facts to back this up in Wisconsin? How about the other critical swing states like MI, PA, OH, FL, AZ? We can do dueling opinion pieces all day, but they are not facts.
Here's the problem Kristin. I can put articles and sources up, and you will immediately attack them as "pro Trump outlet" when they disagree with your world view. That's the typical liberal game. You claim this article is "devote of facts" (the actual word is "devoid") but you haven't shown us any facts where the article is wrong.
TDS is real.
-
I thought that Kentucky elected a Dem governor? No true! I thought Louisiana kept its Dem Gov. Am I wrong? I thought that the Dems won practically everything in Virginia. Was all the MSM and other source wrong here?
They have won a few, but not over whelming as you would like to believe. For instance, Kentucky the Governor was the only democrat win, all other Ky positions were Republican.
In several special elections since 2018 when your beloved MSM were crying "Referendum on Trump!" the majority of thos elections went Republican.
Look it up.
-
They have won a few, but not over whelming as you would like to believe. For instance, Kentucky the Governor was the only democrat win, all other Ky positions were Republican.
In several special elections since 2018 when your beloved MSM were crying "Referendum on Trump!" the majority of thos elections went Republican.
Look it up.
Follow up.
2017-2018 Election Cycle
Alabama District S1-----Democratic Flip
Arizona District 08-------Republicans Hold
California District 34-----Democratic Hold
Georgia District 06-------Republicans Hold
Kansas District 04-------Republicans Hold
Michigan District 13-----Democratic Hold
Minnesota District S1---Democratic Hold
Mississippi District S1---Republicans Hold
Montana District 01-----Republicans Hold
New York District 25----Democratic Hold
Ohio District 12----------Republicans Hold
Pennsylvania District 07--Democratic Flip
Pennsylvania District 18--Democratic Flip
South Carolina District 05-Republicans Hold
Texas District 27------------Republicans Hold
Utah District 03-------------Republicans Hold
So the dims flipped 3, nothing extraordinary.
For the 2019/2020 Special Elections
Maryland District 07--------------------------------Projected: Solid Democrat
North Carolina District 03--------------------------Projected: Solid Republican
North Carolina District 09--------------------------Projected: Tossup
Pennsylvania District 12----------------------------Republicans Hold
Wisconsin District 07-------------------------------Projected: Likely Republican
Again, nothing extraordinary.
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/special-elections
And this from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/special-elections-analysis/index.html
2019 special elections haven't been as good for Democrats
The supposed smart take from the special election in North Carolina's 9th Congressional District is that Republican Dan Bishop underperformed compared to President Donald Trump's 2016 performance in the district. Bishop won by 2 points while Trump won by 12 points, which is supposed to indicate that the national political environment still leans Democratic.
And while I am a fan of judging special election results by seeing how closely they match the presidential baseline in the district, I'm also a fan of not looking too closely at any one special election. Any one special election result can be a fluke because of district specific factors. I'd rather examine multiple specials.
When we do that, we see the results of the special elections that have taken place after the 2018 midterms -- when Democrats took back the House -- aren't anywhere near as good for Democrats as those that occurred in the time period after Trump's election in 2016 and the midterms.
And again from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/special-elections-democrats-not-doing-well/index.html
Recent special elections suggest Democrats may not ride a wave in November
Democrats have taken a tumble on the generic congressional ballot over the last few months. Their advantage in an average of the last five live interview polls is just under 7 percentage points, and it's even lower when you consider other polls.
The Democrats, though, have been taking solace in special election results since Donald Trump became President. In over 120 special congressional and state elections, they've been outperforming the partisan baseline based on the last two presidential elections by an average of 12 percentage points. A swing of greater than 7 points is generally consistent with Democrats taking over the House in November, though the exact break point is not knowable.
And this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/08/gops_special_election_wins_counter_media_spin_137760.html
And this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/special-election-scoreboard-update
And this: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_geoffrey_skelley/mixed_signals_analyzing_elections_since_trump_won_the_presidency
-
There are 31 districts that have dem reps that voted Trump by large margins. These districts are hanging by threads, and with the latest Schitt Show going on dem support is slipping away.
The dems have damaged themselves with Pelosi and Schitt. Polling (reputable) backs this up. The Pelosi led Congress has been the biggest loser since 2018 and is chaotic and out of control. The dem walk aways are growing in number, and the last Trump rally in Florida 1 out of every 4 participants were democrats. Add that to the 30+% black vote now behind Trump and having the dems controlling anything is a long shot.
Follow up:
From the Trump Rally in Broward County:
Data from Broward Florida rally:
✅ 31,177 voters identified
✅ 19% voted once or less in last 4 elections (8% in zero)
✅ 24% Democrat
✅ 27% Hispanic
Pretty amazing when you consider just how deep blue Broward County is.
-
The bottom line is the Democrats have a hate America, Identity Politics message, and a PRO ILLEGAL ALIEN over American citizen message. That LOSES, period.
-
You are ignoring the forest for the trees. Trump as prevented those who could directly testify that he gave the order. Trump is clever enough to hide behind the attorney client privilege and has done so throughout his career. But we don't need to have a recording of Trump saying it as we know that Giuliani was working to make that happen and Trump told Sondlund, et al to work with Giuliani. We also have Trump on the conversation memo for the July 25th phone call asking for "a favor" from the Ukrainian president. Also, when Trump told Sondlund "no quid pro quo" he knew that the whistleblower had busted him and he was covering his ass. The preponderance of the evidence is quite clear.
I think you’re suffering from irrational wishing for facts to support a fraudulent premise. The preponderance of evidence doesn’t exist, and has never existed. If it does, please advise the House Intelligence Committee, because they flopped and generated nothing but supposition, presumption, and inuendo. Such is not the “evidence” to impeach a sitting president.
As a lawyer, are you not disturbed that the federal rules of evidence were not followed in this impeachment process, where Adam Schiff acted like judge, prosecutor and jury without allowing the minority to call witnesses and even stifled the minority’s questioning?
-
Wow. I just got caught up on the last several pages. You all have to admit, Kristin sure has spunk. I admire that.
My biggest problem with her was even when I tried to be nice and give her a compliment, or at least the benefit of the doubt, she criticized me. But I guess with with all the slings and arrows headed her way, she could be expected to be a little defensive.
-
The bottom line is the Democrats have a hate America, Identity Politics message, and a PRO ILLEGAL ALIEN over American citizen message. That LOSES, period.
And elections are won on message. How the dims can even begin to believe the can win on their current messaging is unbelievable.
Thus why we are seeing the Ukraine Hoax in full view. Desperation.
-
Wow. I just got caught up on the last several pages. You all have to admit, Kristin sure has spunk. I admire that.
My biggest problem with her was even when I tried to be nice and give her a compliment, or at least the benefit of the doubt, she criticized me. But I guess with with all the slings and arrows headed her way, she could be expected to be a little defensive.
That's the condescending progressive coming out.
-
As a lawyer, are you not disturbed that the federal rules of evidence were not followed in this impeachment process, where Adam Schiff acted like judge, prosecutor and jury without allowing the minority to call witnesses and even stifled the minority’s questioning?
Most liberals would respond to that by saying that is the way a Grand Jury operates. That is true, but even if the house impeachment inquiry is sort of, kinda like a grand jury, it is NOT a grand jury. There really aren't any set rules except the rules the house sets. So if the house acts in a manner that doesn't appear fair to the citizens, then they have to report to the citizens without the protections offered by the rules governing a grand jury.
If the house investigation were to have turned up real evidence of real wrong-doing, I would be among those calling for impeachment. But after watching many many hours of testimony (I am retired after all), I have not seen that.
-
And elections are won on message. How the dims can even begin to believe the can win on their current messaging is unbelievable.
Thus why we are seeing the Ukraine Hoax in full view. Desperation.
And I forgot, the HATE TRUMP message. All hate, all the time, even though the country is doing great with him as President. How can they reconcile that? They can't.
-
And I forgot, the HATE TRUMP message. All hate, all the time, even though the country is doing great with him as President. How can they reconcile that? They can't.
They can't.
And they don't want to.
They hate Trump and that is all that matters.
-
Trump won in 2016 because a lot of Dem supporters couldn't stomach Hillary and stayed home. About 80-90K voters in PA, MI, and WI won it for Trump. Likely had all Dem supporters voted we would have Hillary in the WH. I don't think that they will make the same mistake twice.
Even if Trump wins again, he has little hope of getting the House back. GOP members are bailing like crazy.
It is also historically consistent that the majority party loses seats in off-year elections if the majority party wins the presidency. I sincerely doubt it was a referendum against Trump.
In addition, the independents are very much against this impeachment farce, and Trumps approval with independents has been increasing. In addition, two polls show Trump’s approval with Blacks to be 34% and 34.5% respectively. In addition, the GOP base is infuriated with the democrats attempt to reverse the results of the 2016 election. They will come out for Trump with a fury. I predict he also wins the popular vote.
-
The truth is that the communist party (they call themselves democrats for some, irrational reason), have lost the ability to message anything beyond,
'Orange Man BAD!
Economic gains are BADDD for our ability to remain in power. Therefore, a good economy is racist. and sexist, as well as homophobic and islamophobic and xenophobic, as well as phobic-phobic.
He hurt our feelings.
Made us cry like the pussies we are.
He Even Said Pussy.
Refuses to bow down and worship our agenda.
Calls us out for lying about him.
Makes fun of us when we act like psychotic, assholes....
and on and on and on... When the real down and dirty truth is that the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump is SMARTER than all of those losers put together, and he keeps causing them to step all over their dicks (when they can find one of them).
The message is so convoluted, and changes each time their "new" impeachment narrative is shown to be a bunch of bold faced lies, that fewer people are even paying attention anymore.
-
I am only responding to you in the vein in which you respond to me. You still haven't given a cogent, factual argument as to how Trump has made America Great Again.
www.magapill.com
-
Also 1 in 4 attendees at his recent rally in FL were Democrats 8)
-
Most liberals would respond to that by saying that is the way a Grand Jury operates. That is true, but even if the house impeachment inquiry is sort of, kinda like a grand jury, it is NOT a grand jury. There really aren't any set rules except the rules the house sets. So if the house acts in a manner that doesn't appear fair to the citizens, then they have to report to the citizens without the protections offered by the rules governing a grand jury.
If the house investigation were to have turned up real evidence of real wrong-doing, I would be among those calling for impeachment. But after watching many many hours of testimony (I am retired after all), I have not seen that.
Joe, you haven’t seen that because you haven’t seen the people the Republicans may want to testify!
So odd that you would say that knowing (I presume) that the witnesses are ONLY the witnesses requested by the democrats.
Sadly, we will have to wait until the senate trial for the defense to mount an argument.
-
Joe, you haven’t seen that because you haven’t seen the people the Republicans may want to testify!
So odd that you would say that knowing (I presume) that the witnesses are ONLY the witnesses requested by the democrats.
Sadly, we will have to wait until the senate trial for the defense to mount an argument.
I'm aware of that. My point is that the Dems are holding the inquiry AS IF it was a grand jury. It isn't, and it isn't fair, and a lot of Americans see that. Unfortunately, too many people only watch or listen to or read the likes of MSNBC, CNN, WAPO NYT etc. They believe what those really really smart people at those outlets tell them to believe. And that is a shame.
-
Joe, you haven’t seen that because you haven’t seen the people the Republicans may want to testify!
So odd that you would say that knowing (I presume) that the witnesses are ONLY the witnesses requested by the democrats.
Sadly, we will have to wait until the senate trial for the defense to mount an argument.
If the Schitt Show had such compelling evidence, why would he be afraid of the republicans bringing in witnesses? Wouldn't Schitt want to cross examine them? Wouldn't he want to show the country that this was "bipartisan"?
-
I'm aware of that. My point is that the Dems are holding the inquiry AS IF it was a grand jury. It isn't, and it isn't fair, and a lot of Americans see that. Unfortunately, too many people only watch or listen to or read the likes of MSNBC, CNN, WAPO NYT etc. They believe what those really really smart people at those outlets tell them to believe. And that is a shame.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/349568/
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-impeachment-polling-bade-democrats
-
I'm aware of that. My point is that the Dems are holding the inquiry AS IF it was a grand jury. It isn't, and it isn't fair, and a lot of Americans see that. Unfortunately, too many people only watch or listen to or read the likes of MSNBC, CNN, WAPO NYT etc. They believe what those really really smart people at those outlets tell them to believe. And that is a shame.
Sorry about that. I misread your point. My mistake.
-
Here's the problem Kristin. I can put articles and sources up, and you will immediately attack them as "pro Trump outlet" when they disagree with your world view. That's the typical liberal game. You claim this article is "devote of facts" (the actual word is "devoid") but you haven't shown us any facts where the article is wrong.
TDS is real.
As the article is devoid of facts tending to show a causal link between any of Trump's policies and any of the economic statistics cited. I don't dispute the statistics. I question that Trump is responsible for all of it. The article tends to assume that because Trump is the president, he is responsible for all economic conditions.
Anything that is purely an opinion piece, is fair game to question the views and motivations of those offering such opinions.
What is interesting, I have already conceded that Trump's tax cuts did give the economy a limited, short term boost. That is more specifics than most of you can manage to give Trump as Trump Worship Syndrome seems to preempt any considered reflection on the pros and cons of Trump's reign.
-
They have won a few, but not over whelming as you would like to believe. For instance, Kentucky the Governor was the only democrat win, all other Ky positions were Republican.
In several special elections since 2018 when your beloved MSM were crying "Referendum on Trump!" the majority of thos elections went Republican.
Look it up.
It is the statewide elections that are most reflective of how a national election works with the Electoral College.
-
That is more specifics than most of you can manage to give Trump as Trump Worship Syndrome seems to preempt any considered reflection on the pros and cons of Trump's reign.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/25/8c/43/258c434efe18c8c01480b2e2d4443e42.jpg)
-
Follow up.
2017-2018 Election Cycle
Alabama District S1-----Democratic Flip
Arizona District 08-------Republicans Hold
California District 34-----Democratic Hold
Georgia District 06-------Republicans Hold
Kansas District 04-------Republicans Hold
Michigan District 13-----Democratic Hold
Minnesota District S1---Democratic Hold
Mississippi District S1---Republicans Hold
Montana District 01-----Republicans Hold
New York District 25----Democratic Hold
Ohio District 12----------Republicans Hold
Pennsylvania District 07--Democratic Flip
Pennsylvania District 18--Democratic Flip
South Carolina District 05-Republicans Hold
Texas District 27------------Republicans Hold
Utah District 03-------------Republicans Hold
So the dims flipped 3, nothing extraordinary.
For the 2019/2020 Special Elections
Maryland District 07--------------------------------Projected: Solid Democrat
North Carolina District 03--------------------------Projected: Solid Republican
North Carolina District 09--------------------------Projected: Tossup
Pennsylvania District 12----------------------------Republicans Hold
Wisconsin District 07-------------------------------Projected: Likely Republican
Again, nothing extraordinary.
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/special-elections
And this from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/special-elections-analysis/index.html
And again from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/special-elections-democrats-not-doing-well/index.html
And this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/08/gops_special_election_wins_counter_media_spin_137760.html
And this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/special-election-scoreboard-update
And this: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_geoffrey_skelley/mixed_signals_analyzing_elections_since_trump_won_the_presidency
I am not clear what all of this proves. What is the significance of 16 out of 435 House elections? Obviously, the Dems flipped a lot more than 3 seats as Pelosi is now the speaker of the House.
No doubt that many state political subdivisions are loyal to the GOP. If land could vote, the GOP would have all the power in Washington. However, it is people that vote.
I actually get why rural folks are pissed off enough to vote for Trump. But what has Trump done for them? Did we get a new infrastructure program? No! Did we get a national push to get everyone high speed broadband? No! What we did get is an effort to kill Obamacare which many more folks in rural America benefit from than in the urban areas, percentage-wise.
-
Follow up:
From the Trump Rally in Broward County:
Data from Broward Florida rally:
✅ 31,177 voters identified
✅ 19% voted once or less in last 4 elections (8% in zero)
✅ 24% Democrat
✅ 27% Hispanic
Pretty amazing when you consider just how deep blue Broward County is.
I am not sure what significance a breakdown of attendees at a Trump rally is. The 24% could be the media covering it for all we know.
-
The bottom line is the Democrats have a hate America, Identity Politics message, and a PRO ILLEGAL ALIEN over American citizen message. That LOSES, period.
I don't think most Americans see that as the Dems message. Perhaps 100% of Trump voters do, but that is still a minority of voters.
-
I think you’re suffering from irrational wishing for facts to support a fraudulent premise. The preponderance of evidence doesn’t exist, and has never existed. If it does, please advise the House Intelligence Committee, because they flopped and generated nothing but supposition, presumption, and inuendo. Such is not the “evidence” to impeach a sitting president.
As a lawyer, are you not disturbed that the federal rules of evidence were not followed in this impeachment process, where Adam Schiff acted like judge, prosecutor and jury without allowing the minority to call witnesses and even stifled the minority’s questioning?
It never was the job of the Intelligence Committee to act as judge and jury. They were more analogous to a Grand Jury. Grand juries have never been bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence and impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process at any rate. The Judiciary Committee will hold hearings and hear from both sides to see if they will recommend articles of impeachment to the full house. All this nonsense about process feeds on the public's fundamental ignorance of how this works and conflate it with a criminal trial. So no, I am not disturbed that Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are not followed.
As for whether the evidence is there, I guess it depends on whether one is paying attention and can look at it objectively. I bet not many of you have spend significant time watching the hearings. Sean Hannity's interpretations are laughable. The news part of Fox News even admits there was a quid pro quo for Ukraine.
-
Wow. I just got caught up on the last several pages. You all have to admit, Kristin sure has spunk. I admire that.
My biggest problem with her was even when I tried to be nice and give her a compliment, or at least the benefit of the doubt, she criticized me. But I guess with with all the slings and arrows headed her way, she could be expected to be a little defensive.
Unfortunately the software won't let me easily find you post and my response. If I was unreasonably testy, I apologize.
-
And elections are won on message. How the dims can even begin to believe the can win on their current messaging is unbelievable.
Thus why we are seeing the Ukraine Hoax in full view. Desperation.
The problem is that not everyone agrees that such is the Dems message. And then there is the very large number of voters who just think that based on his actions that Trump is bad news and must go, regardless of what anyone thinks Dem messaging is.
-
I am not clear what all of this proves. What is the significance of 16 out of 435 House elections? Obviously, the Dems flipped a lot more than 3 seats as Pelosi is now the speaker of the House.
You keep claiming the special elections have gone democrat. Under a few instances, they have, but it's been very small. Even your beloved CNN has admitted it.
Remember, the liberal talking point was all of these special elections were "referendums on Trump", except, they weren't. Facts are facts.
You also ignore a FACT that 31 dem seats held in congress are in deep red districts, and the Pelosi and Schitt Show are endangering their chances for re-election come 2020. All Nancy needs to do is hold an articles of impeachment vote, and those 31 are toast if they vote in favor. And they know it.
I actually get why rural folks are pissed off enough to vote for Trump. But what has Trump done for them? Did we get a new infrastructure program? No! Did we get a national push to get everyone high speed broadband? No! What we did get is an effort to kill Obamacare which many more folks in rural America benefit from than in the urban areas, percentage-wise.
Those tax cuts went a long way. Low unemployment has been a boom for job seekers. A roaring economy has brought better wages, increased retirement savings and put more discretionary money in peoples accounts. Almost 5 million people have gotten off food stamps. Utility companies lowered rates. The US is now a large energy exporter. and even more. It's all there if you are willing to open your mind.
As far as Obamacare benefiting anyone? YHGTBSM. ::)
-
Most liberals would respond to that by saying that is the way a Grand Jury operates. That is true, but even if the house impeachment inquiry is sort of, kinda like a grand jury, it is NOT a grand jury. There really aren't any set rules except the rules the house sets. So if the house acts in a manner that doesn't appear fair to the citizens, then they have to report to the citizens without the protections offered by the rules governing a grand jury.
If the house investigation were to have turned up real evidence of real wrong-doing, I would be among those calling for impeachment. But after watching many many hours of testimony (I am retired after all), I have not seen that.
Quite correct on how the system works. In fact, what is a "high crime or misdemeanor" is entirely up to Congress. I very much doubt that any court would try to reverse an impeachment.
I am curious, what would be real evidence of wrong doing? Is it that you don't think squeezing Ukraine to get it to interfere in our election was not proven, or do you think that it is not impeachable conduct at any rate?
-
The problem is that not everyone agrees that such is the Dems message.
So what is the dems message to the voter that will appeal to them and get their vote?
And then there is the very large number of voters who just think that based on his actions that Trump is bad news and must go, regardless of what anyone thinks Dem messaging is.
So you are saying that their are people who would vote against prosperity, vote for increased taxes, vote for single payer healthcare, vote for infanticide, vote for open borders, vote for free healthcare for illegals, vote for free college for everyone, just to get Trump out of office?
Seriously?
-
They can't.
And they don't want to.
They hate Trump and that is all that matters.
Assuming arguendo that a great portion of the country hates Trump, or maybe better to say strong disapproves, which based on an averaging of polls stands at about 53.6% according to FiveThirtyEight, the question is why do they strongly disapprove of Trump? Could it be as they see him more injurious to the country than helpful?
-
It is also historically consistent that the majority party loses seats in off-year elections if the majority party wins the presidency. I sincerely doubt it was a referendum against Trump.
In addition, the independents are very much against this impeachment farce, and Trumps approval with independents has been increasing. In addition, two polls show Trump’s approval with Blacks to be 34% and 34.5% respectively. In addition, the GOP base is infuriated with the democrats attempt to reverse the results of the 2016 election. They will come out for Trump with a fury. I predict he also wins the popular vote.
Independents are against impeachment in a lot of places, though not a majority in the swing state of MN. But being against impeachment isn't a guarantee of a vote for Trump.
As for black support, I would be interested in where your statistic came from. Considering he got 8% of the black vote in 2016, it seems questionable. Gallup puts his black support at around 10% today.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268517/analyzing-black-support-president-trump.aspx
-
www.magapill.com
Again, causation is lacking for virtually all the good economic news. He is getting credit just because he is POTUS, not because he actually did anything beyond borrow a bunch of money and inject it into the economy.
Many of the other "achievements" are bipartisan things that he signed. Granted, he has signed some worthwhile executive orders. He has called out China and taken concrete steps to block them stealing our technology. It would have been better if he has used a revised TPP and other diplomatic efforts to get more other countries on our side to ostracize China for their actions which would have been better.
This has been balanced by:
Screwing the Kurds
Weakening NATO
Picking fights with South Korea
Imposing tariffs on Canada
Imposing tariffs on the EU
Wasting money on a border wall
Not getting a deal done on immigration
Screwing up our diplomatic efforts worldwide
Failing to uphold his oath of office by ignoring Congressional oversight
Demoralizing the intelligence services
Just to name a few.
-
So what is the dems message to the voter that will appeal to them and get their vote?
So you are saying that their are people who would vote against prosperity, vote for increased taxes, vote for single payer healthcare, vote for infanticide, vote for open borders, vote for free healthcare for illegals, vote for free college for everyone, just to get Trump out of office?
Seriously?
They would not be voting for those things in their minds, and yes they will largely vote against Trump. The majority of Dems do not support any of those things, beyond perhaps higher taxes on the wealthy. People that view the Dems the way you claim, are already voting for Trump and would likely do so regardless.
-
..., the question is why do they strongly disapprove of Trump? Could it be as they see him more injurious to the country than helpful?
I think it’s because he beat Hillary in an unexpected way. And because they have a negative opinion of him based on very negative media coverage. If you’re only listening to CNN, Trump is the devil incarnate.
-
I think it’s because he beat Hillary in an unexpected way. And because they have a negative opinion of him based on very negative media coverage. If you’re only listening to CNN, Trump is the devil incarnate.
It's not just CNN that gives Trump very negative coverage. It is CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSN, NYT, Washpo, and Social Media. All very anti Trump all the time. I am surprised everyone doesn't just hate Trump. It is daunting for those of us who want America to survive, and not just become Los Collectivista Democratico Republico de Univision.
-
They would not be voting for those things in their minds, and yes they will largely vote against Trump. The majority of Dems do not support any of those things, beyond perhaps higher taxes on the wealthy. People that view the Dems the way you claim, are already voting for Trump and would likely do so regardless.
Now wait a minute. You say "The majority of dems do not support those things", yet each and every candidate running for the dem nomination has openly supported:
Free Healthcare for All
Free Healthcare for Illegals
Open Borders
Increased taxes on the middle class
Infanticide
Free College
Repeal of the Trump Tax cuts
Gun Control and outright gun confiscation
So how could a democrat, or even an independent, especially a middle class, vote for a candidate who backs such policies just because they dislike the President?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the current dem platform would destroy the economy, lower wages and increase unemployment. And historically when an incumbent President is enjoying a robust economy people tend to vote with their pocketbooks.
The cold hard fact is messaging. ALL elections are won on messages. Right now the dems message is bleak and unattractive, even BHO has been warning the dems they've gone too far left.
-
Anthony, yes but I didn’t want to type all that.
-
Anthony, yes but I didn’t want to type all that.
Ha! Yes, I understand. That's my standard list. Steingar loves it because that's all he watches, reads, etc.
-
Again, causation is lacking for virtually all the good economic news. He is getting credit just because he is POTUS, not because he actually did anything beyond borrow a bunch of money and inject it into the economy.
He is getting credit because the economic engine of this country sees reduced regulations and a much better business environment. That's what drives an economy. Right now the treasury is taking in record revenue which is attributed to the tax cuts and businesses making record profits. Unfortunately we have a congress who wants to spend more.
Do you have any investments? How's your portfolio been doing in the past 3 years? Are you seriously willing to give up the gains and take the losses to get one of the democrats in office who are already telling you they want a portion of your investments?
Let's look at your allegations here:
Screwing the Kurds---------Which Kurds? Which tribe are you referring too?
Weakening NATO------------Huh? How so? By requiring them to pay their equal share? Did you notice that Trump has strengthened NATO by placing sanctions on Russia, and by placing strategic weapons with NATO? Not sure where you got this from.
Picking fights with South Korea----- Huh?
Imposing tariffs on Canada------- So we should let Canada tariff our goods going north and give them free access with their goods coming south? Fair Trade doesn't work that way.
Imposing tariffs on the EU-------Again, how is it even close to fair to allow the EU access to our markets tariff free while they tariff our goods going to the EU? Fair Trade anyone?
Wasting money on a border wall------In 2006 the democrats were firmly in support of a border wall. I can post Pelosi and Schumer's videos where they were in full support. So was BHO. Money was even voted on for enhanced border security. But when Trump wanted to actually do it, they flipped and opposed it. Why? Isn't it in the President's purview to defend the country and see that our laws are faithfully executed?
Not getting a deal done on immigration------Under the constitution, congress makes the laws. Trump has offered several deals to congress, which they refused under partisan issues. He;s made offers which exceeded what they requested, only to have them turn it down. The Dreamers? Congressional Dems screwed them over after Trump offered them everything they wanted.
Screwing up our diplomatic efforts worldwide----- The President sets the agenda on diplomatic relations, not appointed bureaucrats. We have suffered for years of letting other countries take advantage of this country, we now have a President who puts our country first. Hard to see how that's a bad thing. So which countries have we "screwed up diplomatic efforts" btw?
Failing to uphold his oath of office by ignoring Congressional oversight----Here's the oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So how has he failed? Also, all previous Presidents have enjoyed "Executive Privilege", now all of the sudden the dems are telling us the current President doesn't have this right. What changed? Remember when BHO kept asserting executive privilege? Never got questioned.
Demoralizing the intelligence services-----Right now this country has a real mess going on in the Intelligence Services. They have been weaponized by the previous administration, and when Trump came into office he appointed General Flynn to National Security Advisor, who was going to audit and review the agencies to root out the maleficence and get them back in line. Now we have intelligence agencies spying on US citizens, altering documents to entrap citizens and some of these SES types have been actively working to undermine the administration.
-
I think what Kristen saying is that anything good for America is bad for communists (democrats).
I can’t find a shred of sense in her laundry list of bullshit any other way.
-
.
The news part of Fox News even admits there was a quid pro quo for Ukraine.
Did you read the titular post of this thread? The media cannot “admit” anything. They have no first hand knowledge of it. And, as it turns out, neither do any of the impeachment witnesses. All of it that you (and Fox and the rest of MSM) use to “prove” it is second hand hearsay. The one and only witness with direct order from Trump is Sondland who, when he testified it was qpq, admitted that was only a presumption, and that the actual words coming out of Trumps mouth was that it was not. Anything else you claim, such as what was in Trumps mind when he said that is pure speculation.
The entire case is built on speculation in the heads of others. Here is what is going on: Mob mentality. Trump’s enemies, in their cliquishness, urged each other on with texts and presumptions and speculations, and created a big story, and backed it up by deliberate plants of their own operatives, and their own leaked stories to the press, made a construction that they themselves actually believe.
The process is identical to the Little Rascals trial, in case you aren’t familiar with that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rascals_day_care_sexual_abuse_trial
“Satanic Panic” - an escalating feedback loop where groups of people urge each other on and build in their minds a big fantasy that in fact does not exist.
Another example: Chris Watts killed his wife and two little girls. He had a mistress who is in fact innocent of any wrongdoing. There is a group of people, fueled by social media, who have convinced themselves she was an accomplice, and “see” all kind of “evidence” that she was there when the family was killed and even killed the two babies herself.
Another group is convinced that the wife killed the two girls, and Watts falsely confessed to killing the babies in order to “protect his dead wife’s reputation”. Again, these people assert all kinds of “evidence” to support their belief.
In all these cases, examination of the actual facts shows the truth. But mob hysteria creates such a solid monolithic and mythic story that it takes on a life of its own and is believed with religious fervor by its adherents, and THAT is what this subsection of the IC and FBI and DOJ and the rest have done to Trump.
When you listen to the full impeachment hearings it’s plain. All the testimony is about the monster that was built, and not a single fact. You yourself demonstrated the hysterical warping of belief when you talked about Trump using the word “favor” in the phone call. Only with the backup of the whole made up construction can you believe in your mind that the request of a favor equals bribery or some other crime.
-
https://twitter.com/i/status/1199751947043123200
-
The entire Impeachment is a FAILURE, just like Mueller and Russia, Russia, Russia. It's over, and it's made the Democrats look even worse if that is possible. Now, let's take a harder look at VP Joe Biden and selling his influence to Ukraine through his son Hunter.
What are the Democrats left? What remains? A Clown Car of candidates that offer nothing but Trump hate, and bribes to Illegal Aliens and the Identity Group special interest they select to Virtue Signal. It is the saddest group of candidates since HILLARY.
Biden - Too old, too White, too frail, to senile.
Warren - Devout LIAR using a fake ethnic claim for affirmative action. Committed looney far leftist.
Bernie - Too old, too frail, too White, too Communist.
Gay Pete - He's Gay, so what?
Harris - "I'm African American now, and even have a southern drawl like Hillary!"
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html
Midterm victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin gave Democrats hope of retaking the Rust Belt battleground states that handed the presidency to Donald J. Trump in 2016.
Yet success in the midterms might not mean as much for Democratic presidential candidates as the party might think. Nearly two-thirds of voters in six battleground states who voted for President Trump in 2016 — but for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 — say they intend to back the president against each of his top rivals…
[…]
Many of the voters who said they voted Democratic but now intended to vote for Mr. Trump offered explanations that reflect longstanding theories about why the party out of power tends to excel in midterms.
Michelle Bassaro, 61, is a Trump supporter, but in the midterm election, she voted for the Democrat in her district to balance the administration’s power. She said she had voted for Republicans when Democrats were in the White House for the same reason, consistent with research that shows that some people intentionally vote for divided government.
[…]
Many of the white working-class voters in the Rust Belt who supported the president in 2016 were traditionally Democratic voters who backed President Obama in 2012 and even continued to vote Democratic down-ballot in 2016. Democrats generally held on to these voters in 2018, but the reasons many of them voted for Mr. Trump, like his promises on immigration or the economy, could still be relevant.
[…]
Other voters say they are preparing to take an even greater leap: vote for Mr. Trump after supporting Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 and Mrs. Clinton in 2016.
In the survey, 7 percent of those who supported Mrs. Clinton in 2016 said they now approved of the president’s performance — despite his personality and his Twitter account, many said.
“In 2016, I hated both” candidates, said Juli Anna California, 57, a nurse from Coral Springs, Fla. “I went with Hillary because Trump had no history as a politician.”
Mr. Trump has convinced her, though — not with his character, but with his policies.
“He’s not exactly the person I’d have as my best friend,” said Ms. California, who currently lives in Los Angeles as a traveling nurse. “But he’s a great president.
[…]
Many of the voters cited economic strength as a major reason to support Mr. Trump in 2020, even if they didn’t support him last time. Also, certain voters who support Trump said they had soured on Democrats because of partisan fighting, culminating in impeachment hearings.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html
Thanks for the quote. The link wouldn't let me read it unless I subscribed and I'm not gonna do that.
These rust belt Democrats... it is very, very simple. They voted Democrat in the past because Democrats seemed to back unions and were "for" the working man. Now, Trump is CLEARLY the one for the working man.
-
I think it’s because he beat Hillary in an unexpected way. And because they have a negative opinion of him based on very negative media coverage. If you’re only listening to CNN, Trump is the devil incarnate.
So the 53.6% of the population that disapprove of Trump all do because they loved Hillary? Seems an extraordinary claim.
CNN is certainly on Trump's case. One much of Fox News programming Trump can do know wrong and everything he says is the demonstrable truth. Breitbart, OAN, and Infowars often just make stuff up. Clearly not enough people are getting their information from various sources.
-
Now wait a minute. You say "The majority of dems do not support those things", yet each and every candidate running for the dem nomination has openly supported:
Free Healthcare for All
Free Healthcare for Illegals
Open Borders
Increased taxes on the middle class
Infanticide
Free College
Repeal of the Trump Tax cuts
Gun Control and outright gun confiscation
So how could a democrat, or even an independent, especially a middle class, vote for a candidate who backs such policies just because they dislike the President?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the current dem platform would destroy the economy, lower wages and increase unemployment. And historically when an incumbent President is enjoying a robust economy people tend to vote with their pocketbooks.
The cold hard fact is messaging. ALL elections are won on messages. Right now the dems message is bleak and unattractive, even BHO has been warning the dems they've gone too far left.
As you statement that all candidates support all the points you have laid out -- spun in the most partisan terms -- is just not true. You take the most extreme statements that some have made and attribute it to all. In truth, you didn't likely do this, Fox, etc, did it for you and you are parroting.
It is true that most support small parts of a couple of your more sweeping points. Probably all support universal background checks. I have only heard Beto, who is no longer running, argue for confiscation. And even anyone who supports that are only focused on war weapons.
No one supports "infanticide", except when extremists define any abortion, even the morning after pill, to be infanticide. The majority of Americans don't support those extreme positions, either way.
-
As you statement that all candidates support all the points you have laid out -- spun in the most partisan terms -- is just not true. You take the most extreme statements that some have made and attribute it to all. In truth, you didn't likely do this, Fox, etc, did it for you and you are parroting.
It is true that most support small parts of a couple of your more sweeping points. Probably all support universal background checks. I have only heard Beto, who is no longer running, argue for confiscation. And even anyone who supports that are only focused on war weapons.
No one supports "infanticide", except when extremists define any abortion, even the morning after pill, to be infanticide. The majority of Americans don't support those extreme positions, either way.
Nice projection there Kristin. Right on cue.
Let's sum it up this way. All you have done since your return is spout liberal talking points with nothing, nada, to back them up. It's very apparent you are buried in the progressive ideology and can't accept anything that would remotely contradict it.
You're truly clueless.
-
He is getting credit because the economic engine of this country sees reduced regulations and a much better business environment. That's what drives an economy. Right now the treasury is taking in record revenue which is attributed to the tax cuts and businesses making record profits. Unfortunately we have a congress who wants to spend more.
Do you have any investments? How's your portfolio been doing in the past 3 years? Are you seriously willing to give up the gains and take the losses to get one of the democrats in office who are already telling you they want a portion of your investments?
Let's look at your allegations here:
Screwing the Kurds---------Which Kurds? Which tribe are you referring too?
Weakening NATO------------Huh? How so? By requiring them to pay their equal share? Did you notice that Trump has strengthened NATO by placing sanctions on Russia, and by placing strategic weapons with NATO? Not sure where you got this from.
Picking fights with South Korea----- Huh?
Imposing tariffs on Canada------- So we should let Canada tariff our goods going north and give them free access with their goods coming south? Fair Trade doesn't work that way.
Imposing tariffs on the EU-------Again, how is it even close to fair to allow the EU access to our markets tariff free while they tariff our goods going to the EU? Fair Trade anyone?
Wasting money on a border wall------In 2006 the democrats were firmly in support of a border wall. I can post Pelosi and Schumer's videos where they were in full support. So was BHO. Money was even voted on for enhanced border security. But when Trump wanted to actually do it, they flipped and opposed it. Why? Isn't it in the President's purview to defend the country and see that our laws are faithfully executed?
Not getting a deal done on immigration------Under the constitution, congress makes the laws. Trump has offered several deals to congress, which they refused under partisan issues. He;s made offers which exceeded what they requested, only to have them turn it down. The Dreamers? Congressional Dems screwed them over after Trump offered them everything they wanted.
Screwing up our diplomatic efforts worldwide----- The President sets the agenda on diplomatic relations, not appointed bureaucrats. We have suffered for years of letting other countries take advantage of this country, we now have a President who puts our country first. Hard to see how that's a bad thing. So which countries have we "screwed up diplomatic efforts" btw?
Failing to uphold his oath of office by ignoring Congressional oversight----Here's the oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So how has he failed? Also, all previous Presidents have enjoyed "Executive Privilege", now all of the sudden the dems are telling us the current President doesn't have this right. What changed? Remember when BHO kept asserting executive privilege? Never got questioned.
Demoralizing the intelligence services-----Right now this country has a real mess going on in the Intelligence Services. They have been weaponized by the previous administration, and when Trump came into office he appointed General Flynn to National Security Advisor, who was going to audit and review the agencies to root out the maleficence and get them back in line. Now we have intelligence agencies spying on US citizens, altering documents to entrap citizens and some of these SES types have been actively working to undermine the administration.
The Kurds in Syria! How did you miss that? Didn't you hear that we pulled out and the Turks attacked. Where have you been?
Trump's modus operandi is to attack first and negotiate later. This is not a useful approach to getting what you want and doing so damages the relationships. This approach applies to all your points regarding relations with other countries including tariffs. There is a right way and a wrong way to achieve objectives. Trump overwhelmingly picks the wrong way.
I have never seen the Dems support a border wall in all places. I trust you missed the news that the new bollard wall has already been breached in places.
Trump has yet to commit to an immigration reform. McConnell has said he will not entertain any bill in the Senate until Trump commits to support it. It hasn't happened. That is the reality.
Trump doesn't set any coherent diplomatic policies. He bounces around in a kneejerk manner, doesn't listen to advisors who actually know something about the relevant situation. He has screwed up relations with Denmark over his idiotic idea to buy Greenland, South Korea by publicly beating them up over the amount they pay us, Ukraine with his political stunt, and others.
Executive privilege does not extend to impeachment proceedings. By the Constitution, Congress oversees the Executive Branch, not the other way around.
Even if it were true that the intelligence services were weaponized in the past, which it isn't, that does not excuse Trump as doing so weakens our country and makes use all less safe.
-
Did you read the titular post of this thread? The media cannot “admit” anything. They have no first hand knowledge of it. And, as it turns out, neither do any of the impeachment witnesses. All of it that you (and Fox and the rest of MSM) use to “prove” it is second hand hearsay. The one and only witness with direct order from Trump is Sondland who, when he testified it was qpq, admitted that was only a presumption, and that the actual words coming out of Trumps mouth was that it was not. Anything else you claim, such as what was in Trumps mind when he said that is pure speculation.
The entire case is built on speculation in the heads of others. Here is what is going on: Mob mentality. Trump’s enemies, in their cliquishness, urged each other on with texts and presumptions and speculations, and created a big story, and backed it up by deliberate plants of their own operatives, and their own leaked stories to the press, made a construction that they themselves actually believe.
The process is identical to the Little Rascals trial, in case you aren’t familiar with that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rascals_day_care_sexual_abuse_trial
“Satanic Panic” - an escalating feedback loop where groups of people urge each other on and build in their minds a big fantasy that in fact does not exist.
Another example: Chris Watts killed his wife and two little girls. He had a mistress who is in fact innocent of any wrongdoing. There is a group of people, fueled by social media, who have convinced themselves she was an accomplice, and “see” all kind of “evidence” that she was there when the family was killed and even killed the two babies herself.
Another group is convinced that the wife killed the two girls, and Watts falsely confessed to killing the babies in order to “protect his dead wife’s reputation”. Again, these people assert all kinds of “evidence” to support their belief.
In all these cases, examination of the actual facts shows the truth. But mob hysteria creates such a solid monolithic and mythic story that it takes on a life of its own and is believed with religious fervor by its adherents, and THAT is what this subsection of the IC and FBI and DOJ and the rest have done to Trump.
When you listen to the full impeachment hearings it’s plain. All the testimony is about the monster that was built, and not a single fact. You yourself demonstrated the hysterical warping of belief when you talked about Trump using the word “favor” in the phone call. Only with the backup of the whole made up construction can you believe in your mind that the request of a favor equals bribery or some other crime.
All I can say is that listening to the testimony, it is clear to me what was going on. Combine that with Trump's statements and Mulvaney's admissions and it is clear to me what went down. We will just have to disagree.
-
The Kurds in Syria! How did you miss that? Didn't you hear that we pulled out and the Turks attacked. Where have you been?
Trump's modus operandi is to attack first and negotiate later. This is not a useful approach to getting what you want and doing so damages the relationships. This approach applies to all your points regarding relations with other countries including tariffs. There is a right way and a wrong way to achieve objectives. Trump overwhelmingly picks the wrong way.
I have never seen the Dems support a border wall in all places. I trust you missed the news that the new bollard wall has already been breached in places.
Trump has yet to commit to an immigration reform. McConnell has said he will not entertain any bill in the Senate until Trump commits to support it. It hasn't happened. That is the reality.
Trump doesn't set any coherent diplomatic policies. He bounces around in a kneejerk manner, doesn't listen to advisors who actually know something about the relevant situation. He has screwed up relations with Denmark over his idiotic idea to buy Greenland, South Korea by publicly beating them up over the amount they pay us, Ukraine with his political stunt, and others.
Executive privilege does not extend to impeachment proceedings. By the Constitution, Congress oversees the Executive Branch, not the other way around.
Even if it were true that the intelligence services were weaponized in the past, which it isn't, that does not excuse Trump as doing so weakens our country and makes use all less safe.
Arguing with an idiot is senseless. You live in some weird alternate reality which is totally out of touch with the real world.
I'm not going to waste my time answering your inane diatribe.
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
-
Nice projection there. . .
. . .
You're truly clueless.
I feel exactly the same way about you.
-
Arguing with an idiot is senseless. You live in some weird alternate reality which is totally out of touch with the real world.
I'm not going to waste my time answering your inane diatribe.
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
I don't think you an idiot, merely profoundly ignorant.
-
I don't think you an idiot, merely profoundly ignorant.
More projection.
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
-
By the Constitution, Congress oversees the Executive Branch, not the other way around.
Oh really? Exactly where is this written? Please cite Article and section of the Constitution where this is written.
-
No one supports "infanticide", except when extremists define any abortion, even the morning after pill, to be infanticide. The majority of Americans don't support those extreme positions, either way.
I would ask that, at the very least, go find the clip of Ralph Northam, Democrat Governor of Virginia, and tell me he doesn't support infanticide.
-
I would ask that, at the very least, go find the clip of Ralph Northam, Democrat Governor of Virginia, and tell me he doesn't support infanticide.
kristen will find that ‘proof’ in the same place where you’ll find the constitutional requirement for congress to oversee the president and conclusive evidence that ‘everybody knew’ that the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump (not hilary) was involved in quid pro quo.
-
So the 53.6% of the population that disapprove of Trump all do because they loved Hillary? Seems an extraordinary claim.
That is a one sided comparison. You left out the set of people who dislike Trump but distrusted Hillary more. There was a significant population who didn’t like either of the, and chose the lesser evil.
The last election was really close. The rust belt states were the swing and by a razor thin margin.
-
All I can say is that listening to the testimony, it is clear to me what was going on. Combine that with Trump's statements and Mulvaney's admissions and it is clear to me what went down. We will just have to disagree.
The topic needs to be looked at deeper. The only thing concretely known is that the president demanded things from Ukraine, as every president does. If you were to go back and study the testimony, you’ll find that the idea that it was quid pro quo is a conclusion reached by each of the witnesses, after they heard it on the news! So, CNN reported it, the witnesses went “Oh, that’s what happened”, then the witnesses tell Congress and everyone says “yes, I knew it”!
I’ll strongly suggest that you go back and read the testimony transcripts. You’re being deceived, I hope not willfully.
-
That is a one sided comparison. You left out the set of people who dislike Trump but distrusted Hillary more. There was a significant population who didn’t like either of the, and chose the lesser evil.
The last election was really close. The rust belt states were the swing and by a razor thin margin.
Trump won 304 Electoral Votes to Hillary's 227. I wouldn't call that razor a thin margin. He did win some of the state votes, like PA, which is really a DEMOCRAT state by only 50,000 or so votes. PA hadn't gone for a Republican President since Ronald Reagan.
-
I would ask that, at the very least, go find the clip of Ralph Northam, Democrat Governor of Virginia, and tell me he doesn't support infanticide.
It look at the rash of Democrat governors, like Wisconsin’s Governor, who have vetoed sound Infant Born Alive bills.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/23/tony-evers-veto-born-alive-abortion-bill/3495471002/
-
Trump won 304 Electoral Votes to Hillary's 227. I wouldn't call that razor a thin margin. He did win some of the state votes, like PA, which is really a DEMOCRAT state by only 50,000 or so votes. PA hadn't gone for a Republican President since Ronald Reagan.
The margins were
- 11,612 votes in Michigan for 16 EVs
- 27,257 in Wisconsin for 10 EVs
- 68,236 in Pensslyvania for 20 EVs
These 107,105 votes meant the difference between 260 EVs for Trump and 307 votes. That's a close election because if these votes hadn't going unexpectedly to Trump, he would have lost.
-
The margins were
- 11,612 votes in Michigan for 16 EVs
- 27,257 in Wisconsin for 10 EVs
- 68,236 in Pensslyvania for 20 EVs
These 107,105 votes meant the difference between 260 EVs for Trump and 307 votes. That's a close election because if these votes hadn't going unexpectedly to Trump, he would have lost.
Thanks. He also won some critical swing states by larger margins like Ohio where he won by 454,983 votes. So razor thin may not be the best description.
https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/
-
The margins were
- 11,612 votes in Michigan for 16 EVs
- 27,257 in Wisconsin for 10 EVs
- 68,236 in Pensslyvania for 20 EVs
These 107,105 votes meant the difference between 260 EVs for Trump and 307 votes. That's a close election because if these votes hadn't going unexpectedly to Trump, he would have lost.
Leaving out the vote fraud committed by the communist party (democrats) over the last four presidential elections. Take out fraud and obama never won the 2008 primary against hilary.
-
The margins were
- 11,612 votes in Michigan for 16 EVs
- 27,257 in Wisconsin for 10 EVs
- 68,236 in Pensslyvania for 20 EVs
These 107,105 votes meant the difference between 260 EVs for Trump and 307 votes. That's a close election because if these votes hadn't going unexpectedly to Trump, he would have lost.
If frogs had freaking wings, she LOST.
-
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/me11-3.jpg?w=553&ssl=1)
-
So razor thin may not be the best description.
It was determined by about 54,000 people across three states. That how many it would have taken to change their vote to Hillary for her to have won. So, 54,000 out of 12.7 million volts cast in those states is .0042, less than a half percent.
Maybe razor thin is a good description. How much closer do you think it should have been?
-
Oh really? Exactly where is this written? Please cite Article and section of the Constitution where this is written.
Yeah, that one made me do a spit take.
-
If frogs had freaking wings, she LOST.
Yes, and thank goodness. But it was really, really close and if you only focus on the electoral vote, you could be lulled into a false sense of security. Despite the electoral vote, this was possibly the closest election outcome ever.
-
Despite the electoral vote, this was possibly the closest election outcome ever.
Actually, in 2000 George W Bush beat Al Gore in Florida with 537 votes to win Florida's 25 electoral votes. Had GWB lost Florida, Gore would have been President.
The EC results were GWB 271 to Al Gore 266.
-
Oh really? Exactly where is this written? Please cite Article and section of the Constitution where this is written.
Article I. Congress makes the laws. Congress can impeach the president and remove him from office. The president can't remove anyone from office.
Also, Article II, the president is required to report to Congress, not the other way around.
Again, you have your nose pressed up against a tree and miss the forest.
-
I would ask that, at the very least, go find the clip of Ralph Northam, Democrat Governor of Virginia, and tell me he doesn't support infanticide.
Define "infanticide"?
I missed it! Is Ralph running for president? Has the Democrat Party endorsed Ralph to speak for all Democrats?
-
It was determined by about 54,000 people across three states. That how many it would have taken to change their vote to Hillary for her to have won. So, 54,000 out of 12.7 million volts cast in those states is .0042, less than a half percent.
Maybe razor thin is a good description. How much closer do you think it should have been?
Again, what about "swing states" like Ohio which Trump won by a large margin, so no razor thin is not a good description, and even if you use YOUR three state litmus test it still isn't. One state maybe. Three, NO.
-
That is a one sided comparison. You left out the set of people who dislike Trump but distrusted Hillary more. There was a significant population who didn’t like either of the, and chose the lesser evil.
The last election was really close. The rust belt states were the swing and by a razor thin margin.
That is why I think Trump will lose in 2020. He has done little to nothing to expand his base, he is not running against Hillary, who caused a lot of Dems to skip the polls.
-
That is why I think Trump will lose in 2020. He has done little to nothing to expand his base, he is not running against Hillary, who caused a lot of Dems to skip the polls.
Yes, but now we have three years of a good track record with Trump.
Historically low unemployment even among Blacks Hispanics, and Women
Lower taxes
Less regulation
Low energy and gasoline prices, and good Fed Energy Policy
More secure borders and immigration enforcement
At least an attempt to reduce and end foreign wars
Better relations with North Korea
Better foreign trade deals
Low Inflation (which means tariffs are having no ill effects)
Great Stock Markets
Great Housing Markets
I doubt many independents and moderates will vote against all that for a Warren, or Biden.
-
Article I. Congress makes the laws. Congress can impeach the president and remove him from office. The president can't remove anyone from office.
Also, Article II, the president is required to report to Congress, not the other way around.
Again, you have your nose pressed up against a tree and miss the forest.
The president does control the Department of Justice and through them can ask for investigations against members of congress for criminal activity.
Article II says that he "shall from time to time give information about the state of the union" but it does not state what that timeframe shall be. Could be once in a blue moon. Traditionally it's yearly and as an address but could be whenever in writing: "Doing good. Go pound sand."
-
The topic needs to be looked at deeper. The only thing concretely known is that the president demanded things from Ukraine, as every president does. If you were to go back and study the testimony, you’ll find that the idea that it was quid pro quo is a conclusion reached by each of the witnesses, after they heard it on the news! So, CNN reported it, the witnesses went “Oh, that’s what happened”, then the witnesses tell Congress and everyone says “yes, I knew it”!
I’ll strongly suggest that you go back and read the testimony transcripts. You’re being deceived, I hope not willfully.
I think your premise that all of the witnesses only found out about the quid pro quo from the media is contradicted by the testimony. There was clear concerns before the July 25th phone call which was before the media got on it. The media didn't show up until the whistleblower complaint came to light in late August or September. Fiona Hill did say that she had trouble figuring it out because she did not realize that Guiliani was running a parallel mission with respect to Ukraine, but even she figured it out after being told by Sondland that Trump had given him his authority to work on getting Ukraine to provide a public statement that they were investigating Biden. That was actually the only thing Trump wanted. He didn't care about the investigation per se, he wanted the announcement so he could beat up Biden about it. It is also missed in most reporting that one of the big things that Ukraine wanted as part of the quid pro quo for the announcement of an investigation was a White House visit which would help Zelensky politically.
I think you need to take a more careful look at the timeline yourself:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/key-dates-from-sondlands-andvolkerstestimony-11573001545
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/the-whistleblower-complaint-timeline/
-
Article I. Congress makes the laws. Congress can impeach the president and remove him from office. The president can't remove anyone from office.
Also, Article II, the president is required to report to Congress, not the other way around.
Again, you have your nose pressed up against a tree and miss the forest.
1) Congress makes laws, but those laws can be vetoed by the President (and declared unconstitutional by the courts). In fact, bills don't become law until the President signs the bill (or Congress overrides the President's veto)
2) The President is required to provide information. To say that the President "reports" to Congress is overstating it.
-
Yes, but now we have three years of a good track record with Trump.
Historically low unemployment even among Blacks Hispanics, and Women
Lower taxes
Less regulation
Low energy and gasoline prices, and good Fed Energy Policy
More secure borders and immigration enforcement
At least an attempt to reduce and end foreign wars
Better relations with North Korea
Better foreign trade deals
Low Inflation (which means tariffs are having no ill effects)
Great Stock Markets
Great Housing Markets
I doubt many independents and moderates will vote against all that for a Warren, or Biden.
Economic growth back to what it was when Trump took office, now that the tax cuts have worn off.
Fewer coal mining jobs.
No big influx of manufacturing jobs as promised by Trump.
Lower taxes for a few.
Less health care for the many and would be even less if Trump had his way.
Low energy prices have all to do with fracking and little to do with Trump.
An attempt to reduce wars by screwing the Kurds and damaging our reputation worldwide. Erratic and ignorant foreign policy that favors dictators like Putin.
What better foreign trade deals and tariffs certainly have hurt companies and farmers.
Great stock market, but how many voters are benefiting from that? Most don't own stocks and airplanes.
On the other hand, Trump is a juvenile pig and people are getting tired of his schtick.
-
The president does control the Department of Justice and through them can ask for investigations against members of congress for criminal activity.
Article II says that he "shall from time to time give information about the state of the union" but it does not state what that timeframe shall be. Could be once in a blue moon. Traditionally it's yearly and as an address but could be whenever in writing: "Doing good. Go pound sand."
The president does not control the department of justice. It must follow the laws duly enacted. Historically, both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch and avoided putting much public pressure on it. Breaking with that is one more way that Trump has damaged our republican democracy.
-
Economic growth back to what it was when Trump took office, now that the tax cuts have worn off.
Fewer coal mining jobs.
No big influx of manufacturing jobs as promised by Trump.
Lower taxes for a few.
Less health care for the many and would be even less if Trump had his way.
Low energy prices have all to do with fracking and little to do with Trump.
An attempt to reduce wars by screwing the Kurds and damaging our reputation worldwide. Erratic and ignorant foreign policy that favors dictators like Putin.
What better foreign trade deals and tariffs certainly have hurt companies and farmers.
Great stock market, but how many voters are benefiting from that? Most don't own stocks and airplanes.
On the other hand, Trump is a juvenile pig and people are getting tired of his schtick.
"tax cuts worn off" - I guess that means you acknowledge the benefit to the cuts
"Fewer coal mining jobs." - something the liberals really really want - coal is bad don't you know...
"Lower taxes for a few." - guess again. Lower taxes for a lot of people who pay income tax (kind of stupid to expect lower taxes for those that don't pay any)
"Less health care" - I see you don't grasp the difference between health care and health insurance.
"screwing the Kurds " - once again, do you know that "the Kurds" aren't a homogeneous group? So, which Kurd tribe got screwed?
<sigh>
-
The president does not control the department of justice. It must follow the laws duly enacted. Historically, both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch and avoided putting much public pressure on it. Breaking with that is one more way that Trump has damaged our republican democracy.
you crack me up... this about the process for appointing federal judges
-
The president does not control the department of justice. It must follow the laws duly enacted. Historically, both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch and avoided putting much public pressure on it. Breaking with that is one more way that Trump has damaged our republican democracy.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch of government. It must ENFORCE laws as written by the Legislative Branch. But the Legislative Branch is not immune from its own laws.
Gee... which president used the FBI to spy on a presidential candidate and later on a sitting president?
-
The president does not control the department of justice. It must follow the laws duly enacted. Historically, both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch and avoided putting much public pressure on it. Breaking with that is one more way that Trump has damaged our republican democracy.
Who appoints the Attorney General? Who has direct administrative responsibility for the DOJ? THE PRESIDENT.
-
https://spectator.org/the-cataclysmic-disaster-the-impeachment-democrats-have-overlooked/
-
Who appoints the Attorney General? Who has direct administrative responsibility for the DOJ? THE PRESIDENT.
You clearly don’t 7nderstand.
kristen does not care a fig for facts.
Facts are racist if they fail to embrace the communist (democrat) party line.
-
Also, Article II, the president is required to report to Congress, not the other way around.
Please quote that part of Article II that you speak of. I assume toy are speaking of Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
He is required to give information to Congress, commonly known as the State of the Union Address. Look at who can convene both houses, the President!! Oh, he can also adjourn them!!
-
Again, what about "swing states" like Ohio which Trump won by a large margin, so no razor thin is not a good description, and even if you use YOUR three state litmus test it still isn't. One state maybe. Three, NO.
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin were the three states where the vote total was closest and the 3 states Hillary needed to win in order to win the electoral vote. Choosing Ohio is just as irrelevant to that as choosing Texas because Hillary didn't almost win Ohio - it was 450,000 votes there. The 4th closest state was Florida with 117,000 vote difference, more than Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin combined. Ohio turned out not to be a swing state at all.
If .42% in 3 states isn't close enough, how close do you say it should have been to use the term "razor thin". Because you aren't arguing about whether or not Trump came 54,000 out of 128 million votes away from losing the election, you're arguing about what term is appropriate to describe it.
-
I think your premise that all of the witnesses only found out about the quid pro quo from the media is contradicted by the testimony. There was clear concerns before the July 25th phone call which was before the media got on it. The media didn't show up until the whistleblower complaint came to light in late August or September. Fiona Hill did say that she had trouble figuring it out because she did not realize that Guiliani was running a parallel mission with respect to Ukraine, but even she figured it out after being told by Sondland that Trump had given him his authority to work on getting Ukraine to provide a public statement that they were investigating Biden. That was actually the only thing Trump wanted. He didn't care about the investigation per se, he wanted the announcement so he could beat up Biden about it. It is also missed in most reporting that one of the big things that Ukraine wanted as part of the quid pro quo for the announcement of an investigation was a White House visit which would help Zelensky politically.
I think you need to take a more careful look at the timeline yourself:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/key-dates-from-sondlands-andvolkerstestimony-11573001545
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/the-whistleblower-complaint-timeline/
Actually, my premise is confirmed by their testimony. Each of them said that they didn't understand the whole picture until they saw it on the news. That's when they put it together as quid pro quo and testified of that to Congress. If this goes forward, that is going to become a very public and very embarrassing point.
Your first link is behind a paywall. Your second doesn't seem to get facts exactly correct. Examples:
May 19 — In a Fox News interview, Trump says Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who “was after his son,” Hunter Biden. (There is no evidence that Hunter Biden was under investigation, or that Joe Biden took any official action on his son’s behalf. See “FactChecking Trump’s Fox News Interview.“)
Was there no evidence? There was a video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the General Prosecutor fired and in the process stopping an investigation into his son's company. How is that "no evidence" that Joe Biden took action on his son's behalf? He stopped his son's company from being investigated! That alone is an action which benefited his son and on top of it, he used his authority as Vice President to do it.
But the page also references "the memo", which of course is the memo from the White House in which the president asks Zelensky to make sure what Biden had done was legitimate. That seems like a rational thing to me, because Biden withheld foreign aid unless another country fired their chief investigator...that would be like China demanding that we fire the Attorney General, but bigger. I'd like to know what that was all about too because it certainly seems really shady.
So, you'll have to be more specific. Perhaps it's all perfectly logical to you, but there's no smoking gun. There's nobody who can say "yes, the president told me this" and in fact a lot of people who say "no, the president told me there was not to be quid pro quo". Nobody who testified can state there was quid pro quo, they all testified that it was their conclusion and especially now that the testimony is public record, their next cross examination will be embarrassing.
If you've been around here a while, you know that I don't really care about Trump or not Trump, so don't confuse me with someone who is defending him. I defend the rule of law and in my eyes, there is nothing proven yet. That doesn't mean a lot of people haven't been convinced, but they haven't been convinced by facts.
-
Actually, my premise is confirmed by their testimony. Each of them said that they didn't understand the whole picture until they saw it on the news. That's when they put it together as quid pro quo and testified of that to Congress. If this goes forward, that is going to become a very public and very embarrassing point.
Your first link is behind a paywall. Your second doesn't seem to get facts exactly correct. Examples:
May 19 — In a Fox News interview, Trump says Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who “was after his son,” Hunter Biden. (There is no evidence that Hunter Biden was under investigation, or that Joe Biden took any official action on his son’s behalf. See “FactChecking Trump’s Fox News Interview.“)
Was there no evidence? There was a video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the General Prosecutor fired and in the process stopping an investigation into his son's company. How is that "no evidence" that Joe Biden took action on his son's behalf? He stopped his son's company from being investigated! That alone is an action which benefited his son and on top of it, he used his authority as Vice President to do it.
But the page also references "the memo", which of course is the memo from the White House in which the president asks Zelensky to make sure what Biden had done was legitimate. That seems like a rational thing to me, because Biden withheld foreign aid unless another country fired their chief investigator...that would be like China demanding that we fire the Attorney General, but bigger. I'd like to know what that was all about too because it certainly seems really shady.
So, you'll have to be more specific. Perhaps it's all perfectly logical to you, but there's no smoking gun. There's nobody who can say "yes, the president told me this" and in fact a lot of people who say "no, the president told me there was not to be quid pro quo". Nobody who testified can state there was quid pro quo, they all testified that it was their conclusion and especially now that the testimony is public record, their next cross examination will be embarrassing.
If you've been around here a while, you know that I don't really care about Trump or not Trump, so don't confuse me with someone who is defending him. I defend the rule of law and in my eyes, there is nothing proven yet. That doesn't mean a lot of people haven't been convinced, but they haven't been convinced by facts.
Thank you. I was gonna. But it’s late and I’m too tired. And don’t feel like beating my head against a brick wall.
-
Article I. Congress makes the laws. Congress can impeach the president and remove him from office. The president can't remove anyone from office.
Also, Article II, the president is required to report to Congress, not the other way around.
Again, you have your nose pressed up against a tree and miss the forest.
That is NOT what you said. You said under the Constitution Congress oversees the executive.
That is false, and if that’s what you learned in law school, you should demand a refund.
This is what Article II Section 3 days about “reporting:”
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
Period.
And the ability to Impeach is just that. It does NOT give Congress the right to “oversee” the Executive branch.
Yet you and every leftist lawyer seem to claim that the Legislative branch has oversight and dominion over the presidency.
Congress can pass no law that gives it power or control over another branch beyond what is allowed by the Constitution.
And true to form, you have to take a jab at me for missing the forest. Why, because if the goal is to remove the president, all means are on the table?
Typical leftist.
-
Oh those pesky and inconvenient facts.
They thwart the fantasies of communists (democrats) constantly...
-
I use ;like to read this rou liked to trad this forum but no more for me you ALL right too much bull bullsit arghinuring with ezch oonthderother you r a bouncb of ss jl i z mboblserz idont wntto red you a ntmors fuck hou alll glocd by
fuck you all i dont like this i dont like forum a any more i will be away now .
i
-
I use ;like to read this rou liked to trad this forum but no more for me you ALL right too much bull bullsit arghinuring with ezch oonthderother you r a bouncb of ss jl i z mboblserz idont wntto red you a ntmors fuck hou alll glocd by
fuck you all i dont like this i dont like forum a any more i will be away now .
i
(https://pics.me.me/thumb_well-bye-powersboothe-should-get-this-line-on-his-tombstone-21410578.png)
-
I use ;like to read this rou liked to trad this forum but no more for me you ALL right too much bull bullsit arghinuring with ezch oonthderother you r a bouncb of ss jl i z mboblserz idont wntto red you a ntmors fuck hou alll glocd by
fuck you all i dont like this i dont like forum a any more i will be away now .
i
Damn. You type even worse than 7 does.
-
That is NOT what you said. You said under the Constitution Congress oversees the executive.
So you say that you misunderstood what she was saying and that's her fault? Isn't impeachment a form of oversight?
-
So you say that you misunderstood what she was saying and that's her fault? Isn't impeachment a form of oversight?
well, the police can arrest me, the courts can convict me. But I wouldn't think that they oversee me.
-
well, the police can arrest me, the courts can convict me. But I wouldn't think that they oversee me.
Exactly. Just like “report to” means provide an occasional status report, not as in report to your superior in a chain of command. The Constitution is very clear. The President is not an employee of either of the other two branches.
-
"tax cuts worn off" - I guess that means you acknowledge the benefit to the cuts
I acknowledge that they juiced the economy in the short run at the expense of the long run.
"Fewer coal mining jobs." - something the liberals really really want - coal is bad don't you know...
Except of course Trump's voters care and he promised to bring them back.
"Lower taxes for a few." - guess again. Lower taxes for a lot of people who pay income tax (kind of stupid to expect lower taxes for those that don't pay any)
Middle class families have seen little benefit, but the rich just got richer. That would be fine except was are borrowing money from our children to make the rich richer. How stupid is that?
"Less health care" - I see you don't grasp the difference between health care and health insurance.
No insurance = less health care. Why do you have trouble with that?
"screwing the Kurds " - once again, do you know that "the Kurds" aren't a homogeneous group? So, which Kurd tribe got screwed?
The ones that helped us defeat ISIS. You are grasping at straws to protect your idol.
Trump support is beginning to look more and more like some sort of cult. How else can it be explained that people who have been hurt by Trump keep supporting him faithfully?
-
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch of government. It must ENFORCE laws as written by the Legislative Branch. But the Legislative Branch is not immune from its own laws.
Which does not include doing the President's dirty work.
Gee... which president used the FBI to spy on a presidential candidate and later on a sitting president?
That myth has been debunked long ago.
-
Middle class families have seen little benefit, but the rich just got richer.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I'm done with you.
-
Please quote that part of Article II that you speak of. I assume toy are speaking of Section 3He is required to give information to Congress, commonly known as the State of the Union Address. Look at who can convene both houses, the President!! Oh, he can also adjourn them!!
Only on the context of an extraordinary occasion and can only adjourn that special session if the two houses do not agree on adjournment. POTUS cannot adjourn a regular sitting Congress. These days, as Congress is pretty much always in session, non extraordinary occasion will call for a special session, so this clause of the Constitution is largely moot.
-
You don't know what you are talking about.
I'm done with you.
Yeah. The "little" benefit of $2000 means nothing to us middle class deplorables.
-
Actually, my premise is confirmed by their testimony. Each of them said that they didn't understand the whole picture until they saw it on the news. That's when they put it together as quid pro quo and testified of that to Congress. If this goes forward, that is going to become a very public and very embarrassing point.
Your first link is behind a paywall. Your second doesn't seem to get facts exactly correct. Examples:
May 19 — In a Fox News interview, Trump says Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who “was after his son,” Hunter Biden. (There is no evidence that Hunter Biden was under investigation, or that Joe Biden took any official action on his son’s behalf. See “FactChecking Trump’s Fox News Interview.“)
Was there no evidence? There was a video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the General Prosecutor fired and in the process stopping an investigation into his son's company. How is that "no evidence" that Joe Biden took action on his son's behalf? He stopped his son's company from being investigated! That alone is an action which benefited his son and on top of it, he used his authority as Vice President to do it.
But the page also references "the memo", which of course is the memo from the White House in which the president asks Zelensky to make sure what Biden had done was legitimate. That seems like a rational thing to me, because Biden withheld foreign aid unless another country fired their chief investigator...that would be like China demanding that we fire the Attorney General, but bigger. I'd like to know what that was all about too because it certainly seems really shady.
So, you'll have to be more specific. Perhaps it's all perfectly logical to you, but there's no smoking gun. There's nobody who can say "yes, the president told me this" and in fact a lot of people who say "no, the president told me there was not to be quid pro quo". Nobody who testified can state there was quid pro quo, they all testified that it was their conclusion and especially now that the testimony is public record, their next cross examination will be embarrassing.
If you've been around here a while, you know that I don't really care about Trump or not Trump, so don't confuse me with someone who is defending him. I defend the rule of law and in my eyes, there is nothing proven yet. That doesn't mean a lot of people haven't been convinced, but they haven't been convinced by facts.
The prosecutor that Biden got fired was not working on Burisma at the time and was widely regarded by both the State Dept and our allies as being corrupt. So Biden's actions in getting him fired was in furtherance of US policy, not a personal errand for Biden. Also, everyone overlooks the fact that Biden was not the POTUS. He couldn't have done that without Obama's support. So the argument that Biden did something to support his son has NO basis in fact. There was no ongoing investigation by the Ukrainians into Biden's kid and nothing ties Biden to what his kid was up to.
You also conveniently forget that part of what Trump also wanted was an investigation into the hare-brained conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that hacked out 2016 election. And people wonder why Trump is thought to be Putin's poodle in many quarters.
We convict people all the time without a smoking gun. The smoking gun would probably have to come from Giuliani as Trump is clever enough to insulate himself from his dirtiest of deeds. The circumstantial evidence is highly persuasive. There are enough pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to see what was going down. How did you explain all the testimony about drafting a statement for Ukraine to read that mentioned investigating Biden and the 2016 election?
-
Yeah. The "little" benefit of $2000 means nothing to us middle class deplorables.
Yea, but we should feel guilty taking it. I mean, after all, that money could have went to illegals!
-
That is NOT what you said. You said under the Constitution Congress oversees the executive.
That is false, and if that’s what you learned in law school, you should demand a refund.
This is what Article II Section 3 days about “reporting:”
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
Period.
And the ability to Impeach is just that. It does NOT give Congress the right to “oversee” the Executive branch.
Yet you and every leftist lawyer seem to claim that the Legislative branch has oversight and dominion over the presidency.
Congress can pass no law that gives it power or control over another branch beyond what is allowed by the Constitution.
And true to form, you have to take a jab at me for missing the forest. Why, because if the goal is to remove the president, all means are on the table?
Typical leftist.
Are you suggesting that impeachment is not in the Constitution? Of course it is, and you know it. From there, many things are implied, including that Congress has the power to investigate the President and hence the President has a duty to cooperate with that investigation. To believe otherwise, is willfully ignorant as it would render the impeachment provision null and void.
That is the problem with people not trained in the law trying to interpret it. To interpret it completely, you have to go back to numerous Supreme Court cases. I am not interested enough in the argument to do several hours of research. You seem to think you are an expert in Constitutional interpretation, I will leave it to you, assuming you even know where a law library is.
It always slays me that lay people think that they can interpret the law, but wouldn't dream of telling a doctor how to practice medicine.
-
Which does not include doing the President's dirty work.
That myth has been debunked long ago.
By the MSM. I'll wait for the official report to come out on the 9th.
-
That myth has been debunked long ago.
Denial is not equal to debunk
-
Let's hear from a lawyer who is a Constitutional Scholar. And BTW, he is also a liberal democrat.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/11/dershowitz_house_democrats_acting_like_stalin_on_impeachment_show_me_the_man_and_ill_find_you_the_crime.html
-
The prosecutor that Biden got fired was not working on Burisma at the time and was widely regarded by both the State Dept and our allies as being corrupt.
I'm sorry, but you have bad information. Your premise of no investigation is directly contradicted by Prosecutor General Victor Shokin himself. Unless you believe there is a more authoritative source of what Shokin was doing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement
8. The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holding ("Burisma"), a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. I assume Burisma, which was connected with gas extraction, had the support of the US Vice-President Joe Biden because his son was on the Board of Directors.
9. On several occasions, President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refuse to close this investigation. Therefore, I was forced to leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration. In my conversations with Proshenko at the time, he was emphatic that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma. When I did not, he said that the US (via Biden) was refusing to release USD$ 1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.
That's pretty damning stuff.
Additionally, the UK was involved with their own investigation and at one point even temporarily froze all Burisma accounts in the UK.
How did you explain all the testimony about drafting a statement for Ukraine to read that mentioned investigating Biden and the 2016 election?
Transcript of testimony where draft statements were discussed. Hint on both of these, there's a link right at the top of the document where you can download a PDF to your local machine, giving you text search capabilities.
Here's the transacript of Sondland's testimony - he consistently said that there was no such language that he was aware of in a draft statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/full-transcript-of-testimony-of-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-e-u/fea4cdd1-cc6b-483a-be9e-3b8b5317dcb1/
Here's Kurt Volker's testimony. He states that the Ukrainians gave him a copy of a draft statement. Volker says that Giuliani suggested that it needed to say 2016 and Burisma specifically. But when the statement was released by Ukraine, the only promise was to conduct an audit of previous investigations with no mention of Burisma. So apparently any suggested language that would have led back to Joe Biden was scrubbed out of the statement. Volker basically went with a red herring as "fact". Its true that lots of draft statements are considered and discarded, that's why they're drafts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/full-transcript-of-testimony-of-kurt-volker-former-u-s-special-representative-for-ukraine-negotiations/369d63fd-09d3-4616-ace6-95659500e35c/
Now, just about two weeks ago, the Ukraine Parliament asked for an investigation into Burisma corruption and Joe Biden's extortion, but again, they didn't do this at Trump's direction. I'm sure that you'll agree that Trump cannot tell their Parliament what to do.
Do you have something else about the statements being drafted?
-
From there, many things are implied, including that Congress has the power to investigate the President and hence the President has a duty to cooperate with that investigation. To believe otherwise, is willfully ignorant as it would render the impeachment provision null and void.
This is largely an untried area. The rules are what the House and Senate decide they are and the courts and the law have no say over them. The Constitution vests sole authority to each body for it's part of the process.
Is the president required to cooperate? No, I don't see how that can be. If the president refuses to cooperate with the House, then what is the outcome? Congress has no authority over him and cannot compel his testimony. Bill Clinton was the first president to testify in such a proceeding and a data point of one is hardly precedence. Besides, the 5th Amendment still applies and beyond that, natural law. You simply cannot compel the president to give testimony if he were to stubbornly refuse to do so. Congress cannot arrest the president, that should be clearly understood to be beyond their authority. So, the truth is, they can neither require not compel his cooperation.
-
You simply cannot compel the president to give testimony if he were to stubbornly refuse to do so. Congress cannot arrest the president, that should be clearly understood to be beyond their authority. So, the truth is, they can neither require not compel his cooperation.
Nancy Pelosi said that she can send the capitol police to arrest administration personnel who refuse to cooperate and put them in the capitol jail. I assume that also includes the President.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pelosi-jokes-not-enough-room-in-jail-for-trump-aides-2019-5
-
Nancy Pelosi said that she can send the capitol police to arrest administration personnel who refuse to cooperate and put them in the capitol jail. I assume that also includes the President.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pelosi-jokes-not-enough-room-in-jail-for-trump-aides-2019-5
Nancy also claimed she was equal to the President
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/pelosi-the-constitution-considers-me-equal-to-the-president.php
-
Nancy Pelosi said that she can send the capitol police to arrest administration personnel who refuse to cooperate and put them in the capitol jail. I assume that also includes the President.
So you're of the opinion that the House can nullify the presidency by arresting him? I don't think so.
-
Are you suggesting that impeachment is not in the Constitution? Of course it is, and you know it. From there, many things are implied, including that Congress has the power to investigate the President and hence the President has a duty to cooperate with that investigation. To believe otherwise, is willfully ignorant as it would render the impeachment provision null and void.
That is the problem with people not trained in the law trying to interpret it. To interpret it completely, you have to go back to numerous Supreme Court cases. I am not interested enough in the argument to do several hours of research. You seem to think you are an expert in Constitutional interpretation, I will leave it to you, assuming you even know where a law library is.
It always slays me that lay people think that they can interpret the law, but wouldn't dream of telling a doctor how to practice medicine.
Your first sentence demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. I acknowledged Congress has the power to impeach.
You also have little understanding of the separation of powers.
But whatever. You felt the need to pull a Steingar and let everyone know you’re the smartest person in the room, and can’t even fathom that someone might have more knowledge in an area than you do.
One thing you did learn is Alinsky’s Rule #5:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
I’m done with you.
-
So you say that you misunderstood what she was saying and that's her fault? Isn't impeachment a form of oversight?
No, it is not. Impeachment is a power, granted to Congress. It doesn’t authorize Congress to blindly investigate the Executive Branch. The separation of powers limits one branch’s meddling in the other branches’ business, except as authorized by the Constitution. For example, Congress has power over certain aspects of the judiciary. But it is not a superior branch to the other branches.
-
No, it is not. Impeachment is a power, granted to Congress. It doesn’t authorize Congress to blindly investigate the Executive Branch. The separation of powers limits one branch’s meddling in the other branches’ business, except as authorized by the Constitution. For example, Congress has power over certain aspects of the judiciary. But it is not a superior branch to the other branches.
Impeachment is a political process. As such, Congress can approach it however they choose and its up to us to tell them when they’ve gone too far. If they’re pushing it and it appears blindly partisan, they will pay for it.
-
I'm sorry, but you have bad information. Your premise of no investigation is directly contradicted by Prosecutor General Victor Shokin himself. Unless you believe there is a more authoritative source of what Shokin was doing.
https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement
That's pretty damning stuff.
Additionally, the UK was involved with their own investigation and at one point even temporarily froze all Burisma accounts in the UK.
Transcript of testimony where draft statements were discussed. Hint on both of these, there's a link right at the top of the document where you can download a PDF to your local machine, giving you text search capabilities.
Here's the transacript of Sondland's testimony - he consistently said that there was no such language that he was aware of in a draft statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/full-transcript-of-testimony-of-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-e-u/fea4cdd1-cc6b-483a-be9e-3b8b5317dcb1/
Here's Kurt Volker's testimony. He states that the Ukrainians gave him a copy of a draft statement. Volker says that Giuliani suggested that it needed to say 2016 and Burisma specifically. But when the statement was released by Ukraine, the only promise was to conduct an audit of previous investigations with no mention of Burisma. So apparently any suggested language that would have led back to Joe Biden was scrubbed out of the statement. Volker basically went with a red herring as "fact". Its true that lots of draft statements are considered and discarded, that's why they're drafts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/full-transcript-of-testimony-of-kurt-volker-former-u-s-special-representative-for-ukraine-negotiations/369d63fd-09d3-4616-ace6-95659500e35c/
Now, just about two weeks ago, the Ukraine Parliament asked for an investigation into Burisma corruption and Joe Biden's extortion, but again, they didn't do this at Trump's direction. I'm sure that you'll agree that Trump cannot tell their Parliament what to do.
Do you have something else about the statements being drafted?
I heard Shokin’s audio myself. But the MSM simply will not present these facts. People locked into believing MSM is still journalism cannot see what they don’t see.
-
So you're of the opinion that the House can nullify the presidency by arresting him? I don't think so.
They can if they transition into thuggery. The deep state is very near that right now. Trumped up charges, witch hunts, systematic propaganda. Their hysterical conviction of their own righteousness would justify a military coup right now if they thought they could get away with it.
-
They can if they transition into thuggery. The deep state is very near that right now. Trumped up charges, witch hunts, systematic propaganda. Their hysterical conviction of their own righteousness would justify a military coup right now if they thought they could get away with it.
They are on the verge of having to be blatantly ILLEGAL, although I think the Russia Coup Attempt by the Democrats and a complicit MEDIA already has crossed that line. The Media is our biggest problem right now because they will ENABLE the illegal activity, and therefore the utter SHEEP that now populate this country will believe then. No public outcry, no law enforcement.
-
Impeachment is a political process. ....
Why?
Is a constitutional power necessarily political?
-
-
Just a question for you folks, does anyone think that Hunter Biden was placed on the Board of Burisma because of his deep understanding of business?
-
Just a question for you folks, does anyone think that Hunter Biden was placed on the Board of Burisma because of his deep understanding of business?
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/XOywjQnU8R89q/giphy.gif)
-
Just a question for you folks, does anyone think that Hunter Biden was placed on the Board of Burisma because of his deep understanding of business?
sure, kind of like Thorton Melon understands the process.
-
Just a question for you folks, does anyone think that Hunter Biden was placed on the Board of Burisma because of his deep understanding of business?
Biden’s presence on the board was ceremonial. He was one selected for the purpose of international connections and influence (his connection to the U.S. VP.) These facts are indisputable. While not technically illegal, this could be construed as an appearance of impropriety, something well understood lawyers are not supposed to do.
Hunter Biden knew this was an “appearance of impropriety” problem, and so did Joe. In their own words:
In an interview with ABC News aired Tuesday, Hunter Biden said in retrospect it may have been poor judgment to join Burisma’s board while his father was vice president, but added: “Did I make a mistake based upon some ethical lapse? Absolutely not.”
Biden, in the interview added that he didn’t discuss his business dealings in Ukraine with his father, other than one brief exchange in which his father told him “I hope you know what you’re doing.”
Naturally Hunter claims this isn’t an ethical lapse, and it may not have been such a bad one, until Joe Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars in connection to investigating this company.
Others back this up:
Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament who knows the Burisma founder, said it had been Zlochevsky’s idea to appoint Biden as a director. “It was to protect (the company)” at a time when it was facing investigations
There you have it. Biden was there specifically to help shield the company from investigation, and it worked, because it led his father to use money and power to influence a foreign nation’s internal investigation of corruption.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine-idUSKBN1WX1P7
-
So you're of the opinion that the House can nullify the presidency by arresting him? I don't think so.
Not at all. Just a data point that Madame Nancy might be just a bit past her expiration date. From what I understand, "contempt of congress" by the administration carries no weight due to separation of powers.
-
From what I understand, "contempt of congress" by the administration carries no weight due to separation of powers.
Based on what happened to Holder (nothing) that appears to be correct.
-
Why?
Is a constitutional power necessarily political?
No, that's what the Supreme Court has said about it. The Constitution doesn't define how to do it, just says that the House is solely responsible for impeachment and the Senate is solely responsible for the trial. Other than the Chief Justice being the judge, the Judicial branch is not involved.
-
Not at all. Just a data point that Madame Nancy might be just a bit past her expiration date. From what I understand, "contempt of congress" by the administration carries no weight due to separation of powers.
Contempt can be enforced with all the power of Congress.
In 1927, McGrain v. Daugherty, the Supreme Court held that that Congress has the authority to arrest a witness who refuses to appear under a congressional subpoena. However, given the political environment these days, it would be political suicide for the Democrats to begin arresting Cabinet officers for not showing up, especially on a topic (Mueller investigation) that now gives every appearance of having been a political hatchet job.
-
Denial is not equal to debunk
There are still no facts to support these conspiracy theories, just speculation, supposition, and spin.
-
Here's Kurt Volker's testimony. He states that the Ukrainians gave him a copy of a draft statement. Volker says that Giuliani suggested that it needed to say 2016 and Burisma specifically. But when the statement was released by Ukraine, the only promise was to conduct an audit of previous investigations with no mention of Burisma. So apparently any suggested language that would have led back to Joe Biden was scrubbed out of the statement. Volker basically went with a red herring as "fact". Its true that lots of draft statements are considered and discarded, that's why they're drafts.
How can you deny what you just admitted. There were drafts of a statement to be made by the Ukrainians to give Trump what he wanted. It didn't end up happening because the whistleblower blew the lid off the scam.
If one looks at the totality of the testimony it is clear what was happening with the Giuliani back channel on this.
-
This is largely an untried area. The rules are what the House and Senate decide they are and the courts and the law have no say over them. The Constitution vests sole authority to each body for it's part of the process.
Is the president required to cooperate? No, I don't see how that can be. If the president refuses to cooperate with the House, then what is the outcome? Congress has no authority over him and cannot compel his testimony. Bill Clinton was the first president to testify in such a proceeding and a data point of one is hardly precedence. Besides, the 5th Amendment still applies and beyond that, natural law. You simply cannot compel the president to give testimony if he were to stubbornly refuse to do so. Congress cannot arrest the president, that should be clearly understood to be beyond their authority. So, the truth is, they can neither require not compel his cooperation.
The Supremes will likely decide, but if the POTUS doesn't have to cooperate, then it writes the impeachment provision out of the Constitution. Given that the founders were highly suspicious of executive power, it is inconceivable that they meant the POTUS to be above the law.
-
You also have little understanding of the separation of powers.
But whatever. You felt the need to pull a Steingar and let everyone know you’re the smartest person in the room, and can’t even fathom that someone might have more knowledge in an area than you do.
And what law school did you graduate from and when?
-
How can you deny what you just admitted. There were drafts of a statement to be made by the Ukrainians to give Trump what he wanted. It didn't end up happening because the whistleblower blew the lid off the scam.
If one looks at the totality of the testimony it is clear what was happening with the Giuliani back channel on this.
I didn't deny anything. Joe Biden is accused of committing a crime in getting Shokin fired. Most Americans probably would never have clued in on this without this whole impeachment thing. I don't think it's inappropriate to suggest that the Ukrainians investigate corruption in their government...their country is well known for corruption and Joe Biden was standing right in the middle of some of it.
Did the direction for that come from Trump? Probably, but do you expect his private lawyer will ever answer questions about that? This isn't fraud and it isn't criminal, it's in the political realm. If Giuliani confirmed"yes, the president said that Joe Biden needed to be investigated for his part in extorting the Ukrainians to drop the investigation into Hunter Biden's company", would he go to jail for that? Absolutely not, although it would almost certainly end his career as an attorney.
-
There are still no facts to support these conspiracy theories, just speculation, supposition, and spin.
Sounds like you are talking about 3 years worth of charges against Trump.
-
And what law school did you graduate from and when?
None of your business. Sounds like law wasn’t really your thing anyway, since you decided to fly professionally instead.
-
Sounds like you are talking about 3 years worth of charges against Trump.
Projection again. I mean, I can't even. The facts are there.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2019/305/60fe044c-0bc0-4038-a902-41d4308f6dae.png)
-
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats-Impeachment-Inquiry-in-the-House-of-Representatives.pdf
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 8, 2016, nearly 63 million Americans from around the country chose
Donald J. Trump to be the 45th President of the United States. Now, less than a year before the
next presidential election, 231 House Democrats in Washington, D.C., are trying to undo the will
of the American people.
*
As one Democrat admitted, the pursuit of this extreme course of action
is because they want to stop President Trump’s re-election.
Democrats in the House of Representatives have been working to impeach President
Trump since his election. Democrats introduced four separate resolutions in 2017 and 2018
seeking to impeach President Trump.
‡
In January 2019, on their first day in power, House
Democrats again introduced articles of impeachment.
§
That same day, a newly elected
Congresswoman promised to an audience of her supporters, “we’re going to go in there and
we’re going to impeach the [expletive deleted].”
**
Her comments are not isolated. Speaker
Nancy Pelosi called President Trump “an impostor” and said it is “dangerous” to allow American
voters to evaluate his performance in 2020.
††
The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious
misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. The Democrats are
trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected
bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes. They are
trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats were discomforted by an
elected President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They are
trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected
President’s “outside the beltway” approach to diplomacy.
The sum and substance of the Democrats’ case for impeachment is that President Trump
abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden,
President Trump’s potential political rival, for President Trump’s benefit in the 2020 election.
Democrats say this pressure campaign encompassed leveraging a White House meeting and the
release of U.S. security assistance to force the Ukrainian President to succumb to President
Trump’s political wishes. Democrats say that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the President’s personal
attorney, and a “shadow” group of U.S. officials conspired to benefit the President politically.
The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of
the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or
misdemeanor.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2019/305/60fe044c-0bc0-4038-a902-41d4308f6dae.png)
What the....
-
What the....
Apparently even this woman isn't buying the bullshit.
-
Fat Jerry...
-
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats-Impeachment-Inquiry-in-the-House-of-Representatives.pdf
Looks like the giraffe emoji on my iphone.
-
Looks like the giraffe emoji on my iphone.
It’s 123 pages of pdf document. Might be hard for a phone to render but my iPad did. Not going to scroll through it though. Some things are still better left to desktops.
-
It’s 123 pages of pdf document. Might be hard for a phone to render but my iPad did. Not going to scroll through it though. Some things are still better left to desktops.
Signals crossed, the woman looks like the giraffe emoji lol.
-
Signals crossed, the woman looks like the giraffe emoji lol.
Ooooooh, you quoted the pdf. But I can see that haha!
-
Looks like the giraffe emoji on my iphone.
She does, she does! The guy looks like someone out of Vaudeville. LOL! Mammy!
-
She does, she does! The guy looks like someone out of Vaudeville. LOL! Mammy!
racist
-
Again, causation is lacking for virtually all the good economic news. He is getting credit just because he is POTUS, not because he actually did anything beyond borrow a bunch of money and inject it into the economy.
Many of the other "achievements" are bipartisan things that he signed. Granted, he has signed some worthwhile executive orders. He has called out China and taken concrete steps to block them stealing our technology. It would have been better if he has used a revised TPP and other diplomatic efforts to get more other countries on our side to ostracize China for their actions which would have been better.
This has been balanced by:
Weakening NATO
Just to name a few.
-
You are debating a potted plant.
Kristen has zero interest in facts. Her emotional hatred of President Donald J. Trump (not hilary)
is as silly as it is irrational.
-
You are debating a potted plant.
Kristen has zero interest in facts. Her emotional hatred of President Donald J. Trump (not hilary)
is as silly as it is irrational.
No debate actually. The facts are there, and as this CNN segment points out, the President has actually strengthened NATO.
-
And what law school did you graduate from and when?
Our founding fathers and framers of the constitution wrote that document so the layman could easily understand it. It wasn't written by a bunch of lawyers who purposely filled it with latin phrases, and it wasn't filled with weasel words. It means what it says.
One does not need to attend a law school to read and fully understand the constitution. In this day and time there are thousands of articles written by scholars on the constitution and are readily accessible.
-
The president does not control the department of justice. It must follow the laws duly enacted. Historically, both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch and avoided putting much public pressure on it. Breaking with that is one more way that Trump has damaged our republican democracy.
Which branch of government does the DoJ fall under? Hint: The Executive.
Who appoints the Attorney General? Hint: The President
Which cabinet does the AG sit on? Hint: The President's
Under the Executive Branch, who does the AG ultimately report too? Hint: The President.
As for your fantasy that "both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch ", I guess you forgot about Eric Holder, who often referred to himself as Obama's "wingman". And maybe you forgot about Loretta Lynch and her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton?
-
Which branch of government does the DoJ fall under? Hint: The Executive.
Who appoints the Attorney General? Hint: The President
Which cabinet does the AG sit on? Hint: The President's
Under the Executive Branch, who does the AG ultimately report too? Hint: The President.
As for your fantasy that "both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch ", I guess you forgot about Eric Holder, who often referred to himself as Obama's "wingman". And maybe you forgot about Loretta Lynch and her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191206/146deb8aa074339f9e1aa94823e5359c.jpg)
-
Who appoints the Attorney General? Hint: The President
Which cabinet does the AG sit on? Hint: The President's
Under the Executive Branch, who does the AG ultimately report too? Hint: The President.
Further to that:
JFK’s AG was...? Hint: Also his confidant during the Cuban missile crisis.
-
Further to that:
JFK’s AG was...? Hint: Also his confidant during the Cuban missile crisis.
Bobby Kennedy. So did JFK sever family relations so Bobby could be "independent"?
-
"These are my final words on advocacy. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table."
I think Kristin realized that on this topic, she had neither facts nor law on her side. Hammering the table would have been a waste of time.
-
"These are my final words on advocacy. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table."
I think Kristin realized that on this topic, she had neither facts nor law on her side. Hammering the table would have been a waste of time.
What she did was troll us and now that she has been unmasked as a pathetic shill for ignorance and stupidity, I suspect that she’ll disappear for another three years.
-
Which branch of government does the DoJ fall under? Hint: The Executive.
Who appoints the Attorney General? Hint: The President
Which cabinet does the AG sit on? Hint: The President's
Under the Executive Branch, who does the AG ultimately report too? Hint: The President.
As for your fantasy that "both parties have treated the justice department as an independent branch ", I guess you forgot about Eric Holder, who often referred to himself as Obama's "wingman". And maybe you forgot about Loretta Lynch and her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton?
Obama weaponized the DOJ with Holder and Lynch as purely political operatives to punish his enemies and manipulate people. Lynch should have been held accountable for her clandestine meeting with Bill, but the Media created no public outcry. Shocking, I know,
Bobby on the other hand went after the mob and unions as AG. Even though these same people helped get JFK elected using voter fraud and other means. Just ask Frank Sinatra. :)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/a-inf19.jpg?w=744&ssl=1)