Pocohantes calls for impeachment hearings...

[row_33]

Facts are quite interchangeable, just ask 3 people on their views

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I will let the  good  Judge lay it out better than I can

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice

 

 

Do you need more? 

 

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit.

 

If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

[DC Tom]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit.

 

If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

 

You can still investigate false charges.

 

It's a beautiful setup, really.  Like getting Clinton to lie about his sex life while investigating real estate deals.

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit.

 

If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

 

He obstructed Hillary from the White House

 

every day we Celebrate Good Times, Come On!!!!!!

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

dude, do you dispute the facts he lays out that come directly from the Mueller report? Are you really at the point of 

 

Praise Trump and push conspiracy theorty= Good Source

 

Criticise Trump with Facts= fake news?

 

It's not that simple. Judge Nap is offering his opinion on the matter, and his opinion is not objective. He's a paid disinformation asset, not a journalist or an objective observer. If that's not enough, he's been wrong on every opinion he's floated on this issue since day one. Every time, he's been wrong. 

 

There are a lot of bad actors in the media who have been lying to the public for two years for their own reasons and benefits. Judge Nap is one of them. 

 

You need better sources, or better arguments. Because the bottom line on obstruction is it's over. Mueller punted, the 11 pieces of evidence are uncontested hearsay, not infallible -- which is something important to remember yet Nap overlooks it (because it makes the rest of his summary moot). Barr ruled on obstruction. It's over. Congress cannot indict or press charges. They can only impeach which is purely political and now, thanks to the Mueller report, without a proper foundation.  

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You can still investigate false charges.

 

It's a beautiful setup, really.  Like getting Clinton to lie about his sex life while investigating real estate deals.

 

Correct -- though in order to push obstruction now for impeachment, they will have to prove a corrupt intent, which is very difficult thanks to the rest of what's laid out in the Mueller report. 

 

 

[LB3]

13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's not that simple. Judge Nap is offering his opinion on the matter, and his opinion is not objective. He's a paid disinformation asset, not a journalist or an objective observer. If that's not enough, he's been wrong on every opinion he's floated on this issue since day one. Every time, he's been wrong. 

 

There are a lot of bad actors in the media who have been lying to the public for two years for their own reasons and benefits. Judge Nap is one of them. 

 

You need better sources, or better arguments. Because the bottom line on obstruction is it's over. Mueller punted, the 11 pieces of evidence are uncontested hearsay, not infallible -- which is something important to remember yet Nap overlooks it (because it makes the rest of his summary moot). Barr ruled on obstruction. It's over. Congress cannot indict or press charges. They can only impeach which is purely political and now, thanks to the Mueller report, without a proper foundation.  

 

I compliment your patience. His TDS is just too strong. His hyperbole is just too much. Remember, he honestly believes that everything Trump says is a lie. Everything.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

I compliment your patience. His TDS is just too strong. His hyperbole is just too much. Remember, he honestly believes that everything Trump says is a lie. Everything.

 

I really enjoy @plenzmd1 even if we rarely agree on this topic/subject, so I'm happy to do it -- and I'm sure he's happy to smack it down later  

[LB3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I really enjoy @plenzmd1 even if we rarely agree on this topic/subject, so I'm happy to do it -- and I'm sure he's happy to smack it down later  

I think he's a good dude. Trump just knocked some crazy into him.

[plenzmd1]

So is all this wrong from the Mueller report? I mean if yall just absolutely refuse to acknowledge there are potential obstruction issues based on the Mueller report, I think you are refusing to entertain any ideas that might not be beneficial to Trump and adhere to your preconceived notions..which you always accuse the other side of doing.

 

One can say the probe was illegally started, but that is not the question here. The question is does Congress want to pursue(which i think is a mistake). The question that only Congress can answer is do these acts, if proven,  rise to impeachable levels. 

 

Conduct regarding the Flynn investigation

 

Hmm, cant post text without a strike through...

 

good article here

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by plenzmd1

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

So is all this wrong from the Mueller report?

 

It's all unchallenged, so it may be wrong -- which even Mueller concedes. 

 

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I mean if yall just absolutely refuse to acknowledge there are potential obstruction issues based on the Mueller report, I think you are refusing to entertain any ideas that might not be beneficial to Trump and adhere to your preconceived notions..which you always accuse the other side of doing.

 

What people are reacting to is the sudden shifting of the goal posts. For two years this has NOT been about obstruction. For two years the accusations have been he committed seditious treason with an enemy state. Beyond accusations, many people in positions of power claimed to have evidence this happened, and those who objected to it were painted as being traitors or Putin loyalists. 

 

The report is clear in Volume One that that entire narrative was fiction. From the start, pure fiction. There was no collusion or conspiracy. There was no plot to help hack the emails and distribute them to the people in order to sway the election. There was nothing criminal or treasonous at all. 

 

Yet -- for every day, 24 hours a day, the media accused Trump of being a traitor. That's a capital offense, punishable by death. 

 

What do those (unchallenged) excerpts on obstruction show? They show a narcissistic man who KNOWS he's innocent of what he's being accused of, and lashing out in various ways. He's venting. He's ranting. He's raving... but in the end he did nothing to obstruct the probe. 

 

Mueller was not fired. 

RR was not fired. 

No investigators or prosecutors on the SCO were fired. 

He didn't short their budget.

He provided more transparency than expected, millions of files and emails and waived executive privilege. 

 

That's what he actually did. That's not obstruction. That's cooperation. 

 

Which makes the sudden focus on obstruction -- while ignoring the past two years of "BUT RUSSIA!" hysteria/propaganda -- painfully disingenuous. From a legal standpoint, even Mueller agrees obstruction is likely not a case a prosecutor could make. 

 

Those who are trying to get you to focus on these 11 points, which again are unchallenged, are likely the same ones who have been screaming about treasonous collusion for two years. They're trying to shift the argument to hide their own sins. 

 

***** that. 

 

10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

One can say the probe was illegally started, but that is not the question here.

 

If the probe was illegally started, and it was (this is all but proven and will be solidly proven within weeks), then the case for obstruction looks even weaker. Not stronger. Because Trump has known (and told us) for two years that the entire premise of the probe was improper. A witch hunt. 

 

And that's what it was. It's been said by me and others over the past few months but it's REALLY important to understand this point: 

 

* They had Trump under the most intense and invasive surveillance for over a full calendar year, they were able to go through every moment of his life from birth until now and the lives of every one of his immediate contacts. This is what they strove to achieve with the Page FISA, they needed to get the warrant because they were certain that if they could only get the legal cover to dig into his life, they'd find a crime. They'd have to find a crime, he's Trump and he's GOT to be as dirty as everyone else in DC. Yet despite this surveillance, they found nothing criminal. That's STUNNING. 

 

He's an innocent man who had the full might of the CIA, FBI, and several foreign intelligence services bearing down on him for two years -- and the best they can offer is a flimsy obstruction charge that's entirely political in nature and in no way criminal. 

 

You have to wrap your head around that point, seriously. This is as dirty as it gets, letting them off the hook because "Trump bad" is not only lazy and unprincipled, it's dangerous. 

 

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The question is does Congress want to pursue(which i think is a mistake). The question that only Congress can answer is do these acts, if proven,  rise to impeachable levels. 

 

Only to the partisans or TDS sufferers does anything in the Mueller report rise to an impeachable level. 

 

Which is the point I'm trying to hammer home. There's nothing real there, and considering where they thought this investigation would lead when they started it -- the fact they could only stick him with a flimsy charge of protesting his innocence should cause even the most ardent Never Trumpers to reconsider the past two years. 

 

It was always a coup. 

 

And the blowback is going to be bad for a lot of the people who today are pushing this nonsense. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Posting this here too, it's relevant to the above post: https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/

The long-awaited completion of Mueller’s probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative—and the expectations it fueled—to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller’s report does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but he declined to issue a verdict on obstruction. By contrast, the report shows no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government’s alleged effort to defeat Hillary Clinton, and renders this conclusion: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” As a result, Mueller’s report provides the reverse of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.

[plenzmd1]

 

 

1

29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Posting this here too, it's relevant to the above post: https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/

The long-awaited completion of Mueller’s probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative—and the expectations it fueled—to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller’s report does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but he declined to issue a verdict on obstruction. By contrast, the report shows no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government’s alleged effort to defeat Hillary Clinton, and renders this conclusion: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” As a result, Mueller’s report provides the reverse of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.

As  you may have noticed, not once, not even once, have I ever claimed on here once Mueller thing started Trump conspired with the Russians( no such thing as collusion in this context). So I am not coming from the angle of "need to prove i was right" I challenge anyone to find a post where I claimed differently. Now the Trump Tower meeting was/is very troubling to me, don't think it is a good thing for our country, but that's another story.

 

Now, you may believe, and it may be proven correct or not, that the probe was illegal, etc. That does not change the fact that while it was proceeding and deemed legal, Trump tried (allegedly, I will grant your "unchallenged ") to obstruct the investigation. The report passes it off to Congress to decide if his actions rise to impeachable offenses ( i do not), but to suggest there is "no there,there" as @TakeYouToTasker implied is just not reading the report..there is some there ..there. 

 

 

BTW, why do I keep getting this huge empty box above my replies??? Any help appreciated

[Deranged Rhino]

14 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

As  you may have noticed, not once, not even once, have I ever claimed on here once Mueller thing started Trump conspired with the Russians( no such thing as collusion in this context). So I am not coming from the angle of "need to prove i was right" I challenge anyone to find a post where I claimed differently.

 

I know you haven't, and did not mean to imply you had. Judge Nap has, and many others in the media/talking head sect -- and now most of those are ignoring their previous statements and focusing solely on obstruction. That's who I was referring to.  

 

15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Now the Trump Tower meeting was/is very troubling to me, don't think it is a good thing for our country, but that's another story.

 

Even in the Mueller report, which does not go into the frame-up elements of that meeting, there was nothing illicit or illegal which transpired in that meeting or around its set up. I get it "looks" bad when thrown into the blender of "BUT RUSSIA!" hysteria which has been ginned up by the IC and their media lackeys, but it's pretty mild. 

 

Especially when you compare it to what actually transpired in that meeting: a set up of a political opponent in order to rig a FISA warrant on the campaign. THAT'S not only criminal, it's downright seditious. And there's much more evidence to prove that's what happened in June of 2016 than anything nefarious between Don Jr and NV. 

 

17 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Now, you may believe, and it may be proven correct or not, that the probe was illegal, etc. That does not change the fact that while it was proceeding and deemed legal, Trump tried (allegedly, I will grant your "unchallenged ") to obstruct the investigation.

 

 

He "tried" -- but ultimately did nothing. 

 

Strip everything else away, and that's the argument you're left with. Surely you can see how that's a FAR cry from where this whole (national) conversation began? 

 

The evidence shows Trump was innocent of what he was being accused of vociferously for nearly three years. Despite knowing that he was innocent, despite knowing the probe was illegal in its foundation, Trump still did not do anything to obstruct the probe. Venting to advisers, ranting and raving, is not actually doing anything. And when you look at it in the full context of his public comments on the matter, it's just Trump being Trump. 

 

Looks bad. Bad optics. But ultimately there's nothing more to it than that.

 

22 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The report passes it off to Congress to decide if his actions rise to impeachable offenses ( i do not), but to suggest there is "no there,there" as @TakeYouToTasker implied is just not reading the report..there is some there ..there. 

 

Mueller passed it off to Barr to decide -- and Barr did. He left it open for Congress to pursue impeachment if they wished, but that's a political move and not a prosecutorial one. I'm not arguing, nor is Tasker, that Mueller didn't lay out instances which could be obstruction -- he clearly did. What I dispute is that those instances detail actual obstruction of the probe or investigation. Not even Mueller agrees they do. 

 

Obstruction is bait. Trump is hoping Congress does try to take up the impeachment gambit, because if they do millions of Americans will come to realize what I laid out above: that venting about obstruction is not obstructing. That's a losing position for the left, and they know it. Which is why Pelosi is trying so hard to stop it in its tracks. 

 

26 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

BTW, why do I keep getting this huge empty box above my replies??? Any help appreciated

 

I've been trying to figure that out as well. I'm not sure, but I do know I can't hit "quote" on your posts when that happens. I have to use the multi-quote function. 

 

Not sure what the deal is. 

 

 

[row_33]

18 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Obstruction?

 

Walk this out with me:

 

It has been demonstrated, and you will see prosecution, that the President was set up by individuals who knowingly perpetrated a fraud, inventing “evidence of a crime” from whole cloth, in order to initiate a Special Counsel to go digging for crimes in the hopes of destroying the President and forcing him out of office.

 

What you are calling obstruction is him defending himself from fraudulent charges both he and his accusers knew to be false, as well as criminal; which now we all know to be 100% baseless, while acting within the legal purview of his delegated powers.

 

Explain the obstruction.

 

You are correct:

 

 

To those who never see the inner workings of top business or politically elected work or lawyers around a table discussing the "finer points"

 

good...

 

 

 

[plenzmd1]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I know you haven't, and did not mean to imply you had. Judge Nap has, and many others in the media/talking head sect -- and now most of those are ignoring their previous statements and focusing solely on obstruction. That's who I was referring to.  

 

 

Even in the Mueller report, which does not go into the frame-up elements of that meeting, there was nothing illicit or illegal which transpired in that meeting or around its set up. I get it "looks" bad when thrown into the blender of "BUT RUSSIA!" hysteria which has been ginned up by the IC and their media lackeys, but it's pretty mild. 

 

Especially when you compare it to what actually transpired in that meeting: a set up of a political opponent in order to rig a FISA warrant on the campaign. THAT'S not only criminal, it's downright seditious. And there's much more evidence to prove that's what happened in June of 2016 than anything nefarious between Don Jr and NV. 

 

 

 

He "tried" -- but ultimately did nothing. 

 

Strip everything else away, and that's the argument you're left with. Surely you can see how that's a FAR cry from where this whole (national) conversation began? 

 

The evidence shows Trump was innocent of what he was being accused of vociferously for nearly three years. Despite knowing that he was innocent, despite knowing the probe was illegal in its foundation, Trump still did not do anything to obstruct the probe. Venting to advisers, ranting and raving, is not actually doing anything. And when you look at it in the full context of his public comments on the matter, it's just Trump being Trump. 

 

Looks bad. Bad optics. But ultimately there's nothing more to it than that.

 

 

Mueller passed it off to Barr to decide -- and Barr did. He left it open for Congress to pursue impeachment if they wished, but that's a political move and not a prosecutorial one. I'm not arguing, nor is Tasker, that Mueller didn't lay out instances which could be obstruction -- he clearly did. What I dispute is that those instances detail actual obstruction of the probe or investigation. Not even Mueller agrees they do. 

 

Obstruction is bait. Trump is hoping Congress does try to take up the impeachment gambit, because if they do millions of Americans will come to realize what I laid out above: that venting about obstruction is not obstructing. That's a losing position for the left, and they know it. Which is why Pelosi is trying so hard to stop it in its tracks. 

 

 

I've been trying to figure that out as well. I'm not sure, but I do know I can't hit "quote" on your posts when that happens. I have to use the multi-quote function. 

 

Not sure what the deal is. 

 

 

Lets see if this is better.

 

I agree impeachment is a losing cause for the Dems..I want them to focus on his record..they will win based on that. 

 

I do not agree however that there was no obstruction just cause it did not work. But that will be a circular argument, as we can see?

 

Now in terms what you and your ilk (hopefully you get the PTI reference sarcasm) claim to be the ultimate comeuppance coming , I got no problem with a little wager saying I see nothing happening on that front of consequence before the home opener...if you are coming maybe a little wager of a six of winners choice at the tailgate!!!

[row_33]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

Lets see if this is better.

 

I agree impeachment is a losing cause for the Dems..I want them to focus on his record..they will win based on that. 

 

I do not agree however that there was no obstruction just cause it did not work. But that will be a circular argument, as we can see?

 

Now in terms what you and your ilk (hopefully you get the PTI reference sarcasm) claim to be the ultimate comeuppance coming , I got no problem with a little wager saying I see nothing happening on that front of consequence before the home opener...if you are coming maybe a little wager of a six of winners choice at the tailgate!!!

 

the real record or the lying fantasy record dreamed up by the drive-by media?

 

the economy is going fantastic, these are levels not even dreamed of for the past 50 years in the US, a sitting President with a strong economy is 98% of the way to a landslide re-election

 

 

nothing will happen to Obama

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

Lets see if this is better.

 

I agree impeachment is a losing cause for the Dems..I want them to focus on his record..they will win based on that. 

 

I do not agree however that there was no obstruction just cause it did not work. But that will be a circular argument, as we can see?

 

Now in terms what you and your ilk (hopefully you get the PTI reference sarcasm) claim to be the ultimate comeuppance coming , I got no problem with a little wager saying I see nothing happening on that front of consequence before the home opener...if you are coming maybe a little wager of a six of winners choice at the tailgate!!!

This is interesting. You want them to focus on his record as a winning strategy for them, or for Trump? 

 

What part of his record is he failing on? 

 

Revealing dems as the open border wild wild west crowd (the argument is going to be they are all for open borders and lax security so long as the thousands of victims of violent crimes committed by people here illegally are not THEIR kids)?

 

Revisiting the Obama/dem legacy of non-existant growth, unemployment, surging numbers of citizens on da welfare?  

 

Revisiting the obama/dem ACA and the foundation of sand it was built on, skyrocketing costs, and fuzzy math that went into it?  

 

Revisiting the corruption associated with the Russian collusion narrative, the fingerprints of dems, Obama and Biden all over it?  Reminding centrist Americans that votes matter, and that this was an attempt to steal the election, with pictures of key Obamans &  key DOJ operatives as coup plotters? 

 

The r tax plan. More money for more people is a bad thing?  Tax revenue increased to most states (45 I believe) is a bad thing? 

 

Revisiting the gutter trash attempted assassination of Bret K by "leaders" of the dem party like Biden, Harris, Booker, Pelosi et al....and how quickly they moved on when they failed?

 

NATO.

 

I guess I can understand your hatred, but what record are you referring to? Don't dems want jobs? 

 

 

[row_33]

50 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

 

What part of his record is he failing on? 

 

 

 

His record is fantastic any way you honestly slice it

 

but his haters are so bloody deranged they can't see anything but evil and misery

 

it's like a movie about someone growing up in Ireland.

 

 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

16 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is interesting. You want them to focus on his record as a winning strategy for them, or for Trump? 

 

What part of his record is he failing on? 

 

Revealing dems as the open border wild wild west crowd (the argument is going to be they are all for open borders and lax security so long as the thousands of victims of violent crimes committed by people here illegally are not THEIR kids)?

 

Revisiting the Obama/dem legacy of non-existant growth, unemployment, surging numbers of citizens on da welfare?  

 

Revisiting the obama/dem ACA and the foundation of sand it was built on, skyrocketing costs, and fuzzy math that went into it?  

 

Revisiting the corruption associated with the Russian collusion narrative, the fingerprints of dems, Obama and Biden all over it?  Reminding centrist Americans that votes matter, and that this was an attempt to steal the election, with pictures of key Obamans &  key DOJ operatives as coup plotters? 

 

The r tax plan. More money for more people is a bad thing?  Tax revenue increased to most states (45 I believe) is a bad thing? 

 

Revisiting the gutter trash attempted assassination of Bret K by "leaders" of the dem party like Biden, Harris, Booker, Pelosi et al....and how quickly they moved on when they failed?

 

NATO.

 

I guess I can understand your hatred, but what record are you referring to? Don't dems want jobs? 

 

 

If i am running the campaign...saying these are things I would run...and i think can appeal to people like me..these will not make his base move..

 

1) Good people on both sides

2) Hate crimes up

3) pictures of everyone associated with him that plead guilty to crimes

3) deficits soaring..millionaires getting richer.

4) Wants to take your healthcare away..with footage of him saying will take of after the election

5) Kim playing him like a fiddle..showing the "NK Nukes are gone" clip over and over and Kim meeting with Putin

6) Trade deficits at 10-year highs under trump

7) Myriad ways Trump Admin is hurting the environment

? Trump had a  majority for 2 years,his own party thought his ideas on immigration sucked,  immigration is a mess and much worse under Trump, families separated, Trump is so simple-minded he believes we only need a wall

9) Clip after clip after clip of obvious lies by Trump...including where his dad was born, nature of the Trump Tower meeting, just pick which one ya want

10) In the age of metoo...the access, hollywood tape played over and over and over again

 

just a start

 

Just a sampling

 

 

 

[row_33]

Economy is going great

 

end of campaign requirements

 

99% of voters don’t care about politics, if they have a job and optimism it’s game over for a challenger

 

 

[plenzmd1]

sorry guys, i have no clue why my posts are getting the whacked box again...

Just now, row_33 said:

Economy is going great

 

end of campaign requirements

 

99% of voters don’t care about politics, if they have a job and optimism it’s game over for a challenger

 

 

i don't buy that 100%  I think it is a real large portion, and I if I am Trump I leverage the hell of it...I can also lay out lote of reasons  why you should vote for Trump too...

 

 

[row_33]

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

sorry guys, i have no clue why my posts are getting the whacked box again...

i don't buy that 100%  I think it is a real large portion, and I if I am Trump I leverage the hell of it...I can also lay out lote of reasons  why you should vote for Trump too...

 

 

 

We have about 8 people on here who consistently care to talk about politics?

 

I know you like to think everyone cares the same as you do, but hate to break it to you, barely 1% wants to discuss politics in an off-off election year

 

they’d rather a religious nut badgers them about going to hell than listen to liberals ramble on about politics...

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by row_33

[Keukasmallies]

Compile any list of potential anti-Trump campaign planks you care to.  Now hold that list up to the Democratic front runners and see who is capable of running on them with a straight face; "Huggy Bear" Biden, Elizabeth Warren, [insert favorate name here]?  Will the resulting combination stand up against an economy that's humming along with near full employment particularly among traditionally under-employed groups, or a full-blown crisis on the southern border which the Democrats appear not to acknowledge.

 

Trump is certainly no prize package, but the road to unseating him is not to attack him as much as it is to rise above the maddening crowd and propose solutions to the issues that are at a standstill because of the revenge factor in play since 11/16.

[3rdnlng]

52 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

If i am running the campaign...saying these are things I would run...and i think can appeal to people like me..these will not make his base move..

 

1) Good people on both sides

2) Hate crimes up

3) pictures of everyone associated with him that plead guilty to crimes

3) deficits soaring..millionaires getting richer.

4) Wants to take your healthcare away..with footage of him saying will take of after the election

5) Kim playing him like a fiddle..showing the "NK Nukes are gone" clip over and over and Kim meeting with Putin

6) Trade deficits at 10-year highs under trump

7) Myriad ways Trump Admin is hurting the environment

? Trump had a  majority for 2 years,his own party thought his ideas on immigration sucked,  immigration is a mess and much worse under Trump, families separated, Trump is so simple-minded he believes we only need a wall

9) Clip after clip after clip of obvious lies by Trump...including where his dad was born, nature of the Trump Tower meeting, just pick which one ya want

10) In the age of metoo...the access, hollywood tape played over and over and over again

 

just a start

 

Just a sampling

 

 

 

Is this now the official "go to" place for Lefty talking points? You do yourself no favors at PPP posting crap without backing it up. You also can't be considered serious when you post stuff that has repeatedly been debunked here and elsewhere.

[plenzmd1]

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Is this now the official "go to" place for Lefty talking points? You do yourself no favors at PPP posting crap without backing it up. You also can't be considered serious when you post stuff that has repeatedly been debunked here and elsewhere.

you also cant be considered to know how to read...what part of this did you nor comprehend

 

Quote

If i am running the campaign...saying these are things I would run.

 

having said that, disprove any of the above talking points democrats will focus on

[3rdnlng]

40 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

you also cant be considered to know how to read...what part of this did you nor comprehend

 

 

having said that, disprove any of the above talking points democrats will focus on

Your post reminded me of Harry Reid when confronted with his lies about Mitt Romney, "it worked didn't it"?

 

Everything you listed is basically a twisted version of the truth. There's a reason you didn't provide a link to any of your proclamations. Were there no good people on both sides at Charlottesville? Where are your stats on "hate crimes up"? Where is your proof of anything?

 

Those points may be what the dems will push but they are just a bunch of lies propagated by liars, and you have no problem with that.

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

you also cant be considered to know how to read...what part of this did you nor comprehend

 

 

having said that, disprove any of the above talking points democrats will focus on

 

Lets start with number one. He said that and is 1000000000000% correct. So Dems?  Please run on that out of context sound byte.  

Edited April 27, 2019 by Chef Jim

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

sorry guys, i have no clue why my posts are getting the whacked box again...

i don't buy that 100%  I think it is a real large portion, and I if I am Trump I leverage the hell of it...I can also lay out lote of reasons  why you should vote for Trump too...

 

 

For some reason I could not respond directly to your prior message but this will do. 

 

The message points you laid out, with few exceptions, are basically the same message points dems have run on for decades. I think they can work, assuming the country is stuck in the mud, mired in depression and fear for the future. 

 

Good example:  Joe Biden does what Joe Biden always does...some variation of "they gonna keep y'all in chainnnnnsssssss man!".  Now, setting aside the obvious hypocrisy of a dem voting for a candidate with a history of racist commentary and what the ladies used  to call "Russian eyes and Roman hands (his friends call him "Double" because he always gets to second base) instead of a guy like Trump, I think for most non-extremists they will vote to keep the status quo when the economy is strong, unemployment kept at bay, and there is a general feeling of confidence in/around the place where they live. 

 

As for the border, trump's ace in the hole is that while every high-profile politician over the last 40 years has called for border security, he's a guy who had the nuts to get things rolling. When you parse that with information about crime, death and the enormous economic cost of a broken system propped up by dems and r's over the decades, he is well positioned as an outsider who is tackling the problem.  Hell, he can run against the r's on that.  When you add in the fighting-human-trafficking element on both sides of the border, he can win this issue.  

 

Phase 2, btw, as he lays out the increased border security, the human trafficking element, the dems (and likely some r's) obstructionism for personal political gain, he can also revisit legal immigration as a means of bolstering the economy and offering the American dream to those who come legally. 

 

While I never underestimate the ability to vote against their own best interests when it come to jobs, the economy, or whatever.....Trump has a powerful message for ordinary Americans:

 

The last time the corrupted democrat party ran things, they offered doom, gloom, sadness and excuses.  They worked diligently to overthrow the election and snuff the votes of 60m Americans all while taking them time to leave Americans to die in combat, lie about it yet incredibly find a way to send billions in cash to the terrorist regime of Iran.  

 

They can try to run on Trump lies, but the reality is all you are saying is Trumps lies are worse than the other guy's lies.  And how do you answer for the corrupt Russia inv and all the dems claiming collusion that never occurred? 

 

Finally, when the election field finally rounds out, that's when the fur starts to fly. That's when garbage cans are searched, old video surfaces and someone NOT from your own party attacks. This is phase one, which basically amounts to a political PTA meeting. 

 

 

 

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Your post reminded me of Harry Reid when confronted with his lies about Mitt Romney, "it worked didn't it"?

 

Everything you listed is basically a twisted version of the truth. There's a reason you didn't provide a link to any of your proclamations. Were there no good people on both sides at Charlottesville? Where are your stats on "hate crimes up"? Where is your proof of anything?

 

Those points may be what the dems will push but they are just a bunch of lies propagated by liars, and you have no problem with that.

Again, what part of this statement do you not comprehend???

 

"If i was running the campaign this is what I would make my talking points"

 

Do you understand how a campaign works..let me fill you in on how this goes

 

Dems: "Immigration is a mess, look at the crisis at our borders. Trump solution is to build a stupid wall and break up families, even his own party voted that down, as the Rebublicans had control of all 3 branches and immigration got worse..Trump even says it has gotten worse under his leadership

 

Republicans" Dems blocked our wall legislation for political purposes..walls work"

 

That is how talkng points work

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

you also cant be considered to know how to read...what part of this did you nor comprehend

 

 

having said that, disprove any of the above talking points democrats will focus on

 

The entire free world that can watch a video knows that #1 is a lie.

 

It's such a bad lie that many on the left are criticizing Biden for making it the primary point of his announcement video.

 

The lie has been discounted countless times by countless people on both side of the aisle.

 

Watch the video. Don't lead with a lie.

[plenzmd1]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

The entire free world that can watch a video knows that #1 is a lie.

 

It's such a bad lie that many on the left are criticizing Biden for making it the primary point of his announcement video.

 

The lie has been discounted countless times by countless people on both side of the aisle.

 

Watch the video. Don't lead with a lie.

Did he say..." there are good [people on both sides "??? simple yes or no.

 

If yes, that clip can used.

 

Is it smart..thats another  question..

 

we are talking a campaign hear..not a college debate class

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Did he say..." there are good [people on both sides "??? simple yes or no.

 

If yes, that clip can used.

 

Is it smart..thats another  question..

 

we are talking a campaign hear..not a college debate class

 

He did not say there are good people within the neo nazis and white supremacist groups. In fact, he called them out twice in the same speech (you just never hear that clip). 

 

And even in the above, ***** liar Jake Tapper, misconstrues the point. He's not saying people were protesting with Neo Nazis, he's talking about people protesting the statue's removal... but Jake isn't an honest guy. He's not a newsman. He's a propagandist, so he gets that spin in there. 

[plenzmd1]

I guess I am not doing to a good job of explaining myself...

 

I am saying what the Dems will push in ads etc. You cant see an ad with Trump saying" there are good people on both sides" with the White Supremacists shown behind him? with the car behind him? 

 

I mean you don't expect the Dems to come to the election and say " gee, the economy is doing pretty good, you should vote for Trump"

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

I guess I am not doing to a good job of explaining myself...

 

I am saying what the Dems will push in ads etc. You cant see an ad with Trump saying" there are good people on both sides" with the White Supremacists shown behind him? with the car behind him? 

 

I mean you don't expect the Dems to come to the election and say " gee, the economy is doing pretty good, you should vote for Trump"

 

So they'll lie and invent a context which never existed to scare people into thinking Trump is a racist?

 

Of course that's what they'll do. It's the only play left in their playbook. But millions are waking up to that tactic by the day. If they try it, it will backfire on all but their prog-fascist base. 

[plenzmd1]

kinda like this guy?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-father-jfk/

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

kinda like this guy?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-father-jfk/

 

 That's not the same as fanning the fires of racial division. It's not even the same sport. 

[plenzmd1]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 That's not the same as fanning the fires of racial division. It's not even the same sport. 

you mean like this?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.e146f8813ad3

Edited April 27, 2019 by plenzmd1

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

you mean like this?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.e146f8813ad3

 

He was speaking of this: https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/24/the-video-of-celebrations-that-was-broadcast-on-911/ and this https://www.nj.com/news/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

 

And like Trump is wont to do, he conflated two events into one.

 

CNN ran that footage, I remember it vividly. 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He was speaking of this: https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/24/the-video-of-celebrations-that-was-broadcast-on-911/ and this https://www.nj.com/news/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

 

And like Trump is wont to do, he conflated two events into one.

 

CNN ran that footage, I remember it vividly. 

so five guys celebrating...even if he screwed up the place( how dumb can this guy be?)...does not equal 1000's and 100'os...saw it with my own eyes

 

 ..and you think he was not fanning the racial divide in an election.

 

You think he was not fanning the racial divide in the preliminary by saying Rafael  Cruz, a Hispanic, was involved in the shooting of JFK? No issue with that whatsoever???

 

And now you want the ability to claim Trump has some sort of moral high ground??????

 

Immigrants come and "breed."..yep that ain't fanning the fires.

 

Man, you just want to defend this dude as if he is some sort of demi god.

 

Listen, its a campaign.....if i was the Republicans and Trump did not have the access hollywood tape..I would tell them to be all over Biden, Anita Hill, the latest episodes etc. Thats all fair, and all true.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

so five guys celebrating...even if he screwed up the place( how dumb can this guy be?)...does not equal 1000's and 100'os...saw it with my own eyes

 

 ..and you think he was not fanning the racial divide in an election

 

He ran a campaign which waged a war against a media/establishment which wouldn't use the words: "radical Islamic extremists" for eight years. 

 

Yes, he was highlighting that with these comments. Yes it was divisive. Yes it's fair to call it out as such -- but saying it didn't happen is incorrect. 

 

He was the only one running on that platform -- unlike the left where every single person has run on identity politics and racial/gender/sexual division for the past several decades. As I said, it's their only play in the playbook.

 

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

You think he was not fanning the racial divide in the preliminary by saying Rafael  Cruz, a Hispanic, was involved in the shooting of JFK? No issue with that whatsoever??

 

 No, it was not an attempt to divide anyone on racial lines. This was one of the "nuttier" conspiracy takes of his campaign, but it had nothing to do with racial division on a larger scale whatsoever. It was about making Cruz look foolish. 

 

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

And now you want the ability to claim Trump has some sort of moral high ground??????

 

Compared to the identity politics of the left, yes. He does. 

 

4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Immigrants come and "breed."..yep that ain't fanning the fires.

 

Man, you just want to defend this dude as if he is some sort of demi god.

 

I didn't vote for him in 2016 because I wasn't a fan of those tactics... so I wouldn't say I defend him. But when you're asking me to pick between Trump's tactics and those of the progressive fascist left (which speaks for the entire left these days even though they're in the minority), give me Trump all day every day. 

 

At least he's honest about his faults. The left sees their faults as virtues. 

 

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Listen, its a campaign.....if i was the Republicans and Trump did not have the access hollywood tape..I would tell them to be all over Biden, Anita Hill, the latest episodes etc. Thats all fair, and all true.

 

Trump will be all over those issues anyway because, like with most "racist" things Trump said, they're way overblown to the point of being untruths. 

When people look at what the man actually says, rather than the cut ups, it's a very different picture than what the press/left has pushed for two years. 

 

Trump hasn't been the one dividing this country, despite the hype. The division started with the Russian narrative (a lie), and then identity politics/racist fearmongering was thrown on top for good measure. They literally started the conversation about Trump at 11 -- calling him Hitler and a traitor. When that's how you start, you can't really do anything but stick to those guns. 

 

... And millions of Americans see that game for what it is: played out.