jesseriley wrote:
This is what happens when you spend your school days eating glue off your arm; you grow up to advise a dumba_ss!
Why not just write "dumbass"?
jesseriley wrote:
This is what happens when you spend your school days eating glue off your arm; you grow up to advise a dumba_ss!
Why not just write "dumbass"?
Trump by any name
Would smell the same
(Apologies to the Bard)
The Fokus wrote:
With Mnuchin and Rettig running interference for Heir Trump, I'm guessing those returns don't get turned over.
The courts will force it to happen. There just isn't a decent legal argument for this and the statute is quite clear.
Congress will get to see those returns.
agip wrote:
another reminder that the dem party is not a flaming liberal org, and a guy like sanders is going to struggle mightily. People like Beto and Amy and Biden win Dem pres elections, not people like Sanders and Warren.
The NYT has some good graphics showing that the liberals are very loud in the party and dominating the discussion now...but come super tuesday the moderates will likely take over. FB and Twitter and LRC are not at all representative of the Dem party.
"The candidates of the progressive left, whether Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, speak with moral clarity. The strongest traditional liberal candidates, despite their pragmatic streak, speak with hopeful idealism, stemming from their relatively optimistic view of the country’s capacity to compromise, reform and change. Barack Obama took that tack in 2008, and Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker might hope to in 2020.
In recent decades, most of the candidates who have found their core strength among the party’s ideologically consistent, left-liberal activist base have lost. Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean and Mr. Sanders all fell short against candidates of the party’s establishment, like Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. The establishment candidates won the nomination by counting on the rest of the party’s voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The times are a-changin'.
Liberal voters are far more motivated this time around. Historically, there just weren't enough of us to make a difference. But this time it is going to be close.
The thing about it is, with so many candidates, you just just don't know how it will play out. If liberals quickly get behind one candidate, then that candidate would have a huge advantage over two or three viable moderates. And the opposite is true as well.
In 2000 they ruled that we had to stop an election that would be “prejudicial” to the losing candidate! Funny guys...
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
another reminder that the dem party is not a flaming liberal org, and a guy like sanders is going to struggle mightily. People like Beto and Amy and Biden win Dem pres elections, not people like Sanders and Warren.
The NYT has some good graphics showing that the liberals are very loud in the party and dominating the discussion now...but come super tuesday the moderates will likely take over. FB and Twitter and LRC are not at all representative of the Dem party.
"The candidates of the progressive left, whether Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, speak with moral clarity. The strongest traditional liberal candidates, despite their pragmatic streak, speak with hopeful idealism, stemming from their relatively optimistic view of the country’s capacity to compromise, reform and change. Barack Obama took that tack in 2008, and Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker might hope to in 2020.
In recent decades, most of the candidates who have found their core strength among the party’s ideologically consistent, left-liberal activist base have lost. Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean and Mr. Sanders all fell short against candidates of the party’s establishment, like Walter Mondale, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. The establishment candidates won the nomination by counting on the rest of the party’s voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=HomepageThe times are a-changin'.
Liberal voters are far more motivated this time around. Historically, there just weren't enough of us to make a difference. But this time it is going to be close.
The thing about it is, with so many candidates, you just just don't know how it will play out. If liberals quickly get behind one candidate, then that candidate would have a huge advantage over two or three viable moderates. And the opposite is true as well.
It's all about turn out. Moderates bring out the turn out. This goes for both sides. Ask yourself when was the last time a fiscal conservative was elected president? We get so wrapped up in a Republicans stance on social issues that it's easy to have a knee jerk reaction and brand them a hard core conservative....but social issues isn't the entire spectrum. Trump isn't a conservative. Neither was Bush I or II. Reagan, the patron saint of conservatism....was a moderate. Ditto Clinton. Ditto Obama.
Alan
True, but Obama had a ground game that destroyed 2 moderates; plus socialized medicine that was never previously moderate.
Seems now the party of transparency does not want there to be transparency on an investigation into the genesis of the Russia investigation.
Party over Country...again.
Wrong! “Party” isn’t in Constitution...
Country/Constitution vs narrower interests is the choice. Congress has equal rights, period.
Fat hurts wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
With Mnuchin and Rettig running interference for Heir Trump, I'm guessing those returns don't get turned over.
The courts will force it to happen. There just isn't a decent legal argument for this and the statute is quite clear.
Congress will get to see those returns.
Ultimately I agree that this is probable assuming it goes through the court system prior to the 2020 election which there is a fair amount of opinion that it won't.
Right now it appears that Mnuchin and Rettig are attempting to figure out how to respond without handing over the returns. Once that happens the legal arguments will begin.
Agree, and when courts rule, they could come out of nowhere & say Citizens United has free-speech rights & unlimited, secret funding! Again!
The Fokus wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Congress will get to see those returns.
Ultimately I agree that this is probable assuming it goes through the court system prior to the 2020 election which there is a fair amount of opinion that it won't.
Right now it appears that Mnuchin and Rettig are attempting to figure out how to respond without handing over the returns. Once that happens the legal arguments will begin.
^ A desperate Trumper.
You folks on the Left admit that you were 1) intentionally lied to about Collusion, 2) gladly ate it up, and 3) idiotically recited what the LIARS on MSNBC and CNN told you was the "truth", yet? It's a necessary step in not making yourself look like absolute FOOLS again.
You may not have heard, because the type of outlets that you follow likely didn't dwell on it much yesterday, but Attorney General Bill Barr testified Wednesday that he believes "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016. He vowed to look into the conduct of the FBI's original reasoning to initiate the Russia probe (now that it has been proven to be a hoax.
"I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. … I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane," he testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, while noting that "spying on a political campaign is a big deal."
He added, "If it becomes necessary to look over former officials, I expect to rely on Chris and work with him. I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused and I think that’s one of the principal roles of the attorney general."
When asked Tuesday about Nunes’ referrals, Barr said he hasn’t seen them yet, but, “Obviously, if there is a predicate for investigation, it will be conducted.”
Uh oh. Starting to look like what the folks on the Right had been saying on this thread were right all along.
Mueller did NOT come.
Barr is coming.
Flagpole, the Clown, is dead.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-watchdog-fbi-informant-in-russia-probe
Another crooked Dem. Funny how she got trolled.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-dem-residency-gift-basket-tennessee
Let’s see, the courts could issue a preliminary injunction against the whole 2020 election because it would be prejudicial to the State of Emergency!
Rupert Murdoch would know, after changing citizenships to buy more media, ha ha.
agip wrote:
this is why mueller did not exonerate Spanky.
The FBI was pretty sure the president was deliberately obstructing their investigation.
republicans are supporting an outlaw president with no respect for the criminal justice system. Who wants the DOJ to work as his private force.
"Under questioning in 2018 from a Democratic committee lawyer, Baker described numerous officials who were distressed that the president may have obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. Baker said he had personal concerns and that they were shared by not just top FBI brass but within other divisions and at the Justice Department as well."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/09/fbi-doj-trump-obstructed-justice-james-baker-1264092
See- how can you read that article and not ask yourself HOW he "obstructed justice" [of a fake investigation, mind you]. Instead, you just post the article and echo it's narrative. No critical thinking at all on your part.
They don't list a single way in which he possibly obstructed justice. Just like during the entire investigation; it was all vague speculation and insinuation. Yet you morans eat it up.
Firing Comey or anyone else is NOT obstructing justice. He never tried to stop the investigation. As Comey said himself, POTUS has the right to fire the FBI Director for any reason whatsoever.
As far as collusion, it has been determined that Russia tried to interfere with the US election to the benefit of Trump and to disrupt the US political system in general.
That is an assumed fact.
Since being elected, Trump has been more accommodating to Putin than prior US presidents and has asked for them to be added back to the G7 and has also disparaged NATO.
He had a two hour private meeting with Putin with no US officials and came out saying that he believed Putin did not interfere.
He sent Flynn to discuss easing sanctions with Russia before he was inaugurated.
Trump openly asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails during the campaign.
His son had a meeting with Russian officials during the campaign.
Trump publicly stated that he had no business dealings with Russia during 2016 when in clear fact he did.
Now collusion or conspiracy would have to show communications between Trump and the Russian government happened to set this up.
They may not have formally communicated or the evidence was well covered up.
But there is a clear stink here.
Wrong, refer to Constitution