reddogblitz Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, westside said: How do you feel about impeaching a president because your candidate lost? My candidate lost (Johnson) but I don't want to impeach anyone unless it can be proven they committed a high crime or misdemeanor. I think the whole impeach over Russia thing is dumb. It does feel like Ds are doing it because they lost to a reality show TV star. Please don't confuse me with a yellow dog democrat. I judge candidates and ideas on their own merit. OK, I answered your question, now I have one for you. Do you think it is a good precedent to set that if a president and congress can't agree, the president can stop paying people and still make them work which will trickle down and out through the economy? Would you be OK if a D prez said "I'm not signing a funding extension unless it includes Medicare for All?"
outsidethebox Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: My candidate lost (Johnson) but I don't want to impeach anyone unless it can be proven they committed a high crime or misdemeanor. I think the whole impeach over Russia thing is dumb. It does feel like Ds are doing it because they lost to a reality show TV star. Please don't confuse me with a yellow dog democrat. I judge candidates and ideas on their own merit. OK, I answered your question, now I have one for you. Do you think it is a good precedent to set that if a president and congress can't agree, the president can stop paying people and still make them work which will trickle down and out through the economy? Would you be OK if a D prez said "I'm not signing a funding extension unless it includes Medicare for All?" Thanks for answering. As for your question, no, I don't think the president or any single politician should have that much power. I didn't like it when Obama rammed Obamacare down our throats and I voted for him twice. I am just really tired of the politics on both sides of the aisle. I'm sure you probably feel the same way. I firmly believe our nations security trumps (pun intended, lol) political parties. 1
B-Man Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: My candidate lost (Johnson) but I don't want to impeach anyone unless it can be proven they committed a high crime or misdemeanor. I think the whole impeach over Russia thing is dumb. It does feel like Ds are doing it because they lost to a reality show TV star. Please don't confuse me with a yellow dog democrat. I judge candidates and ideas on their own merit. OK, I answered your question, now I have one for you. Do you think it is a good precedent to set that if a president and congress can't agree, the president can stop paying people and still make them work which will trickle down and out through the economy? Would you be OK if a D prez said "I'm not signing a funding extension unless it includes Medicare for All?" The President does not "stop paying people" Trump can't sign anything...........................nothing has been sent to him. The House passed the budget and the democrats in the Senate have blocked it because they object to the wall funding. THAT..................is where we are Edited January 8, 2019 by B-Man 3
Buffalo_Gal Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 47 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: so...was it a factual statement? OK, so this is the 2018 chart. It says 2.6% link The 2019 links say 2.6% too. Here is the pay history. The military times article said there is a minimum pay raise per year. Looks like President Trump should fire the staff member that gave him that incorrect figure (would that be enough for you?)
Rob's House Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 55 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: My candidate lost (Johnson) but I don't want to impeach anyone unless it can be proven they committed a high crime or misdemeanor. I think the whole impeach over Russia thing is dumb. It does feel like Ds are doing it because they lost to a reality show TV star. Please don't confuse me with a yellow dog democrat. I judge candidates and ideas on their own merit. OK, I answered your question, now I have one for you. Do you think it is a good precedent to set that if a president and congress can't agree, the president can stop paying people and still make them work which will trickle down and out through the economy? Would you be OK if a D prez said "I'm not signing a funding extension unless it includes Medicare for All?" That's completely different for a few reasons, the first being that Medicare for all would be exponentially more expensive and continue on into perpetuity whereas the overwhelming majority of the cost of the wall would be initial construction. It's the difference between leasing a house and buying a mailbox.
Hedge Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: There are no words... 1
Rob's House Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Who is that guy & why does he have so many followers?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Who is that guy & why does he have so many followers? I honestly don't know. But it's a sentiment that I've been texted by friends and family several times today so I figured it was a talking point going around. Amazing to see.
plenzmd1 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: I honestly don't know. But it's a sentiment that I've been texted by friends and family several times today so I figured it was a talking point going around. Amazing to see. why is that sentiment wrong?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 32 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: why is that sentiment wrong? Because whatever else he is, he's POTUS. Determining that the American public isn't intelligent enough to see through lies - if that's the concern - isn't the job of media, nor is it something anyone considering themselves a liberal or progressive should condone. 1
plenzmd1 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Because whatever else he is, he's POTUS. Determining that the American public isn't intelligent enough to see through lies - if that's the concern - isn't the job of media, nor is it something anyone considering themselves a liberal or progressive should condone. Then he should act like a POTUS ..he is not afforded the same respect and treatment as other POTUSes( is that correct grammar?) as his actions and statements do not warrant it. There is a point where a lie is a lie is a lie, and he needs to deal with the consequences of his words and actions when it comes to how he his dealt with from the media and the American public.
Deranged Rhino Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: Then he should act like a POTUS ..he is not afforded the same respect and treatment as other POTUSes( is that correct grammar?) as his actions and statements do not warrant it. There is a point where a lie is a lie is a lie, and he needs to deal with the consequences of his words and actions when it comes to how he his dealt with from the media and the American public. The media's job is not to be gatekeepers. That's a very dangerous precedent.
boyst Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Then he should act like a POTUS ..he is not afforded the same respect and treatment as other POTUSes( is that correct grammar?) as his actions and statements do not warrant it. There is a point where a lie is a lie is a lie, and he needs to deal with the consequences of his words and actions when it comes to how he his dealt with from the media and the American public. Your belief is that he doesn't warrant it. I and many others did not believe bush, Clinton and Obama deserved the attention and respect they got. Clinton lied and repeatedly undermined democracy with his awe shucks lines talking out the side of his mouth. Bush was a doofus who wanted everything to be federalized because of terror and fear. Obama lied about damn near everything. So, your recent decision to form this viewpoint that it's different now because #orangemanbad is either coincidence or ridiculous.
Koko78 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Wow, the people commenting on this halfwit's thread are even more deranged than he is. The media is colluding with Trump now? ***** nimrods. 2
Nanker Posted January 8, 2019 Author Posted January 8, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, reddogblitz said: My candidate lost (Johnson) but I don't want to impeach anyone unless it can be proven they committed a high crime or misdemeanor. I think the whole impeach over Russia thing is dumb. It does feel like Ds are doing it because they lost to a reality show TV star. Please don't confuse me with a yellow dog democrat. I judge candidates and ideas on their own merit. OK, I answered your question, now I have one for you. Do you think it is a good precedent to set that if a president and congress can't agree, the president can stop paying people and still make them work which will trickle down and out through the economy? Would you be OK if a D prez said "I'm not signing a funding extension unless it includes Medicare for All?" I’ve got an idea. Why doesn’t Congress do its Constitutional duty and PASS A ***** BUDGET? WTF do we have this endless stream of Continuing Resolutions to fund the government? Edited January 8, 2019 by Nanker 3
plenzmd1 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: The media's job is not to be gatekeepers. That's a very dangerous precedent. I agree, but this is different ( as is everything in the Trump era)Two weeks ago, this was not a national emergency/crisis. Now it is according to one side. Why no urgency or national emergency before this became a political game? He is in office nearly two years..are you telling me this suddenly became a national emergency to him..or is it a crucial political battle and as POTUS the networks are expected to carry his water? Is a network obligated to carry his political message? If Trump wants an Oval office message every Sunday night at 9 EST, are the networks obligated to carry it? If it is so critical, why will he not answer questions from reporters?
meazza Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said: I agree, but this is different ( as is everything in the Trump era)Two weeks ago, this was not a national emergency/crisis. Now it is according to one side. Why no urgency or national emergency before this became a political game? He is in office nearly two years..are you telling me this suddenly became a national emergency to him..or is it a crucial political battle and as POTUS the networks are expected to carry his water? Is a network obligated to carry his political message? If Trump wants an Oval office message every Sunday night at 9 EST, are the networks obligated to carry it? If it is so critical, why will he not answer questions from reporters? Has trump ever refused press conferences? Even if he did answer questions from reporters, would that change anything he says ?
plenzmd1 Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 1 minute ago, meazza said: Has trump ever refused press conferences? Even if he did answer questions from reporters, would that change anything he says ? yes..how many press conferences has this dude had in two years??? Reporters could press him on his statements/ rhetoric, would make s huge difference if he committed to a 30-minute speech/ 30 minute question period.
B-Man Posted January 8, 2019 Posted January 8, 2019 .@SpeakerPelosi/@SenSchumer joint statement on Pres. Trump’s prime time address - they call for equal air time on the networks: .
Recommended Posts