GG Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: The least surprising revelation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 @plenzmd1 More for you to consider re Trump Tower it was a set up - for optics and the press to run with. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: leadership 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 minute ago, row_33 said: leadership "Foiled" was the word I saw used (in print). SMH 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: "Foiled" was the word I saw used (in print). SMH i have nobody to protect myself from myself currently.... missing out on the sanctifying effects of a good marriage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: 12 outstanding investigations going on! WOW~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Another narrative bites the dust. (though, it was dead before... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, DC Tom said: At some point, you'd think they'd exercise some restraint and introspection, and realize "My God, we're starting to sound like Birthers and Truthers." Starting to? It's infuriating from a left leaning purview. I was watching a Nixon Doc and one line really stood out. An adviser was informing Nixon of the escalating protests. His resonse; "Good. Every obscenity is worth 1,000 votes." Politically speaking, outrage has one beneficiary and it ain't the outraged. I must add that the birther stuff clearly HELPED Obama politically. (I understand he's not popular around here.) If you're on the right and tepid about Trump, you're far more likely to show up in 2020 based on these shenanigans. By the same token, tepid Dems were likely motivated to actually vote based on some of the more far fetched attacks. I think collusion truthers(and yes birthers) are a lost cause. There's really no helping them. Trump Deranged Dems may as well just run around literally shooting themselves in the foot at this point. And they're STILL stuck on obstruction. Considering this has become a political/non legal battle, who in God's name is going to attack someone for "obstructing" an investigation into a crime that didn't occur? It's just not logical. Alan Dershowitz has been a bastion of hope for the left throughout this entire ordeal. Edited April 18, 2019 by LSHMEAB 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Starting to? It's infuriating from a left leaning purview. I was watching a Nixon Doc and one line really stood out. An adviser was informing Nixon of the escalating protests. His resonse; "Good. Every obscenity is worth 1,000 votes." Politically speaking, outrage has one beneficiary and it ain't the outraged. I must add that the birther stuff clearly HELPED Obama politically. (I understand he's not popular around here.) If you're on the right and tepid about Trump, you're far more likely to show up in 2020 based on these shenanigans. By the same token, tepid Dems were likely motivated to actually vote based on some of the more far fetched attacks. I think collusion truthers(and yes birthers) are a lost cause. There's really no helping them. Trump Deranged Dems may as well just run around literally shooting themselves in the foot at this point. And they're STILL stuck on obstruction. Considering this has become a political/non legal battle, who in God's name is going to attack someone for "obstructing" an investigation into a crime that didn't occur? It's just not logical. Alan Dershowitz has been a bastion of hope for the left throughout this entire ordeal. He's been a stalwart for the Constitution like he has been his whole career. I may not agree with him on policy but that is nothing when compared to his stand on constitutional standards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: He's been a stalwart for the Constitution like he has been his whole career. I may not agree with him on policy but that is nothing when compared to his stand on constitutional standards. And of course CNN stopped bringing him on as a guest when he continued to own every debate. "What happened to Alan Dershowitz?" they'd ask. Nothing. He's consistent. What happened to YOU? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 36 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: If you're on the right and tepid about Trump, you're far more likely to show up in 2020 based on these shenanigans. By the same token, tepid Dems were likely motivated to actually vote based on some of the more far fetched attacks. Hell, there's some tepid Democrats who'd rather vote for Trump than the current Democratic leadership. My typical pattern has been to vote Democrat for legislative positions and Republican for executive (the simplest explanation being: I want change to come from the legislative process, not executive fiat - yes, I hated Obama's presidency, largely for that.) But after the travesty of the Kavanaugh hearings, I categorically refuse to ever vote Democrat again. In 2018, if there wasn't a Republican or independent for the position, I wrote myself in or didn't vote for that race. I categorically will not support the Democrats' bull#### any longer. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Hell, there's some tepid Democrats who'd rather vote for Trump than the current Democratic leadership. My typical pattern has been to vote Democrat for legislative positions and Republican for executive (the simplest explanation being: I want change to come from the legislative process, not executive fiat - yes, I hated Obama's presidency, largely for that.) But after the travesty of the Kavanaugh hearings, I categorically refuse to ever vote Democrat again. In 2018, if there wasn't a Republican or independent for the position, I wrote myself in or didn't vote for that race. I categorically will not support the Democrats' bull#### any longer. That’s been my stance since Frank Lautenberg was allowed in to the NJ Senate race. I vowed to NEVER vote for another Dem. EVER. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 DC I hate break it to you. The Democratic Party you’ve voted for in the past is gone. Completely unrecognizable. Hijacked by a bunch of power hungry, big government, socialist, climate change zealots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said: DC I hate break it to you. The Democratic Party you’ve voted for in the past is gone. Completely unrecognizable. Hijacked by a bunch of power hungry, big government, socialist, climate change zealots. The thing is, I never voted party. I voted for the person who's attitudes best fit what I believed was appropriate for the office for which they were running - even if I disagreed with them on policy. Chris van Hollen was a good example - I disagreed with him on many positions, but he consistently articulated his position in a way that was rational and invited discussion. Until the 2008 election, when he fell back on the ignorant and vapid "Main Street not Wall Street" sloganeering. I won't bother voting for someone who won't even discuss issues, but just throws bumper stickers at me. That's why 2016 was so nauseous (and has continued to be). Good luck finding anyone willing to discuss an issue. All bumper stickers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 5 hours ago, DC Tom said: The thing is, I never voted party. I voted for the person who's attitudes best fit what I believed was appropriate for the office for which they were running - even if I disagreed with them on policy. Chris van Hollen was a good example - I disagreed with him on many positions, but he consistently articulated his position in a way that was rational and invited discussion. Until the 2008 election, when he fell back on the ignorant and vapid "Main Street not Wall Street" sloganeering. I won't bother voting for someone who won't even discuss issues, but just throws bumper stickers at me. That's why 2016 was so nauseous (and has continued to be). Good luck finding anyone willing to discuss an issue. All bumper stickers. All you need is one person in your real life to talk to about it, lunch every three or so months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 George Conway calling for impeachment https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-cancer-on-the-presidency-congress-should-remove-him/2019/04/18/e75a13d8-6220-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.141f56b3bcec The Constitution commands the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It requires him to affirm that he will “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to promise to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” And as a result, by taking the presidential oath of office, a president assumes the duty not simply to obey the laws, civil and criminal, that all citizens must obey, but also to be subjected to higher duties — what some excellent recent legal scholarship has termed the “fiduciary obligations of the president.” Fiduciaries are people who hold legal obligations of trust, like a trustee of a trust. A trustee must act in the beneficiary’s best interests and not his own. If the trustee fails to do that, the trustee can be removed, even if what the trustee has done is not a crime.... By these standards, the facts in Mueller’s report condemn Trump even more than the report’s refusal to clear him of a crime. Charged with faithfully executing the laws, the president is, in effect, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer. Yet Mueller’s investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of executing undue influence over law enforcement investigations.” Trump tried to “limit the scope of the investigation.” He tried to discourage witnesses from cooperating with the government through “suggestions of possible future pardons.” He engaged in “direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” A fair reading of the special counsel’s narrative is that “the likely effect” of these acts was “to intimidate witnesses or to alter their testimony,” with the result that “the justice system’s integrity [was] threatened.” Page after page, act after act, Mueller’s report describes a relentless torrent of such obstructive activity by Trump. The investigation that Trump tried to interfere with here, to protect his own personal interests, was in significant part an investigation of how a hostile foreign power interfered with our democracy. If that’s not putting personal interests above a presidential duty to the nation, nothing is. White House counsel John Dean famously told Nixon that there was a cancer within the presidency and that it was growing. What the Mueller report disturbingly shows, with crystal clarity, is that today there is a cancer in the presidency: President Donald J. Trump. Congress now bears the solemn constitutional duty to excise that cancer without delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 I know the old adage about "a woman scorned" but George Conway certainly is taking on the persona of an attorney scorned. His jealousy of Trump is a sad head shaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 49 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I know the old adage about "a woman scorned" but George Conway certainly is taking on the persona of an attorney scorned. His jealousy of Trump is a sad head shaker. It is bizarre, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts