America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by Brewha. 81 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Geez man when will this FARCE BE DONE?!?!?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
fishinguitarman Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 12:05 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
The freakin socialists have lost this battle, will NEVER GET 2/3 vote
And have WASTED MILLIONS of our dollars!

I grow weary of their childish antics🙄
dstieger Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 12:12 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Kind of like rants against overbidders. They both serve a purpose.

You ought to be happy that they pull the Dems all the way into the left hand ditch so that now your guy gets another term
Mr. Jones Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 12:46 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,423
Their using MY $$ MILLION +++ DOLLARS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT...THEY DON'T GIVE A RATS AZZ
How long it goes...or
How much it costs...

My guess is...the FBI-SSG STOLE SO MUCH MONEY FROM SO MANY PEOPLE...THE IMPEACHMENT SLUSH FUND IS WELL OVER $50-100 M.I.L.L.I.O.N. DOOOLLLLLLAARRRRZZ
delta1 Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 12:58 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
it's only a problem if your side is being investigated...and the heat is being turned up...

don't remember many (any?) cons saying "enough" a few years ago...some of the same complainers led the charge...



my suspicion is that the Bolton revelations will play out in a way similar to how the Watergate tapes did ... so be careful what you wish for...
fishinguitarman Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 1:07 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
Why would these revelations just now come to light?

As they are sinking and gasping for air.

Last feeble effort

They wait until the prosecutors rest

In the middle of the defense

Low blow. Dirty politics. Cheap shot

Just shows what a backstabbing FAR left these clowns have become

Makes me 🤢🤮
delta1 Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 1:26 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
pretty sure someone in the WH leaked Bolton's allegations...he's been hinting that he'd love to talk for a couple of months, starting about close to the time the House Intel committee was sending its report to Judiciary...Bolton said he'd talk, but they'd have to issue a subpoena, the WH would challenge it and the there'd be a long legal battle...why do you think the WH was trying so hard to keep him from testifying...they're still fighting...

in the meantime, Bolton had plans to cash in with his book.....he had to submit his manuscript to the WH for review...he said that was the only copy he gave any one except for the one that went to his publisher...publishing companies are reputed to be secretive types who need to keep stuff under wraps to increase sales...

sometimes the house fire starts from within...

just look at the long list of previously highly regarded people in the con orbit that have fallen from grace after having worked for Trump...hmmmmm...


as for sinking and gasping for air...the reality is that polls show more than 70% of Americans want to know the truth and want witnesses to testify at the impeachment trial...
dstieger Offline
#7 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 1:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
delta1 wrote:
..
as for sinking and gasping for air...the reality is that polls show more than 70% of Americans want to know the truth and want witnesses to testify at the impeachment trial...


What?

70% know and acknowledge the truth, if only to themselves....15 % don't want to know the truth....and 15% don't care

Probably more than 70.....the question, though largely ignored, isn't did he do what is accused?...it is "is it impeachable"?

Bolton doesn't change anything for anybody....except make some haters a little giddy
Speyside Offline
#8 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 3:36 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
This is all high stakes theatre on both sides. To my way of thinking the Dems have made a few mistakes here that may help Trump get reelected. First they should have issued subpoenas in the House for the witnesses they wanted. Second when the subpoenas were over ruled they should have never sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate, which if my understanding is correct is legal.

On a personal level I feel that there is no evidence that supports impeachment. Follow the constitution.
delta1 Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
this is high stakes theater, with both sides trying to influence who wins in 2020, but saying this is about something else...


dstieger and Speyside: I respect both of you for your opinions, even on those occasions when we do not agree...please explain why you conclude that Trump's behavior is not impeachable.
Brewha Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 6:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,175
I think we are learning that a President being guilty is a mater of partisan politics. Remember he bragged he could shoot someone in the streets....

He is in fact above the law.

Not like you and me - he is so very, very far above us....
Speyside Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 8:41 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Al, here is my thought process. Trump committed no treason or bribery. As far as high crimes and misdemeanors I have no interest in how either side interprets this. I am interested in what it meant when it was written.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[10]

James Madison said something similar about the Republic. While I find Trumps actions sleazy and reprehensible, I do not find that they have damaged the Republic or Society. Again, follow the dam constitution.

I can't explain the depth of my personal dislike for Trump. But I will not allow that to cause me to agree with violating the constitution. Justice Marshall also held a very interesting perspective on the meaning of this phase. He felt that it should be taken in historical context. Most of that context related to England, and the harm done to England.

So I again say that given historical meaning, this did not rise to High crimes and Misdemeanors. I want to understand what our brilliant minds who wrote the constitution meant. I do not Bozo the clown from either side telling me what the framers meant.

I hope that enlightens you on how I formed my conclusions. I am not trying to change your conclusions.

Z, you want to jump in here and explain how my opinion is the same as all other liberals and I can't think for myself? That was an offense generalization on your part.

Well, that's the thought process of an oxymoron, a liberal civil libertarian.
Mr. Jones Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 8:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,423
All's I KNOW IS...

THAT FREAKIN JOHN BOLTON IS ONE SCAREY AZZ
MUTHERF**KER ...UP CLOSE AND PERSONNAL LIKE...

I WALKED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THAT SICK **** IN THE TROEGS BREWERY IN HERSHEY ,PA IN LATE JULY? 2013 ...HE STARRED ME DOWN AND FROWNED WHILE SHAKING THAT UNMISTAKABLE NOGGIN, HAIR AND MUSTACHE SIDE TO SIDE IN DISGUST....

RIGHT AFTER MY EXWIFES BREAST CANCER SURGERY AND THE MASSIVE CLUSTER SKULL F**K I RECEIVED IN THE HERSHEY MED 1ST FLR WAITING ROOM ...WHEN GARY YELLED OUT " I WISH I HAD A BLACK EXTRACTION HOOD FOR THIS S.O.B. ( ME...MR. JONES)...

TO THIS DAY...I HAVE NO FREAKIN IDEA WHY JOHN BOLTON WAS INVOLVED IN MY INVESTIGATION...
I WOULD SURELY LOVE TO KNOW WHY THAT **** WAS THERE WITH THE F.B.I.- S.S.G. THAT DAY...
Speyside Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 8:57 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Jonsy, you walk the razors edge so to speak. I hope you find peace one day.
USNGunner Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 9:37 PM EST
Joined: 05-17-2019
Posts: 4,402
Speyside wrote:
Jonsy, you walk the razors edge so to speak. I hope you find peace one day.



We all find peace eventually. One day. Hopefully. Angel
Abrignac Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 9:43 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
USNGunner wrote:
We all find peace eventually. One day. Hopefully. Angel


I took a peaceful 💩 earlier. Does that count?
Abrignac Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 9:47 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Speyside wrote:
Al, here is my thought process. Trump committed no treason or bribery. As far as high crimes and misdemeanors I have no interest in how either side interprets this. I am interested in what it meant when it was written.

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[10]

James Madison said something similar about the Republic. While I find Trumps actions sleazy and reprehensible, I do not find that they have damaged the Republic or Society. Again, follow the dam constitution.

I can't explain the depth of my personal dislike for Trump. But I will not allow that to cause me to agree with violating the constitution. Justice Marshall also held a very interesting perspective on the meaning of this phase. He felt that it should be taken in historical context. Most of that context related to England, and the harm done to England.

So I again say that given historical meaning, this did not rise to High crimes and Misdemeanors. I want to understand what our brilliant minds who wrote the constitution meant. I do not Bozo the clown from either side telling me what the framers meant.

I hope that enlightens you on how I formed my conclusions. I am not trying to change your conclusions.

Z, you want to jump in here and explain how my opinion is the same as all other liberals and I can't think for myself? That was an offense generalization on your part.

Well, that's the thought process of an oxymoron, a liberal civil libertarian.


Very well said Alan. On this we totally agree.
USNGunner Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Jan 28 2020, 9:55 PM EST
Joined: 05-17-2019
Posts: 4,402
Abrignac wrote:
I took a peaceful 💩 earlier. Does that count?


Gotta take the wins where they happen.
Speyside Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 8:50 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Anth, even when we disagree you offer me a thoughtful point of view and fun banter. Who could ask for more?
Abrignac Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 9:27 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Speyside wrote:
Anth, even when we disagree you offer me a thoughtful point of view and fun banter. Who could ask for more?


👍
teedubbya Offline
#20 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 10:17 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Get a room. Getting along is boring
teedubbya Offline
#21 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 10:18 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Forgot the sarcasm doohickey..


By the way, Jones is consistent in his stories down to the little details
dstieger Offline
#22 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 10:56 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Al,
Spey speaks Dershowitz much better than I could ever hope to. But I agreed with the gist before Dershowitz wrote the book.
I have zero doubts that Trump was willing to hold (or threaten to hold) the money over Zelensky's head and ask (demand?) an investigation of Bidens. The argument that such an investigation would support rooting out corruption in Ukraine is weak, but strong enough to hold up in court of law, I'd imagine.
So, I think what Trump did was wrong, but I just can't get any where near agreeing that it is 'impeachable'. I suspect that if one tried hard enough, one could find an incident in every single presidency that could widely be interpreted as being 'as bad' by a majority of people. I don't think that you or Schiff are capable of convincing me that this impeachment is more constitutionally sound than political.
teedubbya Offline
#23 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think the ballot box should decide and if he wins again we deserve what we get. So I am against removing him. He's already been impeached.

I do think withholding the money was not legal. I think it is very different than what they are claiming has been done before. While it is very different in multiple ways, if it were not that changes nothing. Legal is legal and not legal is not legal. Someone breaking the law previously doesn't justify anything and we don't get to choose which laws we agree with and which ones we don't. Change them or follow them. That doesn't just go for immigration.


Dershowitz's argument is empty though and widely disregarded by most other constitutional lawyers academic or otherwise. He admitted to such while speaking on the floor. It even differs from his previous position.

That doesn't change my position however.
fishinguitarman Offline
#24 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 12:04 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
What the Socialists did in the House was not only entirely political, it Screams
I don’t care what the Constitution says, damn the torpedoes!
dstieger Offline
#25 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Ray, do you think that Trump withheld appropriated aid to Ukraine for any any amount of time in hopes of getting an investigation into Biden's son?
Abrignac Offline
#26 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 1:49 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
dstieger wrote:
Ray, do you think that Trump withheld appropriated aid to Ukraine for any any amount of time in hopes of getting an investigation into Biden's son?


I’m not sure it’s even relevant. The US withholds aid frequently. So that’s a nothing burger to start. But, what about asking Ukraine to investigate potential ethics violations that occurred on foreign soil? Are we saying that such shouldn’t be allowed because it involves a potential Presidential candidate who if I’m not mistaken hadn’t declared a candidacy when the aid was withheld?
teedubbya Offline
#27 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 2:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Abrignac wrote:
I’m not sure it’s even relevant. The US withholds aid frequently. So that’s a nothing burger to start. But, what about asking Ukraine to investigate potential ethics violations that occurred on foreign soil? Are we saying that such shouldn’t be allowed because it involves a potential Presidential candidate who if I’m not mistaken hadn’t declared a candidacy when the aid was withheld?



The statement is true as a stand alone, but not in the context of how this was done. It has been thrown out there to purposely deflect. We can't just throw away the withholding of funds. To my knowledge It was not legal in this situation. The how is important.

We also should not throw away investigating corruption of bidens son etc. if it is appropriate, do it. It is amusing how folks on both sides want one or the other but not both.

Do it all in the open though. The secrecy to this day is telling.

To me it is laughable that the only concern was corruption in the Ukraine but hey read in to it what you want. There are plenty of bridges to be sold and plenty of buyers.
delta1 Offline
#28 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 2:50 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
there are legal protocols that must be followed when aid is withheld...ones that were ignored in this case...Trump's efforts to retroactively conjure a legitimate rationale reveals his consciousness of guilt that his actions to withhold Congressionally approved Ukraine aid was wrong...
teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 2:56 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
delta1 wrote:
there are legal protocols that must be followed when aid is withheld...ones that were ignored in this case...Trump's efforts to retroactively conjure a legitimate rationale reveals his consciousness of guilt that his actions to withhold Congressionally approved Ukraine aid was wrong...



which is why it was done in secret and there is still resistance to providing any transparency.
dstieger Offline
#30 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 3:26 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Abrignac wrote:
I’m not sure it’s even relevant.



And that is my only real frustration with any of this.

I recognize that the impeachment show is a political hack job. And not a very good one, at that.
And I get that Trump supporters are outraged at the whole thing.

But, to me, Trump was out of line....not impeachable, but committed acts which had the potential to degrade national interests for personal gain. There's a certain clarity to the reality, in my mind, that I get frustrated that Trump supporters don't see it. I really thought that the vast majority just wouldn't admit it...and would eventually say "he sorta f'd up, but it wasn't something anyone should be impeaching about" .

So my frustration is that otherwise reasonable people seem to actually think that Trump did nothing wrong....nothing at all.....I can't fully wrap my head around that, I'm afraid


And, where's Rudy?

How come nobody's talking about a subpoena for him?
delta1 Offline
#31 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 3:31 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
Spey's explanation for why Trump's behavior is not impeachable has won the minds of many people smarter than me, and is persuasive...Dershowitz is the primary legal mind behind the argument, and he's a respected Constitutional Law expert...

but there are respected Constitutional Law experts who take an opposing view...

my personal take is based on the impeachment of Richard Nixon...I remember those days of Watergate and how the case divided this country...nearly as much as Trump's term has divided us now...

Nixon's behavior was determined to be egregious, and a serious enough abuse of power to warrant impeachment...his ultimate objective in directing a covert and wrongful scheme was to destroy his political opponents and improve his chances for re-election by corrupting the fair political election process...he loudly and frequently denied wrong-doing, even as the pile of evidence of wrong-doing by him and his associates mounted...he accused his detractors of politically motivated investigations and refused to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas...he was ultimately persuaded by members of his own party that the articles of impeachment brought against him would lead to his removal from office, and that it would be better if he resigned instead of fight a trial in the Senate...

compare his articles of impeachment to those against Trump...the parallels are remarkable...I believe that Trump's behavior was even more serious than Nixon's in injuring our society itself...chiefly by corrupting the election process...Trump has hurt our society in an additional manner because his behavior involved a foreign nation...this behavior injured another country's sovereignty, a country that is a critical national security ally...Trump's behavior, if allowed to stand, also exposes our nation to future injury by giving foreign nations, possibly political enemies, an invitation to exert influence on our elections...

Nixon almost certainly would've been impeached and removed from office...Trump's abuse of power is of greater magnitude than Nixon...he should also be removed...
teedubbya Offline
#32 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 3:37 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Another thing I find amusing as the sheep follow whichever party (or person) they line up behind is the notion of witnesses.....

The republicans can call witnesses at any time. They do not need the democrats permission or votes to call Hunter Biden or anyone else. Quit holding it out there saying if we call so and so then we will want to call biden. It makes no difference.

Dont want to do it as part of impeachment? Graham can do it tomorrow with his committee. They are disingenuous over that whole thing. They know its a farce and diversion and don't want to do it under any legitimate circumstance. It's more useful as a diversion sort of like obamas birth certificate. Better to be left open and dirty than to actually show there is no there there legally (no matter how distasteful in this case). Both parties are hiding behind this. And they could have done this for a long time. Its just a new manufactured outrage to counter things.

I don't know how anyone can line up squarely on either side on this one. The whole thing is kabuki theater.

What trump did is wrong. That does not mean what Biden's son did is right. Get to the bottom of both if you like. Some would argue its already happened on biden's side but who cares. There were 20 investigations in to hillary's emails. Start 21. WGAF. But do it in the open. This was a smear job plain and simple and funds were secretly and illegally withheld to do so.


The worst part is common joes like us eating this stuff up hook line and sinker.... playing the game. Some are smart enough to know they are doing it. Others have been hoodwinked and don't realize it. We should be demanding transparency on everything and letting the chips fall where they fall. There is no need for secrecy on any of this (Trump or Biden's doings related to this).
Mr. Jones Offline
#33 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 9:07 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,423
Shiffty SCHIFF IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MORONS TO GRACE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY , and he made it to a LEADERSHIP ON A MAJOR COMMITTEE...HOW?

THAT NADLER IS A MUNCHKIN FATTY TOO...

PELOSI HAS genuinely gone off the deep end officially..

This E.N.T.I.R.E. IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS A TRAVESTY
Whistlebritches Offline
#34 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 10:48 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
delta1 wrote:
it's only a problem if your side is being investigated...and the heat is being turned up...

don't remember many (any?) cons saying "enough" a few years ago...some of the same complainers led the charge...



my suspicion is that the Bolton revelations will play out in a way similar to how the Watergate tapes did ... so be careful what you wish for...



Without reading beyond this post...……...Biden's are the obviously the criminals here.

Bolton is trying to sell books.

I love you left wing guys but you have to wake the **** up.Read Dershowitz comments...…...a Hillary liberal who understands playing politics with impeachment is dangerous territory.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#35 Posted: Wed, Jan 29 2020, 11:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
teedubbya wrote:
Another thing I find amusing as the sheep follow whichever party (or person) they line up behind is the notion of witnesses.....

The republicans can call witnesses at any time. They do not need the democrats permission or votes to call Hunter Biden or anyone else. Quit holding it out there saying if we call so and so then we will want to call biden. It makes no difference.

Dont want to do it as part of impeachment? Graham can do it tomorrow with his committee. They are disingenuous over that whole thing. They know its a farce and diversion and don't want to do it under any legitimate circumstance. It's more useful as a diversion sort of like obamas birth certificate. Better to be left open and dirty than to actually show there is no there there legally (no matter how distasteful in this case). Both parties are hiding behind this. And they could have done this for a long time. Its just a new manufactured outrage to counter things.

I don't know how anyone can line up squarely on either side on this one. The whole thing is kabuki theater.

What trump did is wrong. That does not mean what Biden's son did is right. Get to the bottom of both if you like. Some would argue its already happened on biden's side but who cares. There were 20 investigations in to hillary's emails. Start 21. WGAF. But do it in the open. This was a smear job plain and simple and funds were secretly and illegally withheld to do so.


The worst part is common joes like us eating this stuff up hook line and sinker.... playing the game. Some are smart enough to know they are doing it. Others have been hoodwinked and don't realize it. We should be demanding transparency on everything and letting the chips fall where they fall. There is no need for secrecy on any of this (Trump or Biden's doings related to this).



Take a civics class.

The House made the case for impeachment and had the votes to bring their case to the Senate. It is their job to hear the case presented before them and vote accordingly. It is not the Senate's position to harden a weak case with witness after witness that can plead the Fifth. You run with what was given not making crap up on the fly for political expediency.

This should be apparent to anyone but Schumer and you.
Krazeehorse Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 8:46 AM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
Mr. Jones wrote:
Shiffty SCHIFF IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MORONS TO GRACE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY , and he made it to a LEADERSHIP ON A MAJOR COMMITTEE...HOW?

THAT NADLER IS A MUNCHKIN FATTY TOO...

PELOSI HAS genuinely gone off the deep end officially..

This E.N.T.I.R.E. IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS A TRAVESTY


Not all munchkin fatties are bad.....just sayin'.
Buckwheat Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Whistlebritches wrote:
Without reading beyond this post...……...Biden's are the obviously the criminals here.

Bolton is trying to sell books.

I love you left wing guys but you have to wake the **** up.Read Dershowitz comments...…...a Hillary liberal who understands playing politics with impeachment is dangerous territory.



Every president that has been impeached (and, yes Trump has been impeached) has been done so by the other party for political reasons. That is why none of them have been removed from office by the Senate. fog

I'm curious as to the evidence that you've personally seen that reaches the level of indictable offences committed by the Bindens. horse
opelmanta1900 Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 9:19 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Buckwheat wrote:
Every president that has been impeached (and, yes Trump has been impeached) has been done so by the other party for political reasons. That is why none of them have been removed from office by the Senate. fog

I'm curious as to the evidence that you've personally seen that reaches the level of indictable offences committed by the Bindens. horse


I would say literally any one of the dozen or so of creepy joe pawing at little girls...
Buckwheat Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 9:21 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I would say literally any one of the dozen or so of creepy joe pawing at little girls...


If that's the case then Trump should be his cell mate.
teedubbya Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Take a civics class.

The House made the case for impeachment and had the votes to bring their case to the Senate. It is their job to hear the case presented before them and vote accordingly. It is not the Senate's position to harden a weak case with witness after witness that can plead the Fifth. You run with what was given not making crap up on the fly for political expediency.

This should be apparent to anyone but Schumer and you.



You are clueless and have no grasp on what I was saying and certainly have no clue what my academic and professional background includes in terms of civics education and experience. But most important you make me laugh. Thank you.
frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 11:57 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
it certainly isn't their job to BE the defense for the POTUS either.
frankj1 Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 11:57 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Buckwheat wrote:
If that's the case then Trump should be his cell mate.

good point.
I heard the old Epstein place is available.
Mr. Jones Offline
#43 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 12:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,423
All munchkin fatties ARE B.A.D....

ITS IN THE CODE BOOK...
Whistlebritches Offline
#44 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 1:28 PM EST
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
Buckwheat wrote:
Every president that has been impeached (and, yes Trump has been impeached) has been done so by the other party for political reasons. That is why none of them have been removed from office by the Senate. fog

I'm curious as to the evidence that you've personally seen that reaches the level of indictable offences committed by the Bindens. horse



Joe gets a $3 mil sweetheart deal with a Ukraine gas company while VP and worthless son,kicked out of the Navy for drug use,gets sweetheart deal with same company to the tune of $83K a month.What did Jr do for this company?He has no experience in this arena so please explain Joe and Jr's functions with this company.
delta1 Offline
#45 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
yep...the Hunter Biden/Burisma affair will bite Joe Biden...not sure if daddy got the money himself...pretty sure it was Hunter's "company" that were the recipients...guess an audit/investigation will show how the money flowed after Hunter's company received it...

at the surface, this is an issue of nepotism...anybody know what the Trumpkins have been up to?
delta1 Offline
#46 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 2:04 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
all this brouhaha over the impeachment is political gamesmanship...Hamilton and other founding fathers predicted that partisanship and the power of the majority will be part of the process...it has and always will be about winning elections...

due to the composition of the Senate, it's been glaringly obvious that Trump would never be convicted, regardless of any evidence of wrong-doing...just track the shifting defenses of his supporters in the Senate to see them looking for justifications to acquit...

so why do this? the Dems just want to expose this whole mess to show any uncommitted voters (are there any?) the moral bankruptcy of Trump as POTUS...

will we enter an era of non-stop impeachments whenever the POTUS and the House are from opposing parties? we've been in it since Nixon...the threat is supposedly strong enough to keep POTUS inside the guidelines...Americans should be able to judge a weak case from a strong case, and struggle with those in-between...so really, going forward, it is up to a POTUS to avoid any impeachable behavior
Krazeehorse Offline
#47 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 2:07 PM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
Mr. Jones wrote:
All munchkin fatties ARE B.A.D....

ITS IN THE CODE BOOK...


That's right, we bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FM9F6ChszQ
delta1 Offline
#48 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
one of the funniest movies of all time...
teedubbya Offline
#49 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 2:10 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I am less scared of what our current President will do from here on out and more scared of what will happen when a Dem is inevitably elected. We just had 8 years of Bammy, may very well have 8 years of trump, who knows what follows.

The same pattern has happened in congress and in the Senate particularly. The gamesmanship and rule changes while in power to get what they want while not thinking about when the tables turn. It's very short sighted by both parties and both lack any integrity or any sense to fake integrity. Their followers no longer require it.
fishinguitarman Offline
#50 Posted: Thu, Jan 30 2020, 10:47 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
You’re voting for Bloomberg aren’t you
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top