idhawkman wrote:Yep, the afternoon session with the House Intel committee is going about as well as the first except worse. Mueller had to include in his opening statement of this second hearing a correction to an answer he gave Rep. Lieu regarding why he didn't charge the president during his first hearing in front of the oversight committee. This is a complete Sh@tshow for the dems and some of their supporters are already condemning these hearings. Maybe this will finally be put to rest and as I've been saying, this issue is dead and buried and has been for quite a few weeks but the dems just don't know it yet.
Hawktawk wrote:Yeah UMMHMM. "did the report exonerate the president" NO.
Can a president be indicted after he leaves office? YES.
Was Trump dishonest in his written answers? YES.
Did it influence the ability to arrive at the truth?YES.
What about his praising of Wikileaks? "ITS BEYOND PROBLEMATIC TO PRAISE AN ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION. Is it unpatriotic to accept help from a foreign power even if it doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy? YES.
Was it a witch hunt? NO
It was a devastating testimony just like the devastating report about 2% of the citizens and probably 5% of the congress have actually read.
But hey, hes 75, he stumbled over his words, he wasn't as sharp![]()
![]()
He had to ask for questions to be repeated. (maybe going deaf from all the battles in vietnam while Trump was resting his bone spurs but whatever)
![]()
That's what matters to the Trumptards.Its all about the show. You people make me ill.
Mueller did OK as did the Dems who actually asked questions rather than the nauseating shrill Trumpican sycophants trying to shut down mueller and feed the false narrative they have the last 3 years. There's collusion in plain sight x100. Mueller says he didn't address it because it is "not a legal term".
Obstruction is plain as day. "If we were confident the president did not commit a crime we would have said so". Well If your not confident he didn't we know what that means unless your nose is so far up the Bloatus crazy POTUS arse he needs a windshield wiper on his bellybutton so you can see where hes going.
Its really a sad time in america. Never been worse in my lifetime. Not great. Worst president in our history but hes Vlads hand picked patsy and nobody gives a damn.....
Hawktawk wrote:Yeah UMMHMM. "did the report exonerate the president" NO. Can a president be indicted after he leaves office? YES. Was Trump dishonest in his written answers? YES. Did it influence the ability to arrive at the truth?YES. What about his praising of Wikileaks? "ITS BEYOND PROBLEMATIC TO PRAISE AN ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION. Is it unpatriotic to accept help from a foreign power even if it doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy? YES.Was it a witch hunt? NO
It was a devastating testimony just like the devastating report about 2% of the citizens and probably 5% of the congress have actually read.
But hey, hes 75, he stumbled over his words, he wasn't as sharp![]()
![]()
He had to ask for questions to be repeated. (maybe going deaf from all the battles in vietnam while Trump was resting his bone spurs but whatever)
![]()
That's what matters to the Trumptards.Its all about the show. You people make me ill.
Mueller did OK as did the Dems who actually asked questions rather than the nauseating shrill Trumpican sycophants trying to shut down mueller and feed the false narrative they have the last 3 years. There's collusion in plain sight x100. Mueller says he didn't address it because it is "not a legal term".
Obstruction is plain as day. "If we were confident the president did not commit a crime we would have said so". Well If your not confident he didn't we know what that means unless your nose is so far up the Bloatus crazy POTUS arse he needs a windshield wiper on his bellybutton so you can see where hes going.
Its really a sad time in america. Never been worse in my lifetime. Not great. Worst president in our history but hes Vlads hand picked patsy and nobody gives a damn.....
Hawktawk wrote:I don’t disagree with a lot of what you just said ASea other than collusion and crime regarding russia. Thats plain as day not that its the first scandal or first time a president has lied through their teeth. But there's just no heroes here. My lifelong party does not exist and my only connection to the democrats is we both hate trump. Truly hoping for Weld to gain some traction but not likely. I would love to see Justin Amash run as a libertarian.On the dem side hoping for Biden as he is against most of the liberal far left platform and it ought to tell people in the dem party something that hes leading overwhelmingly in the primary polls as well as crushing Trump.
Warren, Sanders etc are a possible recipe for 4 more years on the crazy train.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I have never hated the American government as much as I do right now. Trump truly is bringing out all the hypocrisy, corruption, and animosity of these two clown parties. We're seeing the worst of both parties that has been building for years culminating in this trashfire of a government. I hope something good comes out of this, but I doubt it. These parties are going to keep this truck heading in the wrong direction until it crashes while these two idiot parties argue over who which way to go while driving towards the same dive off the canyon cliff.
If I was a Democrat or Republican politician right now, I'd be embarrassed to be a part of any of this fraud.
RiverDog wrote:Can't say as I disagree with that with my only difference being that I can't say that I don't "hate" the government. What has bothered me more is how Trump has managed to get so many otherwise rational folks to ignore his blatant racism and utter dishonesty and drool over every word of his. In the 50 years since the height of the civil rights era, I was shocked to see as many whites that still harbor racist attitudes. As a white person, the last individual on the Earth I'd ever want to be associated with is someone that inspires pigs like those in the KKK and neo Nazis. It saddens me to see so many people set aside their tolerance of those that don't look/speak/act like them and embrace that POS. DJT makes people feel comfortable with their insecurities.
RiverDog wrote:Can't say as I disagree with that with my only difference being that I can't say that I don't "hate" the government. What has bothered me more is how Trump has managed to get so many otherwise rational folks to ignore his blatant racism and utter dishonesty and drool over every word of his. In the 50 years since the height of the civil rights era, I was shocked to see as many whites that still harbor racist attitudes. As a white person, the last individual on the Earth I'd ever want to be associated with is someone that inspires pigs like those in the KKK and neo Nazis. It saddens me to see so many people set aside their tolerance of those that don't look/speak/act like them and embrace that POS. DJT makes people feel comfortable with their insecurities.
idhawkman wrote:This is what the democrats are trying to charge Trump with now since the collusion, conspiracy thing didn't work out for them.
"While we recognize that the suspect did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of resisting being hung for it."
Let that sink in for a while.
RiverDog wrote:So long as we're lecturing each other on what they need to let "sink in", what you need to reflect on is the extremely narrow margin between hard core, Trump-can-do-no-wrong supporters like yourself and the white supremist groups that have adapted him as their own.
RiverDog wrote:So long as we're lecturing each other on what they need to let "sink in", what you need to reflect on is the extremely narrow margin between hard core, Trump-can-do-no-wrong supporters like yourself and the white supremist groups that have adapted him as their own.
idhawkman wrote:Wow, so now you think I'm a whisker away from being a white supremacist. You're going to have to go a long way to prove anything like that given my background in Special Ops where our motto is "De Opresso Libre".
RiverDog wrote:That's not what I said or intended to suggest. I am not calling you a racist and I am not trying to 'prove' anything, nor will I make any attempt to do so. I know very little about you other than you are a dedicated Seahawk fan and have represented yourself to me as being a great guy.
What I said, or meant to say, is that the views you have expressed in this forum along with your absolute and unqualified support for DJT places you within the company of white supremacists groups to which you have shown no interest in distancing yourself from. If you're comfortable with that close of an association with those folks, then fine, I have no problem with that. But if it were me, it would give me pause for concern that I might be linked to those groups via guilt by association by people that do not know my persona.
Let that sink in for awhile.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Democrats have successfully made the Republican Party the "racists" associated with white supremacy long before Trump. I'm not sure how much you follow black culture, but popular culture among black folk is to refer to the Republican Party as the RepubliKKKan Party. Kind of hard to go any deeper into the Republicans are racist than has already been done. The race card has been played so much that Donald Trump doesn't seem any worse than past Republicans. And that is pretty sad.
Basically, the left already associates white supremacy with Republicans. You're the new one to the party. Democrats and left been all aboard the Republican Party is the party of white supremacy since Nixon.
It's like the little boy that cried wolf. Democrats and left been crying wolf so long, now no one listening when real wolf in the White House.
RiverDog wrote:
That's not what I said or intended to suggest. I am not calling you a racist and I am not trying to 'prove' anything, nor will I make any attempt to do so. I know very little about you other than you are a dedicated Seahawk fan and have represented yourself to me as being a great guy.
What I said, or meant to say, is that the views you have expressed in this forum along with your absolute and unqualified support for DJT places you within the company of white supremacists groups to which you have shown no interest in distancing yourself from. If you're comfortable with that close of an association with those folks, then fine, I have no problem with that. But if it were me, it would give me pause for concern that I might be linked to those groups via guilt by association by people that do not know my persona, or as my old man would say, if you're going to sleep with the dogs, don't be surprised when you wake up with fleas.
Let that sink in for awhile.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
Democrats have successfully made the Republican Party the "racists" associated with white supremacy long before Trump. I'm not sure how much you follow black culture, but popular culture among black folk is to refer to the Republican Party as the RepubliKKKan Party. Kind of hard to go any deeper into the Republicans are racist than has already been done. The race card has been played so much that Donald Trump doesn't seem any worse than past Republicans. And that is pretty sad.
Basically, the left already associates white supremacy with Republicans. You're the new one to the party. Democrats and left been all aboard the Republican Party is the party of white supremacy since Nixon.
It's like the little boy that cried wolf. Democrats and left been crying wolf so long, now no one listening when real wolf in the White House.
RiverDog wrote:What has a lot of Republicans whispering about is the effect Donald Trump is having on younger voters who are increasingly identifying the party with white racism. If Trump is defeated in 2020, you can look for the R's to embark on a major face lift in an effort to change their perception in the eyes of what will be an increasingly important constituency group as us baby boomers begin to die off.
I don't want to see Trump lose so badly in 2020 that he drags the Republican Senate down to defeat with him as that could very well enable the ever expanding liberal wing of the Democratic Party to foist their vision on the country, and I'm not talking just about their health care ideas, but also their proposals for free college, reparations for slavery, the Green New Deal, and their war on Wall Street.
RiverDog wrote:Eleanor Roosevelt can be credited with helping to convert the black vote into a solid Democratic constituency. Her husband was no more progressive than any of his predecessors but she was the first advocate that they had with direct contacts to people in power. Later, as Sen. Richard Russell had warned LBJ, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill drove the last of the conservative white voters, the Dixiecrats, out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican camp. That was more responsible for the perception of R's being associated with white supremacy than Richard Nixon, who was actually supported by many blacks, including Jackie Robinson, in his 1960 POTUS campaign.
What has a lot of Republicans whispering about is the effect Donald Trump is having on younger voters who are increasingly identifying the party with white racism. If Trump is defeated in 2020, you can look for the R's to embark on a major face lift in an effort to change their perception in the eyes of what will be an increasingly important constituency group as us baby boomers begin to die off.
I don't want to see Trump lose so badly in 2020 that he drags the Republican Senate down to defeat with him as that could very well enable the ever expanding liberal wing of the Democratic Party to foist their vision on the country, and I'm not talking just about their health care ideas, but also their proposals for free college, reparations for slavery, the Green New Deal, and their war on Wall Street.
Hawktawk wrote:https://news.yahoo.com/roger-stone-guilty-lying-congress-164937961.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews
Now Roger Stone becomes the 6th campaign operative from Trump 2016 to go to the big house. I'll never buy that Barr didn't tell Mueller to wrap it up prematurely with the sentencing of Gates and Flynn still pending and the Stone trial not even underway at the time the investigation was closed.
The evidence that convicted Stone proved he had a direct conduit to Wikileaks, was aware in real time of Russian hacks being delivered to Wikileaks and also had a direct line to Trump who was well aware and curious, eagerly awaiting the stolen Emails. In his written answers to Mueller Trump had claimed to have had no conversations with Roger Stone regarding E mails, wikileaks etc.
That's perjury in writing. As I've said Mueller went way easier on Trump than he could have, for whatever reason.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Stone thought he was bulletproof. Learned that wasn't the case. Trump can feel footsteps at this point.
RiverDog wrote:
That's the other thing I didn't like about Stone. He was frigging arrogant, shows no sense of humility.
Trump doesn't have anything to worry about. This impeachment thing, although likely to be tossed to the Senate for a trial, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of booting him from office, to the contrary, a failed impeachment bid could help Trump win re-election. Despite the live hearings, the polls actually showed a tiny drop of those wanting to remove Trump from office, from 48.7 to 48.5. It's been very flat, between 47% and 50% over the past 6 weeks.
Hawktawk wrote:as far as I know MSN is the only poll thats conducted daily. While it shows the battle lines hardening it still shows this president upside down by 9 or 10 points regarding impeachment and removal and also overall job approval. Having browsed some polls this morning only low 30% beleive Trumps actions were justified or in the scope of his authority. That cuts into his base around 10 points%. There is no way this helps Trump in any way other than fund raising . And a majority of americans have seen enough of the baboon. Plastering him on the tV wont help much.
Hawktawk wrote:Get used to the new normal. We're circling the porcelain queen.
RiverDog wrote:
So long as Trump is defeated in 2020, which is by no means a foregone conclusion, it's not going to be the "new normal." Trump is an anomaly. There's no one on the horizon that is as stupid, has as much money, and is as much of an A-hole as DJT.
RiverDog wrote:So long as Trump is defeated in 2020, which is by no means a foregone conclusion, it's not going to be the "new normal." Trump is an anomaly. There's no one on the horizon that is as stupid, has as much money, and is as much of an A-hole as DJT.
Hawktawk wrote:Im talking about legal and I guess Impeachable precedent when I say "new normal". This isn't getting fixed overnight whenever this abomination is over. As I've said Clinton and the Democrats circling the wagons around him in the face of impeachable behavior set the table for Trump.
Hawktawk wrote:But this is far worse misconduct on multiple occasions, far more permanently damaging to the institution of the presidency, the congress by their abdication of their constitutional duty and the constitutional framework of our nation, our relationships with foreign *allies* military alliances etc. And anyone who thinks there won't be a similarly morally bankrupt corrupt person rise to power in the future is being overly optimistic IMO. Cant put this tribalistic genie back in the bottle.
Hawktawk wrote:And just imagine if he should win another term and almost certainly preside over a recession or worse, a major military crisis, etc. I shudder at the thought....
I-5 wrote:Riv, if Trump were to get re-elected (a distinct possibility in my view), you don't think that would set a number of precedents that would be damaging to our political system? It would give him a mandate that all his abuses are ok. And every future president or presidential candidate will feel free to do the same...or more.
I-5 wrote:Riv, if Trump were to get re-elected (a distinct possibility in my view), you don't think that would set a number of precedents that would be damaging to our political system? It would give him a mandate that all his abuses are ok. And every future president or presidential candidate will feel free to do the same...or more.
I-5 wrote:Riv, Clinton was impeached, right? It was his second term, of course. But if had been impeached during his first term and re-elected, then yes, it’s similar to what I’m talking about. Trump has a much longer list of vices, that goes without saying.
While I do agree with you that Trump's transgressions outweigh Clinton's, I believe that they will have a similar effect. As a matter of fact, one could argue the opposite, that the mere exposure of this type of behavior from POTUS's, even if they're not punished, will discourage others from attempting a similar thing
c_hawkbob wrote:That's a whole lot of assumption, with which I do not agree. I'm weary of the false equivalency of Trump = Clinton and frankly don't understand why you keep evoking it as you profess to understand the inequity.
RiverDog wrote:
The "false equivalency" applies to the scale of the transgressions committed by the two scandalous Administrations, and IMO those effects are scale independent in the same way as the lasting effects of a .5" rainstorm is about the same as that of a 2" rainstorm.
That doesn't preclude me in feeling that Trump's behavior in the Ukrainian scandal is impeachable whereas the Clinton's use of the Lincoln bedroom as a perk for political donors was not.
Hawktawk wrote:Watergate. Damage to constitution ZERO. The process worked exactly as the founders crafted it other that as opposed to being removed the President resigned, a class act IMO. Ford pardoned him, also a class act and the right thing to do even though his chance of reelection was shot at that point.
Hawktawk wrote:Whitewater. Definitely damaged the constitution and the oversight responsibility of the congress to allow a president to lie under oath about sex. Although it was the general opinion of the public that a married man lying about an affair no matter to whom the lie was told was understandable on many levels and not impeachable. In hindsight the Rs decision to move forward with this in the first place was in reality a congressional overreach that exposed the constitution and separation of powers balance to harm so it was kind of a bipartisan assault on the separation of powers and constitutional limits of authority.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest