What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (8 Viewers)

Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
Trump is not an outlier in the GOP.   "The dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the" GOP and have been for quite a while.  The GOP had a demographic's issue.  They could not win elections so they seized on the fall out of the civil rights act, the anti war protests, the women's movement, the gay rights movement of the late 60's and early 70's and built a new coalition to get their tax cuts.  They still didn't have enough votes so in the early 80's they added evangelicals that previously had a long history of not muddying their religion with politics and blue color workers who bought that making their bosses richer would result in a few more crumbs for them.   This is a coalition of those losing to progress built to get tax cuts.   The "establishment" GOP was able to keep the reigns for a while, but they lost them in the '90s.  Conservatives around here argued in the first few years of this boards existence that "no, follow the money and you'll see that the establishment was in charge".   Any such pretense was destroyed in 2005.  Then with the initial rise of the tea parties it seemed like maybe old school conservatism was regaining its footing.   That lasted about a month.  

So NO this is not limited to Trump.  This is the GOP for decades now.   A party of those that know time is running out so they have scrambled to keep their "in line" minority in poser.   Finally, it is time for those in the middle, those that are independent, even traditional conservatives to start listening to the "partisan hacks on the left" that have been correct all along!

 
You know what else should be discussed, if what Trump did was an impeachable offense, should Biden be impeached for the same reason.  Biden, just like Trump, abused his authority by threatened to withhold government funding.  Both acts represent a threat to misappropriate funds.  Both acts had a conflict of interest involved.  Now if you are a mind reader, you could declare Biden's acts were for what he believed was in the best interests of the country and what Trump did was for personal gain.  Both guys acted in an illegal and unethical way and the evidence is overwhelming.   But the distinction, which is not proven, is the true motivation.  The real difference is Biden has much better plausible deniability than Trump.  But is that enough to remove one from office and not the other?  Not in my book. 
These were Biden's words, spoken in the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, in public:

As the Prime Minister and the President heard me often say, I never tell another man or another nation or another woman what’s in their interest.  But I can tell you, you cannot name me a single democracy in the world where the cancer of corruption is prevalent.  You cannot name me one.  They are thoroughly inconsistent.  And it’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption.  The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform.  The judiciary should be overhauled.  The energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles -- not sweetheart deals.  It’s not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income.  Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities.  Every other democracy in the world -- that system pertains. 

Oligarchs and non-oligarchs must play by the same rules.  They have to pay their taxes, settle their disputes in court -- not by bullying judges.  That's basic.  That's how nations succeed in the 21st century. 

Corruption siphons away resources from the people.  It blunts the economic growth, and it affronts the human dignity.  We know that.  You know that.  The Ukrainian people know that.  When Russia seeks to use corruption as a tool of coercion, reform isn’t just good governance, it’s self-preservation.  It’s in the national security interest of the nation.
This is what Trump told Zelensky, in private, while his personal attorney was interacting with an oligarch under indictment and extradition, two attorneys for other various indicted and investigated folks, and two oily grifters on his behalf also since indicted:

Zelensky: ...I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

...I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
- I'd really like to hear the comp on this, @jon_mx.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope Tim is right (not about Biden being the nominee, but about hurting the GOP).  I think the House put on a comprehensive enough presentation that it’s made Republicans own the fact that they are OK with this behavior. Only the biggest whack jobs have any doubt that Trump did it. 

But I’m not particularly sanguine about it mattering.  The best hope is that it strongly energizes turnout enough to counter the GOP’s voter suppression tactics (side note nothing Hohn Roberts does or fails to do in this trial is as damaging to our Republic as his Shelby County decision).

 
i actually think this would be an interesting exercise.  A good portion of this kind of thing has been going on in SiD's conspiracy theory thread.  My initial thought here, and it was triggered by the bold, is that from my perspective, the real difference (if I had to pick just one) is that Biden had absolutely no authority to withhold the funds.  It would have had to come from the President.  He could have been the messenger of course.  The other major difference would be that Biden was "the heaviest hitter" of a large group pushing for these changes globally and not simply representing himself or the US alone.
I can't seem to find it definitively anywhere in 2015 news articles, but I am fairly certain that on the trip where Biden made this ultimatum, he was with a bipartisan delegation from Congress, including Senator Ron Johnson (R).

 
I can't seem to find it definitively anywhere in 2015 news articles, but I am fairly certain that on the trip where Biden made this ultimatum, he was with a bipartisan delegation from Congress, including Senator Ron Johnson (R).
where has this guy been for this whole debacle?  He has been involved since day one.  What has he had to say?

 
Keep in mind, the Ukraine bribery phone call came the very next day after the Mueller report was released. Because he realized he got away with a crime. Either today or Monday, he is going to once again walkaway from an even more disgusting level of corruption. I can just imagine what he'll be planning next now that he knows for sure that he is untouchable.

 
For any who can't get past the paywall.

BREAKING

Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says

The president asked his national security adviser last spring in front of other senior advisers (including Cipollone) to pave the way for a meeting between Rudolph Giuliani and Ukraine’s new leader.

WASHINGTON — More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense.

Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton to call Volodymyr Zelensky, who had recently won election as president of Ukraine, to ensure Mr. Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani, who was planning a trip to Ukraine to discuss the investigations that the president sought, in Mr. Bolton’s account. Mr. Bolton never made the call, he wrote.

The previously undisclosed directive that Mr. Bolton describes would be the earliest known instance of Mr. Trump seeking to harness the power of the United States government to advance his pressure campaign against Ukraine, as he later did on the July call with Mr. Zelensky that triggered a whistle-blower complaint and impeachment proceedings. House Democrats have accused him of abusing his authority and are arguing their case before senators in the impeachment trial of Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have said he did nothing wrong.

The account in Mr. Bolton’s manuscript portrays the most senior White House advisers as early witnesses in the effort that they have sought to distance the president from. And disclosure of the meeting underscores the kind of information Democrats were looking for in seeking testimony from his top advisers in their impeachment investigation, including Mr. Bolton and Mr. Mulvaney, only to be blocked by the White House.

In a brief interview, Mr. Giuliani denied that the conversation took place and said those discussions with the president were always kept separate. He was adamant that Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Mulvaney were never involved in meetings related to Ukraine.

“It is absolutely, categorically untrue,” he said.

Neither Mr. Bolton nor a representative for Mr. Mulvaney responded to requests for comment. A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Bolton described the roughly 10-minute conversation in drafts of his book, a memoir of his time as national security adviser that is to go on sale in March. Over several pages, Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump’s fixation on Ukraine and the president’s belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, assertions and outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine tried to undermine his chances of winning the presidency in 2016.

As he began to realize the extent and aims of the pressure campaign, Mr. Bolton began to object, he wrote in the book, affirming the testimony of a former National Security Council aide, Fiona Hill, who had said that Mr. Bolton warned that Mr. Giuliani was “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

Mr. Trump also repeatedly made national security decisions contrary to American interests, Mr. Bolton wrote, describing a pervasive sense of alarm among top advisers about the president’s choices. Mr. Bolton expressed concern to others in the administration that the president was effectively granting favors to autocratic leaders like Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Xi Jinping of China.

The New York Times reported this week on another revelation from Mr. Bolton’s book draft: that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter. That account undercuts a key element of the White House impeachment defense — that the aid holdup was separate from his requests for inquiries. Mr. Trump has denied the conversation took place.

Since that Times article, people who have reviewed the draft have further described its contents, including details of the May meeting. Mr. Bolton’s manuscript was sent to the White House for a standard review process in late December.

Its revelations galvanized the debate over whether to call witnesses in the impeachment trial, but late on Thursday, Republicans appeared to have secured enough votes to keep any new testimony out of Mr. Trump’s trial and to move toward a quick acquittal in the third presidential impeachment trial in American history.

The White House has sought to block the release of the book, contending that it contains classified information. The government reviews books by former officials who had access to secrets so they can excise the manuscripts of any classified information. Officials including Mr. Trump have described Mr. Bolton, who was often at odds with Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney, as a disgruntled former official with an ax to grind.

Mr. Bolton has angered Democrats — and some Republicans — for remaining quiet during the House investigation, then announcing that he would comply with any subpoena to testify in the Senate and signaling that he is eager to share his story. Administration officials should “feel they’re able to speak their minds without retribution,” he said at a closed-door lunch in Austin, Texas, on Thursday, the NBC affiliate KXAN reported, citing unnamed sources.

“The idea that somehow testifying to what you think is true is destructive to the system of government we have — I think, is very nearly the reverse, the exact reverse of the truth,” Mr. Bolton added.

The Oval Office conversation that Mr. Bolton described came as the president and Mr. Giuliani were increasingly focusing on pushing the Ukrainian government to commit to investigations that could help Mr. Trump politically. At various points, Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani and their associates pressed Ukrainian officials under Mr. Zelensky and his predecessor to provide potentially damaging information on the president’s rivals, including Mr. Biden and Ukrainians who Mr. Trump’s allies believed tried to help Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Mr. Giuliani had just successfully campaigned to have the American ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, recalled, convinced that she was part of an effort to protect Mr. Trump’s political rivals from scrutiny. Mr. Giuliani had argued she was impeding the investigations.

At the time of the Oval Office conversation Mr. Bolton wrote about, Mr. Giuliani was planning a trip to Kyiv to push the incoming government to commit to the investigations. Mr. Giuliani asserted that the president had been wronged by the Justice Department’s Russia investigation and told associates that the inquiry could be partly discredited by proving that parts of it originated with suspect documents produced and disseminated in Ukraine to undermine his onetime campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, whose work in Ukraine became a central focus of the Russia inquiry.

Mr. Giuliani, a private consultant with a range of international clients, had said none were involved in the Ukraine effort, Mr. Bolton wrote, adding that he was skeptical and wanted to avoid involvement. At the time, Mr. Giuliani was working closely with two Soviet-born businessmen from Florida, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to carry out the shadow Ukraine effort.

After pushing out Ms. Yovanovitch, Mr. Giuliani turned his attention to other American diplomats responsible for Ukraine policy. During the Oval Office conversation, he also mentioned a State Department official with the last name of Kent, whom Mr. Bolton wrote he did not know. Mr. Giuliani said he was hostile to Mr. Trump and sympathetic to George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who has long been a target of the far right.

George P. Kent, a top State Department official who oversees Ukraine policy, went on to be a key witness in House Democrats’ impeachment investigation, testifying that claims by Mr. Giuliani’s allies of Mr. Soros’ wide influence in Ukraine were used to smear Ms. Yovanovitch.

Mr. Bolton left the Oval Office after 10 minutes and returned to his office, he wrote. Shortly after, two aides came into his office, saying Mr. Trump had sent them out of a separate meeting on trade to ask about Mr. Kent, Mr. Bolton wrote.

The conversation that Mr. Bolton describes was separate from another one that Mr. Bolton wrote about, where he observed Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Trump talking on the phone with Mr. Giuliani about Ukraine matters. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would leave the room when Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani were talking to preserve their attorney-client privilege, and his lawyer said earlier this week that Mr. Mulvaney was never in meetings with Mr. Giuliani and has “no recollection” of the first discussion.

Around the time of the May discussion, The Times revealed Mr. Giuliani’s efforts and his planned trip to Ukraine. Mr. Giuliani said at the time that Mr. Trump was aware of his efforts in Ukraine, but said nothing else about any involvement of Mr. Trump or other members of the administration. The disclosure created consternation in the White House and Mr. Giuliani canceled his trip.

A day after the Times article was published, Mr. Giuliani wrote a letter to Mr. Zelensky, saying he was representing Mr. Trump as a “private citizen” and, with Mr. Trump’s “knowledge and consent,” hoped to arrange a meeting with Mr. Zelensky in the ensuing days. That letter was among the evidence admitted during the House impeachment inquiry.


 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EXCLUSIVE: Bolton book contains new, earlier, allegation of Trump's involvement in pressure campaign. Trump asked Bolton to call Zelensky to ensure he would meet w/Giuliani. Cipollone and Mulvaney were in room. w/

@maggieNYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/trump-bolton-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
coming out like this drip by drip is going to hurt much worse than Bolton testimony that wouldn't matter anyway.  that's why no witnesses is good news.

 
I am voting anti-Trump.  But the Dems have put themselves in a bad spot not having lacking a quality moderate that can win.  Would have much preferred Brown or Patrick be in the race.

 
I am voting anti-Trump.  But the Dems have put themselves in a bad spot not having lacking a quality moderate that can win.  Would have much preferred Brown or Patrick be in the race.
don't see how either of them would be doing any better than Klobuchar is right now, and they're similarly moderate.

 
In terms of economic policy you’re correct. President Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, is actually more “normal” than Sanders or Warren would be. He has effectively governed as a typical Reaganesque conservative on this one issue: cut taxes, increase spending while hypocritically pretending to cut spending, jack up the military, cut regulations regardless of whether they make sense or not, increase the deficit and debt while complaining about the deficit and debt. All of this we’ve come to expect from the Republican Party over the last 30 years. 

But in almost every other way: international commitments, divisiveness, corruption, civility, treatment of immigrants, environmental awareness, I could go on and on, Warren and/or Sanders or virtually any alternative would be far more normal than Donald Trump. And personally I find all of this to be more important. Hopefully the nation will too. 
That's the problem.  An election that pits Trump against Warren or Sanders basically offers me a choice between which specific way I would like to seen our country broken.  I'm not at all convinced personally that Trump is obviously the worse choice in that scenario, and I think it's a good bet that if I feel that way, I won't be alone.

 
That's the problem.  An election that pits Trump against Warren or Sanders basically offers me a choice between which specific way I would like to seen our country broken.  I'm not at all convinced personally that Trump is obviously the worse choice in that scenario, and I think it's a good bet that if I feel that way, I won't be alone.
I know. That’s another reason, besides healthcare that I prefer it not be one of them. 

 
Censure, not impeachment.
I really think this is what the Democrats should shoot for. Impeached and censure would not allow the President to say he was exonerated. That would be a victory for the Dems and not something you want as a record going into an election

 
Could happen. And if it does I’ll be tremendously disappointed, and then move on. 

But there’s no reason I can see to be pessimistic beforehand. Trump barely won in 2016 and his support has not increased. Democrats are energized and highly motivated. Independents are going to be very angered by this coverup and other events. All the numbers, all the facts are on our side. That doesn’t guarantee a thing of course, but why not be positive? 
I no longer trust (1) that we will have free and clear elections and (2) that the average American voter can discern the truth from lies in an increasingly social media intensive world.  We're through the looking glass.

I also tend to keep my expectations low and expect the worst when something is important to me.  Just ask @IvanKaramazov about me in Bills game threads.

 
I really think this is what the Democrats should shoot for. Impeached and censure would not allow the President to say he was exonerated. That would be a victory for the Dems and not something you want as a record going into an election
it doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Republicans, as the minority party, as so desperate that they will cheat any way they can. 

Based on recent posts above, we're moving on to the next part of the darkest timeline: Republicans telling Democrats who they have to nominate. 

 
I no longer trust (1) that we will have free and clear elections and (2) that the average American voter can discern the truth from lies in an increasingly social media intensive world.  We're through the looking glass.

I also tend to keep my expectations low and expect the worst when something is important to me.  Just ask @IvanKaramazov about me in Bills game threads.
Ah I forgot you were a Bills fan. Well that explains it. I am a Steelers fan. Losing is not normal, never expected. 

 
it doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Republicans, as the minority party, as so desperate that they will cheat any way they can. 

Based on recent posts above, we're moving on to the next part of the darkest timeline: Republicans telling Democrats who they have to nominate. 
How does that work?

 
Of course the beauty of Alexander's position is no matter how ugly or damning the details that emerge, he can just say he already knows Trump did it.... while at the same time not having to fundraise or face the base personally.

In a way he will take all the flack as being "THE" guy who killed the trial, and not all the poor GOP souls running for reelection in purplish states. Sort of like blaming the missed tackle or blown flag on the last play of the game excuses all the other bad screwups and bad calls that happened in the prior 59 minutes.

 
From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense.

Cipollone pulling a Nunes. THE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE. Man that is some big brass balls. I'll give em that. 

If only there were some way we could clear this up.......

 
That's the problem.  An election that pits Trump against Warren or Sanders basically offers me a choice between which specific way I would like to seen our country broken.  I'm not at all convinced personally that Trump is obviously the worse choice in that scenario, and I think it's a good bet that if I feel that way, I won't be alone.
I said last time around that I thought Hillary Clinton was the second-worst major-party candidate in my lifetime (running against the worst), but I think she was a better candidate than Sanders or Warren.

American politics is going through a rough phase right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tactical question: everybody knows this is going to end in a day or so. Trump wants it done by tomorrow so that he can have a triumphant State of the Union address on Tuesday. Schumer could maybe spoil that with parliamentary tricks, which would serve no purpose other than to delay things into next week. But while this would infuriate Trump, it would also be unfair to Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar (and if Biden were to win Iowa you can be sure the conspiracy theorists will jump on it and accuse Schumer of deliberately trying to keep Bernie in Washington.) 

So what should Chuck do? 

 
Tactical question: everybody knows this is going to end in a day or so. Trump wants it done by tomorrow so that he can have a triumphant State of the Union address on Tuesday. Schumer could maybe spoil that with parliamentary tricks, which would serve no purpose other than to delay things into next week. But while this would infuriate Trump, it would also be unfair to Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar (and if Biden were to win Iowa you can be sure the conspiracy theorists will jump on it and accuse Schumer of deliberately trying to keep Bernie in Washington.) 

So what should Chuck do? 
Let it go.   The GOP senate was never going to vote for removal.   More stuff will leak that shows how corrupt Trump is anyway...

 
Preet Bharara was saying on his podcast that Cipollone should've been recused.  go figure.
I don’t agree. This is not a court trial. The President can appoint who he wants to speak on his behalf. If he has a conflicted person do it, that’s up to the Senate to take his word, question him, etc. 

 
I have been toying for some time with the thought of casting my first vote for a Democrat for President ever in my lifetime if Mayor Pete got the nomination.   I do not know that I would, but I have given it serious thought and I believe that I might.  Any of the other candidates get nominated and I will vote third party once again. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"If you nominate Sanders or Warren, by golly, I'll have to vote Trump again."
I hear this all the time on MSNBC some from Democrats and  from Never Trumpers. I think it sounds like good advice. Sanders and Warren can possibly win the Democrat primaries and win the general election in the blue states but I want a candidate that can win the blue states “and” the battleground states. In my mind that describes a moderate Democrat, not Sanders or Warren.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been toying for some time with the thought of casting my first vote for a Democrat for President ever in my lifetime if mayor Pete got the nomination.   do not know that I would, but I have given it serious thought and I believe that I might.  Any of the other candidates get nominated and I will vote third party once again. 
Do you live in a battleground state? 

 
Do you live in a battleground state? 
Increasingly so.  Colorado.

Actually the shifts here have been so seismic that it might already have gone from increasingly so to again decreasingly so.  Red to purple to blue in a very short time, or so it seems to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Ditkaless Wonders let me clarify my last question: 

If your view of Donald Trump is equal to mine (essentially that a second term could be an existential threat to the United States) and you live in a battleground state, and you believe that your vote for an independent or not voting at all could possibly help Trump win that state, then I believe you owe a duty to the country to cast your vote for the Democrat whoever that is. But otherwise no duty whatsoever. 

 
@Ditkaless Wonders let me clarify my last question: 

If your view of Donald Trump is equal to mine (essentially that a second term could be an existential threat to the United States) and you live in a battleground state, and you believe that your vote for an independent or not voting at all could possibly help Trump win that state, then I believe you owe a duty to the country to cast your vote for the Democrat whoever that is. But otherwise no duty whatsoever. 
I am aware of your thoughts on the matter.  I believe you are aware of mine and have rejected them.  I do note that mine predicted the current quandary quite well and were intended to set us on a different course.

Oh, my view of Trump may not be equal to your own in that I feel that he has already damaged our country likely beyond repair.  He is not an existential threat he is a completed act, he is the hoards on the border, the wolf at the door, the fox in the henhouse.

I view the two parties as the obverse and reverse side of the same coin.  You do not.  I will not vote for that coinage.  I want a new currency.  You see the matter otherwise.  I get that.  More do than do not. I am comfortable in my minority view. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys often lump Sanders and Warren together, but it seems lots of people view them differently.  When I look at favorability polls, Sanders always rates higher.  People just like him more than Warren.  Voters don't just react to placement on the political spectrum. 

 
We’re going to have four more hours of debate on witnesses. But it’s going to be the exact same rhetoric we heard the day before and the day before that. Maybe they’ll bring up The NY Times report. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top