Romney voting to convict
 

Fascinating stuff.

A backbone! Amazing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd bet that Romney truly believes he's doing the right thing.

That is because, in this case, he is....

Yes, in any normal world, the vote would be 100-0 to convict. But Mitt Romney did something exceptionally brave in today’s Republican Party. He didn’t just stand up to Trump. He told the truth.

What he said.

That's an opinion. As is my opinion, that Romney is being sincere. As is my opinion (shared by tens of millions of people), that he's wrong.

I wasn't the one saying in 2012 that Romney hated women because he keeps a binder of resumes of talented women. Many people who were saying that, are now singing his praises.

I like him a lot. I liked him in 12, and I like him now.

Republican Party just sent out a release: "Mitt Romney turns his back on Utah" + a poll that shows Floridaman is more popular in Utah than Romney + a screenshot of a tweet from his niece, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, decrying his vote. Romney was the Republican nominee eight years ago.

I'm old enough to remember the outrage over the citation of a major network's report that GOP senators were warned a vote against Floridaman would earn defectors their "head on a pike."

If Romney is such a stellar politician and accomplished man, how did he lose an election he should have easily won? And if he had won, would there have been much of a difference between his administration and Obama's?

Why have Republicans been unable to deliver on the platforms they stand on, yet Trump has been able to drag them out of their timid acquiescence to the Dems, their going along to get along, just sort of slowing down the rush to socialism along with the accelerating rate of destroying the Constitution? Why is there now an extremely visible difference between the two parties, an actual meaningful choice?

Do you prefer a choice between actual differences as between a continuation of managed American decline, or an honest attempt to restore American economic power? The complicity in China's rise to world dominance, or an actual attempt to thwart and reverse it?

He lost, in part, because he was portrayed as a despicable human being.

I respect what he did, it's not going to make his life any easier. I think he was wrong, but I respect his willingness to stick to his principles, unlike those who hated him in 2012 and now think he's a hero.

Trump was, and is, portrayed as a despicable human being, yet he won.

You're making the assumption that Floridaman has a clue about the effects of his actions.

WASHINGTON — The overall United States trade deficit shrank last year for the first time in six years as the American economy cooled, domestic oil production soared and President Trump waged an aggressive global trade war to rewrite America’s trading terms.

The trade deficit for both goods and services fell to $616.8 billion in 2019, down $10.9 billion from the previous year, according to data released by the Commerce Department on Wednesday.

Both imports and exports fell as American factory activity slowed and businesses and consumers felt the impact of tariffs imposed on China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico and other nations. Total American exports dropped $1.5 billion to roughly $2.5 trillion, while imports fell $12.5 billion to $3.1 trillion.

I assume he does have a clue. Do you have a clue?

Just what is the operable part of ASSume?
Don't worry before Floridaman is done he will make an ass out of you, everything he touches dies.

Do you believe the president is truthful? You believe the Fake News media lied each of the 16,241 times they have said he has made a false or misleading claim?

He will remove existing condition coverage, he has no plan to keep it other than lies.

And just think how stupid this Senator feels:
As Murkowski observed: “Schiff was eloquent but he lost me when he brought in the pike story.”

Just 8 years ago Mitt Romney was the GOP Presidential candidate.

Now, his party will devour him.

The Republican Party is dead.

All that’s left is the party of Trump.

Obviously, you don't have a clue.

No covering his ass.
He’s got ties to Barisma like so many others.
Follow the $$$
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots of corruption in the energy business.

Two associates of Rudy Giuliani tried to recruit a top Ukrainian energy official in March in a proposed takeover of the state oil-and-gas company, describing the company’s chief executive and the then-U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as part of “this Soros cartel” working against President Trump.

“You’re a Republican, right?” Andrew Favorov, the head of natural gas for state-run Naftogaz, recalled the men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, asking him, after their reference to investor and Democratic donor George Soros. “We want...

But Floridaman doesn't know them.............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMdamLzaHU

It looks like Trump is right. That Ukrainian corruption needs to be investigated. Maybe Zelensky can get on top of it. Get it all sorted out. Before it gets "debunked."

Maybe he should ask Putin what to do next

Considering how well our country has been doing since Trump colluded with Putin, maybe he should.

Next you'll get one of those "I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat shirts" and claim that Liberalism and Democracy are obsolete.

You should wonder why Floridaman never goes against Putin.

This proves a lack of attention
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, as usual you're wrong. I won't get such a shirt. I didn't get a "I'd rather be red than dead" shirt either. And I certainly don't claim that liberalism is obsolete. I am liberal. Most of my friends and family are liberal.

As for Democracy, it's a very nice word. All manner of dictatorial governments also think it a very nice, useful, word. They are proud to announce the results of their elections.

You should wonder why Floridaman never goes against Putin.

Fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty sure yesterday Floridaman admitted to the very impeachable offense of which he was acquitted:

- He said he insisted on Ukraine focusing on the Bidens.

- & he said he felt Ukraine was getting US support w/o delivering value.

Isn't that basically the quid pro quo he was accused of?

You should wonder why you keep repeating the lie that Trump said Nazis are fine people.

No, the accused quo was for digging up dirt to influence an election, not the "value" to which Trump referred which was looking into and clearing up corruption.

"Unite the Right was explicitly organized and branded as a far-right, racist, and white supremacist event by far-right racist white supremacists. This was clear for months before the march actually occurred. So by casting the rally instead as a sort of spontaneous outpouring from Confederate statue enthusiasts, Trump is rewriting history."

It is clear he was trying to equate the "alt left" (his words) with the alt right. He kept trying to blame the alt left bc they didn't have a permit.

So Pete was not lying no matter who much you and Brietbart try to make it about the lee monument. The march was about the scummy white nationalists.

The problem with your "interpretation" of what Trump said, is that, in the very same speech he specifically said that he was not referring to the Nazis when he said that there were fine people on both sides. I realize that it is necessary for Trump haters, or Trump dis-likers, or Never Trumpers, to always interpret his words or actions to mean something vile or treasonous, or illegal. But if you can't actually point out where he actually said "Nazis are fine people," then you got nothing, especially when he said that is not who he was referring to.

Let me ask you this. If you claim that when he said there were fine people on both sides that he was referring to Nazis, are you saying that he was talking about both sides of the Nazis? That's gibberish. Are you saying that he was referring to the Nazis and Antifa, that they were both fine people? If so (even though that doesn't make sense) then, at least, put it that way. Actually, he has said unequivocally (doesn't need interpretation) that he disavows both of those sides.

So would it make you feel better if instead of saying Nazis, Pete said Neo Nazis or White supremacists since that who was protesting that day (and had protested there a few times prior)? I'm glad you aren't trying to make the argument that there were a bunch of historians protesting the removal of the lee monument.

What?!! When did I say anything about historians? And it's not about how I feel about differences between Neo Nazis, White Supremacists, Antifa, historians, or folks who had differing opinions about the removal of Confederate statues. Here's a short video that tells it better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

You didn't say anything about historians - people defending Trump claim that he was talking about people protesting the removal of the monument.

Trump kept trying to equate the 2 groups. The rally was promoted by white nationalist and the list of speakers was filled w/white nationalists. There was no good people there from the right. They were all neo Nazis or white nationalists.


TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

He is clearly the greatest president of our lifetime. His
reelection will enable happiness and prosperity for 4 more years. America 1st has a nice ring to it.
🇺🇸
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You take a slice of the Press conference and neglect the rest. Including the part where he said he was not talking about the Neo Nazis and White Nationalists.

In the confused and combative back and forth between Trump and the reporters various nouns and pronouns got mixed.

There were two different opposing groups. One was the Antifa/Neo Nazi opposing groups. The other had neither of those two but was comprised of people who were pro or con on the taking down of the statue. There was also the entire group of people that included all of the above.

Trump talked about both of the two divisions--the Nazi/Antifa and the peaceful pro/con protesters. The first part of your slice was talking back and forth about the opposing Nazi/Antifa group. The last paragraph, starting with "you also had people" was about the peaceful pro/con statue group.

You disregard that in the same Press conference, to clear up any misconception about what and who he was talking about, Trump said that he was not talking about the Neo Nazis (when he referred to fine people on both sides) and that they should be condemned.

You didn't answer my question. To whom do you think he was referring when he said both sides (good or fine people on both sides)? Was he referring to Antifa as well as the Neo Nazis. Are you claiming that he believed there were fine Antifa people? And why would he think that Neo Nazis were fine people when his daughter and grandchildren are Jews? Did you watch the short video I posted?

I think he was referring to both side - 1 being the folks who would fall under the white nationalist side and 1 being the folks who would fall under the ANTIFA side.

There were no people there who were only there bc the lee monument was coming down. The unite the right march was clearly promoted amongst white nationalists and that is who was there. That is why I said there were no historians there.

The only time he said anything critical about the neo Nazis was when the reporter would question Trump's attempt to defend the right. Trump even claimed that the night before the march was peaceful.


The night before was where more than marchers held tiki torches at UVA and chanted “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil.” Whatever this event may have been, it was certainly not “people protesting very quietly.

bump so you can feel like people care about your participation.

I was wondering where Paul Sharpton was hiding....good to see him back with energy:hihi:

Good to hear your snarky as ever. . Must be fun to hang out with you. Have to leave for happy hour now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bet he uses snarky again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device