Jump to content

US Politics


Rich

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Nothing that warranted being added to the articles of impeachment though, according to Schiff. 

Mueller intended his report to be given to Congress to use as the basis for an impeachment Investigation.    Along came Ukraine which was a slam dunk. 
 

But you hate trump right?  You spend you’re entire day here defending him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump demands “these votes must not count” after California opens poll site in heavily black area

Trump claims Lancaster is the "most Democrat area" in the state. Its GOP mayor called for the new voting location

MAY 11, 2020 9:23PM (UTC)

President Donald Trump demanded that votes from a new voting location in a Los Angeles suburb with a large black population "must not count" as he lashed out at California for its attempts to make it easier Americans to vote.

Trump over the weekend inserted himself into the special election in California's 25th Congressional District, which was vacated by former Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., who resigned last fall. The president complained on Twitter that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, opened up a new poll site in Lancaster, which lies just north of Los Angeles, despite calls from both parties to do so.

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/11/trump-demands-these-votes-must-not-count-after-california-opens-poll-site-in-heavily-black-area/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Forgetting that the incoming president is actually a criminal, serial sexual abuser, con man and colluded with a foreign enemy.  
 

You’re sinking ever  lower 

Yet, none of what you just said was worthy of going into the articles of impeachment?

Funny how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Yet, none of what you just said was worthy of going into the articles of impeachment?

Funny how that works.

Oh there's plenty of things worthy of Trump being impeached. Let's not confuse the Democrats impotence in actually accomplishing anything as any kind of proof of Trumps innocence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Yet, none of what you just said was worthy of going into the articles of impeachment?

Funny how that works.

Either you’re engaging in troll behaviour or all of this is way over your head.  He was impeached.  You’re effort to defend your hero because he was “only” impeached on certain crimes is hilariously transparent.  Why do your values align with a liar, racist and serial sexual abuser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theology of Ammon Bundy: A historian explains how the ‘White Horse Prophecy’ fuels anti-lockdown protestors

Written by History News Network May 12, 2020

We are all now stuck within the procession of pandemic, left to view its spectacle through a kaleidoscope of cultural, philosophical, religious and biological understandings. Most Americans have responded to the spread of COVID-19 like much of the rest of the world—with unease, grief, fear, compliance and endurance. We’ve isolated and we’ve hunkered. But not all of us. What makes the US singular in the world are the rebellions springing up to protest stay-at-home orders put into place to protect us from the unspooling spread of disease. Agitators against such orders range from Ammon Bundy and his supporters in Idaho and Utah to various armed militia groups, like the Proud Boys in Michigan. Many protestors believe restrictions are noxious violations of liberty that keep us from barbershops, bars, diners and our jobs. Others believe that the disease is a ploy with an ultimate goal to steal away rights. And then there are some inclined to believe in religious prophecy amidst pestilence; as in God setting the stage for big, transformative action—think the Book of Revelation.  Bundy believes all of this.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/the-theology-of-ammon-bundy-historian-explains-how-the-white-horse-prophecy-fuels-anti-lockdown-protestors/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Sounds like trumps side is not doing so well before SCOTUS today. Ofcourse it will be weeks or months for a ruling. But the questions don’t favour him.  Other than Kav who asks about SCOTUS just declining to make a ruling lol 

Kav wondering when it's beer o'clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Either you’re engaging in troll behaviour or all of this is way over your head.  He was impeached.  You’re effort to defend your hero because he was “only” impeached on certain crimes is hilariously transparent.  Why do your values align with a liar, racist and serial sexual abuser?

Well, let me ask you this then. Do you believe the Democrats would have gone ahead with impeachment just based on the Meuller Report? 

Put aside the Ukraine thing for second and answer honestly if you can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats are afraid of getting down in the dirt with the Republicans. They are focused on the election rather than trying to hold anyone accountable other than token gestures. Not holding the senate they are basically abdicating their responsibilities because they know the GOP will circle the wagons and defend their criminal organization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 17to85 said:

The Democrats are afraid of getting down in the dirt with the Republicans. They are focused on the election rather than trying to hold anyone accountable other than token gestures. Not holding the senate they are basically abdicating their responsibilities because they know the GOP will circle the wagons and defend their criminal organization. 

That goes both ways though doesn't it? I mean Bill Clinton committed perjury and the Dem Senate said oh well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Well, let me ask you this then. Do you believe the Democrats would have gone ahead with impeachment just based on the Meuller Report? 

Put aside the Ukraine thing for second and answer honestly if you can. 

Id have to review their remarks at the time as I cannot remember offhand.  I think they certainly would have looked seriously at it since the Meuller Report laid out clear signs of collusion and obstruction.   But we cant predict woulda coulda shoulda.  Trump felt vindicated even though he wasnt, probably because he cant read very well so he relied on Barr telling him he was a good boy and went right back it with Ukraine which presented an easier path for Dems.

Regardless, your boy was impeached so whats your argument here?  He wasnt impeached enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Id have to review their remarks at the time as I cannot remember offhand.  I think they certainly would have looked seriously at it since the Meuller Report laid out clear signs of collusion and obstruction.   But we cant predict woulda coulda shoulda.  Trump felt vindicated even though he wasnt, probably because he cant read very well so he relied on Barr telling him he was a good boy and went right back it with Ukraine which presented an easier path for Dems.

Regardless, your boy was impeached so whats your argument here?  He wasnt impeached enough?

Not at all, he was impeached. Someone started this by holding up the Mueller Report as some smoking gun evidence of his crimes. I'm just saying if the evidence was so over whelming them why wasn't it used for impeachment, Mueller left that door open for the Dems to walk through. I posted a quote from Schiff saying he didn't believe there was enough evidence and that is why they went with Ukraine. Seems to me that even Schiff agrees that for all the pages in the Mueller Report, there was very little hard evidence of anything the Dems could use to impeach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That goes both ways though doesn't it? I mean Bill Clinton committed perjury and the Dem Senate said oh well. 

No, the SENATE acquitted him.  In a Bi-partisan vote.  He was also impeached by the House in a bi-partisan vote.  And if you want to re-try the Clinton impeachment which 1) was an obvious witch hunt and 2) resulted in Ken Starr completely reversing himself years later with Trump, feel free to start a thread.  

Unless you're suggesting if one President is acquitted, ALL Presidents should be acquitted?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

Not at all, he was impeached. Someone started this by holding up the Mueller Report as some smoking gun evidence of his crimes. I'm just saying if the evidence was so over whelming them why wasn't it used for impeachment, Mueller left that door open for the Dems to walk through. I posted a quote from Schiff saying he didn't believe there was enough evidence and that is why they went with Ukraine. Seems to me that even Schiff agrees that for all the pages in the Mueller Report, there was very little hard evidence of anything the Dems could use to impeach. 

You probably think OJ Simpson didnt do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No, the SENATE acquitted him.  In a Bi-partisan vote.  He was also impeached by the House in a bi-partisan vote.  And if you want to re-try the Clinton impeachment which 1) was an obvious witch hunt and 2) resulted in Ken Starr completely reversing himself years later with Trump, feel free to start a thread.  

Unless you're suggesting if one President is acquitted, ALL Presidents should be acquitted?  

I'm not going to argue this with you, you can check wiki for yourself, the vote in the Senate was purely partisan. 

 

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You probably think OJ Simpson didnt do it.

Careful, I will have to report you to Rich for trolling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I'm not going to argue this with you, you can check wiki for yourself, the vote in the Senate was purely partisan. 

 

Careful, I will have to report you to Rich for trolling. 

What is wrong with you?  10 Republicans voted not guilty on one count and 5 on the other.

And feel free.  Im sure you've talked to them a lot lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...