Impeachment not going so well?

[1Diver2]

In case you didn’t know, there were hundreds of contacts between Trump associates and Russian operatives, and they have tried to cover up every one.

https://themoscow************/expla...rs-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

Ahh yes so he'll be charged then right? I mean if theres all that proof?
If no, why not? and again do you feel foolish for supporting your party that evidently must have either been in on it or let you down horribly?
Or is there a "C" ? whats your reason they couldn't do anything with all those hundreds ?

 

[Dumpington]

The Trouvere writes: "As a result, the national debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has increased from 32% in 1980, the year Jimmy Carter left office, to 106% now."

President Obama actually attempted to BORROW our way out of a recession by increasing America's debt by an amazing $10-TRILLION during his eight-years in office, but then again, nobody ever said that Barack understood anything about basic economics! The guy was a community organizer with zero business-acumen!

1Diver2 writes: "Do any of you feel silly for going all in on that bandwagon ? Let down by your party maybe?"

The House Democrats were determined to impeach President Trump the very moment they took over the House of Representatives. When the Mueller Report failed them, Schiff came up with this silliness involving the Ukraine. EVerybody knows it won't fly in the U.S. Senate. Now, all they can do is await the voter backlash over their failed coup attempt in November of 2020!

phrodeau writes: "In case you didn’t know, there were hundreds of contacts between Trump associates and Russian operatives, and they have tried to cover up every one."

Yeah, phrodeau - that's what everybody was saying before the Mueller Report was released, especially Adam Schiff. But it didn't happen. The articles of impeachment passed said absolutely NOTHING about any Trump/Russia collusion, did they?

 

[phrodeau]

Ahh yes so he'll be charged then right? I mean if theres all that proof?
If no, why not? and again do you feel foolish for supporting your party that evidently must have either been in on it or let you down horribly?
Or is there a "C" ? whats your reason they couldn't do anything with all those hundreds ?

C: Mitch McConnell.

 

[1Diver2]

C: Mitch McConnell.

so you're telling me that one man stood in the way of your entire case, their 2 1/2 years of "work" all these "facts" and they fumbled due to one man?
Really?

Man why didn't Pelosi and all of our millions in tax dollars see that coming? whos fault was that?

You must be really pissed, do you still support her and them? I mean they fucked up pretty bad no?

 

[Dumpington]

1Diver2 writes: "So you're telling me that one man stood in the way of your entire case, their 2 1/2 years of "work" all these "facts" and they fumbled due to one man? Really?"

Before President Obama completely DESTROYED his own Democratic Party's huge U.S. Senate majorities by implementing his enormously unpopular health care legislation (aka: ObamaCare), Mitch McConnell was simply the senate minority leader from Kentucky, and phrodeau didn't dislike him the slightest bit!

But that all CHANGED after ObamaCare's unpopularity wrecked that party's legislative power, making Mitch the new U.S. Senate MAJORITY Leader. And while phrodeau doesn't have the heart to blame Obama for his many screw-ups, he then witnessed one humiliation after another for that president, beginning with McConnell's decision not to allow Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination to come up for a vote!

And then, after McConnell got Brett Kavanaugh confirmed over near-rabid Democratic Party opposition (in the summer of 2018), dislike of the Kentucky senator turned into HATE! And even while the Dems were taking control of the House in the 2018 midterms, McConnell got even MORE POWERFUL in the U.S. Senate as the G.O.P. managed to INCREASE its power in that legislative body with a net-gain of TWO seats!

This will make it even easier for President Trump to get his NEXT U.S. Supreme Court nominee confirmed (like when Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg chooses to leave/retire), along with making it IMPOSSIBLE for the House Democrats to remove President Trump from office following their recently-concluded impeachment clown-show! So you can SEE why phrodeau is so upset, can't you?

 

[1Diver2]

1Diver2 writes: "So you're telling me that one man stood in the way of your entire case, their 2 1/2 years of "work" all these "facts" and they fumbled due to one man? Really?"

Before President Obama completely DESTROYED his own Democratic Party's huge U.S. Senate majorities by implementing his enormously unpopular health care legislation (aka: ObamaCare), Mitch McConnell was simply the senate minority leader from Kentucky, and phrodeau didn't dislike him the slightest bit!

But that all CHANGED after ObamaCare's unpopularity wrecked that party's legislative power, making Mitch the new U.S. Senate MAJORITY Leader. And while phrodeau doesn't have the heart to blame Obama for his many screw-ups, he then witnessed one humiliation after another for that president, beginning with McConnell's decision not to allow Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination to come up for a vote!

And then, after McConnell got Brett Kavanaugh confirmed over near-rabid Democratic Party opposition (in the summer of 2018), dislike of the Kentucky senator turned into HATE! And even while the Dems were taking control of the House in the 2018 midterms, McConnell got even MORE POWERFUL in the U.S. Senate as the G.O.P. managed to INCREASE its power in that legislative body with a net-gain of TWO seats!

This will make it even easier for President Trump to get his NEXT U.S. Supreme Court nominee confirmed (like when Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg chooses to leave/retire), along with making it IMPOSSIBLE for the House Democrats to remove President Trump from office following their recently-concluded impeachment clown-show! So you can SEE why phrodeau is so upset, can't you?

They really are their own worst enemy. I'm not sure if it's arrogance or stupidly that keeps them from seeing it.
Even after this fiasco where they mislead their followers all the way down the toilet.

I'd like to ask again do any of you hard line left actually believe your party did justice to this or even still believe anything will come of it? any sort of net gain for your party or our country?
What about the repercussions for wasting your counties tax dollars.
Are you really proud of what they have to show now after over 2 years of this circus?

 

[gunthernehmen]

You make some interesting points, but it just isn't reasonable to pretend the most openly bigoted presidential candidate in decades won for reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry. That may not have been the only reason, but it sure as heck was one reason. There's no way around that.

Can you name a president or even a presidential candidate in the entire history of this country that wasn't a bigot?

 

[magicalmoments]

#231 above
So... By using your logic the claims against Hillary Clinton regarding emails and Benghazi etc. are all made up conspiracy shit by those who would see her put down.
Shitloads spent on investigating her but no charges, no indictments, no convictions.
Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[jp55665566]

Bolivian "coup" just a warm-up for USA coup

practice, practice, practice... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4hxVhfxWck

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Putting the HoR in charge, just like the law says.



No, the buck stops with congress, not the WH. They have the ultimate authority on the matter thus the responsibility.

If the HoR gives POTUS whatever he wants that doesn't change the responsibility to POTUS. Not even a tiny bit, Congress still owns that.



Yea....reality be damned!!



Congress can also alter and shove what they say up his ass or not pass anything.

There is a whole resolution portion to the process for all the bickering and fighting over who gets what money to get sorted out.

So his role ain't all that important compared to the role congress plays nor does he have any authority in the matter, congress does.

You are arguing process ( which as far as I can see you it laid out correct) , I am trying to explain it is Trumps budget ( his spending request), you can't grasp it, so I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[YDB95]

Can you name a president or even a presidential candidate in the entire history of this country that wasn't a bigot?

Well, Obama showed signs of homophobia in his first term, but he overcame that. But big picture, you've also got to look at the prevailing attitudes of the era in which the candidate was running. Franklin Roosevelt could reasonably be called a bigot today for what he did to the Japanese-Americans, but at the time he probably passed muster. Harry Truman was known to use the N-word on occasion, but he also took the first crucial steps towards civil rights reform and also integrated the military. Lyndon Johnson quite clearly was a bigot back in his Senate days, but he went on to put an end to decades of obstruction and get the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century through Congress.

In other words, it's both a question of the person's own attitudes and of the prevailing attitudes of the times, and also whether the individual became more enlightened as time went by (as Obama clearly did on gay rights, and LBJ on African-Americans' rights).

Trump, though? By 2016 standards, it was already quite blatantly racist to call Mexicans rapists and drug pushers, or to accuse a Mexican-American judge of bias simply because of his ethnicity, or to refer to the third world as "shithole countries". It was indisputably bigoted to call for a ban on Muslim immigration - especially if he also had to go and make exceptions for countries where he was doing business! It was indisputably sexist to brag about his ability to "grab 'em by the pussy" or to say Megyn Kelly must have been on her period when he didn't like her questions. It was indisputably racist and xenophobic to hire Stephen Miller with his known white nationalist ties. I could go on, but you get the idea. And no recent major party nominee - even the ones I didn't like - has come anywhere near all that.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Well, Obama showed signs of homophobia in his first term, but he overcame that. But big picture, you've also got to look at the prevailing attitudes of the era in which the candidate was running. Franklin Roosevelt could reasonably be called a bigot today for what he did to the Japanese-Americans, but at the time he probably passed muster. Harry Truman was known to use the N-word on occasion, but he also took the first crucial steps towards civil rights reform and also integrated the military. Lyndon Johnson quite clearly was a bigot back in his Senate days, but he went on to put an end to decades of obstruction and get the most important civil rights legislation of the 20th century through Congress.

In other words, it's both a question of the person's own attitudes and of the prevailing attitudes of the times, and also whether the individual became more enlightened as time went by (as Obama clearly did on gay rights, and LBJ on African-Americans' rights).

Trump, though? By 2016 standards, it was already quite blatantly racist to call Mexicans rapists and drug pushers, or to accuse a Mexican-American judge of bias simply because of his ethnicity, or to refer to the third world as "shithole countries". It was indisputably bigoted to call for a ban on Muslim immigration - especially if he also had to go and make exceptions for countries where he was doing business! It was indisputably sexist to brag about his ability to "grab 'em by the pussy" or to say Megyn Kelly must have been on her period when he didn't like her questions. It was indisputably racist and xenophobic to hire Stephen Miller with his known white nationalist ties. I could go on, but you get the idea. And no recent major party nominee - even the ones I didn't like - has come anywhere near all that.

Do you actually know what the word "bigot" means?

 

[YDB95]

Do you actually know what the word "bigot" means?

Yes. I have my doubts as to whether or not you do.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Yes. I have my doubts as to whether or not you do.

You might want to google it anyway. Your reply had nothing at all to do with the question.

 

[YDB95]

You might want to google it anyway. Your reply had nothing at all to do with the question.

Just because it wasn't what you wanted to hear doesn't mean it was off the mark.

 

[magicalmoments]

You might want to google it anyway. Your reply had nothing at all to do with the question.

I looked it up, it said gunthernehmen

 

[gunthernehmen]

Just because it wasn't what you wanted to hear doesn't mean it was off the mark.

Gunther: Hey YDB, How did the Yankees do in last night's game?
YDB: The Panama Canal? It was built back in 1881, wasn't it?

 

[Dumpington]

magicalmoments writes (about Hillary Clinton): "Shitloads spent on investigating her but no charges, no indictments, no convictions."

The American people came to the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton was as "guilty as sin" when they denied her the presidency in 2016.

YDB95 writes: "Well, Obama showed signs of homophobia in his first term, but he overcame that."

Yes, YDB95 - and I know EXACTLY what you're going to say next: when Robert Byrd showed signs of violent racism by joining the Ku Kux Klan (and becoming a high-ranking officer), he overcame it, as did Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger! And today they're both Democratic Party heroes!

gunthernehmen asks YDB95: "Do you actually know what the word "bigot" means?"

According to YDB95, joining the KKK and/or addressing KKK rallies does NOT necessarily make one a bigot. He says to look at how well Robert Byrd & Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger turned out! BOTH are heroes of the progressive-left in America today!

 

[YDB95]

Gunther: Hey YDB, How did the Yankees do in last night's game?
YDB: The Panama Canal? It was built back in 1881, wasn't it?

1903, actually, and that analogy makes zero sense.
Feel free to share what you think "bigot" means and what that has to do with the issue at hand. No, I do not believe all presidents have been as bigoted as Trump. Not even close for the most part.

 

[gunthernehmen]

1903, actually, and that analogy makes zero sense.
Feel free to share what you think "bigot" means and what that has to do with the issue at hand. No, I do not believe all presidents have been as bigoted as Trump. Not even close for the most part.

It was begun in 1881, acquired by the US in 1904, completed in 1914. But what really matters is how you feel about it.

The analogy made exactly as much sense as your response to the question.

You asserted that Trump is a bigot.

I agreed, asking you to name a single president that wasn't a bigot.

You answered with a list of presidents that showed showed some form of racism and something about gays. I can only assume you thought bigot = racist.

A bigot is nothing more than a person that is intolerant of people with other opinions.

You, for example, are a bigot.

So am I.

Magical Moments is in a class all by him or herself, of bigotry.

 

[YDB95]

Not according to the Cambridge English Dictionary:

Bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

So unless you're saying everyone has unreasonable ideas about race or religion (or sexuality), no, not everyone is a bigot. Certainly not to the degree Mr. "A big beautiful wall and I will make Mexico pay for that wall" is.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Not according to the Cambridge English Dictionary:

Bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

So unless you're saying everyone has unreasonable ideas about race or religion (or sexuality), no, not everyone is a bigot. Certainly not to the degree Mr. "A big beautiful wall and I will make Mexico pay for that wall" is.

That certainly shows YOUR prejudice.

Look, you don't like the guy. That's your right. But he IS your president.

 

[YDB95]

That certainly shows YOUR prejudice.

Look, you don't like the guy. That's your right. But he IS your president.

That is completely irrelevant to whether or not he's a bigot.

 

[phrodeau]

The thing is, when we offer tolerance to stupid ideas, the next batch of ideas are more stupid.

 

[JackLuis]

If we had a Congress that would have gone after Dubya and Darth for their criminal behaviour or had an AG that would have pursed them after Obama was elected, it might have made a difference.

As it is Donnie was convinced he could get away with anything if he was President. Thanks Obama!