Chef Jim Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Simply remove him and move on. Admit, He's the wrong answer for America. We have a way to do this. It's called an election and we have one in two years. The how reason the FF put a limit of only four years at a time.
Swill Merchant Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 49 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The bolded is why I claim he's not. I mean he lost the popular vote due to his ideas. Many of his ideas are NOT popular which is why he receives the constant backlash. But, I concede that the man NEVER uses a rational argument. But I think it's because he's incapable of such a thing. Listening to him talk is like watching a squirrel cross the road. Ya never can follow or guess his direction. That's not why he receives constant backlash. 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: But Compromised is still compromised. Would you even care if Trump was running our foreign policy to please Putin? Honestly, would you give two thoughts about it? Most Trump supporters could care less. Are you claiming that you and your left-wing cohorts give half a sh!t about the merits of this investigation? If you did you wouldn't have to cry "whataboutism" when faced with the overwhelming evidence that your interest is entirely political.
The_Dude Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said: That's not why he receives constant backlash. Well that and because: 1. Hillary didn’t win 2. He’s a rapist 3. He’s a racist 4. He’s not Hillary 5. See 1 & 4
Foxx Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Tiberius said: But Compromised is still compromised. Would you even care if Trump was running our foreign policy to please Putin? Honestly, would you give two thoughts about it? Most Trump supporters could care less. most if not all foreign policy is run with certain objectives in mind. you give a little here to get a little there. it is called compromise or as a certain someone might call it, the art of the deal. the thing that should be the main issue of contention is the whys and wherefores of why certain stances are held on foreign policy. can you or anyone here state one thing that Trump has positioned the US's foreign policy on that gives any appearance of impropriety favoring Russia? i'll wait.and while im waiting perhaps you can answer this one as well, did i care that Obama gave Iran how many millions of US tax payer dollars, you bet your ass i did. would/did you give two thoughts about it? does it rise to the level of treason? Edited December 17, 2018 by Foxx
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Well that and because: 1. Hillary didn’t win 2. He’s a rapist 3. He’s a racist 4. He’s not Hillary 5. See 1 & 4 1. He's not part of the swamp (bureaucrats or globalists) 2. As President, he has the power to expose "the swamp", and ran on doing so . . . . . . . 3. He's not Hillary Edited December 17, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal 1
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: We have a way to do this. It's called an election and we have one in two years. The how reason the FF put a limit of only four years at a time. We also have impeachment. It is really up to Congress. The House is also representative of the will of the people... Just a little more fine tuned than the Electoral College. "Donald Trump’s presidency has brought the nation back to constitutional territory: talk of impeachment, this time based on a wide range of alleged misconduct, including possible financial conflicts of interest, his presidential campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian government to influence the election, obstruction of justice, threatening freedom of the press, encouraging the harassment or prosecution of political enemies, and degrading the presidency,” writes University of North Carolina distinguished professor Michael J. Gerhardt in his timely book, Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know." "First off, the president doesn’t need to have violated a federal law ― or any other law ― for the House to file impeachment charges and for the Senate to convict him." "But again, criminal charges are a separate matter from impeachment. Presidents can be impeached for actions that are in fact a violation of the law, though it doesn’t mean they always should be impeached in those instances. And they can also be impeached because they’re believed to have abused their power, even if a criminal charge doesn’t apply. It’s up to Congress to decide what rises to an impeachable offense, defined by a term in the Constitution, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” that has always been up for grabs."
Chef Jim Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: We also have impeachment. It is really up to Congress. The House is also representative of the will of the people... Just a little more fine tuned than the Electoral College. "Donald Trump’s presidency has brought the nation back to constitutional territory: talk of impeachment, this time based on a wide range of alleged misconduct, including possible financial conflicts of interest, his presidential campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian government to influence the election, obstruction of justice, threatening freedom of the press, encouraging the harassment or prosecution of political enemies, and degrading the presidency,” writes University of North Carolina distinguished professor Michael J. Gerhardt in his timely book, Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know." "First off, the president doesn’t need to have violated a federal law ― or any other law ― for the House to file impeachment charges and for the Senate to convict him." "But again, criminal charges are a separate matter from impeachment. Presidents can be impeached for actions that are in fact a violation of the law, though it doesn’t mean they always should be impeached in those instances. And they can also be impeached because they’re believed to have abused their power, even if a criminal charge doesn’t apply. It’s up to Congress to decide what rises to an impeachable offense, defined by a term in the Constitution, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” that has always been up for grabs." I prefer the election vs this this petty childish *****. 2
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I prefer the election vs this this petty childish *****. Well... Take it up with Our Founders. I don't think they were petty and worried about what one "Chef Jim" would think. 17 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: 1. He's not part of the swamp (bureaucrats or globalists) 2. As President, he has the power to expose "the swamp", and ran on doing so . . . . . . . 3. He's not Hillary But he is the swamp. LoL... The new swamp. Be careful what we wish for, it might actually come true. It's like draining the Everglades and closing Okeechobee. Now all the sewage from Disney World has no place to go. 1
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 55 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Semantics. But back to the duscussion. We will see how Trump respects impeachment proceedings. I don't have time to dig up Greggy's evidence, but I have a hunch Trump will do badly. Yes, semantics, because "checks and balances" has a SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION. 1
Chef Jim Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Well... Take it up with Our Founders. I don't think they were petty and worried about what one "Chef Jim" would think. The concept isn't petty and childish you dolt. Those that throw it around today are. And the way things move these days it would talk a lot longer than 2 years to remove him. Let his Presidency run it's course and let the people decide in 2020. 1
Swill Merchant Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 Just now, Chef Jim said: The concept isn't petty and childish you dolt. Those that throw it around today are. And the way things move these days it would talk a lot longer than 2 years to remove him. Let his Presidency run it's course and let the people decide in 2020. It's more than petty and childish; it's corrupt to its core. The abuse of power to undermine the constitutional processes that safeguard the Republic is about as corrupt as it gets.
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said: The abuse of power to undermine the constitutional processes that safeguard the Republic is about as corrupt as it gets. And what abuse of power is that?
Swill Merchant Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: And what abuse of power is that? This investigation has long since crossed the bounds of propriety, assuming it was ever appropriate in the first place. However, selective prosecution and political impeachment was what I was referring to specifically.
Tiberius Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 54 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I would care. Deeply. All evidence of his actual policy shows he's done more to harm Putin's geopolitical goals rather than help him: 1) Annihilated 200 Russian mercs in Syria 2) Armed Ukraine 3) Made peace with DPRK 4) Strengthened ties with Israel and KSA which impacts Russian/Iranian goals in the ME 5) Leveled the heaviest sanctions on Putin cronies - even more than what Congress asked for Trusting Putin more than our intelligence services Alinating all our allies Starting idiotic trade wars to divide us from trading partners Stating to a Russian reporter he would end sanctions Not implementing Congressional sanctions Trump only backing down when pushed by congress
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Trusting Putin more than our intelligence services (He never said that he did, that's spin and misquoting) Alinating all our allies (Our allies spied on our election in the hopes of undermining our election - ***** them) Starting idiotic trade wars to divide us from trading partners (new bi-lateral deals have been or are being reached) Stating to a Russian reporter he would end sanctions (which, he did not do) Not implementing Congressional sanctions (He implemented far harsher sanctions against the actual culprits) Trump only backing down when pushed by congress
Tiberius Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Sure, just deny everything and pretend things that happened, never actually happened.
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said: This investigation has long since crossed the bounds of propriety, assuming it was ever appropriate in the first place. However, selective prosecution and political impeachment was what I was referring to specifically. Sorry, I thought you were referring to Trump's abuse of power...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Sure, just deny everything and pretend things that happened, never actually happened. I will continue to deny things that are fundamentally untruthful. (as we all should) Edited December 17, 2018 by Deranged Rhino
Swill Merchant Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Sorry, I thought you were referring to Trump's abuse of power... My wording was a bit ambiguous.
Tiberius Posted December 17, 2018 Posted December 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I will continue to deny things that are fundamentally untruthful. (as we all should) You and Rudy both! Whats your take on Trump calling a witness a rat? 2: a contemptible person: such as a: one who betrays or deserts friends or associates
Recommended Posts