Strange game going on here wrote:
1100 wrote:
“What kind of an amoral ideologue still supports a politician who has had FIVE campaign officials plead guilty to federal charges?”
Tell me, what did they plead guilty to in connection with the campaign?
And, tell me why there is a long list of federal investigative agency employees who have been fired...
Listen wrote:
Listen up. I'm only going to say this once. This is how it will go down.
There will be no finding of collusion or obstruction against Trump. Report will detail that there were some "irregularities," but nothing that can be proven and nothing that can be tied to Trump.
There will be a couple of minor charges against some Trump associates. Nothing of significance.
The Dem controlled House will vote to impeach Trump and they will be successful. Purely partisan act (just like the Kavanaugh debacle).
Right will whine impeachment is a partisan act (which it will be) and Left will whine that Mueller didn't dig far enough (mainly b/c Trump wouldn't let him) and will claim that he is guilty, even though the report absolves him of any major wrongdoing.
Not sure we ever get to an impeachment.....first things first in that the Democrats have to flip enough seats to control the House which I'm not convinced will happen.....but the rest of the above I can see happening.
Dems would be *so* foolish to impeach--assuming, and it's *not* a safe assumption, that they retake the House.
People need to pay attention to history, including relatively recent history. WJClinton's approvals jumped after his impeachment/acquittal; I see no reason to think things would play out differently for Trump. Trump has a solid shot at getting re-elected anyway--if the Dems want to *ensure* his re-election, then by all means they should impeach!
The Fokus wrote:
Listen wrote:
Listen up. I'm only going to say this once. This is how it will go down.
There will be no finding of collusion or obstruction against Trump. Report will detail that there were some "irregularities," but nothing that can be proven and nothing that can be tied to Trump.
There will be a couple of minor charges against some Trump associates. Nothing of significance.
The Dem controlled House will vote to impeach Trump and they will be successful. Purely partisan act (just like the Kavanaugh debacle).
Right will whine impeachment is a partisan act (which it will be) and Left will whine that Mueller didn't dig far enough (mainly b/c Trump wouldn't let him) and will claim that he is guilty, even though the report absolves him of any major wrongdoing.
Not sure we ever get to an impeachment.....first things first in that the Democrats have to flip enough seats to control the House which I'm not convinced will happen.....but the rest of the above I can see happening.
The Democrats will not flip the House or the Senate and the Mueller investigation will end with a whimper. The dismantling of the US federal government will continue for two more years with renewed vigor, leading to unprecedented skyrocketing deficits and a precipitous downturn in the economy and desstabilization of foreign relations. A centrist Democrat (probably Bloomberg) will win the general election but not take office after Trump is disposed in a putsch by a cabal of corporate and military leaders in December, who attempt to rule under emergency powers that linger past Inauguration Day, during which Bloomberg and some members of Congress attempt to effect a transition of power that is rebuffed, leading to the first general strike in the history of the republic, but never to the inauguration on the last American President elected under the old system, the one about which is only known of in clandestine circles 100 years hence.
PIO! wrote:
L L wrote:
As usual, all 435 House seats are up for election.
Republicans won the majority of them in 2016.
But Democrats are heavily favored to win most of them this year.
Why the change?
There are 35 Senate seats up for election.
Democrats are favored to win about 70% of the senate races this year.
Why was there a change in 2016? Ever hear of the term cyclical? It'll go back and forth and back and forth. For some reason you think the left is clean as a whistle, but they're not. If they were so clean, why did the lose in 2016? Now I'll sit back and wait for the highly intellectual response;)
There wasn’t a change in the House in 2016.
Republicans had the majority going in and Democrats picked up a few seats that year.
Republicans have a big advantage the way district lines are drawn. Democrats are packed geographically in fewer districts around cities.
When the overall vote is 50/50, Republicans normally win more districts.
The fact that Democrats are favored to take the House back is a result of an anti Trump revolt.
Republicans took back the House in 2010 because of angry, motivated Republicans who came out and voted and content Democrats who stayed home.
Republicans turnout will be good this year, but it won’t match Democrat enthusiasm.
Yes, it’s cycilcal. But there has to be a force around those cycles.
This force is a nationwide disdain for Trump.
L L wrote:
PIO! wrote:
Why was there a change in 2016? Ever hear of the term cyclical? It'll go back and forth and back and forth. For some reason you think the left is clean as a whistle, but they're not. If they were so clean, why did the lose in 2016? Now I'll sit back and wait for the highly intellectual response;)
There wasn’t a change in the House in 2016.
Republicans had the majority going in and Democrats picked up a few seats that year.
Republicans have a big advantage the way district lines are drawn. Democrats are packed geographically in fewer districts around cities.
When the overall vote is 50/50, Republicans normally win more districts.
The fact that Democrats are favored to take the House back is a result of an anti Trump revolt.
Republicans took back the House in 2010 because of angry, motivated Republicans who came out and voted and content Democrats who stayed home.
Republicans turnout will be good this year, but it won’t match Democrat enthusiasm.
Yes, it’s cycilcal. But there has to be a force around those cycles.
This force is a nationwide disdain for Trump.
Crazy stuff going on with Trump and Kushner’s ally. My brother is in hotel food provisioning, residing near the Saudi base at Al Kharj. He flew his wife and kids home three days ago. The Saudis have been going into lock down in case of arrest. Yesterday there was an apparent stand off between factions of the regular army and elite troops during which the elites were briefly sequestered in a building only to be rescued after intervention by the Prince. Several hundred Saudi soldiers have been arrested and the press has missed ALL of this so far. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting a $100 million payment by the Saudis to the US on the day Pomp and Circumstance Pompeo Met with the Prince. The Saudis are hoping they can buy the US off, and they may succeed, but what happens if this little disturbance on the military base spreads? The House of Saud could face turmoil, and Donald and Jared may have to host the Prince on a guest bed.
The Fokus wrote:
Listen wrote:
Listen up. I'm only going to say this once. This is how it will go down.
There will be no finding of collusion or obstruction against Trump. Report will detail that there were some "irregularities," but nothing that can be proven and nothing that can be tied to Trump.
There will be a couple of minor charges against some Trump associates. Nothing of significance.
The Dem controlled House will vote to impeach Trump and they will be successful. Purely partisan act (just like the Kavanaugh debacle).
Right will whine impeachment is a partisan act (which it will be) and Left will whine that Mueller didn't dig far enough (mainly b/c Trump wouldn't let him) and will claim that he is guilty, even though the report absolves him of any major wrongdoing.
Not sure we ever get to an impeachment.....first things first in that the Democrats have to flip enough seats to control the House which I'm not convinced will happen.....but the rest of the above I can see happening.
mueller will find that trump obstructed but did not directly collude.
However, he will report on many of trump's illegal financial activities.
The republicans will basically say 'ha no collusion' and bury it.
Maybe Kushner or Jr will have to take a fall - chances are that they spoke to russians and coordinated social media in some way. So yeah collusion, but not Spanks himself.
The emoluments case will be more important than what people think - apparently it's pretty clear that spanky is violating the constitution every day. Maybe he decides not to run again, because a court decides that he would have to actually separate from his businesses.
And all the while, the southern district and State of NY are putting cases together to nail Spanky to the wall on all manner of tax fraud.
He's gonna suffer bigly.
remember that the US Intel Community has recordings of trumpers talking to russians about campaign stuff. It's there. Mueller has it. But spanks is too stupid to be part of that. More likely kushner and Jr.
agip wrote:
mueller will find that trump obstructed but did not directly collude.
However, he will report on many of trump's illegal financial activities.
The republicans will basically say 'ha no collusion' and bury it.
Yeah. I can see this. Question on any financial reporting is does the public ever see that part of it. My understanding is that the AG can release what he wants to including not releasing anything to the public. I'm actually most interested in the financials Mueller finds because I think that's an area our dear leader is absolutely FOS on.
Maybe Kushner or Jr will have to take a fall - chances are that they spoke to russians and coordinated social media in some way. So yeah collusion, but not Spanks himself.
Don't see it. Roger Stone will be a guy who ends up in hot water but that's as close we get.
The emoluments case will be more important than what people think - apparently it's pretty clear that spanky is violating the constitution every day. Maybe he decides not to run again, because a court decides that he would have to actually separate from his businesses.
That's interesting. I'm not sure even a court ruling has any affect on Trump's business activity.
And all the while, the southern district and State of NY are putting cases together to nail Spanky to the wall on all manner of tax fraud.
He's gonna suffer bigly.
If anything comes of this, I think it would sit around until he leaves office which I still expect to be 6 years from now and not the 2 I'd prefer.
The Fokus wrote:
agip wrote:
mueller will find that trump obstructed but did not directly collude.
However, he will report on many of trump's illegal financial activities.
The republicans will basically say 'ha no collusion' and bury it.
Yeah. I can see this. Question on any financial reporting is does the public ever see that part of it. My understanding is that the AG can release what he wants to including not releasing anything to the public. I'm actually most interested in the financials Mueller finds because I think that's an area our dear leader is absolutely FOS on.
Maybe Kushner or Jr will have to take a fall - chances are that they spoke to russians and coordinated social media in some way. So yeah collusion, but not Spanks himself.
Don't see it. Roger Stone will be a guy who ends up in hot water but that's as close we get.
The emoluments case will be more important than what people think - apparently it's pretty clear that spanky is violating the constitution every day. Maybe he decides not to run again, because a court decides that he would have to actually separate from his businesses.
That's interesting. I'm not sure even a court ruling has any affect on Trump's business activity.
And all the while, the southern district and State of NY are putting cases together to nail Spanky to the wall on all manner of tax fraud.
He's gonna suffer bigly.
If anything comes of this, I think it would sit around until he leaves office which I still expect to be 6 years from now and not the 2 I'd prefer.
Hard to disagree with any of this.
If the Dems are foolhardy enough to start impeachment proceedings (always assuming--a LARGE assumption--that they take the House), then I think we can count on two full terms for Trump.
OTOH if they just subpoena his financial records and leaving him twisting slowly, slowly in the wind for the next two years, I imagine he might be a one-termer.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
agip wrote:
He's covering up a murder so he can make more money. It's obscene and disgusting.
Yes. This appears the be the most plausible explanation.
STSBO wrote:
He's a Trumpette.
Next question.
Fair enough. Okay OLD SOB, allow me to point you to your escape route: claim that the journalist was probably some sort of terrorist himself and that we're better off without him. Oh, and then you can say it's none of our business anyway and run away from the topic by going off on some poorly researched tangent about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Well, you've confirmed my previous post. AGAIN..............once they find out who ordered it, who executed it, etc....real verifiable names now (if you have them please share, if not you can just make some up), send them to North Korea and let little rocket man artillery shell them into oblivion. And what does HRC have to do with any of this?
agip wrote:
remember that the US Intel Community has recordings of trumpers talking to russians about campaign stuff. It's there. Mueller has it. But spanks is too stupid to be part of that. More likely kushner and Jr.
If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to learn which words need to be capitalized.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Mental Health Order wrote:
[Your bias is at an unhealthy level. Back down and grow up. Both sides have corruption. You really need to read up on BOTH sides and things that have been done behind closed doors that hurt all of us.
What's unhealthy is that one of those corrupt sides has unchecked control of the federal government.
Like Bill Clinton did and Obama after him, is that what you mean by unchecked control? Oh, those 2 don't count. Republicans to the back of the bus! If Trump said that you'd post that on every page. HINT: Yes, it's gotta be Monkeys typing as no normal thinking unbiased fair human being would type what you did, so you must actually be a Monkey, eh?
Trump supports corrupt regimes, eg Russia and Saudi Arabia, because they line his pockets and the pockets of the people he cares about. I don’t support the Democrats, but I can’t support someone so blatently un-American. I guess some might say that acting in the interest of greed over all else is American. I don’t agree.
TransparentCorruption wrote:
Trump supports corrupt regimes, eg Russia and Saudi Arabia, because they line his pockets and the pockets of the people he cares about. I don’t support the Democrats, but I can’t support someone so blatently un-American. I guess some might say that acting in the interest of greed over all else is American. I don’t agree.
Do your research on HRC, she did the same thing as well as her husband. They were in it for themselves but pulled the wool over your eyes. Trump is targeted every day unlike no President before him. Look up Clintons relationships with other countries and what they got in return. Look up Hillary and the big banks that gave her huge campaign dollars. It's not as different as you seem to think. But, if you don't want to support him, feel free to move, we won't miss ya.
The Fokus wrote:
The emoluments case will be more important than what people think - apparently it's pretty clear that spanky is violating the constitution every day. Maybe he decides not to run again, because a court decides that he would have to actually separate from his businesses.
That's interesting. I'm not sure even a court ruling has any affect on Trump's business activity.
Presuming Mueller's investigation doesn't go there and the Democrats take the House I expect they'll initiate an investigation into emoluments and they'd have subpoena power to request financial information. Likely the White House will fight requests for tax information and such and that will wind up in court.
Another B*tcher, big suprise wrote:
Racket is another butthurt liberal who's pissed because Hillary lost her butt less than 2 years ago and it still keeps him up at night. Deal with it Racket, deal with it or move as your constant whining is that of a spoiled brat who didn't get their way. Move to Greece, please!
Oh u mad bro? >:)
Flagpole wrote:
It may be unethical or lazy to support Trump, but I definitely wouldn't say insane.
how do you support a criminal who lies to your face constantly
Depends on how rich he'll make me.
Is that last sentence a joke, or do you lack integrity? I hope it is the former.[/quote]
It's to demonstrate there are plenty of reasons to still support Trump that aren't really insane at all. I'm not sure why you can't understand this as it's fairly elementary.
Duane wrote:
Another dim witted post. Bloomberg reported it first, Marketwatch picked it up as well.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mueller-ready-to-issue-findings-after-election-saudis-are-biggest-funding-source-for-us-startups-2018-10-17As noted, CNN appears in denial.
Not sure what this is in response to but OK?