Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

It is interesting that issues that are dear to your are the right to life and conditions in Honduras.  IMHO, 45 has done more for those issues (though still not enough) than any other President since at least Reagan.

 

Just a couple of readily brought to mind examples:  45 was the 1st President ever to speak at the March for Life and the border wall that you dislike is being proposed and implemented in no small part to thwart human traffickers preying on the poor from Latin America.

 

Which brings back my earlier question: who will do more to effectively support (through actions, not words) issues that you hold dear than 45 has done & will do?

 

 

 

Thus why I doubt the legitimacy of that poster.

 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Margarita said:

says the poster who comes to the forum unsigned in to read her "Ignored users" you want to talk disingenuous we can go there...your cred with me is pretty low Gal I'll take your  council with a HUGE grain of salt

A grain of salt is measured to 64. 79198 milligrams. If you go to a salt store and ask them for a grain, they give you 64.79198 milligrams. Come back the next day, ask them for a HUGE grain of salt, they make you wait a bit, throw it in a larger bag and up charge you twice what they charged you the day before, but you get home with your same 64.79198 milligrams. 
 

It’s a huge problem with salt stores, pretty common knowledge they have their thumb on the scale. 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Breaking jokes aside -- color me shocked, not shocked. 

 

*****************

 

 

This, along with what appears to be unanimous acceptance from the left, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is all a partisan witch hunt.

 

They claim we need to hear "the truth," but are happy to have the truth silenced when it's inconvenient to their agenda.

 

They claim to be so pious that the slightest hint of impropriety must be met with the most extreme measures provided by law, yet cover their ears (and yours) and shriek when strong evidence of actual corruption by their ally (and presumptive Presidential nominee) is revealed.

 

They claim we must leave no stone unturned after months of investigation has yielded next to nothing. Yet they actively resist any investigation into, or even consideration of, something we know happened and for which they have no explanation, and then have the audacity to scream "cover up" when the rules that have always been followed are not subverted for them to engage in trial by ambush.

 

In one case guilt may be inferred from the flimsiest evidence based on conjecture as to what they assume the President might well have thought. In the other, a mountain of evidence of clear corruption can be summarily brushed away by an offhand statement to the effect of "nothing to see here".

 

It's the most blatant and transparent case of selective prosecution, faux outrage, and yes, abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

 

This, along with what appears to be unanimous acceptance from the left, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is all a partisan witch hunt.

 

They claim we need to hear "the truth," but are happy to have the truth silenced when it's inconvenient to their agenda.

 

They claim to be so pious that the slightest hint of impropriety must be met with the most extreme measures provided by law, yet cover their ears (and yours) and shriek when strong evidence of actual corruption by their ally (and presumptive Presidential nominee) is revealed.

 

They claim we must leave no stone unturned after months of investigation has yielded next to nothing. Yet they actively resist any investigation into, or even consideration of, something we know happened and for which they have no explanation, and then have the audacity to scream "cover up" when the rules that have always been followed are not subverted for them to engage in trial by ambush.

 

In one case guilt may be inferred from the flimsiest evidence based on conjecture as to what they assume the President might well have thought. In the other, a mountain of evidence of clear corruption can be summarily brushed away by an offhand statement to the effect of "nothing to see here".

 

It's the most blatant and transparent case of selective prosecution, faux outrage, and yes, abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime.

 

:beer: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...