agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Obama, who had already weaponized the IRS to go after conservative groups,
you know, it's cool not to lie. You don't have to lie. You could, you know, tell the truth. It feels good. Liberating. You'll sleep better too. Just some tips. Carry on.
agip - who are you? forget it - you are just a kid.
Sally Vix wrote:
Chuck Schumer and other Democrats previously voted to fund a wall and fund it with many billions more than what Trump had asked. Why did they support a wall back then but oppose even 1$ (Nancy's words) towards it now? Is it simply because someone they revile (Trump) is in the White House?
Trump was given $1.6B in 2018 for border security. He failed to spend it. Trump asked for $1.6B in 2019 for border security, and the dems and repubs agreed with him. After the idiotic shutdown, dems and repubs agreed to give Trump $1.4B for 2019. If you were paying attention you would realize that the $1.4B is simply the $1.6B that was adjusted for the shutdown lapse--the difference of $0.2B is the money that could not be spent during the Trump shutdown. So, Trump gets the very close to the same amount, on a monthly basis, for the months the government was not shut down by him.
1100 wrote:
"Cohen is a fine person with a wonderful family who I have always liked and respected." - Donald Trump
That’s a direct quote from Trump. I don’t disagree that Cohen is a liar—as the GOP House Trump sycophants said today. However, why are they not asking themselves about Trump’s judgement and competency to hold office? Many of Trump’s advisers have been indicted or even convicted—he clearly has poor judgement.
Also, how do all you anti-Clinton zealots justify your support of Trump as most of the “crimes” they /she are accused of they/ she were never convicted for BUT some of their associates were? Trump = Clinton.
I am not Clinton fan, I voted for Johnson in a heavily blue state where my vote doesn’t really matter anyway.
However, I will be sure to vote for whomever is most likely to be Trump in this next election. Anyone who opposed Clinton because she was “corrupt” cannot continue to support Trump and have any integrity.
Sally Vix wrote:
Did you even read what you linked? The 2006 vote was for "significant fencing" (700-miles) while the article suggests that the current discussion revolves around fencing the entire 2,000-mile border. Trump has asked for $5.7 billion.
Nope. Trump asked for, and was give, $1.6B in December.
You have been 100% against a wall along the majority of the open-border, which happens to be in you birther state of Texas, because you claim the border in Texas is "impassible."
no wall in TX wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Did you even read what you linked? The 2006 vote was for "significant fencing" (700-miles) while the article suggests that the current discussion revolves around fencing the entire 2,000-mile border. Trump has asked for $5.7 billion.
Nope. Trump asked for, and was give, $1.6B in December.
You have been 100% against a wall along the majority of the open-border, which happens to be in you birther state of Texas, because you claim the border in Texas is "impassible."
I was born in Brooklyn. I only claim parts of the Texas border is impassible. But thanks for your input.
Here is a good recap of the evidence presented today.
How about making up a $4M Trump brand value to inflate his net worth to get financing and to impress Forbes.
Or paying someone to buy a portrait of him at a high price from an auction with charity money to get an article written about him.
And of course the porn star payoff transaction and reimbursement.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat Hurts - we are about as far apart politically as possible but I do respect the sincerity of your convictions. And you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. One thing I would ask you - Chuck Schumer and other Democrats previously voted to fund a wall and fund it with many billions more than what Trump had asked. Why did they support a wall back then but oppose even 1$ (Nancy's words) towards it now? Is it simply because someone they revile (Trump) is in the White House?
Well, one thing that has changed is that there is now a net outflow of undocumented people making a wall completely unnecessary. More people are heading back to Mexico than coming in. 2006 was near the peak.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/03/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/Sally Vix wrote:
no wall in TX wrote:
Nope. Trump asked for, and was give, $1.6B in December.
You have been 100% against a wall along the majority of the open-border, which happens to be in you birther state of Texas, because you claim the border in Texas is "impassible."
I was born in Brooklyn. I only claim parts of the Texas border is impassible. But thanks for your input.
Please learn how to read. I said you live in "birther" Texas, not that you were birthed in Texas. Birther: those who believe Obama was not born in America.
You made no such claim that only "parts" of the Texas border is impassible. Until now. But, thank you for confirming that you are for open borders, and disagree with Trump's demand for a solid wall along the impassible Texas border.
Sally Vix wrote:
Read it if you care about the question you asked. Don't bother wrote:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/democrats-support-border-wall/Did you even read what you linked? The 2006 vote was for "significant fencing" (700-miles) while the article suggests that the current discussion revolves around fencing the entire 2,000-mile border. Trump has asked for $5.7 billion. He has never asked for funding to fence the entire border. I believe there already is hundreds of miles of fencing. That article is really lame to suggest that the current discussion is to fund the entire border when there is already fencing among parts and Trump only asked for $5.7. Parts of the terrain at the border is so treacherous that no fencing is needed. Please read the articles you link before linking them so you understand what they are saying and how they are misleading in what they are saying.
In other words, you do not understand the English language. Got it.
Read it if you care about the question you asked. Don't bother wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Did you even read what you linked? The 2006 vote was for "significant fencing" (700-miles) while the article suggests that the current discussion revolves around fencing the entire 2,000-mile border. Trump has asked for $5.7 billion. He has never asked for funding to fence the entire border. I believe there already is hundreds of miles of fencing. That article is really lame to suggest that the current discussion is to fund the entire border when there is already fencing among parts and Trump only asked for $5.7. Parts of the terrain at the border is so treacherous that no fencing is needed. Please read the articles you link before linking them so you understand what they are saying and how they are misleading in what they are saying.
In other words, you do not understand the English language. Got it.
Come on dude. Please refute what I wrote or just give it up if you have nothing. You just embarrassed yourself. You posted a link and not even able to defend it. Dude, are you 13?
Scales wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Chuck Schumer and other Democrats previously voted to fund a wall and fund it with many billions more than what Trump had asked. Why did they support a wall back then but oppose even 1$ (Nancy's words) towards it now? Is it simply because someone they revile (Trump) is in the White House?
Trump was given $1.6B in 2018 for border security. He failed to spend it. Trump asked for $1.6B in 2019 for border security, and the dems and repubs agreed with him. After the idiotic shutdown, dems and repubs agreed to give Trump $1.4B for 2019. If you were paying attention you would realize that the $1.4B is simply the $1.6B that was adjusted for the shutdown lapse--the difference of $0.2B is the money that could not be spent during the Trump shutdown. So, Trump gets the very close to the same amount, on a monthly basis, for the months the government was not shut down by him.
Thanks for your post.
Sally Vix wrote:
Come on dude. Please refute what I wrote or just give it up if you have nothing. You just embarrassed yourself. You posted a link and not even able to defend it. Dude, are you 13?
Sally, your panties are in a wad, Please unwind them. You will feel much better, dude.
Republicans have failed to refute any of Cohen’s allegations against Trump.
Fox News’ Chris Wallace
no wall in TX wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I was born in Brooklyn. I only claim parts of the Texas border is impassible. But thanks for your input.
Please learn how to read. I said you live in "birther" Texas, not that you were birthed in Texas. Birther: those who believe Obama was not born in America.
You made no such claim that only "parts" of the Texas border is impassible. Until now. But, thank you for confirming that you are for open borders, and disagree with Trump's demand for a solid wall along the impassible Texas border.
Example #237 - Sally does not understand English.
no wall in TX wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I was born in Brooklyn. I only claim parts of the Texas border is impassible. But thanks for your input.
Please learn how to read. I said you live in "birther" Texas, not that you were birthed in Texas. Birther: those who believe Obama was not born in America.
You made no such claim that only "parts" of the Texas border is impassible. Until now. But, thank you for confirming that you are for open borders, and disagree with Trump's demand for a solid wall along the impassible Texas border.
Thanks - I do need to know how to read!
wads wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Come on dude. Please refute what I wrote or just give it up if you have nothing. You just embarrassed yourself. You posted a link and not even able to defend it. Dude, are you 13?
Sally, your panties are in a wad, Please unwind them. You will feel much better, dude.
Yes! My pink panties are swirling around my legs!
Sally Vix wrote:
wads wrote:
Sally, your panties are in a wad, Please unwind them. You will feel much better, dude.
Yes! My pink panties are swirling around my legs!
Harry ball peeking out....
Sally Vix wrote:
Tackles - this is huge - LT had zero tackles in 182 games. Zero!!! So far this season J. J., in 10 games, has 212. What was Lawrence doing the rest of the time he was not having an occasional sack??!! That is a crazy bad stat.
Passes defended. In 182 games, LT had none. Not one. So far in 3.5 seasons J. J. has 34. 34 to zero.
Forced fumbles - LT had none - El Zippo in 182 games. J.J. has 10 in 58 games.
OK, Sally, we've got to know. Did you REALLY post this ^ ???
Runningart2004 wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
I don't think there's much chance of an impeachment based on anything Cohen has come forth with or, likely, will some forth with. It's very similar to the ultimate conclusion of the Mueller investigation. Facts/opinion are presented and left for both sides to interpret to no conclusion. There's no smoking gun. Nixon would never have been impeached without his own words on tape and, unless something pops up suddenly, we haven't heard anything such as what Nixon faced.
I think the felony campaign finance case is pretty cut and dry. I don’t see how anyone could not see that. I would have to listen to the one tape that’s been released again but that seems like the one charge that’s a slam dunk. And the payments were made while he was president.
If the Dems impeach Trump on the campaign finance thing they will deserve the spanking they'll get in 2020. It would be monumentally stupid.
The best thing for the Dems to do is to keep asking questions and use the answers during the 2020 campaign. A much more winning strategy.
L L wrote:
There’s is literally a tape of Trump discussing paying off women in cash that the public has heard and now a check from the president while in office to reimburse that payment.
There is a lot more than what lead Nixon to the brink of impeachment.
A campaign finance violation carries little weight with the public. An impeachment based on this alone will be a losing strategy and shift momentum to the Republicans. Want Trump re-elected...impeach him based on this.