Westside Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, Tiberius said: Heck, they should just declare Trump and Putin co-presidents for life, too. Duh! Excellent idea comrade!! Much better than nasty old lady Hillary Clinton!! Keep up good work! You are catching eye of our beloved leader! 2
Tiberius Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: With witnesses? Nope, just him. So guilty
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Posted December 19, 2019 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats But it's a "shrewd" political maneuver! 1 1
Albwan Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats But it's a "shrewd" political maneuver! .....or a deuce someone in nasty nancy's district just dropped in a super market.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: No... it's shrewd, you see! Shrewd of her to take a public position which is tantamount to admitting your case is weak, partisan, and has no hope of succeeding. It's shrewd to do something unprecedented, guaranteeing the media will shine a spotlight on it (and all the moderates who voted for this shitshow who are vulnerable), all but guaranteeing the DNC loses its majority. It's shrewd I tell ya! ... Why? ... Well... uh... because the narrative engineers told me to say it was shrewd, and I gave up thinking for myself years ago. /JA, GarBoTibs, and all the alts. The situation is fluid. One person’s “shrewd” is another’s opportunity. We haven’t gotten nearly as far along as we need to on declass. I was so frustrated waiting for Trump to release information to help his cause with The Russia narrative. Turns out the wise tactical move was to simply wait it out. I’d think the same strategy applies, and the wild card remains that Trump has access to all the secrets of the nation. Between what we know is coming (Barr has been pretty clear which way he’s leaning, the FBI would be in shambles if it’s leadership had an ounce of ethical self-awareness), and the situation evolves. Lets dig into the Brennan-Obama CIA a bit, see where the bodies are buried. Anyway, where we are today is not where we’ll be tomorrow. There was a time when fraud and malfeasance on the part of the FBI would have earned widespread condemnation and outrage from all across the country. Now, leftists yawn. Same with the impeachment of DJT. The reality is the concept has lost its luster, and many Americans are torn between ::yawn:: and disgust at the dems. 2
Foxx Posted December 19, 2019 Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats 3
DC Tom Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Which means the Democrats will try to own him by not giving him his day in court...which is probably exactly what he wants. Dems are playing hopscotch while Trump plays American Ninja Warrior running an ultramarathon while wrestling a bear. 5
LSHMEAB Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Which means the Democrats will try to own him by not giving him his day in court...which is probably exactly what he wants. Dems are playing hopscotch while Trump plays American Ninja Warrior running an ultramarathon while wrestling a bear. Does that mean Trump would testify in a Senate trial? I'm thinking no. And I disagree if the insinuation is that he DOESN'T want his day in court( an exoneration). The smart play for Dems would be to put so many conditions on the trial that it never happens. Claim victory on impeachment and call the system "rigged." You and I would know the game, but the general public would not. Last thing Dems need is a Trump victory tour. That would be the SMART play for Dems, which means it's highly unlikely.
Koko78 Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 3 hours ago, DC Tom said: Dems are playing hopscotch while Trump plays American Ninja Warrior running an ultramarathon while wrestling a bear. ...barefoot in a 40 below zero super mega sharknado blizzard.
Foxx Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: so much truth in comedy. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 9 hours ago, LSHMEAB said: Does that mean Trump would testify in a Senate trial? I'm thinking no. And I disagree if the insinuation is that he DOESN'T want his day in court( an exoneration). The smart play for Dems would be to put so many conditions on the trial that it never happens. Claim victory on impeachment and call the system "rigged." You and I would know the game, but the general public would not. Last thing Dems need is a Trump victory tour. That would be the SMART play for Dems, which means it's highly unlikely. I don’t think that works on impeachment. As one poster suggested in the aftermath of the vote, many, many people likely thought Trump had to pack his bags after it all went down. The general public has little to no confidence in our politicians to start, in the warm glow of the realization that the FBI was dirty in pursuing Russia, with Nancy Pelosi struggling to articulate what the $#@& is actually going on, and with Trump’s prodigious capacity to hammer home a point in 140 characters or less, and tossing in the actual rules on impeachment, I think they fail miserably with that message. Plus, the ace in the hole, Trump yelling loudly”let’s get to it!” to be replaced with “this is BS”.
GG Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 18 hours ago, John Adams said: I took a position early? Really? My position pretty early was that Russia interefered. And even Trump admits that, though I'm not sure if you do. And I've said many times that I don't think Trump colluded with Russia, and also that I hoped no president ever would. But you'd never admit that would you? Too inconvenient for the simple way you picture things in good vs evil. Grow up. Life's not a conspiracy of a global cabal of pedophiles vs white-caped superheroes of justice. You took an early position and didn't deviate. How many times you and your aliases parrot the ICA as if it were gospel? Did you and did you not use it as the basis for alleged collusion? Do you still fall back on for your apparent anti-partisan position? 3
John Adams Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, GG said: You took an early position and didn't deviate. How many times you and your aliases parrot the ICA as if it were gospel? Did you and did you not use it as the basis for alleged collusion? Do you still fall back on for your apparent anti-partisan position? You won't EVER find me saying Trump colluded with Russia. At first I wanted to know more but the more didn't amount to much. You WILL find me saying I agreed 100% with the Mueller conclusion that Trump didn't collude, and that was my position in advance of that report too. You WILL find me saying over and over that the ICA says Russia interfered in our election. Something that we all now know and something that even Trump admits. You will find people like DR, and apparently you as taken in by his narrative, saying that I believe Trump colluded with Russia. But I didn't and don't. That is and was a fiction made up by a hopeful opposition to the president. A fiction not borne of nothing, but a fiction nonetheless. Edited December 20, 2019 by John Adams
GG Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, John Adams said: You won't EVER find me saying Trump colluded with Russia. At first I wanted to know more but the more didn't amount to much. You WILL find me saying I agreed 100% with the Mueller conclusion that Trump didn't collude, and that was my position in advance of that report too. You WILL find me saying over and over that the ICA says Russia interfered in our election. Something that we all now know and something that even Trump admits. You will find people like DR, and apparently you as taken in by his narrative, saying that I believe Trump colluded with Russia. But I didn't and don't. That is and was a fiction made up by a hopeful opposition to the president. A fiction not borne of nothing, but a fiction nonetheless. This is your typical disingenuous response. You are now using Russian interference to deflect years of hiding behind the ICA as a way to tie Trump and his people to Russian interference. Never mind that the actual Russian interference was minimal in relation to the election, compared to sowing discord by feeding the disinformation that was the basis of the ICA in the first place. You have yet to acknowledge that difference and how much more hurtful it was. Because for you to acknowledge that would mean admitting that on this point, Greggy was right. Instead you throw in all your other disagreements with him as a way to discredit the one thing that he's been absolutely spot on so far. 4
John Adams Posted December 20, 2019 Posted December 20, 2019 Just now, GG said: This is your typical disingenuous response. You are now using Russian interference to deflect years of hiding behind the ICA as a way to tie Trump and his people to Russian interference. Never mind that the actual Russian interference was minimal in relation to the election, compared to sowing discord by feeding the disinformation that was the basis of the ICA in the first place. I have been, and continue to be, concerned with Russia's intereference. I have said that it didn't affect the election many times as well. I care about the issue and find Russia sowing seeds of division to be a concern. The Steele report, which I believe you're referring to as "the disinformation," is garbage, and relying on it was the shoddy work of the IC, which is being held to account. But the IC's conclusions have been and continue to be correct. Just now, GG said: You have yet to acknowledge that difference and how much more hurtful it was. I have and just did again. Just now, GG said: Because for you to acknowledge that would mean admitting that on this point, Greggy was right. Greggy can be right on things. My conclusions can align with his. I don't see things as black and white like that. Just now, GG said: Instead you throw in all your other disagreements with him as a way to discredit the one thing that he's been absolutely spot on so far. Wrong.
Recommended Posts