jesseriley wrote:
Yes, Ghost, it’s about saving democracy. We certainly can’t save you, but then you don’t think you (or democracies) need any help.
Sure glad we have you, a disturbed individual, to save our democracy.
jesseriley wrote:
Yes, Ghost, it’s about saving democracy. We certainly can’t save you, but then you don’t think you (or democracies) need any help.
Sure glad we have you, a disturbed individual, to save our democracy.
Sally Vix wrote:
I remember a long time ago - maybe 20 years ago - watching Trump on some show that featured him or his family and thinking what an unlikeable and despicable person he was. He is truly a wretched person. Pompous, so arrogant, and domineering and that was that. That is how I thought of him. But since his election, he is no longer a "person" who I must address and his wretchedness does not matter any more. You Libs are trying to oust him from his presidency. I could not care less about him as a person but I do treasure the sanctity of the office and of the presidency. He has done nothing to deserve his ouster. You Libs hate him and are deranged about it. Let the election get him out of office.
That is some weird, backwards thinking.
1. You admit that he is a "despicable and wretched person" , and yet now that he is president, that doesn't matter to you??? It should matter TWICE as much now. Who cares if a reality TV show host is a idiotic, horrible human being? But when that person is president, it matters a lot, and has serious. serious negative consequences for our country.
2. You mention the "sanctity" of the office as why we shouldn't try and impeach his a$$. It's the other way around! If he is as horrible and wretched a person as you say (and he is) , then the sanctity of the office is WHY we should attempt to remove him. You may care about that sanctity, but Trump himself has $hit upon that "sanctity" from day 1, and cares not a whit about it.
3. "Nothing to deserve his ouster" ??? lol. Obstructing justice on the Russian probe and withholding congressionally approved aid to a country desperately in need of it so he can pressure that country to make up dirt on a political rival are actually reasons. And ....part of the inquiry is to dig deeper and find out more, and more will be found out.
4. I, in ways, prefer voting him out too. But why don't you calm down about the horror (to you) of him being "oustered", because.......with a Repub Senate, HE IS GOING NOWHERE until election day, unless....even more bad deeds are uncovered, or public opinion goes so strongly against him the Senate Repubs have no choice, in which case it would be clear that removing was the 100% right thing to do. So seriously, calm down, he won't get removed and you will get your wish for an election on him (unless the evidence against him is 100x worse than now, which, again, would mean even you would agree he should be bounced)
Interesting that our liberal friend said sally actually was posting in Ukrainian!
Rubes always make this mistake, that no one knows their language.
Don’t worry, ba-bitsch-ka, even in gulag with the other ineffective operatives, they still let you watch the Series!
“Demokratia suck, but ballgame great sport!”
Even if your old @ss could learn new tricks (unlikely), you won’t be able to save “demokratia” from exile in Moscow.
Two Sides wrote:
They have documented over 13,000 lies by Trump since his inauguration.
It's simply not news when he lies.
But someone loosely paraphrases his transcript and he's torched over it for weeks.
Trump has a serious Jim Jones affect over his followers.
Trump has one huge problem though - himself. He firmly believes he won because of HIM, but that is not true. Does anyone here believe he would have had a chance in 2012, 2008, 2004 or any previous election? It all boils down to timing and strategy. In terms of timing, 2016 was it... there was just way too much disappointment and mounting expectations on the GOP. You also had HRC who was a complacent and mistrusted candidate and then of course much help from mother Russia. In terms of strategy, Trump would not have won without Bannon's advice, no way. Trump had zero clue immigration was such a fire topic back then. Bannon fed it to him and it worked like a charm as a relief mechanism for white anxiety. You shift around any of these factors even slightly and he would have lost. There is no denying he won by a hair.
Fast forward a few years and the situation is very different. He has overplayed his hand and while he's had success keeping the base following, he has failed miserably at appealing to anyone in the middle or left. He couldn't have tried harder not to actually. Bannon is gone as are most of those who understood the wedge issues in 2016. A lot changes in a few years, and 2018 midterms was evidence that people don't like trump, even if they liked him having been a vehicle for the change they longed for in 2016. He doesn't understand that the movement was not sparked or created by him, it was already underway and he just caught the bus at the right time and delivered the message. How useful is he now to that anti-government extremist movement? I think his record can answer that... eternal victim hood may score him lots of points, but with any less than his 46% he can't pull another rabbit out of the hat.
jesseriley wrote:
Even if your old @ss could learn new tricks (unlikely), you won’t be able to save “demokratia” from exile in Moscow.
I am curious, how old are you? You seem child like.
jesseriley wrote:
Interesting that our liberal friend said sally actually was posting in Ukrainian!
Rubes always make this mistake, that no one knows their language.
Don’t worry, ba-bitsch-ka, even in gulag with the other ineffective operatives, they still let you watch the Series!
“Demokratia suck, but ballgame great sport!”
Honest question : are you on the spectrum?
Say it with me, Republicans: Lock him up! Lock him up!
I disagree with your first two points. Being a despicable and wretched person is not an impeachable offense. Further, even though one might rightly note that the "sanctity" of the office is violated by having a horrible person in residence, again this is not an impeachable offense.
As much as one might despise Trump as a human being, it is only his violation of the law and failure to uphold the oath he took upon his swearing in as POTUS that matters in regards to the question as to whether or not he should be removed from office.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
This is the reality:
Trump: There was NO quid pro quo
President of Ukraine: There was NO quid pro quo
US Ambassador to EU: There was NO quid pro quo
Bill Taylor: I was told there was NO quid pro quo but I conducted biz like there was
House Dems have nothing.
Impeachment fail
#Trumplandslide
KAG2020
So Trump is telling the truth and Taylor is lying? Right.
Taylor is connected to Burisma, the crooked Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden and George Soros. Corruption at its finest.
https://uncoverdc.com/2019/10/24/democrat-star-witness-sat-on-board-of-ukranian-ngo-with-deep-ties-to-george-soros/I bet you do want to know how old I am, but you’re too senile to google it, dumb@ss!
Dude, google it. Trumpers are some lazy-@ss bitsches!
jesseriley wrote:
I bet you do want to know how old I am, but you’re too senile to google it, dumb@ss!
^One does not have to look hard to find the twisted minds that push so hard for impeachment. And this guy claims Trump has issues.
Agree, over 50% of America. Maybe even in your gated community, oldtimer.
game over, spankers.
we're through the 'executive privilege' section and now into the 'I do not recall at this time' portion of the program.
next is the 5th amendment and then it's jailtime.
"House Democrats say testimony provided Tuesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, could prove devastating to President Trump, showing he had his E.U. ambassador attempt to extort Ukraine using taxpayer money.
The testimony could pose a more immediate problem for that diplomat: Gordon Sondland. And his lawyer on Wednesday said his client either does not recall or disputes many of Taylor’s key accusations."
Nothing better than watching New York Times commentators continue to have meltdowns!!!!
P wrote:
Being a despicable and wretched person is not an impeachable offense.
Isn't that what Bill Clinton was impeached for?
It’s true the Clinton impeachment failed because he was singled out. Hustler & others outed many politicians for cheating on their wives during this period, if you recall.
If trump could prove that every prez is as corrupt as him, he would win. But we know Nixon wasn’t really a hardcore traitor or profiteer, for example. Just a crook.
agip wrote:
game over, spankers.
we're through the 'executive privilege' section and now into the 'I do not recall at this time' portion of the program.
next is the 5th amendment and then it's jailtime.
"House Democrats say testimony provided Tuesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, could prove devastating to President Trump, showing he had his E.U. ambassador attempt to extort Ukraine using taxpayer money.
The testimony could pose a more immediate problem for that diplomat: Gordon Sondland. And his lawyer on Wednesday said his client either does not recall or disputes many of Taylor’s key accusations."
You’ll still be spewing your nonsense 12 months from now while Trump is STILL president and on his way to a landslide re-election.
P wrote:
Being a despicable and wretched person is not an impeachable offense.
That belief was enough for Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton.