Bob in Mich

Another stellar example of attacking the messenger. Most posters do that when their arguments suck. You do it in pretty much every post. Hmm. Do you think....naw, just answered my own question. You be you, no matter how ignorant. It is the honest you. I respect that, dude!

What a coincidence!! Another one. This is some amazing streak we are on. Anyone that speaks out against Trump coincidentally is a lifelong lying lowlife bastard. We gotta be in the hundreds now. I mean, the odds must be astronomical at this point. Ya know what, I am going to go out on a limb. I am going to predict that this streak continues around here.

https://news.yahoo.com/judge-napolitano-impeachment-process-needs-174755468.html Now I know you guys won't reject this info just because of the source, as I just heard that refrain in splendid chorus in another thread. So, listen and try to let it sink in this time. Also, it has been proven that cult members don't realize they were in a cult until after they have escaped and were shown the light. I am praying for you guys. God Bless

Once lost, credibility is very tough to regain. Both FoxNews and you have lost credibility long ago.

lol foxnews/science? nuff said on that link. No thanks.

Well, there is the disagreement. This is not a company. It is our government. Apparently we have only seen the portions of the transcript that Trump thought made him look good. It didn't. We will have to wait to read the transcript apparently. If abuses of power are not called out, what will prevent further abuses? An unethical President could get out of control without oversight.

If these career government hacks honestly think that the President is abusing his power, do you think they should speak up against the President's actions or do you think that they should keep the President's abuse secret from the public?

On 5/8/2019 at 2:37 PM, Bob in Mich said: Thought I would re-post this here. If we do actually get into impeachment it might be interesting to see how the backpedaling from today's Repubs follows the Dems actions from the Clinton impeachment in the 90's. Obviously the details are different but if we go down the path there will be similarities I would guess too. The other day I found a 1999 email I wrote to a friend expressing frustration with the Dems and their constant backpedaling with respect to Bill Clinton's impeachment. I recall too at that time my golf partner calling me the Raging Republican. You may think I am now a Raging Democrat but I view myself as Independent and have voted for plenty of Dems and Repubs and will likely continue that pattern. I wouldn't want anyone convicted of non-existent crimes but I also don't think we should ignore misdeeds just because of our party affiliation. I think we citizens should be more like jurors and less like the lawyers I see around here. Here is the 99 email: > I think I'm finally starting to put together some clues on this ... > > Many Clinton supporters view all of the Republicans as the Religious > Right Wing, therefor the enemy. They feel that for many years the > Religious Right has been trying to take away more and more personal > freedoms in the name of morality. They want the government to stay out of > their personal lives. That feeling is at the root of this Clinton > support. They see Ken Starr as one who has pried into the President's > personal life. They feel that the Republicans (aka Christian Coalition) > now are trying to throw him out of office because of 'immoral behavior in > his private life'. Many have decided that regardless of the facts, they > are not giving any more ground to this morality craze. > > Also, most people that liked Bill (before all of this) knew he had > told lies in the past and they accepted him anyway. Many of us that > didn't like him because of his lying felt that his backers just couldn't > see how dishonest the guy was. In reality the backers saw the dishonesty > and liked him for his other fine leadership qualities. When he is finally > caught red handed in these lies, his detractors say 'See, we told he was > dishonest. Look at the evidence we have on him.' While his supporters > say, 'What's the big deal? He told a lie about sex. The economy is > great. Get over it.' > > This is the backstepping I've seen in protecting our buddy Bill. It > seems so many points have been conceded, yet there's always another > position to fall back to ... > > 1. The story breaks... He did not have an affair with this > 'gold-digger'. She is just trying to smear the President or just out to > get a book deal for her self. The Whitehouse says that she was stalking > the President and that the FBI is investigating her. > 2. Talk of the stained dress surfaces. Now the stance is 'I > doubt he had any affair, but even if he did, so what if he committed > adultery, it's strictly a personal matter between himself, his family, and > his God. The damn Republicans probably planted this woman in there to try > to get Clinton'. > 3. He lied about sex, so what, everybody lies about sex. Who > hasn't lied about sex? Obstruction of Justice! Get real. > 4. He didn't have any obligation to do the job of the Jones' > attorneys. He wasn't forthcoming and he was evasive. He can be > misleading without committing perjury. There's nothing illegal just > because he didn't offer up answers to questions he wasn't asked. Besides > he had to protect Hillary. > 5. OK, maybe he lied, but it was a civil matter and the case > was eventually thrown out. Everybody lies in civil cases. It's not a > serious matter to commit perjury in a civil case. Besides, that Ken > Starr spent how many millions of dollars? He was appointed to investigate > Whitewater and then it became Travelgate and blah, blah, blah ... That > Betty Curry thing? He was just helping to refresh his memory, that's all. > 6. Well, he had to lie to the Grand Jury. What was he going to > do, admit to perjury in the Jones case - that would have been stupid. He > had to deny that he lied earlier or Ken Starr, that no good, rotten, > bastard .... would be able to indict him for perjury when he leaves > office. He has to maintain that he never lied now, or Starr will get him. > > 7. Look, perjury is just not that serious of a matter. It's > certainly not a 'high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery'. > There's no way they could make any case for Obstruction of Justice. The > obstruction case is purely speculation. He says- She says case - could > never be proven. Even if, for the purposes of argument, you suppose all > allegations are true, these are not 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. > 8. The House prosecutors show that a few Federal Judges have > been removed by the Senate for just such deeds (The Senate labeling the > perjury a 'high crime or misdemeanor'). Ok, in some cases perjury could > be grounds for removal, but not in this case. This case is only about sex > and lying about it and if that pervert Starr wasn't peeping into > everybody's bedroom... Would you want to be asked sexual questions under > oath? > 9. The Senators are not just jurors, you know. They are trying > the case. They need to consider more than just the facts, the rule of > law, and the Constitution. They also need to consider what's in the best > interests of this country. The House managers may have made a pretty good > case, but it is not in our best interests to remove the president even if > he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. > 10. And then the latest to my ears ... They had no business > asking him personal, private questions in a grand jury setting where he > couldn't plead the fifth (the protection from self incrimination). That > f***er Ken Starr. It was a witch hunt. Any evidence against Clinton has > to be discounted because of the 'illegitimate' means that were used in > acquiring it. It doesn't really matter what they found out because of the > way they went about it.

Tis but a flesh wound. I've had worse!

Didn't go to the Sabres game last night either but since I read about it, I know what happened. They won in OT. Eichel had great game. Do you think that is true? Were you there? Must suck to have to deny reality in order to keep your position afloat. Soon you will go to 'yeah all the accusations are true but it isn't a big deal'. I can keep going about the future fallback positions too. It is all pretty clear. With a few steps in the interim you will finish at ' Yeah, it was wrong and criminal and he shouldn't have done it but removing him wouldn't be good for our country.' Sad.

Were you personally fooled by Schiff's opening statement? Since Trump already released the actual 'transcript' a day or two before, I would be curious how many people were fooled into thinking this was Trump's exact words from the call. I certainly knew he was paraphrasing and possibly exaggerating. Were you personally aware of the transcript prior to hearing Schiff's admittedly ill advised parody?

Perhaps this whole Trump success illusion is tied to those that watched Trump on the Apprentice. If one formed their impressions of Trump from that tv show, they appear to think he is a brilliant American success story. I saw that show once but I suppose they didn't address how and why he kept going bankrupt in real life. If one knew of him before the Apprentice show and formed their impressions based on years of NY reporting on multiple bankruptcies, lawsuits, scams, divorces, and affairs, they are less likely to believe he is suddenly a squeaky clean president being repeatedly wrongly accused. I think I read that Trump, in the 2016 election won approximately 18% of the NY City votes. They have known the guy for a long time there.

In October of 2018 the NY Times did an extensive investigated piece on Fred Trump, his wealth, and how he transferred it to his heirs, in many cases avoiding taxes. In today's dollars the total to Donald Trump came to over $400 million. The NY times article is a pay for article but this free video summarizes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxJE5H0hwk

Non Disclosure agreements are why former employees don't speak out. C'mon Lenny!! I am sure the over 3500 lawsuits he is involved in are all money grabs too? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/everyone-signed-one-trump-is-aggressive-in-his-use-of-nondisclosure-agreements-even-in-government/2018/08/13/9d0315ba-9f15-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html From the article Dozens of White House aides have signed NDAs in exchange for working for Trump, who has long relied on such agreements in his business career, according to current and former administration employees. But NDAs have not been widely used by past administrations outside the transition time between presidents, in part because most legal experts believe such agreements are not legally enforceable for public employees. Copies of Trump NDAs obtained by The Washington Post or described by current and former aides lay out breathtakingly broad prohibitions on behavior and appear to be drawn heavily from similar contracts used in the past by the Trump Organization, the president’s family firm. Under one agreement from the 2016 campaign, signers promised not to “demean or disparage publicly” Trump, his company or any member of his family — and also not to assist any other politician exploring a federal or state office. An agreement circulated in the White House last year barred signers from sharing any information they had learned in the building, according to several aides who signed the document.

So, you don't wish to answer the Trump related questions and wish to discuss instead how you think that 'wronging' Kavanaugh means the Dems are worse than Trump? Is that what you are trying to do? Given what I just told you about both topics that is a bit disappointing to be honest. I told you everything I know about the Kavanaugh hearings and am only barely sorry you didn't like what I thought. - ASSUME SEVERAL WITNESSES TELL SIMILAR DRUNKEN KAVANAUGH FLASHING STORY TO DEMS. If, when a drunk college student, he had a habit of whipping it out at co-ed events, should that be an issue during the qualification hearing or should that not have been raised because it would embarrass the candidate? Remember the assumption. Regarding drinking, is the real person the sober, self controlled person or is the real person the uninhibited drunk? If you think the drunk may offer a glimpse behind the curtain, so to speak, one must wonder about serial flashers and if they have the normal perspectives on women and sexual issues. Again, not important for some jobs but certainly important to me for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. Not a valid issue for you? Oh, just answer one of those Trump questions you are avoiding please. Where are the fruits of all the surveillance on the Trump campaign? Aside from the alleged spying itself, what actions can you point to that were done because of information gotten thru the surveillance on the Trump campaign?

Perfect! lol Try shorter insults. 30 Characters seems a bit too deep for you

You are clearly a fukstick. I have yet to see a post of yours that added anything anywhere. Stupid friggin jokes, butt licking, and a personality disorder - That's it. That is all you have pal. You are the first to criticize and advise new posters around here about civility and then ironically, the first to consistently violate your own advice. Try a little introspection. It may hurt at first but it may make you a better person.

DR, why can't you control yourself? I have told you several times that discussions with you always seem to devolve into you, the crazy eyed guy at the bar, being way too close in my face screaming about lizard people! Yet, here we are again. Over the last 4-5 pages in this thread you asked me the exact same question approximately 10 times. I answered it at least 7 times, pointed out that I had already answered it repeatedly, gave you a link to more detail, and warned you to stop the repetition or you would go back on ignore. That happened....go back and look if you doubt. You then quickly asked the same question twice more and then got put on ignore. You claim to be innocently just asking but when THE SAME QUESTION IS ASKED AND ANSWERED 10 TIMES YOU ARE HARASSING, NOT CONVERSING. That is you being the crazy eyed guy at the bar AGAIN. Recognize that please! As I have told you, I would rather not engage with you. I have literally begged you many times to stop replying to me unless you are quoted. YOU WILL NOT ABIDE BY THAT VERY REASONABLE REQUEST. That is a little twisted and certainly not right, imo. I should be allowed to carry on conversations with other posters without you interjecting yourself but your butting in regularly takes over the conversation. YOUR REPLIES STIFLE THE REPLIES FROM THE OTHERS THAT I WISH TO CONVERSE WITH. When I wish to interact with you, I will quote you. Otherwise, assume I do not wish to hear from you. You butt in and claim you know everything and no one else knows the real story. That may or may not be the case but when adults are conversing and they have repeatedly asked you to stay out of their conversation, please do so. While not public, the board is designed to allow posters to interact and have discussions. Stop taking over every discussion on this topic.. You love to give advice. Try listening to some for a change. Stop acting like a know-it-all. Stop butting in, even when you think you know more. Others should be allowed to converse without your interjections. Stop harassing those that disagree with you. Please take that advice to heart. I think it could help you to become a better poster.

Congress appropriated the money already. Trump was trying to leverage that already qualified, taxpayer money until a personal favor has been done for him. Try being a little less caustic if you want to really discuss something. Really no good reason, again if wanting a discussion, to open with several insults. Just a thought.

Look Sonny Liston, I appreciate you taking the time to engage on the Trump issues. I am far less familiar with the Kavanaugh tale and really don't wish to get into it in any depth. Sorry but this will be pretty brief. At the time I recall seeing a super partisan hearing. The Repubs were very angry that Brett was being smeared for what they said was no reason. I recall too that there were accusations that I thought should be investigated. Recall this hearing was for someone to sit in judgement over our societal issues and a lifetime appointment at that. I did not understand the need to have the investigations wrapped up because of time constraints. Why were time constraints for investigations put in place? It seems one investigates issues this serious until there are no further witnesses to interview. So, in summary a highly partisan affair with accusations flying on both sides and a bystander not really able to determine what was worth looking into and what wasn't. I personally thought some of Brett's answers were untruthful...under oath, but those were his college days so pretty hard to dispute or investigate.

Is it even possible for anyone credible to criticize Trump? If so, who? I ask because it seems anyone that does is then by definition, a lying loser with no credibility.

Judge Napolitano anyone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5FkaWbI8s

With respect to the original question as to whether I follow the links posted here in PPP threads, I guess I would say it depends on who is posting. After years one learns who may have something interesting, who is trolling, who posts only super partisan crap (i.e. B-Man), who posts just plain crap (i.e. DR), and what is the source. If I see Breitbart for instance or B-Man, or DR, the likelihood of reading much, if any of the article, is slim. I also avoid twitter. If I am not sure I may hit the link but I will look for other stories on the site first. If they seem reasonable I will read the original story but if the last story was something like Hillary's Pizzeria Menu, I am leaving without reading. Hope that helps. Edit: As far as news sources, yes I do try to force myself to watch Fox at times. The opinion folks are enough to make me spit up a little. Ya know that really sour stomach acid they disgusts all of us? Like that.

I think you apparently passed my point in the night. I should have reiterated but was closing in on short story length as it was. The current investigation into the Ukraine issue is not tied to the 2016 players and is no way a coup. I didn't mean to imply Comey wanted to help Trump before the election. I agree he was reluctant in saying anything. Disagreeing with you though in that he certainly did have a choice as whether to publicly raise the Clinton email issue again just before the election. He was pretty much in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation at that point but he could have just sat on it. I know if I was going to ensure Trump did not get elected, as is needed in the coup tale, I would have sat on it. Finally my point regarding Comey, Clapper and Brennan, etc, wasn't that they are heroes but that they were the, if you believe it, the plotters in the coup. The point is these are no longer players. Perhaps the perceived '3 year long coup' is a series of investigations into a series of questionable actions by this admin. Edit: You didn't really answer my questions. Can you do that please? Where are the surveillance recordings? Who is the 'they' in this coup tale? Why go to so much trouble to cover the Ukraine saga if nothing wrong? Which Congress folks are coup plotters?

You seemed brighter than this, Lemony Snicket. To me you are getting played by Trump's usual tactics. In addition, you are twisting recalled facts around to fit this coup narrative. For instance recall Comey actually hurt the Clinton campaign down the stretch. If working to get her elected in this super critical situation, why do that? It seems in most people minds that given there were investigations into both candidates at the time, that he might have either said that or said nothing to tilt it. Instead he tilted it in favor of Trump. Where are all these Trump campaign surveillance recordings? I would have thought during the Mueller testimony or really any of the investigations into his admin's wrongdoings, we would have some Congress person or prosecutor type play a surveillance recording. Did I miss that - did that happen ? If the conspirators went to all that trouble to allow them to spy on everybody 'legally', I would think they would have used some as evidence of something somewhere along in this coup attempt. The biggest issue I have is with the conspiracy theorist's ever present shadowy they or them. They seem to be the only one present the whole 3 years. Who are they by name? A 3 year coup is silly but ok, this theory would require continuity of plotters across time. All of the 'bad guys' that supposedly engineered this attempt to keep Trump from office are not in positions of power to engineer anything in 2019. Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, Page, etc supposedly were the plotters. None of them are in any way involved with these 2019 Ukraine accusations or investigations. After the usual denials and required backpedaling, Trump himself and his Chief of Staff have admitted the whole story. It is clear he asked Ukraine and China for campaign help in smearing Biden and Mulvaney admitted the quid pro quo involving the aid. Why all the talking points about lying whistle blower or second hand or partisanship or treasonous informants or Schiff involvement, etc, etc? Why all the stories, the second computer server, changing positions and backpedaling if they weren't all trying to cover this up? Why does anyone go to this much trouble to cover up an action? You may be tired of accusations but these are not the actions of innocent players. The only persons I see involved in both investigations are Congressional players on both sides. If you want to say Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the Dem politicians are political and don't always represent issues in a fair manner, fine. Obviously, the same goes for the Repubs. Nothing newsworthy there and I have seen no accusations of coup attempts by these folks but correct me if I am wrong. These players have all acted in a political fashion. If you see something coup-like here, please explain. The Trump tactic trio to get out of any accusation against him: 1) Everyone is picking on Donald. Trump always proclaims he is the victim. Hell in the era of 'Me too' he has 20 something women accusers and most here are convinced he is being wronged by every one of those *****. Yes, there has been one accusation after another but those were brought on by Trump, his lying, his associates, their lying, and Trump's often slightly shady ways. Those laser pointers looking for Trump scandals are there looking at every public figure for newsy misdeeds. The fact that they keep finding another scandal when looking at Trump should be the takeaway, not that they are all picking on poor lil Donny. His supporters will admit he lies way too much but inexplicably they will unquestioningly believe his denials to any accusation. 2)The people and the media have short attention spans and easily tire of a story. They can be easily distracted by another shiny object, like the Doral-G7 story for example. He easily moves the story along to the next controversy to protect himself when a story closes in on him. People tire of stories quickly and just want to move on. He uses that. 3) If he repeats a lie enough, the people will believe it. I believe this is Propaganda 101. As example, after the Barr summary Trump and his supporters were over the top with the repeating of 'No Collusion, No Obstruction. Totally Exonerated'. As all later read in the report, that was not truthful but it sure caught on.