Trump basking in glory
#1
Am I the only one that noticed trump for some reason had to Explain why killing baghdadi was so much better than killing Osama bin Laden.
Reply
#2
(10-27-2019, 07:00 PM)tvguy Wrote: Am I the only one that noticed trump for some reason had to Explain why killing baghdadi was so much better than killing Osama bin Laden.

I haven't seen that but I expected it. He wouldn't be trump if he didn't.

I predicted that he would back in 2010.   Razz Laughing
Reply
#3
Well, to be honest, I'm not watching, but I would assume so. Though didn't he say, back when Bin Laden was taken down that it wasn't Obama who took down Bin Laden, it was the Navy? Of COURSE he's doing this now. I don't even have to look to know. The guy is pathological.
Reply
#4
Did you see that he went to the World Series and was greeted with Boooo's and Lock Him Up?


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/o...s-baseball

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Reply
#5
(10-27-2019, 09:18 PM)Scrapper Wrote: Did you see that he went to the World Series and was greeted with Boooo's and Lock Him Up?


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/o...s-baseball

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yes.
Reply
#6
(10-27-2019, 09:18 PM)Scrapper Wrote: Did you see that he went to the World Series and was greeted with Boooo's and Lock Him Up?


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/o...s-baseball

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I did now. They said.....Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and both Bushes were all booed while attending baseball games as President.
I doubt they were booed as loudly.
Reply
#7
My thought on Trump calling the guy a coward and a dog and that he whimpered and cried was not just meaningless an unprofessional. But that it's possible if not likely to create even more hatred from ISIS types. It could actually be motivating some bomber to do something he may not have done without all the insults.
Reply
#8
(10-28-2019, 01:13 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 09:18 PM)Scrapper Wrote: Did you see that he went to the World Series and was greeted with Boooo's and Lock Him Up?


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/o...s-baseball

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I did now. They said.....Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and both Bushes were all booed while attending baseball games as President.
I doubt they were booed as loudly.

Were they chanting "Lock Him Up!" to them as well? Where there huge banners that said "Impeach Trump" and "Veterans for Impeachment"? I'm pretty sure the others were nothing like this.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Reply
#9
(10-28-2019, 04:20 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 01:13 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 09:18 PM)Scrapper Wrote: Did you see that he went to the World Series and was greeted with Boooo's and Lock Him Up?


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/o...s-baseball

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I did now. They said.....Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and both Bushes were all booed while attending baseball games as President.
I doubt they were booed as loudly.

Were they chanting "Lock Him Up!" to them as well? Where there huge banners that said "Impeach Trump" and "Veterans for Impeachment"? I'm pretty sure the others were nothing like this.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 This makes me smile.


  Bill Clinton......29% said he should be impeached and 67% against it.

  Trump.....      50% said he should be impeached and 43% against it.

   





The Baltimore Sun
In early February of 1998 as Ken Starr assured reporters his behind-closeddoors impeachment inquiry was moving expeditiously and Bill Clinton was announcing he had no intention of stepping down, CNN and Time conducted a poll asking whether Americans supported impeachment. Just 19% said he should be impeached, with 73% against it. Over the next nine months as more details leaked from the grand jury and the Starr Report was submitted to the House of Representatives, those numbers shifted — marginally — to 29% and 67%, respectively.
This week, CNN released a poll that asked the public a similar question about the current president.
The result? Fifty percent of Americans think President Donald Trump “should be impeached and removed from office,” with 43% opposed and 7% expressing no opinion.
In other words, Americans aren’t just prepared for the possibility of impeachment, they are embracing it along with a Senate conviction. This shift in public opinion (last March, an identical poll found impeachment and removal supported by just 36% of Americans) demonstrates that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision just one month ago to formally launch an impeachment inquiry was exactly the right call. And her choice to sharply focus it on whether President Trump betrayed his oath of office, compromised national security and abused his power for personal gain through his interactions with Ukraine has hit the mark as well.
How quickly the ground has shifted in Washington. Instead of a politically risky move for House Democrats, impeachment now appears broadly popular and inevitable. And it just seems to be picking up steam whether from the testimony of the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who warned the administration of linking Ukraine security assistance with partisan investigations or the recent statements of acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney who essentially acknowledged (and then attempted to walk back) a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s infamous July phone call with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
Meanwhile, the notion that Trump might put self-interest above national interest keeps getting reinforced by actions like his attempt to stage the G-7 meeting at his own Florida resort. He reversed course on that one, too, but not without a clapback at the U.S. Constitution and its “phony emoluments clause.”
If anything, Speaker Pelosi’s biggest problem is a slowing pace as new information keeps coming out every day, and that’s forcing the three House committees looking into the matter to chase down new leads. That, and the untimely passing of House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, who was heavily involved in the investigation, seems to have Democrats rethinking their timetable.
While Pelosi never announced a timetable, many in the House had expected the matter to reach the House floor before Thanksgiving.
Now, it appears it might take until year’s end — or beyond. Meanwhile, distractions like the GOP effort to censure Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff or the president’s latest tweets (for instance, calling the inquiry a “lynching,” an especially vile comparison given U.S. history) are unlikely to move anyone’s opinion one way or the other.
Would an impeachment vote in the House help or hurt Democrats in 2020? Who knows?
And frankly, no one involved in this effort should care. What members of Congress should be focused on right now, what the Constitution demands, is to hold the sitting president accountable. No one should be above the rule of law. If this distracts from the Democrats running for president, if it forces red-state Democrats to take a vote they find “tough,” well, too bad about that, too. The national interest must be held above partisan political interest. That’s what the nation demands at this moment in time. Now, more than ever.
It may be hopeless to expect two-thirds of the Senate to convict no matter how compelling a case for high crimes and misdemeanors is made, but there is honor in the attempt.
Americans have heard enough to recognize that there is no recourse but to move forward with impeachment.
Reply
#10
But the Senate has to do the deed....and no matter what polls say, it's up to them. I'm appalled at how badly an individual elected officer can behave and heads are turned and it's just ignored for the sake of a few standing points. It makes me afraid. It's truly astonishing, because if people can ignore all the horrible stuff that comes out of this Presidents mouth and his ethics and actions and still support him because what they like about SOME of the things he's done, or has to the potential to support; that's scary, because they are worse than he is.
Reply
#11
(10-28-2019, 08:06 PM)Juniper Wrote: But the Senate has to do the deed....and no matter what polls say, it's up to them.  I'm appalled at how badly an individual elected officer can behave and heads are turned and it's just ignored for the sake of a few standing points. It makes me afraid.  It's truly astonishing, because if people can ignore all the horrible stuff that comes out of this Presidents mouth and his ethics and actions and still support him because what they like about SOME of the things he's done, or has to the potential to support;  that's scary, because they are worse than he is.

Agreed. But they impeached Clinton and all he did was lie about having sex with a consenting adult.
Reply
#12
(10-29-2019, 12:45 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 08:06 PM)Juniper Wrote: But the Senate has to do the deed....and no matter what polls say, it's up to them.  I'm appalled at how badly an individual elected officer can behave and heads are turned and it's just ignored for the sake of a few standing points. It makes me afraid.  It's truly astonishing, because if people can ignore all the horrible stuff that comes out of this Presidents mouth and his ethics and actions and still support him because what they like about SOME of the things he's done, or has to the potential to support;  that's scary, because they are worse than he is.

Agreed. But they impeached Clinton and all he did was lie about having sex with a consenting adult.

Clinton was a democrat.
Reply
#13
(10-29-2019, 07:26 AM)Juniper Wrote:
(10-29-2019, 12:45 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 08:06 PM)Juniper Wrote: But the Senate has to do the deed....and no matter what polls say, it's up to them.  I'm appalled at how badly an individual elected officer can behave and heads are turned and it's just ignored for the sake of a few standing points. It makes me afraid.  It's truly astonishing, because if people can ignore all the horrible stuff that comes out of this Presidents mouth and his ethics and actions and still support him because what they like about SOME of the things he's done, or has to the potential to support;  that's scary, because they are worse than he is.

Agreed. But they impeached Clinton and all he did was lie about having sex with a consenting adult.

Clinton was a democrat.

And politics have changed for the worse since then.
Reply
#14
The rethugs all took $$$ from the NRA and Russia and Lev and Igor. They’re fucked so they have to stick together in their criminal minds.
This is a textbook mob operation and the GCGs of our country love it because....?
Owning the libs, I guess. Everyone that was smarter than them in school.
A nation of Biffs.
Reply
#15
(10-29-2019, 05:20 PM)bbqboy Wrote: The rethugs all took $$$ from the NRA and Russia and Lev and Igor. They’re fucked so they have to stick together in their criminal minds.
This is a textbook mob operation and the GCGs of our country love it because....?
Owning the libs, I guess. Everyone that was smarter than them in school.
A nation of Biffs.

I'm starting to think maybe you have a crush on me. Embarrassed
Reply
#16
October 29, 2019

Well, let's start with the day's most important news: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified today before the House committees investigating impeachment, majored in History in college.

I mean, really, 'nuff said, right?

But there were a few other, less important things that happened today, too. (And, for what it's worth, I'm being a bit flippant because I am disturbed by what we saw today.)

Vindman, who is on the staff of the National Security Council (the NSC), which is the group of people charged with advising the president about foreign affairs and national security issues, said in a statement before his testimony that he was uncomfortable enough with the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine president Zelensky that he reported it to superiors. A few items leaked from the hearing, which took ten hours. They suggested that he tried to fill in the missing pieces of the readout as we have seen it (it is emphatically not a transcript, but rather a general representation) but was overruled. Vindman was actually on the July 25 phone call, and those who heard his testimony about that call said it was "very disturbing."

Vindman showed up to testify, appropriately, in his dress uniform. He is an active duty officer, who has served the United States in South Korea and Iraq, where he was wounded. He has sworn an oath to protect America, and he has put skin in the game.

But Trump and his supporters attacked him, viciously and insidiously. Trump said he had never heard of him and that he was a "Never Trumper" (in reality, Trump appointed him to the NSC). Truly disgustingly-- and I do not say that lightly-- Laura Ingraham and her guest John Yoo (who wrote the infamous torture memos for President George W. Bush), implied that Vindman, who was born in the USSR and immigrated to America as a three-year-old, was a spy.

Hold that thought, because here's the other major thing that happened today:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a resolution establishing procedures for the House impeachment investigation. Republicans have insisted that the investigation is not legitimate because there has not been a formal vote (this is dead wrong, as I keep saying: the House can order an impeachment hearing however it wants), and a judge last Friday shot this argument down. But now, with firm legal standing for their inquiry, House Democrats are giving the GOP what they demanded: a formal vote on procedure. But GOP complainers were grandstanding, while the House Democrats hold the winning hand on this issue. The procedures the Democrats are advancing continue the existing investigations among a number of House committees, but give the official lead to the House Intelligence Committee, led by California's Adam Schiff, and also authorize the Judiciary Committee to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

These procedural rules allow Republicans to have the same time to question witnesses as Democrats do, but they only permit Republican witnesses if the Democrat-dominated committees agree. While this will gall today's Republicans, this is the formula established by Republicans in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment. And the time for questioning is tight, so there will not be endless hearings, which was a delaying tactic Republicans wanted. The hearings and the transcripts from the investigation can be public, as Republicans have demanded, but for all their calls for public hearings, the last thing Republicans want is for regular Americans to hear what has been uniformly damaging testimony. The House Rules Committee can make changes to this resolution (no one pays much attention to the Rules Committee, but it is hugely important because it, well, makes the rules), but I would not expect big changes from it. The House will vote on this resolution on Thursday, and it should pass.

Republicans have howled that the House investigation is illegitimate because there was no formal vote on impeachment. Pelosi has called their bluff, and is giving them one. But, for their part, Republicans instantly moved the goal posts. They insist that the vote they demanded for weeks doesn't actually change anything. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (who took Russian money from Parnas and Fruman-- I feel like we always need to say that with him) tweeted that he would still not cooperate with the investigation: "We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment."

It becomes clearer and clearer that Republicans are engaging in a war of narrative instead of operating in good faith to govern the nation. Republican Representative Ted Yoho from Florida, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has been vocal about the Democrat's "closed door" investigation, admitted today he had not bothered to show up for the hearings, which he should be attending. Although he admitted the hearings were constitutionally legitimate, he called them a "sideshow" and said he had more pressing business to attend to. (Remember, just days ago, Republicans stormed the hearing room demanding transparency... even though Republicans on the relevant committees have as much access as Democrats.) And the Republican House members in today's hearing with Vindman apparently kept trying to get him to identify the whistleblower. At this point, there is so much damning evidence there is simply no reason to identify him or her other than to please the president, who tweets about the whistleblower constantly. But, lest we forget, unmasking the whistleblower is a crime.

Today's developments have me introspective tonight. To me, the only reason Republican leaders could behave as they are is that they are unwilling to accept the legitimacy of Democratic governance under any circumstances.

They will dismiss a decorated military officer as a spy if he testifies against Trump, despite the fact he has clearances that Jared Kushner could not get (Trump had to overrule the security officers to get him clearance). They will demand procedural votes and then, when the Democrats provide them (with the same bias Republicans offered to Democrats in 1998), they spurn them out of hand. At least some Republicans are telling their base they are being shut out of impeachment hearings but the truth is they are choosing not to go. And our elected Representatives, sworn to uphold our laws, appear to be angling to break the law and out a whistleblower.

All of these things add up to a cabal that is willing to do anything to hold onto power. To me, it looks like they do not believe anyone else can legitimately govern.

Vindman could tell them that such a worldview leads a party to very bad places indeed.

After all, he majored in History.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)