Thread: Now we can impeach him - How long will it take

goldtop - 1/20/2017 at 05:17 PM

Day 1

The professor that said he would win now says he will either be impeached or step down

I can only hope he's correct again


goldtop - 1/20/2017 at 05:25 PM

To watch a sociopath liar put his hand on the bible is a sad day

We went from dignified to disgusting in a moments time

We have a disgusting pimp for a president


OriginalGoober - 1/20/2017 at 05:33 PM

Impeach? For what? Rigging elections? Getting debate questions illegally? Manipulate the press by getting to pre-review MSM articles?

Your gals behavior would have made any KGB agent proud.


jkeller - 1/20/2017 at 05:45 PM

quote:
Impeach? For what? Rigging elections? Getting debate questions illegally? Manipulate the press by getting to pre-review MSM articles?

Your gals behavior would have made any KGB agent proud.


Hillary lost. What she did isn't relevant, but I guess it is all you have.


Bhawk - 1/20/2017 at 05:53 PM

quote:
Impeach? For what? Rigging elections? Getting debate questions illegally? Manipulate the press by getting to pre-review MSM articles?

Your gals behavior would have made any KGB agent proud.


How can you impeach someone from an office she never held?

That's just weird.


OriginalGoober - 1/20/2017 at 05:53 PM

Yes HILLARY LOST. He is OUR PRESIDENT. Wishing for him to fail is like wishing the pilot misses the runway BUT we all are on the plane. I would be rooting for Hillary and Whoville-Mayor whats his name if they won.


Bhawk - 1/20/2017 at 05:56 PM

quote:
I would be rooting for Hillary and Whoville-Mayor whats his name if they won.


LOL, at least be honest. No, you wouldn't.


BIGV - 1/20/2017 at 06:32 PM

quote:
Hillary lost. What she did isn't relevant, but I guess it is all you have.


Felt the need to save this


nebish - 1/20/2017 at 09:20 PM

There is enough grey area or potential conflict of interest that cases will be made. The administration will deflect or dispel. The strength and validity of said cases yet to be determined. Impeachable? I don't know you tell me.


OriginalGoober - 1/20/2017 at 09:56 PM

Nebish, THis is a typical Trump hater response to the election results, with very derogatory name calling language sprinkled in about our next President. This is why there has been a decline in activity here, not something I posted.


pops42 - 1/20/2017 at 10:01 PM

Trump will be impeached for multiple ethics violations, and several of his staff will be facing prison sentences for various crimes.


2112 - 1/20/2017 at 10:03 PM

quote:
Trump will be impeached for multiple ethics violations, and several of his staff will be facing prison sentences for various crimes.


But the GOP holds both houses on congress for at least 2 years. Kind of early to consider impeachment.


Dan - 1/20/2017 at 10:22 PM

not fast enough!!!


pops42 - 1/20/2017 at 10:27 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump will be impeached for multiple ethics violations, and several of his staff will be facing prison sentences for various crimes.


But the GOP holds both houses on congress for at least 2 years. Kind of early to consider impeachment.
True, but id say within 18 months if the press and the people hold their feet to the fire [congress] I'm sure the pitchforks will come out, when trump voters realize he won't /can't deliver what he ran on. and trump can't help being trump.


goldtop - 1/21/2017 at 04:34 AM

Treason would be the first reason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

See when you ask a foreign government to interfere and then they do that's an act of treason

I believe his campaign was closely connected to Russia....The man has a fascination with the country and its leader....

2 of his wives come from that part of the world....his daughter has a very "Slavic" first name....he ran his miss universe pageant there

There is a connection and it will be brought out to light....its just a matter of time


nebish - 1/21/2017 at 06:08 AM

quote:
Treason would be the first reason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

See when you ask a foreign government to interfere and then they do that's an act of treason

I believe his campaign was closely connected to Russia....The man has a fascination with the country and its leader....

2 of his wives come from that part of the world....his daughter has a very "Slavic" first name....he ran his miss universe pageant there

There is a connection and it will be brought out to light....its just a matter of time


Well, the fact that he has or doesn't have a fascination with the country of Russia or if his daughter has a slavic name means nothing.

What does mean something is if there were actual collusion of some sort between his campaign and the Russian government. I will be disappointed if that is the case, but if proven, it is a very significant event. No doubt you will find Republicans ready to take action against Trump if it is shown he had communication with the Russians that lead to or asked them for any assistance during the campaign season.

So I believe this investigation is ongoing, right now.

But if the result of the investigation is the worst, Trump is impeached or resigns, then you'd be left with Pence, who I suspect most principled liberals don't like either. Some may even like him less?


Chain - 1/21/2017 at 01:40 PM

Trump is in violation of the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. The only question is whether the members of Congress will do their due diligence as required by their own oath of office and move to impeach him. Given Congress is controlled by the Republicans, it's probably a long shot.

I would suggest anyone curious about this potential Constitutional crisis listen to and read what these two ethics lawyers have been loudly proclaiming since Trump was elected. They are Richard Painter and Norm Eisen (George W. Bush's ethics lawyer and Barrack Obama's ethics lawyer respectably).


Here's a link to more info. on the Emoluments clause:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-cla use

[Edited on 1/21/2017 by Chain]


nebish - 1/21/2017 at 03:29 PM

quote:
Trump is in violation of the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. The only question is whether the members of Congress will do their due diligence as required by their own oath of office and move to impeach him. Given Congress is controlled by the Republicans, it's probably a long shot.

I would suggest anyone curious about this potential Constitutional crisis listen to and read what these two ethics lawyers have been loudly proclaiming since Trump was elected. They are Richard Painter and Norm Eisen (George W. Bush's ethics lawyer and Barrack Obama's ethics lawyer respectably).


Here's a link to more info. on the Emoluments clause:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-cla use

[Edited on 1/21/2017 by Chain]


Legitimate issue, it is going to be a cloud over his Presidency. I don't know how he could divest all business interest foreign and domestic being he is so unique in this area compared to other politicians. The standard of the blind trust seem too simplistic for a case of the holdings and interests of Trump? Maybe not. Smarter people than I can weigh in.

They talk about the lease agreement on the post office and an elected official ineligible to hold such a lease, although this should just violate the lease rather than create an issue for the office of President I think.

I will look up comments by Painter and Eisen.


goldtop - 1/21/2017 at 03:44 PM

Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point




alloak41 - 1/21/2017 at 04:04 PM

quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


Swifty - 1/21/2017 at 04:39 PM

quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


I fail to see how the voters only get one occasion to act. Is this a rule you made up?

But voters did not know how extensive those holdings are because Trump did not release his tax returns. Trump concealed his holdings. He asked the voters to trust him. Now if conflicts emerge and these are reported in the press, voters might reach a different conclusion about his business dealings. This would put pressure on congress to act.

If Trump creates jobs in a way that the country as a whole flourishes and people are happy with their new prospects, then there would be less pressure to investigate any conflicts. If people are unhappy with his performance then Trump will have big trouble.

Complicating matters for him is that all of the measures on his priority list will have an adverse impact on the poor unemployed people who voted for him. He has no real economic plan.


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 04:45 PM

The Emoluments Clause violation is a legitimate Constitutional concern.

Anyone who spent months or even years frothing at the mouth about Benghazi or emails, yet blows this off, is simply a smug partisan hypocrite who isn't as better than others as they think they are.


nebish - 1/21/2017 at 04:46 PM

quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


Well, that is true, but if there is a violation of law that turns into something different. If we are talking about just some kind of custom or ethical tradition it is one thing, if there are legal issues that goes beyond voters overlooking or not giving weight to it in their vote.

I mean look, there are things that I want to happen in this administration that I think can only happen in a Trump administration and as I've talked for years that is on trade. If he is impeached that opportunity goes out the window, so I don't want that. But we can't have constitutional violations either.

I have just a cursory knowledge of these things, right wrong or otherwise potential conflicts of interest were not something I factored when voting. I suppose one could think that stuff may work it's self out, but if it hasn't then people are going to continue to bring it up and it may have some legitimacy to it.

Just this morning trying to get up to speed I've learned that criminal conflict of interest statute prohibits every other person in executive branch, except the President and Vice President, from participating in any matter that had a direct and predictable outcome on their investments or personal well being. But President and VP are exempt from this statute. However they risk serious appearances of impropriety. Previous Presidents have done everything they could to eliminate any appearance of conflict.

Emoluments clause comes in with foreign governments or institutions/companies controlled by foreign governments (like if the Bank of China lends to a Trump business for instance) that is a violation. I'm not a lawyer, one side would say it is not or why it is not and the other side would argue otherwise. The end result is if it is a violation then it is an impeachable issue. It’s best to divest these interests so there are no questions. Nobody technically knows at this point if there is a violation, but speculation is if there hasn’t been already that potential exists. Even if you give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say it happened without his knowledge it is still a violation I suspect, again you shouldn't take any of this from me there are much more knowledgeable people out there.

So it is best to get as far away from a potential conflict as possible so it isn’t a constant black cloud or liability to his term. I didn't know how a blind trust would work with the vast and diverse holdings of somebody like Trump. The physical businesses or properties wouldn’t go into a blind trust, all the assets would have to be sold (rolled into one, offered as a public offering), all holdings would need converted to cash and the money goes into a blind trust. So no doubt Trump didn't want to do that.

And to my limited knowledge, it isn't against the law for him to continue ownership of these companies and businesses. It leads to some problems, but not legal problems with him being President - except for that issue of foreign government influence and dollars and with Trump's global holdings that potential does exist. Nobody should want that exposure, certainly not Trump or anyone on his team. But he has left himself open to it.

One big problem maintaining these private business interests, outside of the potential Emoluments violation, is the President could be a litigation magnet with private lawsuits, legitimate or frivolous. The President can be sued in his personal capacity and would have to go through the process of discovery, deposition related to those lawsuits. Not something we want our President to be facing much of. It's a distraction at best.

And some say politics are boring!


MartinD28 - 1/21/2017 at 04:47 PM

quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


Some maybe but most probably not. Truthfully, alloak - How many voters really follow substance & details enough to know the extent of Trump's conflicts of issue? You might be referring to the same voters that think ACA and Obamacare are different.

As pointed out, if the guy won't release his tax returns, imagine what's in there to add to the extent of conflict. Just the other day he lied, yet again (for the umpteenth time) and said that the American public doesn't care about his tax returns. He knows there are things in there not beneficial for release. Google it up for yourself.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/11/donald-trump /trump-wrong-reporters-are-only-ones-who-care-about/

alloak, Do you care about what's in his tax returns and where there is conflict, or are you just more thrilled that Obama's 2 terms are over, and Trump will Make America Great Again...whatever that means?


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 04:48 PM

quote:
So it is best to get as far away from a potential conflict as possible so it isn’t a constant black cloud or liability to his term. I didn't know how a blind trust would work with the vast and diverse holdings of somebody like Trump. The physical businesses or properties wouldn’t go into a blind trust, all the assets would have to be sold (rolled into one, offered as a public offering), all holdings would need converted to cash and the money goes into a blind trust. So no doubt Trump didn't want to do that.



Then he shouldn't have run for President. Pretty simple.


nebish - 1/21/2017 at 04:51 PM

I should thank Chain for providing some substantive info and direction on the issue. I know more now than I did an hour ago and that is a good thing.


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 04:58 PM

quote:
I should thank Chain for providing some substantive info and direction on the issue. I know more now than I did an hour ago and that is a good thing.


Good to see Chain around these parts again!


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 04:58 PM

quote:
I should thank Chain for providing some substantive info and direction on the issue. I know more now than I did an hour ago and that is a good thing.


Good to see Chain around these parts again!


alloak41 - 1/21/2017 at 05:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


Some maybe but most probably not. Truthfully, alloak - How many voters really follow substance & details enough to know the extent of Trump's conflicts of issue? You might be referring to the same voters that think ACA and Obamacare are different.

As pointed out, if the guy won't release his tax returns, imagine what's in there to add to the extent of conflict. Just the other day he lied, yet again (for the umpteenth time) and said that the American public doesn't care about his tax returns. He knows there are things in there not beneficial for release. Google it up for yourself.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/11/donald-trump /trump-wrong-reporters-are-only-ones-who-care-about/

alloak, Do you care about what's in his tax returns and where there is conflict, or are you just more thrilled that Obama's 2 terms are over, and Trump will Make America Great Again...whatever that means?


Of course I'm thrilled that Obama's is done. I could say I'm sad to see him go but you wouldn't believe that anyway.

No. I don't care about his tax returns. Just as I don't care about Clinton, Kerry, Romney, McCain, Bush, or Gore's tax return. I guess I care more job performance and results.


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 05:16 PM

quote:
I guess I care more job performance and results.


At the sake of legality and ethics? The same level of legality and ethics that the rightists have been going on about for two years towards their enemies?

Bold statement to make on Day 2, I'll give you that.


Chain - 1/21/2017 at 05:33 PM

quote:
The Emoluments Clause violation is a legitimate Constitutional concern.

Anyone who spent months or even years frothing at the mouth about Benghazi or emails, yet blows this off, is simply a smug partisan hypocrite who isn't as better than others as they think they are.


Exactly, Hawk....Richard Painter mentioned this very issue on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross yesterday. He mentioned how embarrassed he is as a long time partisan Republican that his party made such an issue about Benghazi but yet is ignoring blatant violations by Trump on an issue that is tantamount to the very foundation of checks and balances within our government.

He also pointed to the fact that the Republicans in congress are already making efforts to thwart efforts by those very federal employees (not elected politicians) and agencies charged with investigating and overseeing ethics violations who are bringing some of these obvious violations forward.

I would suggest listening to the entire "Fresh Air" edition from yesterday as well as a recent "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook in which both of these attorney's also were guests. Also, both co-authored a recent NY Times article (or maybe it was Washington Post?) about this issue. Here's a link to yesterday's Fresh Air:

http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/01/19/510596329/fresh-air-for-ja nuary-19-2017

And the "On Point" episode:

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/11/28/conflict-interest-donald-trump

Thanks for the kind wishes, gang.....



[Edited on 1/21/2017 by Chain]


alloak41 - 1/21/2017 at 05:43 PM

quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


I fail to see how the voters only get one occasion to act. Is this a rule you made up?



No, but that's the most effective and surefire way to handle it.

Now we get to see how the Democrats really feel about "fake scandals" and "witch hunts" Not to mention "obstruction."

Will they set an example and match actions with words, or end up looking like phonies?








Time will tell....


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 05:46 PM

quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


I fail to see how the voters only get one occasion to act. Is this a rule you made up?



No, but that's the most effective and surefire way to handle it.

Now we get to see how the Democrats really feel about "fake scandals" and "witch hunts" Not to mention "obstruction."

Will they set an example and match actions with words, or end up looking like phonies?



So, Trump is exempt from criticism and laws. How do you conclude that so easily? I'm kinda jealous of being able to do that.


alloak41 - 1/21/2017 at 05:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


I fail to see how the voters only get one occasion to act. Is this a rule you made up?



No, but that's the most effective and surefire way to handle it.

Now we get to see how the Democrats really feel about "fake scandals" and "witch hunts" Not to mention "obstruction."

Will they set an example and match actions with words, or end up looking like phonies?



So, Trump is exempt from criticism and laws. How do you conclude that so easily? I'm kinda jealous of being able to do that.


And I'm a little jealous as a normal citizen not being exempt from laws the way politicians are. We both know laws only apply to certain people. It is what it is.


Bhawk - 1/21/2017 at 06:24 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Day 2......Emoluments clause is just one of the many conflicts this man will have....

He didn't release his tax returns because he knows the trouble that will cause...and he never will until they subpoena them and I'm sure that will happen at some point



Voters knew about potential conflicts and tax returns before the election and he still won. The time to stop him was on Election Day.


I fail to see how the voters only get one occasion to act. Is this a rule you made up?



No, but that's the most effective and surefire way to handle it.

Now we get to see how the Democrats really feel about "fake scandals" and "witch hunts" Not to mention "obstruction."

Will they set an example and match actions with words, or end up looking like phonies?



So, Trump is exempt from criticism and laws. How do you conclude that so easily? I'm kinda jealous of being able to do that.


And I'm a little jealous as a normal citizen not being exempt from laws the way politicians are. We both know laws only apply to certain people. It is what it is.


So, then, to be clear, you are adopting the "by any means necessary" approach when it comes to Trump?


goldtop - 1/21/2017 at 07:38 PM

Besides the fact he's a disgusting human...and unfortunately we can't impeach for that alone....I think he has long deep ties to Russia and Putin

You don't run a Ms Universe pageant there without greasing the palms of the government....who knows what other backdoor deals went down during that time.....

Its amazing how his supports have no problem with Russian interference at any level with any party

His approval rating is 32%....so I would say 68% of the people want to see his tax returns and the other 32% continue to bury their heads in the sand....hoping for the government to get them a job...which of course is socialism



MartinD28 - 1/21/2017 at 08:43 PM

quote:

His approval rating is 32%....so I would say 68% of the people want to see his tax returns and the other 32% continue to bury their heads in the sand....hoping for the government to get them a job...which of course is socialism




They 32% will all head to West Va when Trump Makes America Great Again by reopening coal mines that have closed and rejuvenating the coal industry with 1000's of jobs.


goldtop - 1/22/2017 at 04:12 PM

Day 3

So yesterday he goes to the CIA and blames the media for the so called "fight" between him and the Intelligence community

Yet he somehow forgot he tweeted that they were Nazi's

This has nothing to do with right or left....Republican or Democrat it has to do with that he is a disgusting person with zero values or ability to tell the truth.

Ever wonder why he has no public service at 70 years old....because he doesn't give a chit....and never did and never will

The man should be pulling a wagon and have a little gibbon monkey dressed up in a red and gold suit selling his snake oil

Just show how far behind we really are...we put Archie Bunker in the white house




Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 05:06 PM

So…Trump would remain in office even if he was impeached. It would take a conviction by the senate (two thirds majority) for him to actually be removed from office. This is extremely unlikely to happen…in fact, I don’t think it (removal of a president) has ever happened in the history of our country…but someone correct me if I’m wrong? But let’s say for the sake of argument that Trump is removed. If that happens, the vice president takes the spot vacated by Trump. Now…I assume most (if not all) of the folks screaming for impeachment are liberals, or at least fall somewhere left of center in the political spectrum. Trump is not a conservative. He was a liberal for most of his life until he decided to run for prez under the GOP banner. But Mike Pence is a conservative. So even though Trump is a “disgusting human” as someone so eloquently put it, he probably aligns much more closely with the center /left of center folks than Mike Pence does. Just curious if the folks on the left have thought this through …by eliminating Trump they actually put a much more conservative president in the white house…so what do they gain?


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 05:22 PM

quote:
No, but that's the most effective and surefire way to handle it.

Now we get to see how the Democrats really feel about "fake scandals" and "witch hunts" Not to mention "obstruction."

Will they set an example and match actions with words, or end up looking like phonies?


Everyone knows these hypocricies exist on both sides, so what are you offering here? McConnel and Boehner openly admitted they were going to block Obama no matter what he put forward, without even hearing or reading it. They said that. If the Democrats do that with Trump, they are equally as dispicable. So aside from pointing out an example of hypocrisy on the left, what else are you saying?


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 05:22 PM

quote:
by eliminating Trump they actually put a much more conservative president in the white house…so what do they gain?


Trump's hostile, exclusive, and dangerous rhetoric could inflame emotions domestically and internationally, and escalate tensions. To eliminate this potentional risk is worth it alone. I think Pence has a much less chance of starting WW3. Pence may believe in gay-conversion therapy, but I do not worry about him attempting it. He won't ban gay marraige, he won't do anything of the sort, so as I was saying in the other thread, a conservative President at the end of the day won't change my day. Trump's rhetoric doesn't fall into conservative or liberal - it's just irresponsible, immature, emabarrassing, unprofessional, and potentiall very dangerous. And if his thin-skin and short temper get the best of him, I'd hate to see what happens after he antagonizes another country via Twitter. Gimme Pence all day.

I don't know if anyone saw SNL last night, but Aziz Ansari made a comment during his monologue that mirrors what I've been saying about Bush. He wasn't so bad. He was in fact a great President. He and his family showed just as much class and dignity as the Obamas, and faced just as much hostility and opposition, but never wavered and was never un-Presidential. He did what he thought was right in the face of adversity, and allowed history to judge him, and looking back I think he did a pretty good job for his character if nothing else. That's how bad Trump is. When liberals are reminscing about how we long for Bush.

[Edited on 1/22/2017 by BoytonBrother]


porkchopbob - 1/22/2017 at 05:28 PM

quote:
No, but that's the most effective and surefire way to handle it.

Now we get to see how the Democrats really feel about "fake scandals" and "witch hunts" Not to mention "obstruction."

Will they set an example and match actions with words, or end up looking like phonies?

Dismantling the agency that keeps politicians in check is an effective way to hide violations of ethics? Sounds, I don't know, CROOKED.

Interesting to see you hold Democrats to a higher standard.







Time will tell....


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 05:36 PM

quote:
I don’t think it (removal of a president) has ever happened in the history of our country…but someone correct me if I’m wrong?


You are correct. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two that have been impeached. Nixon resigned from office, of course.

quote:
Now…I assume most (if not all) of the folks screaming for impeachment are liberals, or at least fall somewhere left of center in the political spectrum.


People can scream all they want. Given the current makeup of Congress, Trump won't get investigated for...anything.

quote:
Trump is not a conservative. He was a liberal for most of his life until he decided to run for prez under the GOP banner. But Mike Pence is a conservative. So even though Trump is a “disgusting human” as someone so eloquently put it, he probably aligns much more closely with the center /left of center folks than Mike Pence does.


Donald Trump aligns with whatever is best for Donald Trump. This should be pretty obvious to most people by now.

quote:
Just curious if the folks on the left have thought this through …by eliminating Trump they actually put a much more conservative president in the white house…so what do they gain?


As much that is wrong with our government, as many changes need to be made, some of the radical, immediate changes being made or planned are, in some ways, more anarchistic to the traditional political order than any black bloc idiot breaking the window of a coffee shop. There is a difference between the transitional and evolving matters in our society that government makes correct or incorrect, hands-off or intrusive, and the traditions of an orderly state that are carried on for the common good.

The daily business of politics, government and bureaucracy, when running correctly, is incredibly mundane and boring, and that's a good thing. The simple matter of governance should be carried on so the citizens can go on about their day.

Mike Pence is a career politician. No matter who or what or how someone likes or dislikes career politicians, we have a ton of them. Until we (never) discuss term limits and such, we will always have career politicians. There once was a time when the majority of the folks in Congress were lawyers, but that has changed over time. Last session, only 39 percent of the House and 57 percent of the Senate had a JD. On one hand, seems like nobody likes lawyers (until they need one, of course), but on the other hand, electing experts in law to work on and create and amend laws doesn't sound that out of the realm.

If you do a lot of reading about the behind the scenes in Washington, there's a lot of folks scared (Republicans too!) by Trump...in that did-we-really-put-Homer-Simpson-in-charge-of-a-nuclear-reactor way. Platitudes and populism work to get one elected (obviously), but winning an election has absolutely nothing to do with governing.

I can only speak for myself, but given that this morning we entered a new world of "alternate facts," I'd take President Pence right now.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 05:55 PM

Bhawk - Well said. It's an interesting scenario...I think Pence is much more of the typical conservative type (pro-life, anti-LGBT, etc.) than Trump. So it seems Pence as president would be much more of a threat when it comes to those types of issues...the very issues that brought thousands of protestors out into the streets yesterday. So the "Love Trumps Hate" crowd is so blinded by and driven by their hysterical hatred of Trump, that they would actually prefer to put their political agenda at an even GREATER risk by removing Trump from office. They have actually put their hatred of Trump and his removal as a higher priority than protecting their own rights.


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 06:17 PM

A threat to what? What rights would Pence take away that we have now?

[Edited on 1/22/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 06:29 PM

quote:
What rights would Pence take away that we have now?


I have no idea. And I noticed that not one person interviewed at the protests yesterday was able to clearly articulate what exactly they were protesting or what they were afraid of. But apparently women, the LGBT community, and some minority groups (BLM) fear that the Trump administration is going to roll back their rights and erase the many decades of progress that has been made in civil/human rights. My point was that Pence (as a conservative) is more of a threat (in theory at least) to their rights than Trump, but for some reason they still want Pence as president. It is an irrational - bordering on hysterical - hatred that these people have for Trump such that their primary goal is his removal, not human/civil rights.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 06:30 PM

quote:
I think Pence is much more of the typical conservative type (pro-life, anti-LGBT, etc.) than Trump. So it seems Pence as president would be much more of a threat when it comes to those types of issues...the very issues that brought thousands of protestors out into the streets yesterday.


Again, Pence is a career politician. All of the Republican Congressional leadership are career politicians. There's a Republican senator from my home state that hasn't actually lived here in 20 years. There's a long way between saying and doing. In the end, a career politician is beholden to his or her desire for re-election. Radical changes and ideas don't always come out and they don't always have the full partisan weight behind them. If they, did, for example, Harriet Miers would be a Supreme Court Justice.

quote:
So the "Love Trumps Hate" crowd is so blinded by and driven by their hysterical hatred of Trump, that they would actually prefer to put their political agenda at an even GREATER risk by removing Trump from office. They have actually put their hatred of Trump and his removal as a higher priority than protecting their own rights.


"Blinded by hate." The tired hypocrisy angle. In your zeal to call it from both sides, you're discounting one whole side.

Look, the guy is on tape saying "grab them by the p***y," has kids by three different women and has said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter, he'd do her. If you think that's not going to cause a reaction, especially considering that he's now the President, I don't know what to tell you.

"They are all just blinded by their hate! Trump is a saint! Practically Jesus! Look at all these idiot liberals and their hate!"

Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 06:31 PM

quote:
I have no idea. And I noticed that not one person interviewed at the protests yesterday was able to clearly articulate what exactly they were protesting or what they were afraid of.


Oh irony, thou art a cruel mistress...


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 06:39 PM

Yeah, you're right...there was no hatred or displays of vulgarity from the "p***y power", "nasty women", "F**k Trump", dressed like vaginas, thoughts of blowing up the white house crowd yesterday. Classy, intelligent bunch of folks. And I'm just a dishonest troll now? Got it.


goldtop - 1/22/2017 at 06:50 PM

Yes Trump is disgusting

His taped p***sy commnet...pretty disgusting

His comment on how a judge can't be fair because he's "Mexican"...pretty disgusting

His ban on Muslims...pretty disgusting

His use of twitter....pretty disgusting

His comments about his daughter....pretty disgusting

His attack and calling our intelligence community Nazi's...pretty disgusting

Yes he is a disgusting person with zero values....sorry I thought you liked him because of his straight talk...well I have no problem with straight talk

He's a disgusting person

[Edited on 1/22/2017 by goldtop]


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 06:53 PM

quote:
Yeah, you're right...there was no hatred or displays of vulgarity from the "p***y power", "nasty women", "F**k Trump", dressed like vaginas, thoughts of blowing up the white house crowd yesterday. Classy, intelligent bunch of folks. And I'm just a dishonest troll now? Got it.


Motivations on message boards are usually made quite clear by what people do and don't respond to. Your refusal to acknowledge any of Trump's behavior as a reason for, well, anything is a pretty clear tell.

Apparently, your overriding theme here is: American liberals are hate-filled hypocrites, hate-filled for no reason. They should sit down, shut up, and let the right wing, perfect in every way, have the final say on anything and everything. No one on the right wing has ever said or done anything hateful, ever. This is an extremely common theme that has been recurring on this particular board now for several years, almost always by the same people.

If that's what you mean to say, just come out and say it. Trying to set up hypocritical "gotchas" has been and is an obsession by many, and it's almost always started off with the "I despise both sides, but, the left..." approach.

I could post a hundred hateful signs from Tea Party rallies and Obama being burned in effigy, but you'd just ignore them, because apparently they don't exist. Odd one-way hypocrisy standard you have.


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 07:03 PM

quote:
My point was that Pence (as a conservative) is more of a threat (in theory at least) to their rights than Trump, but for some reason they still want Pence as president. It is an irrational - bordering on hysterical - hatred that these people have for Trump such that their primary goal is his removal, not human/civil rights.


Bhawk stated it perfectly. I'll add that some people worry about the potential dangers of a hostile, short-tempered, thin-skinned President who behaves like a child. Many of us are concerned he could start international conflicts over petty reasons. So that's why we'd rather have Pence - we're not afraid of the big bad other side and don't consider opposing views a threat, like you do. We know America has enough resources that will allow us to do anything we want. The only thing irrational and hysterical is your paranoia of having no choice but to succomb to the big bad politicians that "affect you by force", and somehow dictate what happens to you in life. Please. Since you confuse laws with political idealogy, and couldn't understand why Meryl wasn't fired despite not working for anyone, you haven't done anything to gain an ounce of credibility, and if you have, please show us. I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 07:07 PM

goldtop - I agree that those things that Trump did are disgusting.

However...Bhawk will be along soon enough to explain to you how I really don't believe that...I am just a liar, and a troll. Apparently ol' Bhawk has me figured out, and knows my mind, my motivations, and my political philosophy even better than I do.


goldtop - 1/22/2017 at 07:15 PM

quote:
goldtop - I agree that those things that Trump did are disgusting.

However...Bhawk will be along soon enough to explain to you how I really don't believe that...I am just a liar, and a troll. Apparently ol' Bhawk has me figured out, and knows my mind, my motivations, and my political philosophy even better than I do.


I don't care if a republican or democrat is in the white house. I don't want a disgusting person in the white house

I also have a disabled grandson so his mocking of the palsy of the disabled reporter is the height of disgusting

What the "Right" doesn't get....He's a disgusting dangerous person...How can anyone see anything positive in that or him???

If Rubio or Kasich was in I would not feel like this at all...and do you think there would have been marches world wide if they were elected or if Hillary was elected

those marches happened for 1 reason only

************>>>>>>DONALD TRUMP IS A DISGUSTING PERSON<<<<<<<<<<<<*************

it was zero to do with republican or right wing...so that can never be the argument


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 07:15 PM

quote:
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.


That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.

I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 07:18 PM

quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 07:21 PM

quote:
If Rubio or Kasich was in I would not feel like this at all...


I liked (and still do) Marco Rubio a lot. Kasich too. I'd happily take back 95% of the negative things I've ever said about Mitt Romney. Their common thread...all decent, honorable men with admirable records of public service.

Hillary was a terrible candidate from the get-go and she lost.

Apparently, somehow, we're here...

"You guys WON! Get over it!"


porkchopbob - 1/22/2017 at 07:24 PM

quote:
there was no hatred or displays of vulgarity from the "p***y power", "nasty women", "F**k Trump", dressed like vaginas, thoughts of blowing up the white house crowd yesterday. Classy, intelligent bunch of folks. And I'm just a dishonest troll now? Got it.


Let's not forget that the "P___ Power" and "Nasty Women" signs at these incredibly peaceful protests (by millions nation- and worldwide), are in direct response to vulgar comments made by Trump himself. To paraphrase the judges on Law & Order, "you opened the door, counselor, I'm allowing it..." These aren't born in a vacuum.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 07:28 PM

BoytonBrother - so laws aren't based on political ideology? Laws and world events exist in a vacuum and are in no way determined by political ideology? Obamacare was not an outcome of a certain political ideology? The Iraq war was not the outcome of a political ideology? And laws are not enforced by the power/force of the government? I can simply choose to ignore laws rather then "letting" them dictate what happens to me?

Fascinating. And good to know. All this time I've been under the impression that political ideology informs and shapes the laws of a society, and that those laws then dictate what is legal or illegal behavior for the members of said society, and that these laws are then enforced by the government of that society. But I like your way better...(if only it existed).

Someone really should have let all those protestors in on this theory of yours..."political beliefs do not affect you, laws don't dictate what your rights are...this march is a waste of time...just don't LET Trump affect you...you can all go home now"...lol.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 07:45 PM

quote:
quote:
there was no hatred or displays of vulgarity from the "p***y power", "nasty women", "F**k Trump", dressed like vaginas, thoughts of blowing up the white house crowd yesterday. Classy, intelligent bunch of folks. And I'm just a dishonest troll now? Got it.


Let's not forget that the "P___ Power" and "Nasty Women" signs at these incredibly peaceful protests (by millions nation- and worldwide), are in direct response to vulgar comments made by Trump himself. To paraphrase the judges on Law & Order, "you opened the door, counselor, I'm allowing it..." These aren't born in a vacuum.


So I guess that makes it OK? Didn't we just have the double standard/hypocrisy discussion? If these folks thought it was vulgar, shouldn't they have tried to rise above that vulgarity and have a higher standard? If Trump thinks that some women are nasty and vulgar...well, I would have to say that many of them proved him right yesterday. Would it not have been better to come out and be classy, intelligent, and articulate as a response to Trump? Instead they protested vulgarity by being equally vulgar. And my questions/comments are directed at the ones who acted that way. I realize that they are not representative of all women or all of the protestors.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 07:54 PM

quote:
quote:
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.


That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.

I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.


OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.

And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.

So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 07:58 PM

quote:
BoytonBrother - so laws aren't based on political ideology? Laws and world events exist in a vacuum and are in no way determined by political ideology? Obamacare was not an outcome of a certain political ideology? The Iraq war was not the outcome of a political ideology? And laws are not enforced by the power/force of the government? I can simply choose to ignore laws rather then "letting" them dictate what happens to me?


You consider a difference in political ideology to be a problem that creates some sort of threat to you, and takes away your rights. I don't feel that way.

quote:
Someone really should have let all those protestors in on this theory of yours..."political beliefs do not affect you, laws don't dictate what your rights are...this march is a waste of time...just don't LET Trump affect you...you can all go home now"...lol.


Now you get it. This is truly exactly how I feel. I respect their right to voice themselves, but I don't think women's rights will ever be in jeopardy under Trump, but I certainly don't blame them for being outraged by his comments.


porkchopbob - 1/22/2017 at 08:04 PM

quote:
So I guess that makes it OK? Didn't we just have the double standard/hypocrisy discussion? If these folks thought it was vulgar, shouldn't they have tried to rise above that vulgarity and have a higher standard? If Trump thinks that some women are nasty and vulgar...well, I would have to say that many of them proved him right yesterday. Would it not have been better to come out and be classy, intelligent, and articulate as a response to Trump? Instead they protested vulgarity by being equally vulgar. And my questions/comments are directed at the ones who acted that way. I realize that they are not representative of all women or all of the protestors.


It's called context, they reappropriated his own words. Often times, quite sharply and wittily. They are responding to what they found insulting. How do you protest words and actions you find horrible by extracting them from your own protest? And how vulgar is "nasty" - what are you a Puritan? They peacefully protested? That is about as classy as you can get. You want them to burn Trump in effigy as many did Obama in 2008? You may not agree with what they protested, but you can't argue with how they protested.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 08:06 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.


That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.

I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.


OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.

And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.

So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.


One thing is for sure, you are quite sensitive.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 08:22 PM

I get that this is how you "feel". But I'm not interested in how you feel about something. I'm only interested in how things really are.

And it's not that I just "CONSIDER" a difference in political ideology to be a problem that creates some sort of threat to me. It's that this is reality. And the "threat" isn't necessarily a loss of rights. It could be a decrease in disposable income or the loss of a good health care policy, which I have already provided as evidence of ways in which the political ideology of the Obama administration directly impacted me.

Political ideology can also have a positive impact. I'm not saying it is all bad. I favor those aspects of a political ideology that are positive, while opposing those that are negative.

But to say that political ideology has no impact on my life or yours...well, you can "feel" that way all you want to. But the reality is quite different.

So...those women protesting yesterday...their rights aren't really in jeopardy, they are just unjustifiably paranoid, and they are only protesting because they are butt-hurt over some comments Trump made? Another interesting theory...


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 08:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.


That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.

I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.


OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.

And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.

So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.


One thing is for sure, you are quite sensitive.


Yes, I know...a quite sensitive, dishonest, troll. I've learned so much about myself from you.


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 08:48 PM

quote:
You are kidding, right? With the Supreme Court up for grabs you don't think Roe vs. Wade is going to come under fire?


I don't. It might be challenged, but I believe a woman will always be able to have an abortion should she choose that route. I don't see how Trump could prevent that. If he can, please do tell. I'm always eager to learn.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 08:51 PM

quote:
goldtop - I agree that those things that Trump did are disgusting.


quote:
So...those women protesting yesterday...their rights aren't really in jeopardy, they are just unjustifiably paranoid, and they are only protesting because they are butt-hurt over some comments Trump made?


You find these things "disgusting," but anyone else taking issue to them is "butt-hurt?"


BoytonBrother - 1/22/2017 at 08:54 PM

quote:
And it's not that I just "CONSIDER" a difference in political ideology to be a problem that creates some sort of threat to me. It's that this is reality. And the "threat" isn't necessarily a loss of rights. It could be a decrease in disposable income or the loss of a good health care policy, which I have already provided as evidence of ways in which the political ideology of the Obama administration directly impacted me.


Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?


quote:
But to say that political ideology has no impact on my life or yours...well, you can "feel" that way all you want to. But the reality is quite different.


If you say so.


quote:
So...those women protesting yesterday...their rights aren't really in jeopardy, they are just unjustifiably paranoid, and they are only protesting because they are butt-hurt over some comments Trump made? Another interesting theory...


your words and interpretation. you can cut and past mine from above for my words and interpretation.


jkeller - 1/22/2017 at 09:02 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Pretty transparent trolling-lite here, and one that's been used many times before. Lacks punch, IMO.


That isn't calling anyone a troll. That's an observation that a post is light trolling to illicit an emotional response, something that everyone including myself has done many times before. It's not like trying to get someone to lose their cool is restricted to this tiny corner of the internet.

I never called Redfish7 a troll or a liar. But, I have no control over how people process things.


OK...let's split hairs. To be fair to Bhawk. He never called me a liar, he just drew a conclusion that I was being dishonest. So he accused me of being dishonest, but he never used the "L" word.

And he never directly called me a troll. He just said that my post was an example of "trolling-lite", which also implied that my question was not a sincere/honest one, but rather just an attempt to piss people off.

So...according to Bhawk...I am dishonest, but not a liar. And I am the author of posts motivated by trolling, but I am not a troll.


One thing is for sure, you are quite sensitive.


Yes, I know...a quite sensitive, dishonest, troll. I've learned so much about myself from you.


You concluded that.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 09:11 PM

Consider this. This is today. This morning:

quote:
4:47 am - Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823150055418920960?ref_src=twsrc %5Etfw



Then, about an hour and a half later:

quote:
6:23am - Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823174199036542980?ref_src=twsrc %5Etfw



All of the ridiculous and inane nitpicking done over Presidents over the last several years and all of the sudden you even breathe the slightest implication of negativity on the things like this our PRESIDENT says and you're just a butt-hurt snowflake?

Get the ---- outta here.


Redfish7 - 1/22/2017 at 10:13 PM

quote:
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?


Oh, OK...so now I have to go find a higher paying job or work more hours just to maintain the same level of income. Great! Well, at least you are finally acknowledging that political ideologies negatively impact me and my family. We're making some progress now.

You are so lost here. What don't you get? Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare. I now pay a higher premium, have a higher deductible, etc. which means less net income in my pocket every month. That is a negative impact to me that is a result of a political ideology. Your suggestion...work harder...so now we have another negative impact to me and my family.

Before Obamacare: Good health insurance policy, lower premiums, lower deductibles.

After Obamacare: Higher premiums, higher deductibles - both of which result in less money in my pocket. And according to you I must now work harder to maintain the same level of income.

So...a worse insurance policy, less money in my pocket, more work resulting in less free time to spend with my family and doing the things that I enjoy, etc. So tell me again how political ideologies have no impact on my life? And tell me again why I should not be opposed to something that negatively impacts me and my family?

And keep in mind that Obamacare is just one small example of how politics intersects with and impacts our lives.


jkeller - 1/22/2017 at 10:24 PM

quote:
quote:
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?


Oh, OK...so now I have to go find a higher paying job or work more hours just to maintain the same level of income. Great! Well, at least you are finally acknowledging that political ideologies negatively impact me and my family. We're making some progress now.

You are so lost here. What don't you get? Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare. I now pay a higher premium, have a higher deductible, etc. which means less net income in my pocket every month. That is a negative impact to me that is a result of a political ideology. Your suggestion...work harder...so now we have another negative impact to me and my family.

Before Obamacare: Good health insurance policy, lower premiums, lower deductibles.

After Obamacare: Higher premiums, higher deductibles - both of which result in less money in my pocket. And according to you I must now work harder to maintain the same level of income.

So...a worse insurance policy, less money in my pocket, more work resulting in less free time to spend with my family and doing the things that I enjoy, etc. So tell me again how political ideologies have no impact on my life? And tell me again why I should not be opposed to something that negatively impacts me and my family?

And keep in mind that Obamacare is just one small example of how politics intersects with and impacts our lives.




What you and so many others failed to understand is that the ACA was intended so that everyone would be able to get insurance, but the premiums are set by the insurance companies. Just about every insurance companies made record profits after the ACA was passed.


Bhawk - 1/22/2017 at 10:44 PM

quote:
Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare.


Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.

Medicare and Medicaid were heading down one of two paths: Complete insolvency, or, rescue from that insolvency via a massive tax crush that would start hitting as early as 2030, now not that far away.

As Medicare and Medicaid evolved over time, both parties ignored the Baby Boomer reality...eventually there was going to be waaaaay more claims paid out than there were workers paying in, simply by math.

The three main pillars of Obamacare:

1. Ban insurance companies from the pre-existing condition exemption from coverage - This is a win for the people that now would have insurance that did not have access before.
2. Mandate those without insurance to participate, or, pay a penalty. This is a win for the insurance companies who had to take on all those new customers with expensive conditions by balancing it with making those younger and healthier pay in, as that group tends to not use insurance as much. It also was originally concepted on a very basic conservative complaint - no free rides, everyone has to pay something.
3. More Americans have health insurance - This is a win for the government.

Three main groups, everyone gets something. This is the basic theory as originally presented by The Heritage Foundation, one of Washington's oldest and most respected conservative think tanks, and was also the basic framework for Bob Dole's heathcare plan on his 1996 Presidential campaign platform.

Not exactly so easily discernable by political ideology, now is it?

As to the premiums, the ACA left giant loopholes...there were no premium price controls at the Federal level, that was left to the states. Now there's 50 different states with 50 different insurance commissions, so while the Federal law enacted things, the states were left to run things, or opt in to the Medicaid provision to help offset the new administrative burden.

It should be noted that no matter one's level of regard for insurance companies, their motives and their profitability, it goes without saying that any premium increase can be made by any insurance company and they can blame Obamacare, the position of the Sun or the presence of demons as a reason to make that increase.

Premiums, like most other things, increase over time as adjusted with inflation. Let's say there's a full repeal and dismantling of the ACA. When premiums go up again, then who to blame?

After that, there's still the matter of millions of people now without insurance, which may or may not include the 76 million Baby Boomers getting older by the minute and a healthcare system that would be further behind the 8-ball than ever.

Then what do we do?


nebish - 1/22/2017 at 11:39 PM

These threads all go so many different directions of off topic.

quote:
What you and so many others failed to understand is that the ACA was intended so that everyone would be able to get insurance, but the premiums are set by the insurance companies. Just about every insurance companies made record profits after the ACA was passed.


So that is why United, Humana and Aetna are withdrawing from some state exchanges...too much profit?

I mean yeah, I get it...huge windfall for them, the government mandates that everyone must buy their product and have health insurance and if you can't afford to buy it the government subsidizes it. Something obviously went wrong or else these companies wouldn't be withdrawing.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 12:09 AM

quote:
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.


Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.


jkeller - 1/23/2017 at 12:14 AM

quote:
quote:
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.


Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.


So, building roads, schools, having police departments, fire departments, a standing military force to protect us are a political ideology? And that is bad?

Since you refused to read the rest of his post, we can add lazy and narrow minded to your list of perceived flaws.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 12:31 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.


Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.


So, building roads, schools, having police departments, fire departments, a standing military force to protect us are a political ideology? And that is bad?

Since you refused to read the rest of his post, we can add lazy and narrow minded to your list of perceived flaws.


How one thinks we should go about doing those things, providing those services, and how we should pay for them is largely determined by one's political ideology. And I never said all government is bad, or that all political ideologies have negative impacts. I said that they can also have positive impacts. But if you had read my posts you would already know this. So I'm not the only lazy one.

And the primary point being debated was whether or not political ideology affects/impacts our lives. BoyntonBrother says "no". I say "yes". I used Obamacare as evidence that it does. Whether you are pro-OC or anti-OC is irrelevant (at least to the point being debated). The only question is...did Obamacare impact peoples' lives? I am living proof that it did. That's why I didn't read any further...I'm not interested in discussing the pros/cons of Obamacare.




alloak41 - 1/23/2017 at 01:04 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Wah wah, the government is to blame for your income now? Whatever happened to working harder for the income you want?


Oh, OK...so now I have to go find a higher paying job or work more hours just to maintain the same level of income. Great! Well, at least you are finally acknowledging that political ideologies negatively impact me and my family. We're making some progress now.

You are so lost here. What don't you get? Someone's or some party's political ideology lead to the implementation of Obamacare. I now pay a higher premium, have a higher deductible, etc. which means less net income in my pocket every month. That is a negative impact to me that is a result of a political ideology. Your suggestion...work harder...so now we have another negative impact to me and my family.

Before Obamacare: Good health insurance policy, lower premiums, lower deductibles.

After Obamacare: Higher premiums, higher deductibles - both of which result in less money in my pocket. And according to you I must now work harder to maintain the same level of income.

So...a worse insurance policy, less money in my pocket, more work resulting in less free time to spend with my family and doing the things that I enjoy, etc. So tell me again how political ideologies have no impact on my life? And tell me again why I should not be opposed to something that negatively impacts me and my family?

And keep in mind that Obamacare is just one small example of how politics intersects with and impacts our lives.




What you and so many others failed to understand is that the ACA was intended so that everyone would be able to get insurance, but the premiums are set by the insurance companies.


Set by the insurance companies after the government forced them into what to include in their policies, who and what to cover.

Not that that would effect prices.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 01:18 AM

quote:
quote:
So I guess that makes it OK? Didn't we just have the double standard/hypocrisy discussion? If these folks thought it was vulgar, shouldn't they have tried to rise above that vulgarity and have a higher standard? If Trump thinks that some women are nasty and vulgar...well, I would have to say that many of them proved him right yesterday. Would it not have been better to come out and be classy, intelligent, and articulate as a response to Trump? Instead they protested vulgarity by being equally vulgar. And my questions/comments are directed at the ones who acted that way. I realize that they are not representative of all women or all of the protestors.


It's called context, they reappropriated his own words. Often times, quite sharply and wittily. They are responding to what they found insulting. How do you protest words and actions you find horrible by extracting them from your own protest? And how vulgar is "nasty" - what are you a Puritan? They peacefully protested? That is about as classy as you can get. You want them to burn Trump in effigy as many did Obama in 2008? You may not agree with what they protested, but you can't argue with how they protested.


I don't have a problem with them protesting...it’s their right…but apparently some of the stuff they were doing was too lewd and vulgar to even show on the news. And you know there were kids and teenagers at the march. I thought back to the commercial that Hillary had during the campaign...the one that showed the kids watching all of Trump's antics. But I guess it was OK for these same kids and young people to see the vulgar things that were displayed at the march...and I'm sure these kids totally understood the context (sarcasm). And I guess we just have different perspectives on what classy is. And, yes...I get what they were doing, and the context and all...but to protest vulgarity with more vulgarity is hypocritical in my book. Not to mention that women who are pro-life were not allowed to partner with the march. So much for women being united, and all that diversity and inclusiveness BS...

It would have been nice if Trump had in some way acknowledged the folks at the march...let them know that he hears them, ease some of their concerns, etc. And going forward it would be great if he would set up some town halls or other types of forums with some representatives of those groups and have some open dialog with them. I know...that's crazy talk...and I won't hold my breath, but I think that would be a great move on his part if he really wants to start healing some of the division in this country.

[Edited on 1/23/2017 by Redfish7]


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 01:21 AM

quote:

So that is why United, Humana and Aetna are withdrawing from some state exchanges...too much profit?



Why aren't they withdrawing from them all?


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 01:29 AM

quote:
quote:
Not entirely. Obamacare was a reaction to a legitimate societal need.


Even the idea that the government (or the taxpayers) is responsible for addressing that societal need is a political ideology, and one that not everyone shares. I stopped reading after this...so can't comment on your other points.


If no change had been made, by 2040 Medicare and Medicaid spending would require 40% (yes, 40%) of GDP.

The tax rate would have to go to 50% for everyone to cover that.

That has nothing to do with political ideology, that's fiscal reality.

You might go ahead and say that Medicare and Medicaid are bad programs too. That doesn't change the fact that millions of people had Medicare deductions taken out of the paychecks for most or all of their working lives and still may face having no assistance at all when the time comes.

There's still the matter of millions of people not having insurance, which may or may not include the 76 million Baby Boomers getting older by the minute and a healthcare system that would be further behind the 8-ball than ever.

Then what do we do?


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 01:31 AM

quote:
Whether you are pro-OC or anti-OC is irrelevant (at least to the point being debated). The only question is...did Obamacare impact peoples' lives? I am living proof that it did. That's why I didn't read any further...I'm not interested in discussing the pros/cons of Obamacare.


So, get rid of it. Then what?


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 01:47 AM

Bhawk - just to be clear...the point being discussed/debated was whether or not political ideology impacts our lives, either for good or bad. Are you actually siding with BoyntonBrother in trying to claim that it does not impact our lives?

I don't care to debate the pros/cons of OC, or how we fix it, or what we do after Trump dismantles it, etc. The only reason that it came up was as an example of how political ideology impacts our lives.

The belief that the right to health care is a basic human right, or that money should be taken out of Joe's pocket to pay for Bill's health insurance, or that the government should be involved in regulating/mandating health care in any way whatsoever, etc....those basic presuppositions are part of a political ideology whether you care to admit it or not. Is there a fiscal aspect also. Sure, OK...but that doesn't negate the political ideology behind it.



[Edited on 1/23/2017 by Redfish7]


BoytonBrother - 1/23/2017 at 01:53 AM

quote:
How one thinks we should go about doing those things, providing those services, and how we should pay for them is largely determined by one's political ideology.


I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans agreed that taxes would pay for those things.

quote:
And the primary point being debated was whether or not political ideology affects/impacts our lives. BoyntonBrother says "no". I say "yes". I used Obamacare as evidence that it does.


I was referring to how it evidently affects you emotionally based on your previous posts.


BoytonBrother - 1/23/2017 at 02:01 AM

quote:
But I guess it was OK for these same kids and young people to see the vulgar things that were displayed at the march...


Only you have said that. And what was so vulgar? Any links?

quote:
Not to mention that women who are pro-life were not allowed to partner with the march. So much for women being united, and all that diversity and inclusiveness BS...


What do you mean? My pro-life co-worker went to the D.C. one and had a great time. Where do you get your info?


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 02:02 AM

quote:
quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.


alloak41 - 1/23/2017 at 02:24 AM

quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.



Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 02:26 AM

quote:
Bhawk - just to be clear...the point being discussed/debated was whether or not political ideology impacts our lives, either for good or bad. Are you actually siding with BoyntonBrother in trying to claim that it does not impact our lives?

I don't care to debate the pros/cons of OC, or how we fix it, or what we do after Trump dismantles it, etc. The only reason that it came up was as an example of how political ideology impacts our lives.

The belief that the right to health care is a basic human right, or that money should be taken out of Joe's pocket to pay for Bill's health insurance, or that the government should be involved in regulating/mandating health care in any way whatsoever, etc....those basic presuppositions are part of a political ideology whether you care to admit it or not. Is there a fiscal aspect also. Sure, OK...but that doesn't negate the political ideology behind it.



The original tenets of what became the Affordable Care Act was concepted by a conservative think tank and was on the platform of a Republican presidential candidate. So, the question is, whose ideology drove what?

If you are going to claim effects of political ideology, where does it apply in matters of consensus? In this case, ideology defined the opposition to an act of government because a tenet of that ideology dictates that the opponent, the enemy, is not allowed a "victory," regardless of if it a positive or negative for the citizenry.

The Republicans could have sold this exact same plan if they had framed it using the "everyone must pay something, no freeloaders" approach. Now, that's an example of using ideology.

It also looks like you tend to start with the extremes of an ideology. Why?


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 02:27 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.




I thought BB was getting too close to insulting you and said so. How you interpret that is up to you.


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 02:28 AM

quote:
quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.



Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.


Contempt is equally returned when given.


alloak41 - 1/23/2017 at 02:32 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.



Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.


Contempt is equally returned when given.


Equally? Contempt is "returned" whether it's given or not.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 02:33 AM

quote:
quote:
But I guess it was OK for these same kids and young people to see the vulgar things that were displayed at the march...


Only you have said that. And what was so vulgar? Any links?

quote:
Not to mention that women who are pro-life were not allowed to partner with the march. So much for women being united, and all that diversity and inclusiveness BS...


What do you mean? My pro-life co-worker went to the D.C. one and had a great time. Where do you get your info?


It was reported on the news yesterday...lots of vulgar speech, lewd content and pictures on signs (some of it of a sexual nature), women dressed like vaginas, signs with "F**k Trump", people spitting on people, Madonna talking about blowing up the white house, etc...not a great environment for children or young people.

The exclusion of the pro-life group was also reported on the news. They interviewed someone from the pro-life group. Later I saw another interview with someone from one of the pro-choice groups, and the reporter was somewhat calling her out for it...you know, asking her why the pro-life women were excluded if it was supposed to be about all women, solidarity, etc.

Sorry...I don't recall specific names, or have links, etc...and I was switching around between CNN, Fox and others...so I don't even recall which news show/channel it was on. If you're really interested in the details, then just google it.

And I didn't mean that no pro-life women attended the march. Anyone who wanted to attend could go. Heck, there were even some Trump supporters there. Imagine that...women who voted for Trump.

But apparently there was a large, well organized and coordinated march that groups had to apply for if they wanted to partner with it. This pro-life group was initially accepted and had planned to be a part of that specific march. But then when the organizers of the march found out that they were a pro-life group, they changed their mind and told them they weren't welcome. Gotta love that inclusiveness.


nebish - 1/23/2017 at 02:36 AM

quote:
quote:
These threads all go so many different directions of off topic


What the heck does this have to do with the topic? If you want to talk about people posting off-topic, start another thread!


An observation that in a thread about impeaching Trump the discussion moved to ACA. Sorry such a comment has appeared to offend you so much.


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 02:42 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.



Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.


Contempt is equally returned when given.


Equally? Contempt is "returned" whether it's given or not.


Snowflake need a safe space?

Oh, that's right. You don't hate liberals and Democrats, don't wish to eradicate entire belief systems. Musta forgot. Uh-huh.

Lines are drawn. Everyone involved drew them. Here we are.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 02:48 AM


I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans agreed that taxes would pay for those things.


And I suppose the belief/presupposition that involuntary taxation should be used to pay for those things is not a political ideology? Anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, some schools of libertarianism, and many others would heartily disagree.

So even your most basic assumption about how society should operate is based on a political ideology.


alloak41 - 1/23/2017 at 02:54 AM

quote:
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.

Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.


Contempt is equally returned when given.


Equally? Contempt is "returned" whether it's given or not.


Lines are drawn. Everyone involved drew them. Here we are.


That's right, and as of five minutes ago I decided to cross the line and post as a Liberal.

How's that sound, moron?


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 03:02 AM

quote:

I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans agreed that taxes would pay for those things.


And I suppose the belief/presupposition that involuntary taxation should be used to pay for those things is not a political ideology? Anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, some schools of libertarianism, and many others would heartily disagree.

So even your most basic assumption about how society should operate is based on a political ideology.




quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States


Which ideology is that, label-wise, do you think? What should we call it?


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 03:11 AM

quote:
quote:
Bhawk - just to be clear...the point being discussed/debated was whether or not political ideology impacts our lives, either for good or bad. Are you actually siding with BoyntonBrother in trying to claim that it does not impact our lives?

I don't care to debate the pros/cons of OC, or how we fix it, or what we do after Trump dismantles it, etc. The only reason that it came up was as an example of how political ideology impacts our lives.

The belief that the right to health care is a basic human right, or that money should be taken out of Joe's pocket to pay for Bill's health insurance, or that the government should be involved in regulating/mandating health care in any way whatsoever, etc....those basic presuppositions are part of a political ideology whether you care to admit it or not. Is there a fiscal aspect also. Sure, OK...but that doesn't negate the political ideology behind it.



The original tenets of what became the Affordable Care Act was concepted by a conservative think tank and was on the platform of a Republican presidential candidate. So, the question is, whose ideology drove what?

If you are going to claim effects of political ideology, where does it apply in matters of consensus? In this case, ideology defined the opposition to an act of government because a tenet of that ideology dictates that the opponent, the enemy, is not allowed a "victory," regardless of if it a positive or negative for the citizenry.

The Republicans could have sold this exact same plan if they had framed it using the "everyone must pay something, no freeloaders" approach. Now, that's an example of using ideology.

It also looks like you tend to start with the extremes of an ideology. Why?


Yep, if I recall correctly…I believe Mitt Romney came up with the model/prototype for what later became the ACA. Obama stole it from Mitt, and we have Republicans and Democrats both to blame for it.

Again…the debate was simply over whether or not political ideology impacts our lives. It wasn’t about whose political ideology impacts our lives. Both liberal/conservative ideology have impacts…some negative and some positive. In fact, I even used US foreign policy/the Bush Doctrine as another example, and showed how that particular ideology resulted in the unnecessary deaths/displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

By the way, I know you will find this hard to believe (due to the conclusions that you have drawn about me), but if I had been active on this forum during the Bush regime, I would have been accused of being a liberal…trust me on that…I was just as critical of Bush, probably more so, as I am of Obama. Bush was a real tool also.

What do you mean that I start with the extremes of an ideology?


Bhawk - 1/23/2017 at 03:17 AM

quote:
quote:
So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.

Just wait, it gets a whole lot better.


Contempt is equally returned when given.


Equally? Contempt is "returned" whether it's given or not.


Lines are drawn. Everyone involved drew them. Here we are.


That's right, and as of five minutes ago I decided to cross the line and post as a Liberal.

How's that sound, moron?


Yes, only liberals insult people. Yawn. The alloak manifesto of conservative perfection. Well established.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 03:19 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I disagree with Bhawk in one sense. Trolls know what they are doing. I just think you don't have the capacity to know any better.


Well...that's not fair, really. Redfish7 hasn't been posting in the WP long enough to make a conclusion like that. Benefit of the doubt still in clear play from my chair.


Haha...I missed this earlier. So...what kind of time frame are we looking at here?...just so I will know when my "benefit of the doubt" trial period runs out? And what metric are we using...calendar days or number of posts?

So far...I'm up to dishonest, troll, lazy and narrow minded.




I thought BB was getting too close to insulting you and said so. How you interpret that is up to you.


I was actually trying to mess with you...joke around a little...hence the smiley/wink face. I know we've taken some jabs at each other, but it's all good.


Redfish7 - 1/23/2017 at 03:23 AM

quote:
quote:

I'm pretty sure both Democrats and Republicans agreed that taxes would pay for those things.


And I suppose the belief/presupposition that involuntary taxation should be used to pay for those things is not a political ideology? Anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, some schools of libertarianism, and many others would heartily disagree.

So even your most basic assumption about how society should operate is based on a political ideology.




quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States


Which ideology is that, label-wise, do you think? What should we call it?


I have no idea. Republicanism, maybe? What difference does it matter what the label is?


BoytonBrother - 1/23/2017 at 01:56 PM

quote:
It was reported on the news yesterday...lots of vulgar speech, lewd content and pictures on signs (some of it of a sexual nature), women dressed like vaginas, signs with "F**k Trump", people spitting on people, Madonna talking about blowing up the white house, etc...not a great environment for children or young people.


"Reported on the news", I'll assume was some hack with an agenda, not an actual reporter, unless you have something. If those actions are so vulgar, why elect Trump as President who behaved the same way?


porkchopbob - 1/23/2017 at 02:06 PM

quote:
It was reported on the news yesterday...lots of vulgar speech, lewd content and pictures on signs (some of it of a sexual nature), women dressed like vaginas, signs with "F**k Trump", people spitting on people, Madonna talking about blowing up the white house, etc...not a great environment for children or young people.


I have friends who marched in NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, and they all said it was peaceful. Many brought their kids, and it was a completely positive experience of activism. No one spitting or talking about attacking anything, it was a show of unity of a lot of people who aren't offended by women's body parts against a President they strongly disagree with.


goldtop - 1/23/2017 at 03:39 PM

Day 4....Suit filed against Trump for ethics violations....that didn't take long

Redfish after your "are they butt hurt" comment I clearly understand how the disgusting things Trump says didn't bother you...and how you could possibly vote for him

That's the exact kind of talk that is disgusting....get it???

That protest was world wide not just here at home....Open your eyes

As far as the ACA....before the ACA my wife couldn't get insurance because she is type II diabetic....See before the only people who could get insurance had to have nothing wrong with them...

I guess that doesn't both you because you had to pay less....pretty phucking selfish...but that is the Republican way...if it doesn't directly effect me its not an issue


Redfish7 - 1/25/2017 at 01:28 AM

quote:
quote:
It was reported on the news yesterday...lots of vulgar speech, lewd content and pictures on signs (some of it of a sexual nature), women dressed like vaginas, signs with "F**k Trump", people spitting on people, Madonna talking about blowing up the white house, etc...not a great environment for children or young people.


"Reported on the news", I'll assume was some hack with an agenda, not an actual reporter, unless you have something. If those actions are so vulgar, why elect Trump as President who behaved the same way?


No, it was actual reporters on the major networks…and not just one reporter, or one news show. Did these reporters have an agenda? Well, of course…don’t all reporters and news outlets have an agenda?

And your last sentence is exactly the point I was making…just using the reverse logic. If Trump behaved like that…and that’s supposedly why they are so offended…then it’s hypocritical for them to behave the same way.


Redfish7 - 1/25/2017 at 01:31 AM

quote:
quote:
It was reported on the news yesterday...lots of vulgar speech, lewd content and pictures on signs (some of it of a sexual nature), women dressed like vaginas, signs with "F**k Trump", people spitting on people, Madonna talking about blowing up the white house, etc...not a great environment for children or young people.


I have friends who marched in NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, and they all said it was peaceful. Many brought their kids, and it was a completely positive experience of activism. No one spitting or talking about attacking anything, it was a show of unity of a lot of people who aren't offended by women's body parts against a President they strongly disagree with.


It’s great that your friends had a positive experience, but the fact that your friends didn’t happen to see any of the stuff being reported on the news is hardly evidence that it didn’t happen. I’m sure not everyone at the inauguration witnessed a limo and trash cans being burned either? Does that mean it didn’t happen?

And no comments on the Ashley Judd meltdown?…Trump is Hitler, his cabinet is a bunch of Nazis, he has wet dreams about his daughter, blood on the sheets, the prison system is a form of slavery, etc.…what a raving lunatic (or poet in this case)…makes Bocephus look like a saint. And Madonna’s fantasies about blowing up the white house? Yep…that sure is some classy celebrity gals they got to be the face of the march. And they think Trump is vulgar and full of hate?


Redfish7 - 1/25/2017 at 01:38 AM

quote:
Day 4....Suit filed against Trump for ethics violations....that didn't take long

Redfish after your "are they butt hurt" comment I clearly understand how the disgusting things Trump says didn't bother you...and how you could possibly vote for him

That's the exact kind of talk that is disgusting....get it???

That protest was world wide not just here at home....Open your eyes

As far as the ACA....before the ACA my wife couldn't get insurance because she is type II diabetic....See before the only people who could get insurance had to have nothing wrong with them...

I guess that doesn't both you because you had to pay less....pretty phucking selfish...but that is the Republican way...if it doesn't directly effect me its not an issue


Didn’t vote for Trump. Not a Republican. Don’t consider myself a selfish person. My sister is an unemployed widow raising a daughter, and she could not even afford the ACA premiums…I thought it was supposed to be “affordable” for folks just like my sister...but then again, I also thought I could keep my policy if I liked my policy. And I never said that it didn’t help anyone. I was just sharing my personal experience with it. I guess it’s helped some folks, and hurt lots of others...and in some cases it's not even helped the people that you would think that it should help (like my sister).


goldtop - 2/10/2017 at 11:13 PM

Please sign this petition to impeach Trump

https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/thank-you/?key=42056317

The wheels are turning


nebish - 2/13/2017 at 01:22 AM

I like the Dead Kennedys. I like views that are not the same as my own. It's all about presentation and the delivery of the argument for me. That is why I listen to different points of view on talk radio and that is why I enjoy engaging in these forums and why I like politically charged music that is artfully crafted.

I don't know who would be calling for "extermination" of Trump opponents. Again another pretty radical view you've posted. I'd like to think it is done with sarcasm, but maybe you really feel that way.

Surely there are people on the right who despise the left and those on the left who despise the right, but anyone from any side who might justify death of their political opponents, to the extent people like that exist we must be talking about a sliver of a percentage of people.

You and I may not agree on a host of issues, but rest assured I would have you in my home or buy you a drink and allow you to express yourself as know you would of me. I just try to draw a very visible and distinct line between the very small group of people you speak of and other people, like myself and I suspect others here who voted for the President and support some of his agenda items, but do not wish his opponents any harm. I hope you do not wish me harm in return for feeling different than you on foreign policy, immigration, taxes, etc.

[Edited on 2/13/2017 by nebish]


nebish - 2/13/2017 at 05:13 AM

quote:
What's with this "extreme view" thing you keep on about?


I think that wanting Mexico to become a state, to open the border, to reach a settlement in back pay and benefits for illegal workers...now Trump supporters would applaud open warfare, even extermination, of their opponents.

Sounds extreme to me.

I guess you not wanting to sign a petition to impeach the President for fear of putting your name out there is kind of like people not wanting a national gun registry with their name and location of listed guns for fear of the government coming to get them. In that, you have something in common, fear of the government, fear on one had that government would someday confiscate firearms and on the other hand fear the government might exterminate dissenters. I don't know, sounds extreme. But different perspectives lead to different feelings.


goldtop - 2/13/2017 at 06:03 AM

quote:
Goldtop - quite honestly I think that could be signing my own death warrant. Anyone who signs that will call the Nazgul upon themselves. It is entirely possible that they are gathering up voting records, ostensibly for popular vote recount, to compile a database of undesirables.

Hemp's Bannon thread pretty much nails it.

As Jello Biafra said so long ago: It is "Bedtime for Democracy".


I signed it and I don't care that they know...In fact I want Trump to fully understand that I think he is disgusting .....I'd have no problem telling Mr Trump exactly how I feel about him to his face...


LeglizHemp - 2/13/2017 at 02:09 PM

I think we are getting very close to starting Impeachment hearings. Trump better slow down and figure out how the office of the Presidency works or he will be out the door by the end of the year.


Bhawk - 2/13/2017 at 03:23 PM

quote:
I think we are getting very close to starting Impeachment hearings. Trump better slow down and figure out how the office of the Presidency works or he will be out the door by the end of the year.


On what charge? By the current GOP? Impeachment charges come from the House.


LeglizHemp - 2/13/2017 at 03:30 PM

i just said "very close". they are walking right up to the line with their rhetoric but so far not with their actions. if they start ignoring court orders that would be one way. emoluments clause might be another. if proof of colusion with the russians is found, there is another. we'll just have to wait and see bhawk.


Bhawk - 2/13/2017 at 03:31 PM

quote:
In that, you have something in common, fear of the government, fear on one had that government would someday confiscate firearms and on the other hand fear the government might exterminate dissenters. I don't know, sounds extreme. But different perspectives lead to different feelings.



The government is made up of people who occupy constant transitive jobs. If human history is a guide, there's a strong chance that someone would come along that oversteps the powers they have been given. Just because someone exhibiting those traits happens to be a guy on your team and therefore they get a longer benefit of the doubt, then that's the ultimate example of party before country, something that has always been around but seems to be getting worse.

I continue to find Trump's consistent attacks on the independent judiciary absolutely terrifying. The President personally attacking Federal judges by name IS EXTREME.


LeglizHemp - 2/13/2017 at 03:41 PM

and yes the house is stacked with republicans and impeachment won't come today. but i don't believe he has as much support in the GOP as some think and it is slowly eroding. i believe alot of his support before the election had to do with hating clinton and party loyalty and tea party loyalty. i don't believe trump is a republican and that his support will fall away if he keeps throwing the constitution into the blender. like i said, we'll see.


Brendan - 2/13/2017 at 03:42 PM

Is this rhetoric not extreme?

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-what-stephen-miller-said-should-wor ry-everyone-875968067895


Bhawk - 2/13/2017 at 03:43 PM

quote:
and yes the house is stacked with republicans and impeachment won't come today. but i don't believe he has as much support in the GOP as some think and it is slowly eroding. i believe alot of his support before the election had to do with hating clinton and party loyalty and tea party loyalty. i don't believe trump is a republican and that his support will fall away if he keeps throwing the constitution into the blender. like i said, we'll see.


I largely agree...just cynical.


Bhawk - 2/13/2017 at 03:44 PM

These weekend trips to Mar-A-Lago, profiteering? Who is joining? Who has access? All the employees there...do they all have a security clearance?


Bhawk - 2/13/2017 at 03:46 PM

quote:
Is this rhetoric not extreme?

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-what-stephen-miller-said-should-wor ry-everyone-875968067895


That's not what he meant. He was talking about the funny ha-ha kind of quelling dissent.


BoytonBrother - 2/13/2017 at 03:49 PM

Trump and is his supporters are the most insecure people in the history of our country.


LeglizHemp - 2/13/2017 at 03:49 PM

quote:
These weekend trips to Mar-A-Lago, profiteering? Who is joining? Who has access? All the employees there...do they all have a security clearance?


supposedly he was having national security discussions with Abe at the dinner table with guests present. if classified intelligence was discussed openly.............

(CNN)The iceberg wedge salads, dripping with blue cheese dressing, had just been served on the terrace of Mar-a-Lago Saturday when the call to President Donald Trump came in: North Korea had launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile, its first challenge to international rules since Trump was sworn in three weeks ago.

The launch, which wasn't expected, presented Trump with one of the first breaking national security incidents of his presidency. It also noisily disrupted what was meant to be an easygoing weekend of high-level male bonding with the more sobering aspects of global diplomacy.

Sitting alongside Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with whom he'd spent most of the day golfing, Trump took the call on a mobile phone at his table, which was set squarely in the middle of the private club's dining area.

As Mar-a-Lago's wealthy members looked on from their tables, and with a keyboard player crooning in the background, Trump and Abe's evening meal quickly morphed into a strategy session, the decision-making on full view to fellow diners, who described it in detail to CNN.

On Saturday evening, as the two men walked through Mar-a-Lago's ornate wrought-iron doors on their way to dinner, neither responded to questions about the launch from reporters.
Swanning through the club's living room and main dining area alongside Abe, Trump was -- as is now typical -- swarmed with paying members, who now view dinner at the club as an opportunity for a few seconds of face time with the new President.

But as he sat down for the planned working dinner with Abe, whose country is well within range of North Korea's missiles, it was clear his counterpart felt it necessary to respond to the test. The launch occurred just before 8 a.m. on Sunday morning in Japan.

Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and chief strategist Steve Bannon left their seats to huddle closer to Trump as documents were produced and phone calls were placed to officials in Washington and Tokyo.

The patio was lit only with candles and moonlight, so aides used the camera lights on their phones to help the stone-faced Trump and Abe read through the documents.

Even as a flurry of advisers and translators descended upon the table carrying papers and phones for their bosses to consult, dinner itself proceeded apace. Waiters cleared the wedge salads and brought along the main course as Trump and Abe continued consulting with aides.

Eventually Trump and Abe, along with their collection of aides, stood and moved from the dining terrace and toward a marble-trimmed ballroom, whose gilded columns were concealed by more sober-looking black drapes.

[Edited on 2/13/2017 by LeglizHemp]


goldtop - 4/20/2019 at 11:20 PM

Just thought I'd revisit this thread....OK...can we impeach him now


MartinD28 - 4/20/2019 at 11:50 PM

quote:
Just thought I'd revisit this thread....OK...can we impeach him now


Regardless of the intent by Trump as detailed in Mueller's Report, the base and GOP enablers in Congress will fall in line and be good little soldiers and parrot Trump's lines referencing the democrat prosecutors bias on the Mueller Team, etc.

My goodness - look how many of Trump's inner circle worked with the Russians and lied about it. What has the presidency come to? And the people's Congress willing to turn their head along with a lackey Attorney General whose words have been disputed by Mueller's Report.

Unless enough of the GOP in Congress step up and show they have values & guts, impeachment is an exercise in futility.


goldtop - 4/21/2019 at 12:41 AM

quote:
quote:
Just thought I'd revisit this thread....OK...can we impeach him now


Regardless of the intent by Trump as detailed in Mueller's Report, the base and GOP enablers in Congress will fall in line and be good little soldiers and parrot Trump's lines referencing the democrat prosecutors bias on the Mueller Team, etc.

My goodness - look how many of Trump's inner circle worked with the Russians and lied about it. What has the presidency come to? And the people's Congress willing to turn their head along with a lackey Attorney General whose words have been disputed by Mueller's Report.

Unless enough of the GOP in Congress step up and show they have values & guts, impeachment is an exercise in futility.


So true...everyday since he's been in office I will never understand why anyone would protect that vile disgusting person...I'd would have throw his azz under the bus so long ago it would have made his head swim....and how I would love to be his truth teller everyday...I'd love to let him know the truth and watch him explode....and I'd laugh in his face as he did...everyday


alloak41 - 4/25/2019 at 03:15 PM

quote:
Trump and is his supporters are the most insecure people in the history of our country.


God, I know! I'd feel a lot more secure if the government could just fork over my guaranteed Universal Income already. I have no confidence in myself or my abilities, and shouldn't have to compete in the workplace anymore.
And I need the government to pay my debts for me while they're at it.


BoytonBrother - 4/25/2019 at 04:23 PM

quote:
I'd feel a lot more secure if the government could just fork over my guaranteed Universal Income already. I have no confidence in myself or my abilities, and shouldn't have to compete in the workplace anymore.
And I need the government to pay my debts for me while they're at it.


Here you are feeling the need to announce to us all that you earned your own income, have confidence in your own abilities, compete in the workplace, and pay your debts. Instead of thinking rationally about what is being proposed, you took the opportunity to pat yourself on the back for what you have done. Why? Because you earned those things on your own, it angers you that others are getting help with it? That's not someone who is at peace with their situation.


BIGV - 4/25/2019 at 07:50 PM

quote:
quote:
Trump and is his supporters are the most insecure people in the history of our country.


God, I know! I'd feel a lot more secure if the government could just fork over my guaranteed Universal Income already. I have no confidence in myself or my abilities, and shouldn't have to compete in the workplace anymore.
And I need the government to pay my debts for me while they're at it.


I agree with you wholeheartedly, just make life free for everyone, similar to the Democrats proposal of free College. Don’t want to work? The Democrats will make it their priority to come to the rescue, because well , white privelage....


gina - 4/25/2019 at 09:08 PM

Lindsey Graham said the Democrats will try to impeach him, he also said Pelosi was NOT in charge of them, but he said any impeachment proceedings would have "a hard time" getting through (pr passed by the Senate), so if one house passes them and the other doesn't, it probably goes nowhere.


BoytonBrother - 4/25/2019 at 09:39 PM

quote:
Don’t want to work? The Democrats will make it their priority to come to the rescue, because well , white privelage....


Somebody is envious of receiving help.




[Edited on 4/25/2019 by BoytonBrother]


piacere - 4/25/2019 at 11:33 PM

quote:
quote:
Don’t want to work? The Democrats will make it their priority to come to the rescue, because well , white privelage....


Somebody is envious of receiving help.






[Edited on 4/25/2019 by BoytonBrother]


You're kidding, right?

[Edited on 4/25/2019 by piacere]


BoytonBrother - 4/26/2019 at 12:05 AM

quote:
You're kidding, right?


About that particular poster? No, not at all.


alloak41 - 4/26/2019 at 02:13 AM

The only thing i feel the slightest bit apprehensive about now day to day is the difficulty in hiring. I need good workers badly. The supply of jobs svailable is outstripping the supply of labor and good csndidates.

So much for the economy crashing if Trump gets elected.


Sang - 4/26/2019 at 02:32 AM

With the debt rising at record rates, who knows?

I was at a financial planner meeting tonight. The Cleveland fed has the chance of a recession at over 30%..... whenever it goes that high, the recession typically is -5 to 8 months from then ...... it's coming.....


nebish - 4/26/2019 at 02:43 AM

quote:
With the debt rising at record rates, who knows?

I was at a financial planner meeting tonight. The Cleveland fed has the chance of a recession at over 30%..... whenever it goes that high, the recession typically is -5 to 8 months from then ...... it's coming.....


I'm waiting for it too Sang...just because it is overdue if nothing else. But periods of expansion don't just die of old age. So what if, let me know if anyone mentioned this at your meeting, what if countries around the globe can pick up their own sluggish economies with fiscal stimulus plans? If global economies grow, won't the US be a beneficiary of that which could in turn prolong our own expansion?


BIGV - 4/26/2019 at 03:14 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Don’t want to work? The Democrats will make it their priority to come to the rescue, because well , white privelage....


Somebody is envious of receiving help.


You're kidding, right?


Just consider the source


Sang - 4/26/2019 at 03:37 AM

quote:
quote:
With the debt rising at record rates, who knows?

I was at a financial planner meeting tonight. The Cleveland fed has the chance of a recession at over 30%..... whenever it goes that high, the recession typically is -5 to 8 months from then ...... it's coming.....


I'm waiting for it too Sang...just because it is overdue if nothing else. But periods of expansion don't just die of old age. So what if, let me know if anyone mentioned this at your meeting, what if countries around the globe can pick up their own sluggish economies with fiscal stimulus plans? If global economies grow, won't the US be a beneficiary of that which could in turn prolong our own expansion?



That was not mentioned. Germany and Japan are still in the negative on 10-year bonds - but international and emerging markets are still cheap compared to the US, and are expected to have higher earnings than the US this year - the US blew everyone away last year in earnings because of the tax cuts - 24% - but this year they expect 3%, with international and emerging around 6%.


BIGV - 4/26/2019 at 04:02 AM


BrerRabbit - 4/26/2019 at 04:31 AM

Damn, no evidence. Someone should have kept his blue dress after his private meeting with Vladmir.


BoytonBrother - 4/26/2019 at 10:41 AM

Not a fan of the impeachment route. I'd rather see him get voted out. Being a one-term President would say everything there is to say.



[Edited on 4/26/2019 by BoytonBrother]


BoytonBrother - 4/26/2019 at 10:45 AM

quote:
The only thing i feel the slightest bit apprehensive about now day to day is the difficulty in hiring. I need good workers badly. The supply of jobs svailable is outstripping the supply of labor and good candidates


It’s hard to find good American workers? Shocking! What’s the solution?


tbomike - 4/26/2019 at 06:58 PM

Gee that noted leftist from Fox Judge Nap thinks there is something there.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump -obstruct-justice


BrerRabbit - 4/26/2019 at 07:45 PM

Interesting article, but Napolitano is a hardcore Libertarian so whatever.


Bhawk - 4/26/2019 at 07:50 PM

quote:



Is the distraught girl supposed to represent Robert Mueller?


BrerRabbit - 4/26/2019 at 07:54 PM

I don't know, but the shrink could be Putin. Hell the meme itself could be generated by the ongoing Russian cyber psy-op.


goldtop - 4/26/2019 at 10:19 PM

quote:
I don't know, but the shrink could be Putin. Hell the meme itself could be generated by the ongoing Russian cyber psy-op.


I guess they also didn't read about the destruction of evidence that took place and what do supporters think of 12 points of obstruction of justice and the biggest question will always be if there was nothing going on why did so many people lie??

Seems Judge Napalitano thinks there's plenty along with one of his original member of his transition team and again why would anyone protect that vile disgusting azz

Check out his comments
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6029505643001/#sp=show-clips



[Edited on 4/26/2019 by goldtop]


OriginalGoober - 4/26/2019 at 10:58 PM

A hammer, a cell phone, bleach bit and the POTUS on speed dial is why you dont get charged.


BrerRabbit - 4/27/2019 at 12:06 AM

A hammer and a sickle is why you don't get charged.


gina - 4/30/2019 at 09:47 PM


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/441301-biden-if-trump-blocks-in vestigations-congress-has-no-choice-but-to



goldtop - 4/30/2019 at 11:49 PM

Mueller has spoken

Mueller has written a letter objecting to Barr’s summary of his report because it “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of the investigation.”


MartinD28 - 5/1/2019 at 01:21 AM

quote:
Mueller has spoken

Mueller has written a letter objecting to Barr’s summary of his report because it “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of the investigation.”




Another lackey with loyalty to Russian Don is exposed for deception & lies. Anybody surprised? Good thing Trump drained the swamp in DC.


Chain - 5/1/2019 at 09:11 PM

As someone mentioned in another thread, Barr evidently argued that Iran/Contra was not a crime either. It seems to me he's been a lackey Republican operative his entire career in the beltway so it's not surprising he's providing cover for the latest Republican crook to occupy the White House.

It makes me wonder if he and opportunists like him care at all about the republic, the laws of the land, or in the constitution. It seems to be party first for not just Barr, but many of the slime balls who live in the swamp we call our capital.


nebish - 5/7/2019 at 04:40 AM

quote:
As someone mentioned in another thread, Barr evidently argued that Iran/Contra was not a crime either. It seems to me he's been a lackey Republican operative his entire career in the beltway so it's not surprising he's providing cover for the latest Republican crook to occupy the White House.

It makes me wonder if he and opportunists like him care at all about the republic, the laws of the land, or in the constitution. It seems to be party first for not just Barr, but many of the slime balls who live in the swamp we call our capital.


You are right. Nobody should be surprised that one party or the other or any of their representatives have their own motives and agendas.

How many representatives actually care about the republic above their own agendas? There in lies the problem.


goldtop - 5/21/2019 at 10:13 PM

One step closer today....tick tock....was bound to happen since he went down the elevator....he's a scum bag people an embarrassment to our country


BrerRabbit - 5/21/2019 at 10:28 PM

wha happen?


goldtop - 5/21/2019 at 10:44 PM

quote:
wha happen?


People not complying with congressional subpoenas while Trump continues to obstruct justice by instructing them to not show up


BrerRabbit - 5/21/2019 at 10:48 PM

Yeah saw some of that . They keep revving the engine without a load on it, gonna rattle to pieces.


BIGV - 5/21/2019 at 11:27 PM

quote:
I guess they also didn't read about the destruction of evidence that took place


E-Mails?


crazyjoe - 5/22/2019 at 04:37 AM

Look, I am not smart enough to know if Trumpty Dumpty will or should be impeached, I can tell You Trumpty and vittually every person in his entire circle and administration have exactly the same lilly white and very Nazi look about them, I suppose that is a good part of his appeal to his supporters? You all knows that these **** lickin low lifes make me want to puke, no need to rehash it, my mom is a 74 year very devout Catholic, I was raised as such, but went Methodist 7 yrs ago to support my grandson and son in law, my mom may come up for Sainthood, she is my Spiritual advisor, I asked her if it was OK for me to Pray for Trumpty to have a huge massive fatal or debilitating heart attack, she shut me down and said no good on that. So it's God's Will that I will ask for..............Peace.........joe


BrerRabbit - 5/22/2019 at 04:56 AM

quote:
. . .exactly the same lilly white and very Nazi look about them . . .


It isn't just that, not only outward appearance, but you are on to something there. Its a darkness inside. One of these links around here oh yeah the Jared one, sh!t man that guys face scares the crap out of me. I cant believe nobody else can see it, or maybe they can and quick click or scroll away. He just looks flat out evil, sorry I got no other word for it. Yeah and a lot of the administration has that ugly old mean kremlin look.


nebish - 5/22/2019 at 01:01 PM

The Democrats aren't doing anything different than if the Republicans were in charge and the opposition party was in the white house embroiled in scandal and controversy. Democrats in Congress have every right for their investigative and oversight duties and I think the Trump administration is wrong to resist. I do think in some cases the administration has a right to executive privilege, I'm more along the lines of they should not be resisting. And on the other hand, I think the AG has a right and responsibility to investigate the origins of the FBI's focus on Trump and the campaign. The things being discussed are pretty out of the norm, but how the people in charge are acting seems pretty normal, I mean for politics and Washington and all.

Like crazyjoe, I really am not smart enough either to know if Trump should be impeached. I do not know if he obstructed justice, it does appear like he tried and is even doing so right now, but it is a legal determination that I do not have the education, experience or knowledge of all the variables and evidence, both incriminating and exonerating. That is what trials and legal proceedings are for. So if the people in charge want to go down that road, let them. And let those accused and charged defend themselves.


goldtop - 5/22/2019 at 09:30 PM

Tick Tock....


Jerry - 5/22/2019 at 09:41 PM

If there is evidence shown on the report for future action (possibly the redaction that says Grand Jury), that part does not need to be shown to anyone.

Be funny if there was something about investigations on the committee members under the black ink.


BrerRabbit - 5/23/2019 at 12:59 AM

Impeachments pretty dumb idea. It will fail, they got nothing.


gina - 5/24/2019 at 11:07 PM

Impeachment not happening. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said they are not looking at that as an option.

The only obstruction that has occurred is he is obstructing the new world order, but that is not an impeachable offense. A psychic has said he will be re-elected in 2020, but will not serve his full term, he will be out of office in 2022, and he did not know how or why at this point.


BrerRabbit - 5/25/2019 at 10:17 PM

quote:
The only obstruction that has occurred is he is obstructing the new world order . . .


Name one ittybitty thing he has done to obstruct the New World Order. Looks like business as usual to me. You really think a pissant govt bureaucrat at the level of president has any sway over the New World Order? There are "powers and principalities" far above him, and far more powerful. That's like saying the toilet scrubber at the Pentagon could influence global military command.


goldtop - 5/29/2019 at 03:09 PM

Mueller is speaking and he's made it clear that he is not exonerating the prez

Tick Tock.....

He's made it clear that the DOJ policy got in the way of making an indictment and that the Constitution has the correct procedure to deal with crimes the prez commits

Tick Tock...


goldtop - 6/11/2019 at 04:40 PM

Seems the DOJ is giving up more of the underlying documents...tick tock


BrerRabbit - 6/11/2019 at 06:19 PM

Great clock! Kind of a Zen experience watching that.


goldtop - 7/27/2019 at 04:19 PM

Tick Tock


goldtop - 8/9/2019 at 02:09 PM

Jerry Nadler announced that the US is in formal impeachment proceedings against tRump and a decision on bringing charges will come by the end of the year...


Skydog32103 - 8/9/2019 at 03:23 PM

quote:
Jerry Nadler announced that the US is in formal impeachment proceedings against tRump and a decision on bringing charges will come by the end of the year...


Won’t this be appealed and overturned by the Senate, like the Clinton impeachment?


Bhawk - 8/9/2019 at 04:21 PM

quote:
quote:
Jerry Nadler announced that the US is in formal impeachment proceedings against tRump and a decision on bringing charges will come by the end of the year...


Won’t this be appealed and overturned by the Senate, like the Clinton impeachment?


Need 67 votes in the Senate to convict. One vote short of a 2/3 majority and the accused is acquitted of all charges.

67 votes in the current Senate (53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 Independents)...yeah, no. It'd have be something so egregious and open and shut regardless of political party...yeah, no.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
https://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
https://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=143282