No, the Dems have 2024 to look forward to though. Now they don’t have anyone. Sanders can’t beat Trump, Biden is getting more heat for his gaffes as well as his son and his quick pro quo, both Warren and Sanders poll horribly with Minorities and let’s not forget her pretending to a Native American.
Welcome to Fantasy Island--Cult 45 Edition
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Correction: My last sentence should have read: "Again, how about if you get serious. Some recent polls showed that if the election were held today, the top four Democratic candidates would beat Trump by double-digits."
Oh, and if you want some of those polls, here they are:
3 ( +3 / -0 )
But Obama won the Nobel peace Prize. Must be he has special peace making powers.
You cannot make peace with those who don't want it. President Barack Obama was open to talks, but he never became convinced that North Korea would meet his preconditions for talks or that the regime seriously intended to ever give up its nuclear weapons. According to an article written in Time Magazine in March of 2018, they quoted Obama as saying this:
“This is the same kind of pattern that we saw his father engage in and his grandfather before that,” Obama said of Kim Jong Un in 2013, who took over the country from his father in 2011 and had been making threats against the U.S. and South Korea. “Since I came into office, the one thing I was clear about was, we’re not going to reward this kind of provocative behavior. You don’t get to bang your spoon on the table and somehow you get your way.” As he was leaving office, Obama reportedly warned Trump that North Korea would be his most urgent foreign policy threat.
Senate going to remove him assuming the House actually has the impeachment votes? Get serious.
How about if you get serious? Remember 1974? Lots of Nixon supporters said the same thing before Nixon lost his case in the Supreme Court about handing over his tapes and other incriminating evidence against him that the Congress had asked for. Instead of spending time copying right-wing media rhetoric, how about reviewing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and then come back and tell me all about guaranteed Republican support in the Senate.
So who's gonna beat him? Warren? Buttigieg? Clinton? Get serious.
Again, how about if you get serious. Some recent polls showed that if the election were held today, the top four Democratic candidates would be Trump by double-digits.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Didn't Barack Obama have eight years to take care of this? Yeah, he did. But he didn't get squat done.
All presidents dating back to Eisenhower haven't been able to take care of this, but you chose to just single out Obama. Nice balanced view you have there.
. . . he has over 5 years left as president.
No, he does not. He has a little over a year left--and he might not even make that.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
Not me, I’m not in Washington, but if the Dems want to screw the constitution, the GOP won’t be their fall guy.
What kind of an irrelevant response is that? This isn't about you or where you are at. Following the Constitution is not screwing with it. Following a Federal Judge's ruling is not screwing with it, so where are you getting this from?
It’s an even bigger hoax than the Russian hoax.
You mean the same "Russian Hoax" that ended up with a number of Trump officials pleading guilty to federal charges as well as several of them who are either in prison or are expecting to be sentenced there soon? You need to look up the meanings of words.
ROFL, you serious?
Are you? Prove that there are no Republicans in the committee meetings, and then you might have something to laugh about.
Actually, they do not, they can’t even call on witnesses or cross examine them.
Actually, the ones in the committees do. It's the ones outside of the committees who don't because they are not on the committees. See how this works?
We have a conservative majority now and so far it’s helped Trump as well as now we have over 140 conservatives judges in the lower courts (Democrats beware in the future)
Nixon had a conservative majority on the SC, and the ruled unanimously not in his favor. 140 conservative judges and lower courts have no say in the impeachment procedures, so nice try.
(Democrats beware in the future)
More like Republicans beware right now.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
Ok, if liberals want us to believe that...
Yes, because that is what is in the Constitution, Bass. What part of Judge Howell's ruling did you not understand?
And the Democrats conducting this impeachment hoax in large part of their hearings in secrecy.
Again, no hoax. They are investigating a number of potential illegal acts that were brought to their attention by Trump-appointed and Republican-approved Inspector Generals.
Yes, they should obstruct. As long as they don’t have equal rights or access to the exact same evidence the Democrats have,
What part of Lincoln's post above about 47 Republicans being on the various committees did you not understand? They have the same access that Democrats do, so stop complaining.
. . . let it go to the SC and let them deal with the full legality and rights of both sides.
Yes, let it go to the SC just like in 1974. How did that work out for Republicans again?
3 ( +4 / -1 )
For all you Trump loyalists out there who still think that the impeachment process so far is not legal, here is what Federal Judge Beryl Howell just ruled on October 25:
Judge Beryl Howell called the Republican illegality arguments “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.
So please, stop repeating the falsehood that there is anything illegal being done by the Democrats here. The only illegal things that are going on are being done by Trump and his minions--refusing to cooperate with Congressional committees, hiding evidence and obstructing Congression investigations by putting out groundless letters of refusal to cooperate.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Err,,, no. The ones involved in this partisan secretive cangaroo court have been pointing out that it is thoroughly illegal . . .
Blatantly false. A federal judge ruled the other day that there was nothing illegal about the current impeachment proceedings.
Another fake news propaganda article . . .
Only by those looking in the mirror of Trumpworld.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Well, if you go by that then Democrats are breaking every rule.
Actual examples from the real world would help give your accusation some credibility, and if you can find some. let's see them. However, just the other day, a federal judge ruled that there was nothing wrong with the current impeachment proceedings.
how the left media has not only been proven wrong, but this year the liberal media retractions were off the chain.
Nope, see the above link or similar stories about it if you are stuck behind a paywall.
Ok you believe that, this is what some very close associates have said about him and I tend to believe them.
I have no doubt that you would believe them since it supports your biased point of view. In fact, it's called "Confirmation Bias."
5 ( +5 / -0 )
disgruntled and wrong is some of the issues, not to mention not being happy because he wasn’t chosen for the supreme court position
No, citing actual facts according to what is in the Constitution and pointing out how the right-wing media has been wrong is not the product of being "disgruntled and . . . upset because he wasn't chosen for the Supreme Court." In fact, it's quite the opposite.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
If this is just a vote for an “impeachment inquiry” and not an official House roll call vote for an "impeachment resolution”, then the so called subpoenas remain what they have been all along: only written requests to appear, even if the House judiciary committee is involved.
Fact-free as usual. Subpoenas are legal requests that must be followed if issued by any Congressional Committee. There are no exceptions. I've pointed this out before, but many Trump supporters keep posting this falsehood.
Watch for President Trump to tell the democrats to pound sand and let this issue go to SCOTUS where the liberals will lose . . . again.
Really? Like when? Please tell us a specific case in which the Democrats have lost anything to the SCOTUS regarding this impeachment process. The fact is, the Trump administration has lost every single federal court case that they have tried in their attempts to obstruct the investigations.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
News coming in is that Trump will step down as President - on Jan 20 2025.
More like "President of Cell Block A" at Riker's Island.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Trump is playing 4D chess and the Democrats are still playing go fish.
The content of that statement shows someone is not quite playing with a full deck.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
The other picture is not in the article,
Uh, actually it is. Look for the two thumbnail photos in the upper left corner of the picture at the bottom of the article and then click on them. Magic!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"It can be done. ... It will take place and it will go relatively quickly. ... If you have the right people, like, in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing ... you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country."
Donald J. Trump
Sources: Interviews with Sean Hannity Feb. 22 and April 4, 2016
4 ( +4 / -0 )
That’s your right. My right is to call Schiff a vindictive fool.
You can call Schiff and other Democrats all the names that you like. However, you still didn't adress my point about drawing my own conclusions from the testimony of the witnesses such as Ambassador Taylor and others.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
No, what I’m saying is, the Dems shouldn’t be so hard on McConnell, he’s just copying his former counterpart, Harry Reid.
No, Harry Reid did not pull even half of the shenanigans that McConnell has.
I have as well . . .
I seriously doubt that, especially if you read it in English.
But we need to listen to the partisans like Adam Schiff on the left and take his word . . .
I'm taking the words of testimony by Ambassador Taylor and other witnesses in this proceeding. Try arguing against what they said instead of your perceived Boogie Man.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
No Trump-Russian collusion, Google the Mueller Report.
I've read the Mueller Report. It's clear that you haven't.
I see you didn't bother to watch the Levin report.
Nope, since Mark Levin has proven to be nothing but a hyper-partisan shill on the far right. If I use your words, he "can't be impartial."
And Judge Nap left out a whole bunch of stuff.
Like what? Please tell us.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Yes, there is.
Please tell us then. Make sure to be specific and cite rules and regulations that can be found in the Constitution so we can verify your claims.
I see, two wrongs make a right.
Are you telling us that the rules that Republicans made during the Clinton Impeachment that are being followed now were wrong? Wow! When did you come to this realization?
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Watch this and then tell us if you still think the Democrats are carrying out this impeachment inquiry properly . . .
Read this and tell us if you think that the Democrats are carrying out this impeachment inquiry properly:
0 ( +2 / -2 )
But that’s what they’re doing,
No, again this is not about liberals. The Republicans are the ones complaining here. I quoted Mitch McConnell above to show their hypocrisy on the issue.
. . . if I were being impeached unjustly . . .
There is nothing "unjust" about how things are proceeding. The Democrats are simply following the rules that the Republicans put into place during the Clinton Impeachment.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Liberals complain about the process being legally challenged.
Try reading the article again. This isn't about liberals complaining.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
"You complain about the process when you are losing." -- Mitch McConnell, December 2017.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
. . .upping their hatred to DEFCON 11,
You do realize that the higher the DEFCON number, the lower the threat is, right?
9 ( +10 / -1 )
And what exactly is "BS" about the Biden scandal?
That it never existed in the first place and was the product of the imaginations of Dmytro Firtash (also known as "Dmitry Firtash"), Rudi Guliani, and other Trump henchmen which later got amplified by right-wing conservative media and then spread like manure by loyalists on websites like this one.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
. . . so until the process is 100% fair, they’ll continue to moan . . .
Let's see here: There are about 45+ GOP committee members who are present at these hearings. They get to listen to witnesses and then ask them questions. What is so secretive about that? As far as the Republicans who were not allowed into the room, if they really wanted to be there, then maybe they should have asked for better committee assignments from their own leadership.
Oh, and if the Republicans really want to hear witnesses like Ambassador Taylor speak in public, why not invite them to read their opening statements on the White House steps? Let's see how that works out for them.
Be careful what you wish for.
9 ( +10 / -1 )
Why do Dems always insist on secret closed door members only meetings.
Whatever happened to transparency and accountability?
"Non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules. No exceptions made." -- Republican Trey Gowdy - June 15, 2015
10 ( +10 / -0 )
Maybe liberals should try running on policies that actually work instead of constantly trying to make up stuff and lie to people all the time.
Yes because "constantly trying to make up stuff and lie to people all the time" is the Republicans' job.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The Constitution contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive. Any violation of this is an impeachable offense.
8 ( +9 / -1 )