Trump lost moving on with new year go Biden

Just what you trumptards want to hear




Iowans, Famously Indecisive, Worry the 2020 Race Is ‘a Mess’

NEWTON, Iowa — Lois Grier knows she has to make a decision about the Democratic primary soon.

She and her husband, Ted, traveled from their home in Otley to hear Bernie Sanders on Saturday and hoped to see Pete Buttigieg, too. But though Ms. Grier, 62, cares about issues like health care, what she is yearning to find above all is a White House hopeful she believes can defeat President Trump.

She hasn’t found one yet.

“It’s important to narrow it in to somebody that can beat Trump,” she said, adding that she would be watching the debate on Tuesday in Des Moines closely for telltale signs.


 
things not all roses for the chumpster


Republicans at odds over impeachment trial terms as Trump floats dismissal

Washington is just days away from the start of the first impeachment trial in over two decades, but congressional leaders remain at odds over what exactly it will look like.
Even after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ended her unofficial filibuster of the process last Friday and committed to sending the impeachment articles to the Senate, Republican lawmakers are continuing to have discussions over whether the trial should feature a new round of witness testimony. Some GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, are aiming for a quick verdict and President Trump himself has started to publicly argue that the case simply should be dismissed.

The timing for all of this remains fluid. While Pelosi could prepare to send the articles to the Senate as early as Tuesday, a congressional source told Fox News that the speaker could wait until later in the week.
The trial would not begin the moment Pelosi transmits the articles – alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – to the Senate either. A Senate GOP aide told Fox News that there would be three to four days of pre-trial preparations.

The aide told Fox News that part of the pre-trial prep would include the swearing-in of senators and U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, briefings from the House managers and President Trump’s legal team, and a debate and vote on the resolution that would lay out the parameters for the trial.

How the trial would proceed remains an open question

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has repeatedly said that the resolution to govern the impeachment trial in the Senate would mirror the one used for then-President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999 — setting a time frame for the trail to begin, with the opportunity for lawmakers to determine how to proceed on potential witness testimony and additional documents later, after both the president’s defense and the prosecution make their opening statements.

McConnell has insisted that he has the votes to pass the organizing resolution and begin the trial, before committing to witness testimony. In impeachment, most resolutions can pass with a simple majority. To remove the president from office, though, there must be 67 votes.

But while some Republicans have argued against the possibility of new witness testimony, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said last week that she was working with a “fairly small group” of GOP senators to ensure that witnesses can be called in Trump’s trial.

“I have had many discussions with some of my Republican colleagues on how we can adhere as closely as practical to the precedent for conducting the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which included as a third stage the decision on whether to call witnesses,” Collins said last week. “I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for witnesses for both the House managers and the President’s counsel if they choose to do so.”

She added: “It is important that both sides be treated fairly

Democrats are keen to see the Senate call in high-level witnesses who did not testify on the House side — especially former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who recently offered to come forward, only for Trump to indicate he could claim executive privilege to stop it.

Trump has gone further in recent days, suggesting over the weekend the Senate should bypass a trial and dismiss the articles.

“Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, ‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have,” Trump tweeted on Sunday. “I agree!”

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham on Monday doubled down on the president's suggestion.

"I think the president's communicating that there should be a dismissal because he did nothing wrong," Grisham said on Fox News' "Outnumbered Overtime." "The president shouldn't have to go through this. He did nothing wrong. He released transcripts, willingly, because he did nothing wrong, and so, he's made that clear all along."

She added: "Obviously, he would want a dismissal of everything. But at the end of the day, if it does go to the Senate for a trial, he does want it to be fair, which is all he deserves."

The president’s tweet came just days after a group of Republican senators, including McConnell, signed onto a resolution put forth by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., that would allow the chamber to dismiss impeachment against Trump should Pelosi continue to hold onto the articles.

That resolution, though, became somewhat moot after Pelosi announced on Friday that she would send the articles and announce House managers to prosecute the case.

Still, Trump-allied GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said over the weekend that he anticipates this trial would be over in a matter of days.

The president, meanwhile, slammed Pelosi and Democrats on Monday, calling into question their demands for fairness by citing the process on the House side.

In the House impeachment inquiry, largely led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Democrats had final say over witnesses. Democrats did, however, give Republican lawmakers the ability to subpoena witnesses with the concurrence of Democratic committee chairs and members.

read more:

 
Yup like I been sayin - too many bozos :}


they all have great ideas to help those in need....but the country it's self is hurting right now...the deficit...which the right NEVER cares about....but we just can't afford to many give away programs....focus on health care and infrastructure....after that see where it goes

although need to undue all that ******* trump did for parks...coal ...pollution and etc
 
Love see Warren and Sanders fighting......be nice if they both knocked each other out but don't see that happening….
warren will say anything to get your vote and tell you whatever you want to hear......Sanders was a sneaky little fuck last election....he got caught hacking Hillary's site getting her donors and managers......and even after got caught offering one big bucks to join him if she brought the names of dems from that district...…..anything to win...we already have one of those......problem is he has the youth on his side saying we need a revolution...for free education and etc...and they bought the ******* he put out..(kind of like trump and his *******)….what fucked things up last time....Sanders he would not support Clinton...and his people just did not vote......what happens this time...he has a lot of support....yet the conservative Dems will not support him...he really thinks he is a winner and has a lot of support and now that it is growing he smells ******* and going after the other dems


him just being in has pretty much cost the dems the ticket.....if he doesn't get the nod this time...and his people don't vote again....guess what we have
 
This is perfect and truth, way to go posting it.



good example of how closed minded you are......the right posts an article...you read and comment and love it....the left posts something...you completely ignore....good example of why you post what you do with very little knowledge of the subject at hand.......….I have a good answer/opinion for that....but you don't want to hear it
 
good example of how closed minded you are......the right posts an article...you read and comment and love it....the left posts something...you completely ignore....good example of why you post what you do with very little knowledge of the subject at hand.......….I have a good answer/opinion for that....but you don't want to hear it
Yes I read that one, how do you know I don't read some of yours? I do in case you need an answer.
 
sorry but just a few posts up in this thread....you already stated you don't!
you only read MY comments...nothing else!
I did not say I don't read all of them, I said I prefer your typed comments, I can't possibly read everything you post, I do scan the headlines, but in order for me to read them, they need to peak my interest. It is almost impossible to take-in all the negative articles about Trump nor do I search much for positive articles that support Trump. All the same opinions over and over again get old.

You are Correct I do ignore most of your rhetoric other then actual typed out comments( In other words I do read all of your comments) but just because someone don't read all of the articles you copy and paste doesn't make us trumptards or devil worshipers, which I do not consider to be Reasonable Political Discussions. I worship no man other then Jesus Christ. Refresh my memory, which post did I insult you most ? Proceed to share.
 
Love see Warren and Sanders fighting......be nice if they both knocked each other out but don't see that happening….
warren will say anything to get your vote and tell you whatever you want to hear......Sanders was a sneaky little fuck last election....he got caught hacking Hillary's site getting her donors and managers......and even after got caught offering one big bucks to join him if she brought the names of dems from that district...…..anything to win...we already have one of those......problem is he has the youth on his side saying we need a revolution...for free education and etc...and they bought the ******* he put out..(kind of like trump and his *******)….what fucked things up last time....Sanders he would not support Clinton...and his people just did not vote......what happens this time...he has a lot of support....yet the conservative Dems will not support him...he really thinks he is a winner and has a lot of support and now that it is growing he smells ******* and going after the other dems


him just being in has pretty much cost the dems the ticket.....if he doesn't get the nod this time...and his people don't vote again....guess what we have
I don't know if you have read this article,
 
Welcome to these never ending political debates @Rambbc. Trump might not be perfect as he might have had failures just as all of us did in life. But I object to the idea that Donald Trump is a racist. Want proof? Here Donald Trump was in 1998. Care to see who he helped out? If Donald Trump was a racist he could have easily said no thanks, I got a headache. Call me again after I play some golf. Be sure to watch the following short video to the end and see if you can find any holes in my argument @Rambbc:


I appreciate your sensible response. The debate will certainly continue on forever. I want you to know I watched this video in its entirety. In this video, there is zero proof of racism. And in fact, if we go back to that era, specifically that era of New York politics, there were a great many black leaders that cozied up to tRump. I would argue toward BLACK folks, there is little evidence of OVERT, racism, particularly in the public record.

However, I would say That the argument for tRumps racism is not, (no pun intended) black or white, but rather grayish (as are most forms of racism) and is too often simplified and boiled down to the lowest common denominator. No record of him using racial epithets toward black people are readily available, he has appeared to be in the past, what some would perceive as “close” with the members of the black community, and even has and has had black people working for him in his organization. He even did what was “right” so to speak, with regard to the Rainbow Push & Coalition. All of this is true. Regardless of the nature of multiple parties involved (Rev Al, Rev Jackson & tRump) really using each other to futher their agendas, it is all true. So we will leave that aside.

Having said all of that, that doesn’t mean he is not racist. All of these things can be true at the same time. Because he works with or has worked with black people in the past and present, doesn’t mean that he isn't racist on its own. To put these instances up as evidence we would be ignoring his position towards Muslims, and Latinos. His racism toward them is NOT debatable, unless you are willingly ignoring what he has said, done and how he has behaved. Then you would not be arguing in good faith, and so I would end the conversation. However, I assume you are a right thinking person, and are arguing this position in good faith, and not to gaslight. I assume you can see, and that we agree, that as clear mountain spring water, what he hasn‘t expressed openly about or toward “black” people, he has ad nauseam about Latinos and Muslims & middle eastern folks. We could stop there and the argument is over. Nobody debates this in good faith.

However, getting back to black folks, if one wants to look at times where he has not shown open vitriol towards black people as evidence of a lack of racism I would say this. Do not be so blind and so easily fooled. Not denouncing white supremacy, or kinda sorta doing so after the fact, then walking it back and making false equivalencies like saying there were people on “both sides” not not be open “racism“, it’s sure not against it. By calling the NFL players who kneeled “Sons of bitches” is not saying “those N__ers” he wasn’t talking about anybody else but certain folk. When he goes after folks of color in the media, they’re always “low IQ” and so on. Saying “I’m not racist” and hiding behind your connection to “your blacks” as he so eloquently stated, that you have in your orbit doesn’t make you not racist. Even the racists think he’s racist! David Duke of KKK fame, Alt-Right inspired and public speaker Richard Spencer, The Proud Boys multiple other hate groups all endorse him as “their“ guy. That he stands up for and represents what they believe and he can’t even denounce them.

My original point wasn’t about his racism. This is a known fact. Fox News poll of their viewers overwhelmingly saw him as a racist. I almost don’t even care about that. My problem with him is what he is doing to democracy, the law, and the idea of right and wrong. He gives everyone the excuse to be shitty because he is. Look at the public discourse. Everyone just wanting to “own” and “troll” people. “Own the libs“, “trump derangement” blah blah. Ignoring very basic elemental components to what actual DID make this country great. It didn’t need his help, we were already “great”, with room to be better. What are we now? Everyone knows you shouldn’t make money personally through the presidency. Pay to play isn’t that what they call it? Making international policy decisions based on what’s best for your business? Doing all the political bidding, and giving every political advantage to Russia it could ever want. Sacrificing our country for his own personal benefit. These things are OBVIOUS. Thinking he is above the law, that he is a king and not a president. That sommuch he has done and is trying to do is a antithetical to a democracy. I like democracy, I never want to see an autocracy, and left up to him, that’s what we would be.

Regarding his racis racism. I don’t have the brain power desire or time to go through every innuendo, dog whistle, and instance of his speaking with the world loudest bull horn from the worlds most powerful position in a suggestive provocative way when it comes to stoking racial tensions. Nor do I have anymore time to devote to proving and looking up the past civil rights housing lawsuits and violations he and his ******* were brought to court for over the years to present here, or his position on the Central Park 5 even to this day. I don’t. If your choice is to delude yourself into thinking he isn’t racist, then that’s between you and you.
 
well first off do you really think that Ukraine is going to say anything against trump....the person right now controlling the purse strings....and has shown a bunch of times he is friendly with Russia......and country they are in a fierce fight with and losing lives daily fighting….so trump has them over a barrell….congress willing to give money to help....several republicans provide lip service but seem to support trump on all issues...but trump can say..AGAIN hold the money...last time lucky someone over heard the conversation...this time trump has blocked anyone from hearing his phone calls....and trumps appointee to Ukraine even stated before that Ukraine will say or do whatever you want!
bottom line...he was blackmailing another country....to help him with an American election...HIS!
last time it was Russia...and our gov has already admitted they are back at it again....think one of the articles above said Russia spent a million dollars a month on good press for trump and lies about Hillary......throw in Ukraine saying something knocking Biden our...makes him look like the only possible winner....none of the others Dems are going to make it......the mayor is good and so is Amy nobblecocker….but...….sanders and warren have the gift to gab and getting support.....but a lot won't vote for them!
Ok @subhub174014 again I am technically an alien to the Code of Laws of the United States of America. Again the American Constitution might have been drilled into your head when you went through school. And you recognize that Trump is guilty. Fine. I was hoping you would be able to cite the exact Title(s), Subtitle(s), Chapter(s), Subchapter(s), Part(s), Subpart(s), Section(s), Subsection(s), Paragraph(s), Subparagraph(s), Clause(s), Subclause(s), Item(s), and Subitem(s) illustrating Trump's breaches of American law?

If you can do that no only have you proven Donald Trump's guilt that you posted from the Washington Post called "Trump has done plenty to warrant impeachment. But the Ukraine allegations are over the top" where you would have shut me up there completely, but such a rigorous argument could be sent to Pelosi that she could use against Trump and you would be an hero to the Democrats @subhub174014 where Trump is removed from office? And while you are at it you can send that argument to the authorities as well? After all you did say you wanted Trump locked up? So now would be an excellent time to dust off any of your old school books or other reading material or websites where the Code of Laws of the United States of America are stored to prove your case that Trump broke those laws beyond any reasonable doubt? Or would it be another document(s)? That was what I was after @subhub174014 .

So if you or anyone can find them from your own laws by all means use them.
Otherwise it's four more years President Trump.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code )
 
Last edited:
@MacNfries I know you are a Christian. I know your position about Trump is similar to @subhub174014 . You clearly understand he is not God. At best Trump might be a prophet like King David: he killed another man to marry his wife and had a c.hild with her. That is not Godly acts but afterwards David was repenting for his acts and God cleared him. Similarly if God were to permit Trump to be re-elected that should settle things too, but possibly Pelosi will try to play her hand with impeachment AFTER Trump wins so as to hound him at a better occasion? Time will ultimately tell? :unsure:

Bible verses about King David can be found below by the way if any are interested
( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+11-12&version=NKJV )
 
Just what you trumptards want to hear




Iowans, Famously Indecisive, Worry the 2020 Race Is ‘a Mess’

NEWTON, Iowa — Lois Grier knows she has to make a decision about the Democratic primary soon.

She and her husband, Ted, traveled from their home in Otley to hear Bernie Sanders on Saturday and hoped to see Pete Buttigieg, too. But though Ms. Grier, 62, cares about issues like health care, what she is yearning to find above all is a White House hopeful she believes can defeat President Trump.

She hasn’t found one yet.

“It’s important to narrow it in to somebody that can beat Trump,” she said, adding that she would be watching the debate on Tuesday in Des Moines closely for telltale signs.


If the Dems are this indecisive what makes you think the American electorate would not be? :unsure:
 
If the Dems are this indecisive what makes you think the American electorate would not be? :unsure:
Well, for one thing, think back to the 2016 GOP primaries and how screwed up the Republicans were. Also, its still early in choosing a candidate to represent the Democrats. Mainstream Democrats are thinking a moderate, centrist candidate (my choice as well) who can get Washington DC back to a functional system. Still, a lot of extreme left candidates think there needs to be a candidate for the unrepresented poor & lower middleclass. I can't disagree with that, BUT, that's not going to get the parties working together. I still think Biden will be the chosen representative, and it wouldn't necessarily bad if Biden chose a moderate from the conservative ranks to serve as VP. One thing for sure, we need to get extremism out of Washington some way.
 
Back
Top