msommer
Footballguy
More like "The Godfather" and "Debbie does Dallas"The General said:Like ”The Godfather” and “Beverly Hills Ninja 2” are both movies type spectrum?
More like "The Godfather" and "Debbie does Dallas"The General said:Like ”The Godfather” and “Beverly Hills Ninja 2” are both movies type spectrum?
Comedians prank called him and Schmidt continually referred them to the FBI, who they notified of the call before taking it and updated them after taking the call.Speaking of Schiff, remember when he was colluding with what he thought was a Ukrainian official to get **** pics of Trump? Sounds like interference in an election.
Schiff on tape asking for **** pics of Trump
I really think Nadler's weakness with Lewandowski last week played some part in Impeachment being given to Intelligence. And I'd expect Schiff to use all the tools going forward.Dems need to get a lot tougher” and use tools such as fines, contempt charges, ultimately arrests if necessary.
Predict we see a poll by the end of next week that's over 50%. But his disapproval/approval is at something like 53/43 (+/- 2). So until polls show 60%+ they're really just reflecting people's opinions about Trump IMO.By “public will not back”, are you suggesting poll will be < 50%?
I'm expecting exactly zero things to change.Otis said:Love seeing the GOP on the run and collectively going bananas. I’m expecting some caution in the coming days followed by the dominos falling.
you failed to see my point, who care about Bill Clinton? (oh and he was impeached )Mr. Ham said:If Clinton were documented to have auctioned anything of value for personal gain, I’d be all for investigation and possible impeachment. If the thing he were negotiating for himself were votes, with a foreign government, it would be exponentially so. This should not be about party. It’s about country.toshiba said:We should probably impeach Bill Clinton after we get done with Trump then.
Ugh. You couldn't make me take a side between Trump and Sessions and you can't make me take a side between Trump and Bolton.Bolton’s testifying would be awesome.
Then I opine its not the left that is the problem...but a base of people who ignore fact and corruption beyond what we have seen before and not only support the man, but increase support of the man the more that gets exposed. That means we have a serious problem in this country with a large percentage of people if this is the case.Being the political strategy that it is, I opine the left to be making a mistake (again).
You can beat him on his record of simply not achieving his stated goals and commitments. You can beat him on a simple appeal to common sense and common decency.
Another sloppily articulated circus that doesn't effectively remove Trump from office only further motivates and weaponizes his base.
I used to think the left's base was better than the right's... falling for the same games/traps that previously made the right look foolish has demonstrably proven otherwise.Then I opine its not the left that is the problem...but a base of people who ignore fact and corruption beyond what we have seen before and not only support the man, but increase support of the man the more that gets exposed. That means we have a serious problem in this country with a large percentage of people if this is the case.
Even now, I have a little more faith in the electorate than that.
I just meant entertaining.Ugh. You couldn't make me take a side between Trump and Sessions and you can't make me take a side between Trump and Bolton.
Bolton: "I found all this collusion with a foreign power to be a real distraction from our main foreign policy goal of bombing brown people."
I don’t agree.They need to drop the quid pro quo stuff....it's not necessary and all it does is distract from the abuse of power portion that is important. Abuse of power should be the central theme of this entire thing and how he continually shows that "rule of law" is the furthest thing from his mind IMO.
They are arguing that because that was the talking point out. We saw the distribution of those points.I don’t agree.
When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied.
Has a post ever aged so poorly, so fast?Well, I’m pretty unsurprised by systemic rot in our govt anymore. But I’m ok with an investigation into the Bidens/Ukraine because it looks like there really is some corruption there. This is evidenced by Nuland and all the other Hillary neocons’ work overthrowing the Ukrainian govt in her infamous “#### the EU” phone call. Biden was a pointman for their work in Ukraine, installing a far-right regime to badger/provoke further hostilities with Russia.
Just seeing people do this ‘Trump is done’ thing for the 50,000th time is beyond parody at this point. I’m trying to imagine a version of the past 3 years where we didn’t waste an honest, sober perception of Trump on a garbage conspiracy theory. It would look so much more credible.
Waiting until now to move on impeachment just looks like a political calculation. I think this will drag the country into a hyperpartisan slugfest, and it’s not even his most impeachable conduct. War crimes in Yemen? His child prison camp system? Of all things, THIS is what they choose to go with? Why don’t they try him for war crimes? Why don’t they do anything to meaningfully change any of his policies that are actively ruining millions of people’s lives, while they rake in cash from the same corrupt system?
It’s another example of Democrats doubling down on oblique wrongdoings of the Trump administration, because to confront him on the substantive policy that actually matters would be to confront the same power structures that own them. The reason they wasted years on TrumpRussia and now an impeachment inquiry is because they have nothing left to offer voters.
I’m not with them on impeachment for this Ukraine thing- I would rather they lose to Trump again, accept accountability for their failures which led to Trump, and be destroyed as a party and replaced with a real one than go along with their continued use of Trump as a distraction for their failures. It should hopefully go without saying that I think Trump is awful, but he’s not as dangerous as this pretend opposition.
Unlike the whole Russian thing, there is a “transcript” here, a “transcript” that reads like Tony Soprano shaking down the local pizza joint. That’s at the central core of the matter. Trump sycophants can try to muddy the water with strawmen like “proving quid pro quo”, but Americans know what mobsters do and say when they extort people (this is one of the big reasons this has resonance). This isn’t complicated.I don’t agree.
When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied.
Agreed.Unlike the whole Russian thing, there is a “transcript” here, a “transcript” that reads like Tony Soprano shaking down the local pizza joint. That’s at the central core of the matter. Trump sycophants can try to muddy the water with strawmen like “proving quid pro quo”, but Americans know what mobsters do and say when they extort people (this is one of the big reasons this has resonance). This isn’t complicated.
No one did, he told them to do it. They recognized how bad it was and were trying to cover it up.Agreed.
And once again I have to wonder: who told Trump that releasing that transcript would be a good thing??
All the time you spend arguing this point you aren't arguing his complete disregard for the rule of law and his willingness to abuse his power as PresidentI don’t agree.
When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied.
Plenty of room for those arguments as well.All the time you spend arguing this point you aren't arguing his complete disregard for the rule of law and his willingness to abuse his power as President
So attacking the press and legislative branch. Good times.The emperor has also condemned Peter Baker, a New York Times journalist, this morning: “he shouldn’t be allowed to write about me!”
He always does that. But there seems to be a new frustration; he wants to order them banished from the realm.So attacking the press and legislative branch. Good times.
That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment What makes a foreign leader so special? What about a corporate CEO? Or a foreign spy? If you are only asking about finding out if something was true, I don't see the issue, let alone raising up absurdly to impeachment.No...it does not even have to be tied to aid either. He is asking a foreign leader to investigate his politcal rival for personal gain. That is impeachable.
Perhaps the POTUS shouldn't be talking to foreign spies.That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment What makes a foreign leader so special? What about a corporate CEO? Or a foreign spy? If you are only asking about finding out if something was true, I don't see the issue, let alone raising up absurdly to impeachment.
If we take jon at his word and he's anti-Trump, you guys are arguing with him over this stupid footnote when that time could be spent discussing the portions you agree on. And for what?Plenty of room for those arguments as well.All the time you spend arguing this point you aren't arguing his complete disregard for the rule of law and his willingness to abuse his power as President
If you don’t see the issue here then I’m afraid you never will. Thankfully it’s an easy one for the public to understand.That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment What makes a foreign leader so special? What about a corporate CEO? Or a foreign spy? If you are only asking about finding out if something was true, I don't see the issue, let alone raising up absurdly to impeachment.
You were ok with Hillary hiring one.Perhaps the POTUS shouldn't be talking to foreign spies.
It’s fun to argue with jon.If we take jon at his word and he's anti-Trump, you guys are arguing with him over this stupid footnote when that time could be spent discussing the portions you agree on. And for what?
When people like jon_mx say they're anti-Trump, it doesn't mean the same thing as when I say I'm anti-Trump.If we take jon at his word and he's anti-Trump
Hillary can do whatever she wants because she’s a Democrat and I love her to the moon and back!You were ok with Hillary hiring one.
Sorry, thought I was talking to Tim still. I have had 20 replies in the last 20 minutes.I was?
Which makes it all that much more important to focus on the things you agree on...at least in my view.When people like jon_mx say they're anti-Trump, it doesn't mean the same thing as when I say I'm anti-Trump.
We've told people repeatedly not to do this.
Impeachment is not a game. 90% of this discussion is not a game.glad you think this is a game
Well, people who lead countries tend to be pretty powerful, and asking someone to abuse their power for your personal benefit is pretty bad. That said, you're right that foreign leaders aren't unique.That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment What makes a foreign leader so special?
Impeachable. If Trump asked Zuckerberg to manipulate Facebook to improve his reelection chances, that would be a clear abuse of office.What about a corporate CEO?
Impeachable. The president should not be working with foreign intelligence agencies to undermine our electoral process. How can you not understand that?Or a foreign spy?