51560
51560
Trumpettes are NOT Americans!
Runningart2004 wrote:
But I guess Putin tells me they didn’t do it, The Crown Prince tells me he had no idea, and Kim tells me he had no clue so yeah there’s a pattern here and I believe them over my own intel agencies.
Alan
It works like this in Trump's peabrain: They told me they didn't know, and I believe them. . . . . I told you I did not know, and you must believe me.
You want corruption, THIS is corruption. Trump ordering his pet news network to be protected by the Federal government. Lawyers stopped Trump from getting his corrupt way, but this is corruption. HRC's speeches and whitewater were nothing compared to even this one thing. And I'm leaving out this weekend's Trump threatening the UK gummint if they go against him on his golf course.
"In a new piece for the New Yorker, investigative journalist Jane Mayer reports that a few months before the Justice Department filed its lawsuit, Trump pressured Gary Cohn, the former director of the National Economic Council, to tell the Justice Department to block AT&T's Time Warner deal.
According to Mayer's source, Trump called Cohn and then Chief-of-Staff John Kelly into his office and said to Kelly, "I've been telling Cohn to get this lawsuit filed and nothing's happened! I've mentioned it fifty times. And nothing's happened. I want to make sure it's filed. I want that deal blocked.
After the two men walked out of the Oval Office meeting, Cohn told Kelly not to follow through with the president's request, according to Mayer's report.
Trump's animosity towards the merger is no secret. Trump repeatedly talked about wanting to block it on the campaign trail and in office. A 2016 campaign press release cited by AT&T during the appeals trial state that "AT&T ... is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal."
agip wrote:
the only thing that will matter to the Rs in congress is whether Trump is good for their next election or bad for their next election. Trump can clearly do whatever he wants at any time, and congressional Rs won't care.
Unless.
Unless it looks like Trump is an anchor pulling the entire party down.
So as for as the mueller report and congressonal investigations....and all those sentencings and chargings you mention...unless the base turns against trump and polls show trump will lose to the Dem in the election...none of it will matter.
(I will say that voting down the emergency declaration is an interesting development, if it happens - clearly those 4 R senators are going against the m@ga base. Maybe what will matter is if they suffer any consequences for pushign back against trumpism)
I agree with all of that.
And I think depending on how the impeachment trial goes, supporting Trump may be bad for the next election for Republicans.
Clearly, it does not look like that at the moment, though.
For those that say having a failed impeachment trial would be bad for Democrats, I disagree.
You could get 60 out 100 Senators voting to convict and that is not enough to remove him.
But that would be very bad for a re-election campaign.
works like this wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
But I guess Putin tells me they didn’t do it, The Crown Prince tells me he had no idea, and Kim tells me he had no clue so yeah there’s a pattern here and I believe them over my own intel agencies.
Alan
It works like this in Trump's peabrain: They told me they didn't know, and I believe them. . . . . I told you I did not know, and you must believe me.
The people who are still Trump are simply hardcore Conservatives who put party before country. The same was true with Clinton and Nixon.
There’s also an unhealthy amount of chaos voters who love “sticking it to the man” and racists who don’t like brown and black people who are energized.
Man I’ve said this 100 times. It’s all about turnout, it’s all about energy. You could elect David Duke or Stalin in this country if you motivated the right amount of people.
Alan
agip wrote:
You want corruption, THIS is corruption. Trump ordering his pet news network to be protected by the Federal government. Lawyers stopped Trump from getting his corrupt way, but this is corruption. HRC's speeches and whitewater were nothing compared to even this one thing. And I'm leaving out this weekend's Trump threatening the UK gummint if they go against him on his golf course.
"In a new piece for the New Yorker, investigative journalist Jane Mayer reports that a few months before the Justice Department filed its lawsuit, Trump pressured Gary Cohn, the former director of the National Economic Council, to tell the Justice Department to block AT&T's Time Warner deal.
According to Mayer's source, Trump called Cohn and then Chief-of-Staff John Kelly into his office and said to Kelly, "I've been telling Cohn to get this lawsuit filed and nothing's happened! I've mentioned it fifty times. And nothing's happened. I want to make sure it's filed. I want that deal blocked.
After the two men walked out of the Oval Office meeting, Cohn told Kelly not to follow through with the president's request, according to Mayer's report.
Trump's animosity towards the merger is no secret. Trump repeatedly talked about wanting to block it on the campaign trail and in office. A 2016 campaign press release cited by AT&T during the appeals trial state that "AT&T ... is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal."
You can add that, during the same time the Disney-Fox meager flew threw the approval process.
L L wrote:
agip wrote:
the only thing that will matter to the Rs in congress is whether Trump is good for their next election or bad for their next election. Trump can clearly do whatever he wants at any time, and congressional Rs won't care.
Unless.
Unless it looks like Trump is an anchor pulling the entire party down.
So as for as the mueller report and congressonal investigations....and all those sentencings and chargings you mention...unless the base turns against trump and polls show trump will lose to the Dem in the election...none of it will matter.
(I will say that voting down the emergency declaration is an interesting development, if it happens - clearly those 4 R senators are going against the m@ga base. Maybe what will matter is if they suffer any consequences for pushign back against trumpism)
I agree with all of that.
And I think depending on how the impeachment trial goes, supporting Trump may be bad for the next election for Republicans.
Clearly, it does not look like that at the moment, though.
For those that say having a failed impeachment trial would be bad for Democrats, I disagree.
You could get 60 out 100 Senators voting to convict and that is not enough to remove him.
But that would be very bad for a re-election campaign.
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
I agree with all of that.
And I think depending on how the impeachment trial goes, supporting Trump may be bad for the next election for Republicans.
Clearly, it does not look like that at the moment, though.
For those that say having a failed impeachment trial would be bad for Democrats, I disagree.
You could get 60 out 100 Senators voting to convict and that is not enough to remove him.
But that would be very bad for a re-election campaign.
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
If that were the case, we'd be voting out 80%+ of Congress.
Good luck!
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
I agree with all of that.
And I think depending on how the impeachment trial goes, supporting Trump may be bad for the next election for Republicans.
Clearly, it does not look like that at the moment, though.
For those that say having a failed impeachment trial would be bad for Democrats, I disagree.
You could get 60 out 100 Senators voting to convict and that is not enough to remove him.
But that would be very bad for a re-election campaign.
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
Go for a run. You're a good dude.
:-)
agip wrote:
On this particular issue.... wrote:
Please address Trump’s corruption—like Clinton—he is accused of many things but has not been indicted or convicted of a crime. Why does he get a pass on all of that in your mind? Why doesn’t Clinton get a pass if he does?
Of course I know Clinton WAS a Senator (emphasis on past tense) but she is not in the government now and, as of yet, is not running for any office. If she were I certainly would not vote for her.
I also did not vote for Clinton in 2016—I voted for Gary MFing Johnson (2:43 marathoner) FTW! My conscience is clear. I am also not old enough to have voted for Bill.
The point remains, Trump is at least as corrupt as Clinton—perhaps more. Thus, if you didn’t vote for Hillary because she is corrupt, how do you rationalize voting for Trump in 2020 given what we know about all the shady things he has done IN office, his apparent lack of good judgment based on all of the people in his administration who have plead guilty or been indicted for wrong doing, his dangerous nepotism in giving his son in law top secret clearance despite the objection of his own intelligence officials (many of whom HE appointed), and his disgraceful pandering to authoritarian dictators who are hostile to the USA?
The above issues bother all Americans of good conscience regardless of political party. Both Rs and Ds have issues with the above. Do you simply blindly follow Trump with no ability to see his very obvious and serious flaws?
1. If you didn't vote for HRC, you voted for Trump. Gary Johnson voters were imperfect trumpers but trumpers all the same. Don't dodge your responsibility for Trump - you enabled him.
2. I have done a ton of reading on Clinton, I've been voting since the 1980s, I'm not naïve. Hillary Clinton is greedy but she is not corrupt. Greed is common in humanity. Almost all of us are greedy. Calling her corrupt is massively unfair to her and shows that you don't really know what you are talking about - you are just trying to hold yourself over the fray, saying you are better than any of those scum in DC.
You know what - both your claims do the same thing - voting for Johnson makes you feel above the fray, and calling HRC also makes you feel above the fray.
Well congrats - people like you gave us trump and made the country believe a solid public servant is corrupt.
(I agree HRC messed up with emails - but that was not corrupt - just a dumb IT decision and coverup)
Fair points. I do wish Trump had not become POTUS and I would really regret my vote IF I lived in a swing state—but I do not. I live in Colorado. Hillary won my state and there really was no question that she would win here. However, I understand your point in a general sense.
I will say that this past election convinced me that POTUS should be decided by the popular vote. In that scenario I think your post would carry more weight for me personally.
My post, however, was not directed at you. It was directed at the dude who responded to my initial post who clearly still supports Trump. You clearly don’t and never did.
In conversations with Trumpers at this point in time (or really ever) trying to convince them Hillary is not corrupt is pointless. But, much has come to light since the election regarding Trump. Much has happened in the Trump administration since his election. I genuinely want to know how anyone can look objectively at what has come to light and what has happened and still plan on voting for Trump in 2020? I want to know how Trumpers reconcile their criticism of Hillary in regards to corruption with Trumps obvious corruption?
In regards to 2020, I doubt the Dems will ultimately choose one of the far left progressive—or “socialist” as Rs calll them—candidates for the general election. They will put up a moderate.
My bet is a Beto / Abrams ticket. I will gladly vote for such a ticket. If they do put up a super far left candidate—I will again likely vote third party. No matter who the Ds put up—Trump will not win Colorado. Of that I am certain.
On this particular issue..... wrote:
agip wrote:
1. If you didn't vote for HRC, you voted for Trump. Gary Johnson voters were imperfect trumpers but trumpers all the same. Don't dodge your responsibility for Trump - you enabled him.
2. I have done a ton of reading on Clinton, I've been voting since the 1980s, I'm not naïve. Hillary Clinton is greedy but she is not corrupt. Greed is common in humanity. Almost all of us are greedy. Calling her corrupt is massively unfair to her and shows that you don't really know what you are talking about - you are just trying to hold yourself over the fray, saying you are better than any of those scum in DC.
You know what - both your claims do the same thing - voting for Johnson makes you feel above the fray, and calling HRC also makes you feel above the fray.
Well congrats - people like you gave us trump and made the country believe a solid public servant is corrupt.
(I agree HRC messed up with emails - but that was not corrupt - just a dumb IT decision and coverup)
Fair points. I do wish Trump had not become POTUS and I would really regret my vote IF I lived in a swing state—but I do not. I live in Colorado. Hillary won my state and there really was no question that she would win here. However, I understand your point in a general sense.
I will say that this past election convinced me that POTUS should be decided by the popular vote. In that scenario I think your post would carry more weight for me personally.
My post, however, was not directed at you. It was directed at the dude who responded to my initial post who clearly still supports Trump. You clearly don’t and never did.
In conversations with Trumpers at this point in time (or really ever) trying to convince them Hillary is not corrupt is pointless. But, much has come to light since the election regarding Trump. Much has happened in the Trump administration since his election. I genuinely want to know how anyone can look objectively at what has come to light and what has happened and still plan on voting for Trump in 2020? I want to know how Trumpers reconcile their criticism of Hillary in regards to corruption with Trumps obvious corruption?
In regards to 2020, I doubt the Dems will ultimately choose one of the far left progressive—or “socialist” as Rs calll them—candidates for the general election. They will put up a moderate.
My bet is a Beto / Abrams ticket. I will gladly vote for such a ticket. If they do put up a super far left candidate—I will again likely vote third party. No matter who the Ds put up—Trump will not win Colorado. Of that I am certain.
thanks for the calm response to my angry post.
I like Beto best right now - he is a moderate, he is an entrepreneur, he puts on a good show on the trail, he can raise money, he seems to be a genuinely good person, and he has been vetted.
Abrams gets people excited but is she really qualified to be president? I respect her entrepreneurial past and solid skills on the trail, but her highest political position is the minority leader of the GA state congress. That gives me pause.
But agreed the Dems need an African American or a woman on the ticket. Bit of a conundrum.
1100 wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
Go for a run. You're a good dude.
:-)
cheers amigo
going to step away from the site for a day. Or that's the plan.
It's getting worse and worse for Trump every day. The House is very busy requesting documents from people, setting up hearings, etc.
This whole idea you Trumpers like to spew that it's been 2 years and nothing has been found yet (which is beyond bogus of course) is going to come crashing down.
It is getting more and more likely (I'm not calling it just yet) that Trump will be indicted while still a sitting President. It is a ridiculous DOJ guideline to begin with, it isn't a law, and it isn't in the Constitution.
The fact is that there is SOME line that can't be crossed as far as being indicted while in office. If Trump shot someone to death on camera, while he actually would still maintain many supporters, he would be arrested and indicted. So, now we then are just talking about severity of crimes.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
I agree with all of that.
And I think depending on how the impeachment trial goes, supporting Trump may be bad for the next election for Republicans.
Clearly, it does not look like that at the moment, though.
For those that say having a failed impeachment trial would be bad for Democrats, I disagree.
You could get 60 out 100 Senators voting to convict and that is not enough to remove him.
But that would be very bad for a re-election campaign.
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
Oh we’ve been past that point for a long time. Off the top of my head people still supported and still do support Nixon even after the tapes came out.
It’s all about the long game. Can a voter disregard a candidate’s crookedness, felonious and unsavory actions if he’s going to push your agenda while elected? For a lot of voters that is a yes. That goes for both sides.
Alan
Runeth up the Flagpole wrote:
On this particular issue... wrote:
When it comes to the issue of one side calling Trump corrupt & the Clintons angles and the other side calling the Clintons corrupt & Trump a successful business man—there is hypocrisy on both sides. Neither Trump or the Clintons have been convicted of any crime. But, both have had shady dealings that have lead to people close to them being indicted or even pleading guilty & going to jail. It is fair to say that both Trump and the Clintons are shady as hell. That is the fair, unbiased truth.
The difference though is Trump is currently in a government position, the Clintons are not. The logical conclusion for any person who is unbiased is that neither the Clintons or Trump should play a role in government at all. Therefore, any unbiased, thinking person cannot vote for Trump in 2020–to do so is the definition of hypocrisy.
I think one can rationalize why one voted for Trump in 2016 based on who his opponent was in that election. But, as long as his opponent in the general election is not named Clinton, well then in 2020 every patriotic American should vote against Trump—even if they have to do so while holding their nose.
Do some fact checking. You must not be aware, but Hillary Clinton was a Senator in New York, so yes she was in a government position and did very corrupt things. So then, any unbiased person should not have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but you did, right? There's your hypocrisy right there. Now comes the back and forth again. Or, you man up and admit that your post was rather incomplete;)
Flagpole has lost it with that last post, I mean really lost it. Hillary was a corrupt Senator who ran for President, and lost after losing to Obama before that. So yes, it does matter. Hence the back and forth on this thread.
Do you have examples of corrupt behavior by the Clintons? Like Mueller, Starr had wide latitude to go after Clinton. He investigated Whitewater for years and years and didn't find anything to prosecute. He even investigated the Vince Foster suicide. All he came up with was Clinton lying about Lewinsky.
Hillary was not in a position to affect the approval of Uranium One. She would have to pay off about 20 people to have done so. It would be like paying off one senator to get something approved.
They might might have been too lax about who they received donations from for the Clinton Foundation, but that did not benefit them financially. They are not allowed to charge procurement fees on donations.
Do you have one example where either Clinton was paid directly to have something approved?
Runningart2004 wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
Oh we’ve been past that point for a long time. Off the top of my head people still supported and still do support Nixon even after the tapes came out.
It’s all about the long game. Can a voter disregard a candidate’s crookedness, felonious and unsavory actions if he’s going to push your agenda while elected? For a lot of voters that is a yes. That goes for both sides.
Alan
Sorry to interrupt your self-help group here, but you guys are completely dreaming again. Come back to reality please. You're now speculating on top of speculation, on top of a lot of hope.
In reality, there's been:
ZERO indictments for Russian collusion
ZERO indictments for obstruction of justice
ZERO indictments for campaign finance violations (which is Trump's word vs Cohen's word as the "reason" for the payments....as most people know, CFV are usually resolved by just paying a fee anyhow (like the Obama administration))
A bunch of indictments for "lying" during the investigation. A few of the accused are now pushing back on the accusations.
A bunch of indictments for non-Trump related tax/business/lobbying stuff in years prior to 2015.
Not a single person related to the investigation, including the FBI personnel interviewed by the Intel Committees, have stated that there was any evidence of collusion.
As far as other crimes that you guys are hoping come to the surface..... Trump has been in the public eye for 40 years. He's never been indicted for anything. Not saying he hasn't done anything wrong, but come on guys, if he were running a criminal enterprise it would have been exposed by now.
Stop ignoring the blatant acts committed by the DNC/FBI/DOJ to truly undermine democracy. Working to help one candidate and hurt another - from within - is the very definition of undermining democracy.
Silly Willy wrote:
Stop ignoring the blatant acts committed by the DNC/FBI/DOJ to truly undermine democracy. Working to help one candidate and hurt another - from within - is the very definition of undermining democracy.
Indeed! I'm with you, brother!
Surprise surprise wrote:
Don't forget wrote:
They're also doing themselves an even bigger disservice by ignoring the black and Hispanic Trump supporters.
Polls are showing that both groups are in fact every so slightly shifting toward Trump. A poll of African Americans was as high as 22% approval for Trump (up from 8% of the vote in 2016). Another poll had Hispanics as high as 40% (up from 29% of the vote in 2016).
That's what happens when you treat entire races like obedient children for years while not actually delivering them any results.
You're much too low on the AA approval. It's been going up pretty steadily over the last year or so. This and the Hispanic support should be scaring the carp out of Dems right now.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-approval-rating-african-americans-rasmussen-poll/1013212002/
It absolutely IS scaring the carp out of them. Why do you think the "RACIST!!" narrative has been pushed back into news cycle? Same old playbook from the Left. When you only have identity politics on your side, and you've lost your old "base" of middle class workers, you have nowhere else to go.
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
I agree with all of that.
And I think depending on how the impeachment trial goes, supporting Trump may be bad for the next election for Republicans.
Clearly, it does not look like that at the moment, though.
For those that say having a failed impeachment trial would be bad for Democrats, I disagree.
You could get 60 out 100 Senators voting to convict and that is not enough to remove him.
But that would be very bad for a re-election campaign.
I'm shuddering to think what it means for democracy in general if the hammer drops on trump, his kids are indicted, the reports show obvious crimes...yet R voters don't care. The only way democracy works is if we vote out the bad ones. If we don't vote out the bad ones, democracy fails.
I'm being mighty apocalyptic today. Will take a deep breath.
Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns!!!!
Hahahahahaha!!!!
Trump will be easily re-elected!!!
Democrats are totally out of touch with non coastal Americans..
Democrats lose again!!!!