Shows Dems failed to provide enough to impeach. Couple this with Trumps surging numbers and the local nuts must be sleepless. A party without a compass will go in circles

Shows Dems failed to provide enough to impeach. Couple this with Trumps surging numbers and the local nuts must be sleepless. A party without a compass will go in circles
No source. Good to see you’re scared.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No source. Good to see you’re scared.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know he's not scared. He has no reason to be. Trump isn't going to get removed, and your side is fielding candidates with no wide appeal. I thought Biden was formidable, but calling a voter in Iowa "fat" and challenging him to a pushup contest, may not play well. That, and his admission that he likes it when young boys rub his leg hair...yeesh.

Many of the polls also show they do not want an impeachment.
Gallup
Monmouth
Quinnipiac
USA Today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor Jeff , he has a difficult time acknowledging these truths.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Representative Max Rose (D., N.Y.) pushed back Friday on efforts to include evidence from the Mueller Report in articles of impeachment against President Trump, saying that he “was very serious” when previously warning against impeaching Trump based on Mueller’s evidence.

“I was against going through with the impeachment previous to this Ukraine matter,” Rose told CNN. “So with the understanding that I’m not going to entertain any hypotheticals, I was very serious when I came out and said that.”

Earlier this week, Rose said he would wait to see the articles before deciding if he’d vote to impeach.





Rep. Collin Peterson (D)Minnesota

After his "no" vote, Peterson said in a statement that the process "continues to be hopelessly partisan."

"I have some serious concerns with the way the closed-door depositions were run, and am skeptical that we will have a process that is open, transparent and fair. Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake," Peterson said.

Peterson said in September that impeachment would further polarize the country.

“If anyone thinks a partisan impeachment process would constrain President Trump, they are fooling themselves. Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment proceedings will be a lengthy and divisive action with no resolution,” Peterson said in a statement.

GREATEST PRESIDENT OF OUR LIFETIME 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍


I do have a few issues with our President Donald Trump.


This economy is so good (BEST OF OUR LIFETIME) that sitting in traffic is a daily thing because record numbers of vehicles are on the roads going to work every day and add in the fact price of gas & diesel has been low and stable, not bouncing up & down

Trying to go to a restaurant for dinner (any day of the week) long lines and waiting list for a table 🤭

Every where I drive there is unsightly construction going on. I go into Boston and cranes everywhere blocking the view of the city skyline 🤭

GREATEST PRESIDENT OF OUR LIFETIME 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍


I do have a few issues with our President Donald Trump.


This economy is so good (BEST OF OUR LIFETIME) that sitting in traffic is a daily thing because record numbers of vehicles are on the roads going to work every day and add in the fact price of gas & diesel has been low and stable, not bouncing up & down

Trying to go to a restaurant for dinner (any day of the week) long lines and waiting list for a table 🤭

Every where I drive there is unsightly construction going on. I go into Boston and cranes everywhere blocking the view of the city skyline 🤭


Ronnie....I have worked building homes for over 45 years. Right now the demand for new homes is as high as I have ever seen it. We are working like mad trying to keep up. Customers are not hesitating because they know if they dont buy..someone else will.
Obviously it is the very strong economy driving this buying.

Most all the guys I work with, (except those with questionable legal status) support the President and his policies.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Unlike dangles linkless offering this poll is 47 for and 43 against

But unlike the Trump fan club and Republicans who see any poll suggesting against impeachment.

As some kind of an affirmation of Trump and his conduct.. is based in fantasies.. their selling a narritave if he gets impeached anyone who was against it are magically going to be outraged and vote Republican..

Funny to see the data Republicans once called fake. They now embrace
Dems thought poll were right in 2016 ..

Heres a poll you'll call fake

President Donald Trump is unpopular. In fact, through 1,048 days, his average approval rating is back to being the very worst of the polling-era presidents. According to FiveThirtyEight, he’s at 41.6
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again you have overlooked the fact that he is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If only the Dems could run a true moderate :hs:

GREATEST PRESIDENT OF OUR LIFETIME 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍


No he's not :rotflmao:

There are going to be negative order of effects probably approaching Jimmy Carter level (and you panty bunchers, Trump in some ways is an Obama failure :laughs: ).

But I am still not convinced this is near as bad as a Hillary Admin.

Once again you have overlooked the fact that he is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gee wiz, we haven’t heard that broken record enough, but it’s no surprise to hear that party line. You have your opinion, it in no way makes it so, I’d give him decent marks for holding on to a strong economy, but at a big expense that we all will have to pay later; this administration just like other keeps spending beyond its means.

I’d give him low marks on foreign affairs, he has emboldened Putin and legitimized NK without getting a damn thing in return and Syria and Middle East handling is beyond pour.

Environmental policies are a complete fail, but maybe your kids children can find a new planet to live on in the suburbs.

For a guy that claimed to get in to solve the immigration problem, he has just made a big fat mess of it, the problem expanding under his administration.

If he is the best ever, why do all the truly quality people run for the door after a short visit to the circus and we are left with countless temporary appointments and a nut job rogue lawyer handling foreign policy.

If all you care about is your bank account and a lower tax bill if your a higher earner, then your narrow vision sees what it’s capable of seeing, nothing off to the side or in the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I appreciate your opinion.👍🏽
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gee wiz, we haven’t heard that broken record enough, but it’s no surprise to hear that party line. You have your opinion, it in no way makes it so, I’d give him decent marks for holding on to a strong economy, but at a big expense that we all will have to pay later; this administration just like other keeps spending beyond its means.

He is not "holding on" to a strong economy. He changed some of the things that he had power over which were holding the economy back, namely lowering taxes and eliminating a lot of economy choking regulations. Without that, we might be still "holding on" to a weak economy, or worse.

I’d give him low marks on foreign affairs, he has emboldened Putin and legitimized NK without getting a damn thing in return and Syria and Middle East handling is beyond pour.

I had an involuntary short burst of laughter reading that. Putin has always been a bold authoritarian. He invaded Ukraine during the previous administration. He constantly tested the West. NK was always been "legitimate." It didn't get any more so during Trump's era. He has harassed it more the most other Presidents. I'm not seeing a greater threat from nor a more burning mess in he Middle East now than during the previous administration. It actually seems to be quieter.

Environmental policies are a complete fail, but maybe your kids children can find a new planet to live on in the suburbs.

Our environment is fine. We are not in charge of every one else's.

For a guy that claimed to get in to solve the immigration problem, he has just made a big fat mess of it, the problem expanding under his administration.

I thought the number of border crossings is down,

If he is the best ever, why do all the truly quality people run for the door after a short visit to the circus and we are left with countless temporary appointments and a nut job rogue lawyer handling foreign policy.

They are replaced with other quality people who don't try to undermine him.

If all you care about is your bank account and a lower tax bill if your a higher earner, then your narrow vision sees what it’s capable of seeing, nothing off to the side or in the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The whole spectrum of our society is doing better. If you're concerned about the national debt all of a sudden, it had already been unsustainable under normal conditions. The only way to have brought it under control is cut a lot of program spending and limit the federal government to only programs that are allowed to it under the Constitution, and to allow the economy enough freedom to produce enough wealth to create the revenue necessary to actually make payments on the debt rather than only on the interest.

Trump's main contribution to the spending problem was the money for the military. That is actually a constitutionally legitimate expenditure. And it was so large because the military had been underfunded. He is not as gung ho about the other giveaways that have been the hallmark of federal spending, though he may have given away a few goodies that he shouldn't. But he has fulfilled a great deal of what is needed to increase government revenue without crushing taxes that would shrink the overall economy.

Never would guessed that would be your blue man group response, predictable and you of course are entitled to your opinion and it to doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he is the best ever, why do all the truly quality people run for the door after a short visit to the circus and we are left with countless temporary appointments and a nut job rogue lawyer handling foreign policy.

They are replaced with other quality people who don't try to undermine him.



this is the funniest and scariest post of the day

They are the best group of boot lickers EVER!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for sharing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Many of the polls also show they do not want an impeachment.
Gallup
Monmouth
Quinnipiac
USA Today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
In the spring of 1974, despite the indictment of top former White House aides, and Nixon’s release of what were seen as “heavily edited” transcripts of tapes of his aides plotting to get White House enemies, the public was still divided over what to do about the president. For example, by June, 44% in the Gallup Poll thought he should be removed from office, while 41% disagreed.

Only in early August, following the House Judiciary Committee’s recommendation in July that Nixon be impeached and the Supreme Court’s decision that he surrender his audio tapes, did a clear majority – 57% – come to the view that the president should be removed from office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never would guessed that would be your blue man group response, predictable and you of course are entitled to your opinion and it to doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm no less consistent than you. Don't know why you'd expect something different.

[/COLOR]
this is the funniest and scariest post of the day

I was born on holloween.

In the spring of 1974, despite the indictment of top former White House aides, and Nixon’s release of what were seen as “heavily edited” transcripts of tapes of his aides plotting to get White House enemies, the public was still divided over what to do about the president. For example, by June, 44% in the Gallup Poll thought he should be removed from office, while 41% disagreed.

Only in early August, following the House Judiciary Committee’s recommendation in July that Nixon be impeached and the Supreme Court’s decision that he surrender his audio tapes, did a clear majority – 57% – come to the view that the president should be removed from office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, but, Nixon :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, but, Nixon :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Something some people would do well to remember.
History, more apt to repeat than not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Something some people would do well to remember.
History, more apt to repeat than not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You must have a lot in common with history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But, but, Nixon :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but but Hilary or biden seeing hearing facts dont seem to work I doubt reading them will work any better .... but lets Try anyway :btu:

Your talking to a wall, they don’t care, the means justify the end; no matter how much corruption is involved. If this were happening in the private sector, they might be fitting him for an orange jump suit, be a perfect match for his face tone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your talking to a wall, they don’t care, the means justify the end; no matter how much corruption is involved. If this were happening in the private sector, they might be fitting him for an orange jump suit, be a perfect match for his face tone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just enjoy the common ground that you share with one another. America 1st sounds good to me!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but but Hilary or biden seeing hearing facts dont seem to work I doubt reading them will work any better .... but lets Try anyway :btu:

Nope, didn't work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your talking to a wall, they don’t care, the means justify the end; no matter how much corruption is involved. If this were happening in the private sector, they might be fitting him for an orange jump suit, be a perfect match for his face tone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Complete nonsense. His was in the private sector for a LONG time and never did any jail time. Try to get a grip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Complete nonsense. His was in the private sector for a LONG time and never did any jail time. Try to get a grip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because his crooked father taught him how to cheat very well...that line is ending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because his crooked father taught him how to cheat very well...that line is ending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Triggered Nonsense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because his crooked father taught him how to cheat very well...that line is ending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I feel bad that you ended up with this anger. Some day you will look back and understand why He is the greatest president of our lifetime. Enjoy the fruits of His labor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dempcraps are working very hard to re-elect him!!!

dempcraps are working very hard to re-elect him!!!

they are indeed, and they don’t see it at all. Shhhh...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floridaman has accomplished little good and his ill considered attempts at policy will have long term effects on our place in the world.

Keep claiming he is a stable genius, he is as far from that as one can get.

When this passes the name Trump will end up in history books, used like Quisling and Benedict Arnold.

Trump’s self-absorption is total; his inability to accurately perceive external reality is profound. Because this renders our president deeply antisocial and anti-historical, his worldview begins and ends with “Trump.”

As a result, he entered office unable to appreciate America’s objective strengths in conducting our foreign relations. These matchless blessings included friendly neighbors; peerless economic vitality; our leadership of important global institutions; the strength of our alliances and multilateral relationships; and a reputation, for all our faults, as a democracy which embraces political freedom and human rights. Encased in his feral inner landscape, Trump saw these assets as vulnerabilities.

Thus Trump’s view of the post-World War II global order is essentially dystopian. The world’s liberal democracies built a system in which America promoted global stability by advocating democracy, free trade, and international institutions which facilitated cooperation and ameliorated conflict. But Trump saw it as trap in which America was played for the sucker by its “allies,” cheated by trading partners, menaced by Muslims, and invaded by foreigners spreading crime and taking jobs.

To repel these presumptive “threats,” Trump offered his own distinctive and boundless grandiosity—casting himself as a one-man solution, a peerless negotiator who would subjugate our foes (frequently, in fact, our allies) through the sheer force of his unique personality. He would make Mexico pay for his wall; seize Syrian oil; rip up unfair trade deals; force those chiselers in NATO to pay up; and exert his will without the trouble of maintaining alliances or exercising considered global statesmanship

Blinded by his insoluble inability to accurately process external reality, Trump had no design for realizing his most fantastical promises—let alone any grasp of the long-term consequences to America stemming from his zero-sum instincts. In his fantasies of greatness, Trump-as-Superman was strategy enough.

For nearly three years, we have seen the consequences of this worldview. He disparages our intelligence agencies when they reach conclusions which displease him. He treats the State Department with contempt, compelling an exodus of career professionals and eviscerating our diplomatic capacity. He replaces the language of democracy with venality and vulgarity, He greets the world’s autocrats as his geopolitical kin. The global image of America has become the gargoyle visage of a bigot and bully.

Inevitably, Trump’s craving for attention and inability to transcend his own impulses leads to verbal incontinence, intellectual incoherence, and contradictory actions. Nor is this likely to change: Trump’s subjective and ever-shifting sense of reality and addiction to instantaneous self-gratification leave him utterly incapable of thinking strategically.

For Trump, there is no strategic through-line. While the Chinese think in epochs, Trump thinks in fragments of news cycles dissociated from each other, his frequently self- cancelling behaviors driven by his oscillating needs of the moment. He threatens North Korea’s dictator with “fire and fury”; then conducts vapid kabuki summits and “falls in love” with Kim Jong-Un’s “beautiful letters.”And when Kim, unimpeded, treats America with accelerating contempt while developing a nuclear arsenal which could eradicate Seattle, Trump browbeats our South Korean allies about the cost of their defense, and compels the Japanese to wonder whether North Korean missile tests will require developing their own nuclear capacity.

In Trump’s mind, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize; in reality, he has made the region a far more dangerous place.

https://thebulwark.com/trumps-personal-pathology-is-americas-foreign-policy/

Thanks for sharing. The country has a lot to consider.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump has accomplished “little good”.

In which a 50 year low in unemployment, an all time
low in black unemployment, and continuing to rout jihadists, is “little good.”

If Obama was president he’d have won a second Nobel in economics.

He’s also appointing judges who are likely to put personal
agendas aside and use the constitution as he rulebook, rather than using the bench as a platform for activism.

He’s doing a LOT of good. He’s just an unbelievable
jerk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, your article says Trump replaces the language of democracy with vulgarity. I agree he’s very very undiplomatic. My question is, so what? What actual harm has this caused? Is Canada going to sign a treaty with the jihadists? Leaders may not
like Trump, but I don’t see any evidence that it changes the way they view America at all. Not in the least.

Everybody said Obama’s apology tour was going to improve our standing in the world, and everyone says that Trump’s “America First” will ruin our relationships with everyone. I see little evidence that either happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, your article says Trump replaces the language of democracy with vulgarity. I agree he’s very very undiplomatic. My question is, so what? What actual harm has this caused? Is Canada going to sign a treaty with the jihadists? Leaders may not
like Trump, but I don’t see any evidence that it changes the way they view America at all. Not in the least.

Everybody said Obama’s apology tour was going to improve our standing in the world, and everyone says that Trump’s “America First” will ruin our relationships with everyone. I see little evidence that either happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could have just read the whole article that I linked
but here is some more since you asked.
As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, not seeing evidence means you likely need to look beyond right wing media.

Or read a foreign paper: https://www.kyivpost.com/?s=trump&time=week&section=all&type=all&exclusive=yes&authors=all

But these head-spinning spasms of psychic subjectivity aggravate dangers in every corner of the globe. Trump threatens Iran with “obliteration like you’ve never seen before,” then withdraws American troops from Syria, licensing Iran to pursue its goals in the region. He confuses our allies and emboldens our enemies, both of whom understand that his emotional lability translates into geopolitical incompetence. Vladimir Putin can barely conceal his laughter—and sometimes does not try.

Writing in the Atlantic, William Burns summarizes Trump’s dysfunction:

However sound his instincts on some policy issues—such as pushing back against predatory Chinese trade practices—Trump has badly undermined American influence through his erratic unilateralism, disdain for expertise, and obsession with diplomacy as an exercise in narcissism. It is exactly the wrong prescription for this plastic moment in world affairs, when we are no longer the only country calling the shots, and when diplomatic tools to cajole and coerce friends and foes alike are more important than ever.

The results are predictably grim. Partners are insecure and hedging, worrying about the ‘brain death’ of crucial alliances. Adversaries feel the wind in their sails, with Russian state television crowing over dysfunction in Washington and vulnerability in Kyiv. The international landscape is hardening against us, and our diplomatic toolkit is being emptied by design and disuse…

Why shouldn’t authoritarian rivals conclude that the only thing that matters is the vanity of an eminently manipulable president? Why shouldn’t allies lose confidence in the requests of our diplomats when they can be overturned by the next tweet?

Why, indeed?

But there is no one left around Trump to point out these obvious problems. Because he is psychologically unable to abide dissent or respect expertise, Trump has replaced professionals with sycophants—degrading our State Department and demoralizing its best people. The epitome of these enablers is the pompous puppet Mike Pompeo, our shrinking secretary of State, who has survived this long only through abject subservience.

Pompeo is the opposite of James Mattis; he chooses sycophancy to serve himself. In his imagined future, he is not simply a future Republican senator from Kansas, but Trump’s eventual successor. Unlike Trump, Pompeo is sane: quite deliberately, he has catered to Trump’s narcissism, fronting for Trump as he trashes the State Department and repeatedly commits gross political malpractice.

The result of Pompeo’s calculating cowardice is baneful—a dearth of sound advice and institutional engagement which empowers Trump’s mindless solipsism. Pompeo countenanced Trump’s love affair with Kim. He choked down Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds. He watched as Trump publicly contemplated canceling our mutual defense treaty with Japan; threatened to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea; mocked our NATO allies as deadbeats; and dismissed the E.U.

Little wonder that Trump has said “I don’t think I’ve had an argument with Pompeo.” Why would he need to? Pompeo never disagrees with him, thereby encouraging Trump to pretend that the intellectual, moral, and strategic Sahara of his foreign policy is as grand as Trump needs to believe – freeing Trump to do his worst, unimpeded.

But it is Pompeo’s performance with respect to Ukraine which best encapsulates Trump’s degradation of diplomacy and perversion of policy. He stood aside as Trump attempted to blackmail the new Ukranian president into serving his personal political interests, allowing Trump to subcontract the dirty work to Rudy Giuliani. Pompeo licensed Trump to bully and then fire Ambassador Marie Jovanovich. He listened to Trump’s coercive call to President Zelensky, thereby acquiescing in the corruption of American aid. And then, when all this was done, Pompeo pretended to ABC’s Martha Raddatz that he knew nothing about the call before admitting, ten days later, that he had heard it all.

In sum, Mike Pompeo has pretzeled himself to be the flawless lackey Trump demands: spineless, mendacious, unprincipled, and disloyal to his own subordinates. As two seasoned former American diplomats write of Pompeo’s tenure: “At the very least, Pompeo enabled the smear campaign to go unchallenged, acquiesced in the Giuliani back channel with Ukraine and failed to say a word in defense of Bill Taylor, George Kent or Marie Jovanovich. These are breathtaking acts of craven cowardice and beneath the dignity of any Secretary of State.”

All of which perfectly captures the Trump effect: His immutable character disorder moves those who serve him to adopt the corrupt and cowering ethos of minions in a banana republic.

Thanks PeteF, that clears it all up. Great job and thanks for sharing with us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could have just read the whole article that I linked




nobody reads what you link

I can't read


Fixed it for you

You could have just read the whole article that I linked
but here is some more since you asked.
As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, not seeing evidence means you likely need to look beyond right wing media.

Or read a foreign paper: https://www.kyivpost.com/?s=trump&time=week&section=all&type=all&exclusive=yes&authors=all



"You could have just read the whole article that I linked"

No one has the time to do that.

"As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, "

In other words, there is no tangible evidence that Trumps obnoxious personality is actually harming America on the world stage, certainly not to the degree to negate the economic gains we are enjoying.

Obama was supposed to make everyone love us, he toured the world and told them all how we're nothing special. The he made a pitch to the International Olympic Committee for Chicago to host the Olympics, and we were eliminated in the first round.

The likeability of the POTUS, probably doesn't mean much, because America is so much more than one person. I find it hard to believe that foreign leaders make big decisions based on how much they like the current occupant of the White House. If they did, the entire civilized world would have imposed sanctions on us.

Find a soapbox that has some substance to it?

Fixed it for you

I read fine...though I'll admit to struggling to decipher some of the gibberish here

"You could have just read the whole article that I linked"

No one has the time to do that.

"As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, "

In other words, there is no tangible evidence that Trumps obnoxious personality is actually harming America on the world stage, certainly not to the degree to negate the economic gains we are enjoying.

Obama was supposed to make everyone love us, he toured the world and told them all how we're nothing special. The he made a pitch to the International Olympic Committee for Chicago to host the Olympics, and we were eliminated in the first round.

The likeability of the POTUS, probably doesn't mean much, because America is so much more than one person. I find it hard to believe that foreign leaders make big decisions based on how much they like the current occupant of the White House. If they did, the entire civilized world would have imposed sanctions on us.

Find a soapbox that has some substance to it?

And you call my posts gibberish

new Quinnipiac national poll on 2020 general election shows every prospective Democratic nominee beating Trump :

Biden 51%, Trump 42%
Sanders 51%, Trump 43%
Warren 50%, Trump 43%
Bloomberg 48%, Trump 42%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 43%
Klobuchar 47%, Trump 43%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

new Quinnipiac national poll on 2020 general election shows every prospective Democratic nominee beating Trump :

Biden 51%, Trump 42%
Sanders 51%, Trump 43%
Warren 50%, Trump 43%
Bloomberg 48%, Trump 42%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 43%
Klobuchar 47%, Trump 43%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's what hillary said

new Quinnipiac national poll on 2020 general election shows every prospective Democratic nominee beating Trump :

Biden 51%, Trump 42%
Sanders 51%, Trump 43%
Warren 50%, Trump 43%
Bloomberg 48%, Trump 42%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 43%
Klobuchar 47%, Trump 43%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is great news, obviously the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s will roll.👍🏿
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From the law-and-order party to the I'm-voting-for-the-guy-who-calls-the-FBI-scum party...

...in 48 months.

What a *powerful* set of principles the GOP had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This next election will certainly be a great opportunity to finish draining the swamp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This next election will certainly be a great opportunity to finish draining the swamp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With Mulvaney, Jared, Ivanka and Miller advising Trump what could possibly go wrong. Maybe in another four years, he could finally get all the required cabinet heads appointed and cleared. He knows how, oil executives run the EPA, get some bankers to control the money, Miller of course will be in line to run homeland security and we probably will get Rudy to be our Russian ambassador; assuming he can keep himself out of jail.

You want to drain the swamp, don't put more scumbags in it, think more along the lines of term limits and better regulations on lobbyists and campaign contributions.

I appreciate your perspective
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can this be right ?

If a Democrat is President, lying about a blow-job is grounds for impeachment

If a Republican is President, betraying his country's defence policy again Russia...isn't

What am I missing here ?

Can this be right ?

If a Democrat is President, lying about a blow-job is grounds for impeachment

If a Republican is President, betraying his country's defence policy again Russia...isn't

What am I missing here ?

Generally, Presidents are in charge of defence policy.

Generally, Presidents are in charge of defence policy.

In this case Floridaman withheld aid appropriated by Congress, after the statutory requirements set by Congress were met and still continues to hold 35 million in aid.

In this case Floridaman withheld aid appropriated by Congress, after the statutory requirements set by Congress were met and still continues to hold 35 million in aid.

Temporary withholding funds for assuring that they are not wasted on corruption should not be cause for impeachment, nor even be considered a crime. Nor should lying about getting a blow job--unless it was under oath. But even then, a lesser slap on the wrist would be appropriate.

On the other hand getting the blow job could put the President under threat of blackmail which could be used to influence how he would apply or skew defense policy. It can be argued that any misstep of the President could be used as a means to influence his decisions on any policy, defense or otherwise. The point being, not that it would necessarily be impeachable, but that there need not be a distinction between missteps in regard to the effect on defense policy.

Temporary withholding funds for assuring that they are not wasted on corruption should not be cause for impeachment, nor even be considered a crime.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. They asked WTF is going on and were told nothing, why not?
Nor should lying about getting a blow job--unless it was under oath. But even then, a lesser slap on the wrist would be appropriate.

On the other hand getting the blow job could put the President under threat of blackmail which could be used to influence how he would apply or skew defense policy. It can be argued that any misstep of the President could be used as a means to influence his decisions on any policy, defense or otherwise. The point being, not that it would necessarily be impeachable, but that there need not be a distinction between missteps in regard to the effect on defense policy.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in the last paragraph, I tried to parse it?
Are you saying his actions were because he was incompetent and therefore the missteps should not be impeachable?

I have no idea what you are trying to say in the last paragraph, I tried to parse it?
Are you saying his actions were because he was incompetent and therefore the missteps should not be impeachable?

The last paragraph was not specifically about Trump. It was a general comment pointing out that any inappropriate action by any President could be used (e.g. blackmail) against him to skew his handling of defense policy. So there would be no need for a distinction between a blow job or most any other misdeed that a President committed in terms of its potential impact on his defense policy.

Ergo, as for your implied comparison between the Trump and Clinton impeachment, they can both be considered a possible impact on defense policy. And, in my opinion, neither amount to an impeachable offense.

Although, clearly, Trump is not ultimately guilty of withholding funds. And he did, on a few occasions, explain why he temporarily did And Clinton, clearly, lied under oath.

Although, clearly, Trump is not ultimately guilty of withholding funds. And he did, on a few occasions, explain why he temporarily did

It's not clear at all, and the testimony conflicts with your statement.

Also the documents that would prove one way or another are being withheld as part of Floridamans obstruction, so just what do you think the documents say?

This is the stuff that people in previous administrations have been indicted for and likely will this time also.

Cooper, during Oct. 23 testimony before the three House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into Trump's Ukraine dealings, also said that she had been told Trump had repeatedly expressed concerns about Ukraine and military aid to the country — weeks before the aid was frozen.

Cooper told impeachment investigators that she and other Pentagon officials had answered questions about the Ukraine assistance in the middle of June — so she was surprised when one of her subordinates told her that a hold had been placed on the funds after an interagency meeting in July 18.

“I got, you know, I got a readout from the meeting — there was discussion in that session about the — about OMB [Office of Management and Budget] saying that they were holding the Congressional Notification related to” Ukraine, Cooper testified, according to the transcript.

Cooper, according to the transcript of her testimony, described the hold as "unusual."

Cooper said that she attended a meeting on July 23, where "this issue" of Trump's "concerns about Ukraine and Ukraine security assistance" came up. She said in that meeting, the president's concerns were "conveyed" by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked by lawmakers if the president was authorized to order that type of hold, Cooper said there were concerns that he wasn't.

"Well, I'm not an expert on the law, but in that meeting immediately deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion because there was broad understanding in the meeting that the funding — the State Department funding related to an earmark for Ukraine and that the DOD funding was specific to Ukraine security assistance. So the comments in the room at the deputies' level reflected a sense that there was not an understanding of how this could legally play out. And at that meeting the deputies agreed to look into the legalities and to look at what was possible," she said, according to the transcript.

At the next meeting with national security personnel, she said she told attendees "there were two legally available mechanisms should the President want to stop assistance" — a presidential rescission notice to Congress or for the Defense Department to do “a reprogramming action.”

“But I mentioned that either way, there would need to be a notification to Congress,” she said, according to the transcript.

Asked if that happened, Cooper said, "That did not occur."

In all the relevant inter-agency discussions, Cooper testified, it wasn't just Defense Department officials who believed the aid should flow to Ukraine.

"It was unanimous with the exception of the statements by OMB representatives, and those statements were relaying higher level guidance," she said, according to the transcript.

Investigators have zeroed in on the testimony of several key figures in the Ukraine affair — including Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state who worked on Ukraine and five other countries — to support the allegation that the Trump administration froze aid intended for Ukraine as part of an attempt to pressure the country to open probes that would benefit Trump politically.

It's not clear at all, and the testimony conflicts with your statement.


I said the he is ultimately not guilty of withholding the funds. The funds were delivered. If there is still some relatively small amount left, there may still be a reason for that. I don't know.

I said the he is ultimately not guilty of withholding the funds. The funds were delivered. If there is still some relatively small amount left, there may still be a reason for that. I don't know.

Lots of people have gone been convicted for taking money "temporarily"

Of course Floridaman doesn't believe that attempting to get something for performing an official duty is a crime, or even something you shouldn't do. And you know: "say Norway"

Maybe that's why he is looking at pardoning Blagojevich.

“Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital, But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”

By the way, Blagojevich is currently serving time and not just for that.

Lots of people have gone been convicted for taking money "temporarily"

Of course Floridaman doesn't believe that attempting to get something for performing an official duty is a crime, or even something you shouldn't do. And you know: "say Norway"

Maybe that's why he is looking at pardoning Blagojevich.

“Lobbyists for a children’s hospital wanted Blagojevich to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates, which meant eight million dollars in revenue to the hospital, But he put out the word through intermediaries that he would only do it if he got fifty thousand dollars in campaign contributions. That quid quo pro was a violation of the Hobbs Act. With Trump, the quid pro quo is taxpayer money in return for political dirt, but the idea is the same.”

By the way, Blagojevich is currently serving time and not just for that.

Trump didn't take any money.

Trump didn't take any money.

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yawn

The ask is the crime and dirt on an opponent has value
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Asking for investigation of corruption is not a crime, and Hunter Biden was not running for President, and portraying a search for truth as a search for dirt is spin. What is obviously dirty is a corrupt corporation hiring someone with little, if any, qualifications, paying him more than just about anyone else at his corporate level in the company, in order to have some powerful insurance against an investigation into the company's corruption.

Asking for investigation of corruption is not a crime, and Hunter Biden was not running for President, and portraying a search for truth as a search for dirt is spin. What is obviously dirty is a corrupt corporation hiring someone with little, if any, qualifications, paying him more than just about anyone else at his corporate level in the company, in order to have some powerful insurance against an investigation into the company's corruption.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

No, very few

Ukraine got U.S. aid in 2017.

They got U.S. aid in 2018.

Then in 2019, Vice President Biden announced he was running for president, and all of a sudden President Trump held up the aid while asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.

This debunks the false argument that the president simply doesn't like foreign aid.

He gave Ukraine the aid before 2019.

He gave them the aid after getting caught.

The only difference earlier this year is that he knew he had leverage, and he used it for personal gain.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

It's an assumption that I think you're supposed to believe anything of the sort or anything else. It's an assumption that he asked only for an investigation of the Biden's. And that the investigation was about Hunter Biden's father as well as about him and Burisma. And that Trump "tolerates" somebody or anybody. And that he was only concerned "just in time."

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

You're assuming that the notion that Ukrainian interference has actually been "debunked" is absolutely true. Or, at least, that everyone is supposed to accept that it has. You're assuming the Floridaman dishes out baloney at his campaign rallies. Your assuming that I think you should see this all as coincidence. (I don't assume very much at all about what you think.)


And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

You're assuming that he "demanded" something. He did ask if Ukraine could "help us"--us being more than just him, but, I assume, our country. You're assuming that Comey did hand the victory to Trump.

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?

You assume that Trump was using a formula. Everything you said was an assumption.

No, very few

Ukraine got U.S. aid in 2017.

They got U.S. aid in 2018.

Then in 2019, Vice President Biden announced he was running for president, and all of a sudden President Trump held up the aid while asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.

This debunks the false argument that the president simply doesn't like foreign aid.

He gave Ukraine the aid before 2019.

He gave them the aid after getting caught.

The only difference earlier this year is that he knew he had leverage, and he used it for personal gain.

You're assuming that he didn't have "leverage" before. If he didn't, it may well have been due to those in power not being amenable to more American interference in their affairs, and to the possibility that they were also linked to aiding the Clinton campaign against Trump. And he was dealing with a new President in 2019. A Ukrainian President who had run an anti-corruption campaign. The previous administrations had been riddled with corruption. A supposedly corrupt prosecutor had reluctantly been removed by the previous President by the quid pro quo pressure, demand, of Joe Biden. The newly appointed prosecutor, who was also known to be corrupt, stopped the investigation of Burisma, and we are supposed to assume that it was a mere co-incidence that Biden's son had unqualifiedly been hired by them with an unduly high salary. And there was no demand that the new prosecutor be fired even though he too was considered to be corrupt.

The meeting was a recognition of the new President, and it created the occasion to ask him to actually fulfill his promise to clean up the corruption in Ukraine.

You assume that Trump was using a formula. Everything you said was an assumption.

And will be until the Senate trial, when unless McConnell conducts a sham trial and allows no testimony, we will see evidence.

Till then I'll make assumptions based on past behavior in which Floridaman never gave a damn about corruption, praised the most corrupt dictators in the world, asked embattled leaders of other countries to announce investigations of his political opponents and obstructed the investigation of his misdeeds.

The Trumplican defense is LOUD and LOUDER or Dumb and Dumber as directed by the Farrelly Brothers and played by the Trumplican Reps, but no substance or exculpatory evidence.

And that's the last choice for defense of the guilty, after you've moved the goalposts to the edge of the ocean.

Other than resigning..........

And will be until the Senate trial, when unless McConnell conducts a sham trial and allows no testimony, we will see evidence.



the case for impeachment is pathetically weak...why waste everyone's time?...though I am rooting for a long process with lot's of witnesses

the case for impeachment is pathetically weak...why waste everyone's time?...though I am rooting for a long process with lot's of witnesses

Pretty good case for one that has been so thoroughly obstructed.

Trust me PeteF., I am willing to match the $100 all of you snowflakes owe JohnR come Election Day in donations to the Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your all set because the GOP position is that, if President Trump thinks he did nothing wrong, he can deny the validity of an impeachment proceeding and refuse to participate at all, because if he ever did commit an impeachable offense he'd recognize the proceeding was valid and cooperate in full.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BINGO!

The real answer comes at the ballot. This election will be more lopsided than the last. Easy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty good case for one that has been so thoroughly obstructed.

no obstruction...tump is perfectly within his right to not cooperate with the lunatic democrats, if they don't like it they can take him to court...ironically it's the lunatic democrats that are abusing power...no surprise

he can deny the validity of an impeachment proceeding

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

unless it's valid to impeach a president because your panties are in a bunch this is entirely invalid

If Trump were to offer a blanket pardon in advance to anybody who kills a member of the Democratic congressional leadership, that would not be a crime. If he were to knowingly and deliberately understate his income by $1,000 on his federal income-tax form in order to reduce his tax burden, that would. But the former would obviously be much stronger grounds for impeachment than the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump were to offer a blanket pardon in advance to anybody who kills a member of the Democratic congressional leadership, that would not be a crime. If he were to knowingly and deliberately understate his income by $1,000 on his federal income-tax form in order to reduce his tax burden, that would. But the former would obviously be much stronger grounds for impeachment than the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

more stupidity

more stupidity

It’s at epidemic proportions, someone needs to notify the CDC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Fox poll is 54-41 for impeachment. That’s a bigger margin than the Democrats’ victory margin in 2018. In other words, if I can put it this way, impeachment in 2019 is running a bit ahead of House Democrats in 2018.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

keep wishing pete....

The Fox poll is 54-41 for impeachment. That’s a bigger margin than the Democrats’ victory margin in 2018. In other words, if I can put it this way, impeachment in 2019 is running a bit ahead of House Democrats in 2018.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The stupid is strong here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device