Jump to content

Alexandria, The New Direction Of The Democrats


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Latina Trotsky is going to have to know these things when she's on the Hill. 

 

She really has no grasp of what she's talking about, as if all she can do is try to repeat things she sees her friends post on Facebook.

 

 

The best way to promote her, I think, is to have everyone in the room first read 26's posts from PPP, and then bring her in, at which point she'll at least sound coherent by comparison.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

She really has no grasp of what she's talking about, as if all she can do is try to repeat things she sees her friends post on Facebook.

 

 

The best way to promote her, I think, is to have everyone in the room first read 26's posts from PPP, and then bring her in, at which point she'll at least sound coherent by comparison.

 

 

So basically, you want to read Twitter, then bring her in to misquote it?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Exactly. I guess all of the Move To Impeach zealots have a short memory.

 

 

I don't think it's a memory issue at all, it's just part of their emotional freakout. I know people that think that Clinton wasn't impeached because he was never thrown out of office. I also know people who are apparently unaware that criminal activity must be involved to impeach a sitting president, that it takes more than the simple belief that the president is a bad person.

 

I consider the continued digging into Trump's sexual conquests, the insistence of some kind of collusion with Russia, and everything else to be proof that Trump's detractors will not only stop at nothing to be rid of him, but that they have little desire to understand exactly what it takes to impeach a president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I don't think it's a memory issue at all, it's just part of their emotional freakout. I know people that think that Clinton wasn't impeached because he was never thrown out of office. I also know people who are apparently unaware that criminal activity must be involved to impeach a sitting president, that it takes more than the simple belief that the president is a bad person.

 

I consider the continued digging into Trump's sexual conquests, the insistence of some kind of collusion with Russia, and everything else to be proof that Trump's detractors will not only stop at nothing to be rid of him, but that they have little desire to understand exactly what it takes to impeach a president.

 

It's not like this is new.  Let's not forget that the Democrats filed articles of impeachment against Bush for such things as "climate change," "not armoring unarmored vehicles," "attempting to destroy Medicare," "failing to abide by the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq by invading Iraq without authorization," "falsely rescuing Jessica Lynch," "imprisoning children," "creating secret laws," "directing telecom companies to create a database of private telephone numbers," and "endangering the mental health of 9/11 first responders."  There's also a beautiful contradiction in the articles where they charge Bush with violating posse comitatus in one article, then in another charge him with causing the Katrina disaster by failing to violate posse comitatus.

 

I think "directing telecom companies to create a database of private telephone number" might be my favorite...y'know, since they hand out the phone numbers, so they already have the database.  But I have to give a shout out to "imprisoning children," because apparently the classics never die.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not like this is new.  Let's not forget that the Democrats filed articles of impeachment against Bush for such things as "climate change," "not armoring unarmored vehicles," "attempting to destroy Medicare," "failing to abide by the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq by invading Iraq without authorization," "falsely rescuing Jessica Lynch," "imprisoning children," "creating secret laws," "directing telecom companies to create a database of private telephone numbers," and "endangering the mental health of 9/11 first responders."  There's also a beautiful contradiction in the articles where they charge Bush with violating posse comitatus in one article, then in another charge him with causing the Katrina disaster by failing to violate posse comitatus.

 

I think "directing telecom companies to create a database of private telephone number" might be my favorite...y'know, since they hand out the phone numbers, so they already have the database.  But I have to give a shout out to "imprisoning children," because apparently the classics never die.  

 

:lol:

I remember most of those as issues, but I didn't realize that articles of impeachment were actually drawn up on any of them. I'm not saying that I'm surprised - the left absolutely hated GW Bush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

:lol:

I remember most of those as issues, but I didn't realize that articles of impeachment were actually drawn up on any of them. I'm not saying that I'm surprised - the left absolutely hated GW Bush. 

 

Not any more! There’s nothing conservative about neoconservatives.

Edited by joesixpack
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Not any more! There’s nothing conservative about neoconservatives.

 

Neoconservatives for decades were defined as former Marxists who saw the light and were writing policy papers for conservative thinktanks.

 

then it was changed to anyone who supported the Papa Bush Gulf War, so it had no more meaning

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

:lol:

I remember most of those as issues, but I didn't realize that articles of impeachment were actually drawn up on any of them. I'm not saying that I'm surprised - the left absolutely hated GW Bush. 

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres1258/text

 

Yes, I exaggerated some.  But not much.  "Imprisoning Children" is the literal title of one of the articles.  As is "Creating Secret Laws."

2 hours ago, Nanker said:

 

 

 

That's much better if you stop watching at 1:40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...