row_33 Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Nope. He’s got a losing hand and he’s playing it as weak as can be because he’s feckless. the economy is going miraculous, nothing to do for Dems but to gripe and suck on their teeth and whine to the toady media 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Chuck *****ie. He can get the same treatment the R's got in both Intelligence and Judiciary hearings. Seriously he and his party need to feel that pain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 On 12/21/2019 at 7:02 AM, 3rdnlng said: He gave 1.8 billion in cash to terrorists. You cited quite a few "impeachable offenses" committed by the Obama administration, but this one? Yeah. No. If the Iran Nuke deal is impeachable/wrong, then so is putting Lil' Rocket Man on the world stage. Multiple countries involved, so that's just weak. As far as the FISA abuse, I'd say it's high time for Bill Barr to get crackin'. Conservatives have the courts. Got the AG. Got the White House. Barr would have to derelict in his duty to allow these "crimes" to go unpunished, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 50 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: You cited quite a few "impeachable offenses" committed by the Obama administration, but this one? Yeah. No. If the Iran Nuke deal is impeachable/wrong, then so is putting Lil' Rocket Man on the world stage. Multiple countries involved, so that's just weak. As far as the FISA abuse, I'd say it's high time for Bill Barr to get crackin'. Conservatives have the courts. Got the AG. Got the White House. Barr would have to derelict in his duty to allow these "crimes" to go unpunished, right? Due process is slow — when you’re talking about taking down former high ranking officials from the past administration. Doubly so when they’re not just trying to make air tight cases, but reverse the trend of a two tier justice system which 44 emboldened as the most lawless president in history. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said: You cited quite a few "impeachable offenses" committed by the Obama administration, but this one? Yeah. No. If the Iran Nuke deal is impeachable/wrong, then so is putting Lil' Rocket Man on the world stage. Multiple countries involved, so that's just weak. Obama would have been impeached for it, except that the Democrats hadn't made the "disagreements in foreign policy are an impeachable offense" precedent yet... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Obama would have been impeached for it, except that the Democrats hadn't made the "disagreements in foreign policy are an impeachable offense" precedent yet... Yes. I've made it clear I don't like the Trump impeachment and find it incredibly flimsy. Just taking exception to phrasing that particular deal, whether you like it or not, as "he gave 1.8 bil to terrorists." Too cute for my taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Yes. I've made it clear I don't like the Trump impeachment and find it incredibly flimsy. Just taking exception to phrasing that particular deal, whether you like it or not, as "he gave 1.8 bil to terrorists." Too cute for my taste. Completely agree. I've just stopped arguing with that *****, because no one listens. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/23/doj-impeachment-vote-undercut-house-mcgahn-testimony-089604 Impeachment II: Impeach Harder! Edited December 24, 2019 by DC Tom 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 22 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Yes. I've made it clear I don't like the Trump impeachment and find it incredibly flimsy. Just taking exception to phrasing that particular deal, whether you like it or not, as "he gave 1.8 bil to terrorists." Too cute for my taste. Call it what you will, but Obama bent over backwards to help the mullahs at the expense of our own security and that of our allies: Operation Cassandra Stuxnet Just to name the two most insidious. If you’re unfamiliar with then you should read up on them... He also spied illegally on congress and the press during the run up to the Iran deal so that they could silence opposition. He was all the way crooked. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, LSHMEAB said: Yes. I've made it clear I don't like the Trump impeachment and find it incredibly flimsy. Just taking exception to phrasing that particular deal, whether you like it or not, as "he gave 1.8 bil to terrorists." Too cute for my taste. So, who the hell did he give that 1.8 billion in various foreign currency, all stacked on pallets and delivered in the middle of the night to? You might make a case for releasing the 150 billion in seized assets being released but why cash except as some type of bribe? Edited December 24, 2019 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Call it what you will, but Obama bent over backwards to help the mullahs at the expense of our own security and that of our allies: Operation Cassandra Stuxnet Just to name the two most insidious. If you’re unfamiliar with then you should read up on them... He also spied illegally on congress and the press during the run up to the Iran deal so that they could silence opposition. He was all the way crooked. I'm familiar with Stuxnet, which was responsible for taking out a good chunk of Iran's nuclear capabilities. I know there was a leaker, but I'm gonna need more info to figure out what this has to do with presidential malfeasance. Maybe I'll take a look at it after I lose my bet on this MNF game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, who the hell did he give that 1.8 billion in various foreign currency, all stacked on pallets and delivered in the middle of the night to? You might make a case for releasing the 150 billion in seized assets being released by why cash except as some type of bribe? The currency was delivered to Iran as a (perhaps foolish) stop gap approach in preventing them from proliferating their nuke program. Appears as though Iran is crumbling with sanctions and internal strife since the deal was squashed, but this is a policy debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: I'm familiar with Stuxnet, which was responsible for taking out a good chunk of Iran's nuclear capabilities. I know there was a leaker, but I'm gonna need more info to figure out what this has to do with presidential malfeasance. Maybe I'll take a look at it after I lose my bet on this MNF game. Stuxnet was leaked to the NYT by General Cartwright — who was indicted for it. Then pardoned by 44. It exposed our ally (Israel) and was done to give the Mullahs a bone in the negotiations for a deal that had no hope of stopping a nuclear armed Iran. Put another way: Obama leveraged a top secret weapon of our allies in order to win favor with the worlds leading terrorist exporter. He did it knowingly, and with malice. All the while spying on the reporters trying to cover that story and pressuring them to remain silent. Operation Cassandra is even more insidious. He allowed Hezbollah to build and operate trafficking networks inside the USA, drugs, weapons, and people, calling off multiple investigations into them in order to curry favor with the Mullahs. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/ 3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: The currency was delivered to Iran as a (perhaps foolish) stop gap approach in preventing them from proliferating their nuke program. Appears as though Iran is crumbling with sanctions and internal strife since the deal was squashed, but this is a policy debate. The deal had zero chance to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. That wasn’t Obama’s goal. And he sold out our allies, and our own national security to make the deal happen. His administration was all the way crooked. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 (edited) 56 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Yes. I've made it clear I don't like the Trump impeachment and find it incredibly flimsy. Just taking exception to phrasing that particular deal, whether you like it or not, as "he gave 1.8 bil to terrorists." Too cute for my taste. Like most things in life, it’s more complicated than that, but one could argue that cutting a deal with your mortal enemy comes with risk. It seems not in dispute that a substantial, life-altering amount of money went in cash, which certainly inspires confidence in one’s leadership. It always amazed me that these proud nations of the world could pool the finest minds in the world and figure out the Iran Nuclear deal, but the only way for Barry to settle up with the Ayatollah was a cargo load of cash that disappears into the mist. My only question Is how much was skimmed off the top as it hands touched it, including Obama, Clinton, Biden and the rest. Edited December 24, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Like most things in life, it’s more complicated than that, but one could argue that cutting a deal with your mortal enemy comes with risk. It seems not in dispute that a substantial, life-altering amount of money went in cash, which certainly inspires confidence in one’s leadership. It always amazed me that these proud nations of the world could pool the finest minds in the world and figure out the Iran Nuclear deal, but the inky way for Barry to settle up with the Ayatollah was a cargo load of cash that disappears into the mist. My only question Is how much was skimmed off the top as it hands touched it, including Obama, Clinton, Biden and the rest. It wouldn't surprise me at all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 32 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: The currency was delivered to Iran as a (perhaps foolish) stop gap approach in preventing them from proliferating their nuke program. Appears as though Iran is crumbling with sanctions and internal strife since the deal was squashed, but this is a policy debate. A quid pro quo? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, westside2 said: A quid pro quo? Yeah. Slightly different because it had nothing to do with (perceived) political gain, but meh. None of it sways me. TBH, I read a bit regarding the the innuendo about Trump/Russia/Ukraine and I read a bit regarding Fast and Furious/Iran Deal/Benghazi and I see two sides of the same coin. It'd be awesome if this country was actually talking about policy matters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Yeah. Slightly different because it had nothing to do with (perceived) political gain, but meh. None of it sways me. How can you say there was no political gain? Obama trumpeted the Iran deal as the centerpiece of his foreign policy accomplishments. The deal was all about political gain. 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/mtracey/status/1209306718070542336 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: How can you say there was no political gain? Obama trumpeted the Iran deal as the centerpiece of his foreign policy accomplishments. The deal was all about political gain. It certainly wasn't about actual gain since it gave everything to Iran and didn't make the world safer. Actually the cash and the release of Iran's assets helped them fund terrorism that killed our military personnel and civilians. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: How can you say there was no political gain? Obama trumpeted the Iran deal as the centerpiece of his foreign policy accomplishments. The deal was all about political gain. Therein lies the heart of why this impeachment is utter B.S. No matter what any President might do in the future, he or she can’t run for re-election on their record. All foreign policy decisions can be called out as having been made for personal political gain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 14 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Don't project Doc. I never said nor implied R good D bad. On the other hand, you're hanging your hat on the notion that Obama was a viewed as a presidential Care Bear or he would have been impeached, and that's nothing more than mythology. You can choose to believe it if it makes you feel good, but that does not make it fact. There are all sorts of mistakes made politically. Is it fair to suggest that if the Rs allowed the Obama/Clinton Benghazi coverup to go unchecked that perhaps Clinton becomes president? The death of an American ambassador on the presidential watch will always--100% of the time--result in investigations. When you factor in a bs storyline to explain why the US govt was caught with its pantsuit down, I'm not sure what you're thinking. I'm comfortable calling it political, because it is, but you cannot revise history to suit your needs. The Benghazi cover up will always be the biggest black mark on the Obama administration, but Republicans using it as a political weapon in the guise of justice for the victims family irked me. I think you're naive if you think Republicans wouldn't have impeached Obama over a number of things if the majority of the public supported it. Sorry to project. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabrecrazed Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 33 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: The Benghazi cover up will always be the biggest black mark on the Obama administration, but Republicans using it as a political weapon in the guise of justice for the victims family irked me. I think you're naive if you think Republicans wouldn't have impeached Obama over a number of things if the majority of the public supported it. Sorry to project. What in the... I don't know if it was the biggest black mark considering what is coming on the 12th, but the trotting Susan Rice out to lie to every camera with a logo on the side of it was certainly done for, you know, personal political gain of the president. Are you saying that investigating that in front of the country was against the wishes of the victims families? Because I remember it quite differently. I saw them with their broken hearts all over the tv. They were pretty ticked off at the administration for the lies, not for the investigation into them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: The Benghazi cover up will always be the biggest black mark on the Obama administration, but Republicans using it as a political weapon in the guise of justice for the victims family irked me. I think you're naive if you think Republicans wouldn't have impeached Obama over a number of things if the majority of the public supported it. Sorry to project. As always I appreciate the civility extended as we disagree. I'm many things, naive is not one of them. It surprises me to hear you say it irked you that the Republican's "used it", while sort of glossing over the cover up. The cover up itself was political, why would anything else not be? It is interesting to me though, that in the eyes of Obama/Clinton supporters, a President excersizing his authority when considering extending foreign aid to a corrupt nation (that seems to be acknowledged by all, including current candidates Joe Biden) is impeachable, yet allowing the assassination of an ambassador and those their to protect him and concocting an elaborate cover up to impact the elections that falls apart in 14 days is just another day in Washington. As for my naivete regarding Rs ans Ds, here is what I have come to conclude. People like Obama, Clinton, Bush et al run in the same circles, form alliances and count on the collective innocence (or ignorance) of the voting public to not pick up on the scheme. It's the only thing that makes sense given the aftermath of election after election where horrible, horrible things are said about the other candidate, "Bush manufactures a war and young people die as a result) giving way to alliances after all is said and done. Mutually assured destruction and alliances of the heart are the reasons Obama wasn't impeached. Trump falls outside that circle of friends, and as pointed out many times here, poses a threat to that "thing of theirs". 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, sabrecrazed said: What in the... I don't know if it was the biggest black mark considering what is coming on the 12th, but the trotting Susan Rice out to lie to every camera with a logo on the side of it was certainly done for, you know, personal political gain of the president. I will never forget that! I knew she was lying when she went on those shows. And now people forget that it was just two months before the election. And Trump is ‘guilty’ of being focused on persons political gain? My arse! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 16 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Schumer warns? Oh noooooos! Schumer warns. He could probably get Mitt, but he might lose a few Ds... I do not think the numbers add up for Chuckie no matter how he tries. McConnell should just pull a Schiffty Nadler move and table any motions of said nature. while i would like to see a trial that allows any and all testimony, it is only right to play by the Houses rules here, with regard. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 cracks in the wall beginning to appear. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1209452717065867265 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 23 minutes ago, Foxx said: cracks in the wall beginning to appear. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1209452717065867265 Those idiots sacrificed their political careers to side with Nancy, what did they expect her to do, protect them? ***** them, they stood with her, they can take the electoral bullets for her. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 4 hours ago, Doc Brown said: The Benghazi cover up will always be the biggest black mark on the Obama administration, The spying will be much, much worse in the end. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The spying will be much, much worse in the end. Has Obama lawyered up yet? He was supposed to be indicted by late summer/early fall. Edited December 24, 2019 by Gary Busey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 31 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Has Obama lawyered up yet? He was supposed to be indicted by late summer/early fall. you make light of it, but there could be no more serious travesty for this country than to have a former President indicted. and, it is not really off the rails to think it did happen with the limited amount of information that we do know. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 SHY IMPEACHMENT SYNDROME. . 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 Articles still in the mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: Articles still in the mail So what you're saying is that this is all Trump's fault for allowing the USPS to suck at delivering mail?!? IMPEACH THE MOTHER *****! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, row_33 said: Articles still in the mail ...not so fast........more to follow...SMH....... Trump Impeachment Published 4 hours ago Republicans fume over Dem threat of new impeachment articles: ‘Time to cut them off’ Republicans ratcheted up their accusations that Democrats are overplaying their impeachment hand after court filings from the House Judiciary Committee indicated the two articles of impeachment adopted last week may only be the beginning. GOP lawmakers already were fuming at Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her surprise decision to delay transmitting the articles to the Senate in a bid to extract favorable terms for President Trump's trial. But in the latest twist, the Democrat-led Judiciary panel referenced the possibility of yet additional impeachment articles in briefs filed Monday related to their quest for testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn and secret grand jury material from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. If the court allows them to obtain the information they seek, their attorney wrote, "new articles of impeachment" could be considered based on the evidence. GOP lawmakers reacted with stunned disbelief. "Democrats are treating impeachment as an open bar tab," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., tweeted Monday afternoon. "Time to cut them off, take their car keys away (put GOP in control of the House), and end this insanity." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-fume-over-dem-threat-of-new-impeachment-articles-time-to-cut-them-off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: As always I appreciate the civility extended as we disagree. I'm many things, naive is not one of them. It surprises me to hear you say it irked you that the Republican's "used it", while sort of glossing over the cover up. The cover up itself was political, why would anything else not be? It is interesting to me though, that in the eyes of Obama/Clinton supporters, a President excersizing his authority when considering extending foreign aid to a corrupt nation (that seems to be acknowledged by all, including current candidates Joe Biden) is impeachable, yet allowing the assassination of an ambassador and those their to protect him and concocting an elaborate cover up to impact the elections that falls apart in 14 days is just another day in Washington. As for my naivete regarding Rs ans Ds, here is what I have come to conclude. People like Obama, Clinton, Bush et al run in the same circles, form alliances and count on the collective innocence (or ignorance) of the voting public to not pick up on the scheme. It's the only thing that makes sense given the aftermath of election after election where horrible, horrible things are said about the other candidate, "Bush manufactures a war and young people die as a result) giving way to alliances after all is said and done. Mutually assured destruction and alliances of the heart are the reasons Obama wasn't impeached. Trump falls outside that circle of friends, and as pointed out many times here, poses a threat to that "thing of theirs". I admit the cover up was pathetic but McCarthy admitted the endless investigations were to harm Hillary's public perception. How's that not using it to achieve political goals? I'd tend to believe that line of reasoning if it wasn't for the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans hoped it would it would help them in the '98 midterms as impeachment of Clinton was popular among Republican pvoters at the time. It backfired as Gingrich resigned, Clinton's approval rating increased, and that cautionary tale is the main driving force behind not impeaching Bush or Obama. Polls conducted during the Bush and Obama years backed that up. The difference now is support for impeachment is near 50% depending on the polls. It may backfire but that's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I admit the cover up was pathetic but McCarthy admitted the endless investigations were to harm Hillary's public perception. How's that not using it to achieve political goals? I'd tend to believe that line of reasoning if it wasn't for the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans hoped it would it would help them in the '98 midterms as impeachment of Clinton was popular among Republican pvoters at the time. It backfired as Gingrich resigned, Clinton's approval rating increased, and that cautionary tale is the main driving force behind not impeaching Bush or Obama. Polls conducted during the Bush and Obama years backed that up. The difference now is support for impeachment is near 50% depending on the polls. It may backfire but that's the difference. Am I being punkd? Is that you Ashton Kuchner, over behind the potted plant?? I said 3 times Benghazi was political. Impeachment is political. My point was only that given what happened in Benghazi, there is not a political adversary that would not 'launch an investigation'. The cover up made it uglier than it was. It was an outright lie to the American people, manufactured and as I indicated earlier, imo, an effort to sew seeds of hatred against Libyans. But political, yes. Always. 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: I will never forget that! I knew she was lying when she went on those shows. And now people forget that it was just two months before the election. And Trump is ‘guilty’ of being focused on persons political gain? My arse! I was at the airport getting ready to fly to Buffalo for a game. My wife, the social media butterfly, tells me, there was an embassy blown up by protestors because of an internet video. I'm thinking, it's September 11. Those "protestors" had some serious fire power to gather together at the last minute due to a video. Didn't make sense. Still doesn't. And then there was that email to Chelsea ... Quote In the email, Mrs. Clinton tells her daughter -- who used the email pseudonym “Diane Reynolds” -- that the attacks were undertaken by an “Al Queda-like group.” https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/ 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Doc Brown said: The Benghazi cover up will always be the biggest black mark on the Obama administration, but Republicans using it as a political weapon in the guise of justice for the victims family irked me. I think you're naive if you think Republicans wouldn't have impeached Obama over a number of things if the majority of the public supported it. Sorry to project. Totally weaponized the families for an opportunity to grandstand, but that's just the way it goes. Off topic a bit, but the impeach Obama thing made me wonder what happened to the Tea Party. That whole thing seemed to magically disappear. While taxes were indeed cut, they were also very "interested" in fiscal responsibility. Deficit is spiraling out of control and not a peep. I think we all know the next step is the slashing of entitlements, but I'm also quite sure that won't be mentioned on the campaign trail. I always respected Paul Ryan even while I vehemently oppose his Any Rand approach to government. He didn't tippy toe around the issue and create the facade that you could slash taxes WITHOUT slashing entitlements/government spending. Straight shooter. Edited December 25, 2019 by LSHMEAB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: I admit the cover up was pathetic but McCarthy admitted the endless investigations were to harm Hillary's public perception. How's that not using it to achieve political goals? I'd tend to believe that line of reasoning if it wasn't for the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans hoped it would it would help them in the '98 midterms as impeachment of Clinton was popular among Republican pvoters at the time. It backfired as Gingrich resigned, Clinton's approval rating increased, and that cautionary tale is the main driving force behind not impeaching Bush or Obama. Polls conducted during the Bush and Obama years backed that up. The difference now is support for impeachment is near 50% depending on the polls. It may backfire but that's the difference. Do you have a link to the above highlighted statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said: Totally weaponized the families for an opportunity to grandstand, but that's just the way it goes. Off topic a bit, but the impeach Obama thing made me wonder what happened to the Tea Party. That whole thing seemed to magically disappear. While taxes were indeed cut, they were also very "interested" in fiscal responsibility. Deficit is spiraling out of control and not a peep. I think we all know the next step is the slashing of entitlements, but I'm also quite sure that won't be mentioned on the campaign trail. Republicans are only fiscal conservatives when out of power. In power they are Democrat-lite Disagree with the next step is cutting entitlements. The next step is 401k confiscation, err I mean federal oversight of individual retirement plans 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts