Impeachment not going so well?

[YDB95]

Explain why not, Biden did it.

Read Jomar's post again. It says "a political, not US policy request". What Biden Sr did was not only US policy, it was supported by numerous allies and international organisations. None of that is true of what Trump did.

Trump as president runs foreign policy, leveraging political advantage is not in play here, investigation into corruption is.

Please. Even if you support Trump, it's obvious that political advantage was certainly an issue. Especially when there was no evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden was guilty of anything worse than nepotism. (And lest we forget, there still isn't.)

Main stream media has a way of disguising it’s intent to deceive the people. Because the word corruption wasn’t used in the conversation with Zelensky the media decided to accuse Trump of digging dirt on Biden to interfere with 2020 elections, a ruse to formulate a conduit for impeachment.

The same mainstream media that kept the nonsense about Hillary Clinton's emails on the front page for months in 2016, and then buried the news that she'd been exonerated, and which has long since exhausted every thesaurus in print using euphemisms for "racist" to describe Trump? That doesn't pass the smell test no matter how much you hate the mainstream media.

Why do you think every republican is against it. You can’t possibly believe that every republican is anti American and would put Trump over country.

True, I don't. But given how many of your ideological allies right here on Lit seem to sincerely believe all progressives hate America, maybe you shouldn't go there in the first place. In any event, to answer your question, I don't think "every Republican" is against it. I think almost all elected Republicans are against it, though, and the reason is they've seen how Trump can destroy a maverick Republican's career with one tweet. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

Impeachment without statutory relevance, failure to cite one criminal violation in the articles of impeachment.

Just because you support what he did does not mean it's not a criminal violation, or that there's no evidence.

It’s a well orchestrated ploy to damage the Trump presidency and shape the electorate in time for the 2020 elections.

You obviously aren't familiar with the often rather heated discussions that went on among progressives before news broke about the phone call to Zelensky. A LOT of us believed it wouldn't be politically advantageous to impeach Trump (and no one supported doing it only because we disliked him - but it's always been clear that he plays fast and loose with the rules, and it was only a matter of time before a clearcut case of that surfaced). Besides that, as the 2018 elections showed, there's no need to go to such extremes to whip up opposition to Trump: his opposition was already about as energised as you could possibly get.

They know impeachment and removal won’t work so damaging Trump is the only way to win back the senate and the WH.

Not likely given his consistently poor approval ratings, and the certainty that next time around, he won't have the benefit of running against an opponent with 25 years of constant sliming to deal with.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "What Biden Sr did was not only US policy, it was supported by numerous allies and international organisations. None of that is true of what Trump did."

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that could (and SHOULD) be investigated in a U.S. Senate impeachment trial, with both Joe & Hunter Biden called in as witnesses to testify on how their family got so rich working in the Ukrainian oil & gas business!

"The same mainstream media that kept the nonsense about Hillary Clinton's emails on the front page..."

The mainstream media gave Mrs. Clinton a pass regarding her blatantly illegal destruction of evidence, smashing her hard-drives and then pouring bleach-bit on the remains to keep her e-mails from ever being discovered & read by investigators!

"Just because you support what he did does not mean it's not a criminal violation, or that there's no evidence."

And just because YOU dislike seeing America being made great again doesn't mean that President Trump has done anything impeachable - besides, it's not up to you or me to decide that - it's up to the U.S. Senate to make that decision! And when they do, you can bet that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats will bitch & moan that Trump escaped their clown-show attacks on his presidency once again!

 

[gunthernehmen]

it's up to the U.S. Senate to make that decision! And when they do, you can bet that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats will bitch & moan that Trump escaped their clown-show attacks on his presidency once again!

Not to worry, I understand they have another political terrorism campaign prepared to unleash in the mid to late summer, in order to disrupt the elections.

 

[icanhelp1]

Read Jomar's post again. It says "a political, not US policy request". What Biden Sr did was not only US policy, it was supported by numerous allies and international organisations. None of that is true of what Trump did.

Then if that's the case then Trump runs US policy. Don't convolute the topic with international organizations, has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I've spent a lot of time supporting my claims with different accounts from respectable journalist.

Please. Even if you support Trump, it's obvious that political advantage was certainly an issue. Especially when there was no evidence whatsoever that Hunter Biden was guilty of anything worse than nepotism. (And lest we forget, there still isn't.)

No, that's not the case. I've stated in several post a litany of behind the scenes illegal practices by the DNC attempting to damage the Trump campaign which originated in the Ukraine. I've posted many different legal opinions as to what happened in 2015 & 20126. I'm not going to waste time restating it. If I thought you had one inkling of objectivity I'd go into more detail with you, but you don't, you're a card carrying Trump hater and we'll see what happens when Durham's report is released.

The same mainstream media that kept the nonsense about Hillary Clinton's emails on the front page for months in 2016, and then buried the news that she'd been exonerated, and which has long since exhausted every thesaurus in print using euphemisms for "racist" to describe Trump? That doesn't pass the smell test no matter how much you hate the mainstream media.

I don't carry water for Trump. At one time I enjoyed watching CNN and, believe it or not, Morning Joe was my favorite morning show. I found it a treat when Zbigniew Brzezinski was interviewed ( Meka's dad ). I had a lot of respect for him, Sam Nunn and others of their days in government. Trump get's elected and they turned into the most partisan hack jobs in the history of modern media. Incessant trump bashing 24/7 made them impossible to watch.. They're an insult to the american people's collective intelligence. Project Veritas is real, CNN is agenda driven, destroy Trump at all cost. Hillary broke the law {18 USC 1924} Lynch and Comey were not about to prosecute their candidate, changed the narrative of the FBI findings from negligent to extremely careless to keep her out of jail and attempt to satisfy public curiosity. And I will admit Sean Hannity is also over the top. Having a military background and clearances violating 18 USC 1924 is a flagrant violation of trust and she should have been prosecuted, and instead, as far back as 2016, the drumbeat was for impeachment of Trump by the likes of Al Green and Maxine Waters ( who has her own corruption issues ) before he's even inaugurated. Clinton was never exonerated, {she was never charged}, which was a miscarriage of justice. She was the hopes and salvation for the continuation of the Obama legacy and protected at all cost even if it broke the back of the Justice department....

True, I don't. But given how many of your ideological allies right here on Lit seem to sincerely believe all progressives hate America, maybe you shouldn't go there in the first place. In any event, to answer your question, I don't think "every Republican" is against it. I think almost all elected Republicans are against it, though, and the reason is they've seen how Trump can destroy a maverick Republican's career with one tweet. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

I have and state my own opinions. The use of the word deplorables to describe right leaning opinions is used by just about every left leaning poster on LIT. "Basket of Deplorables" as you well know, was a term used by clinton to describe millions of Americans and I have a personal disdain for that comment, especially from her. I followed the clintons, Whitewater, Watergate, Bill's alleged sexual predation in every office he held, which does not sit well with many americans. So, when the left challenges Trump's moral compass, and rightly so, and then hold Bill in the highest esteem, I find that hypocritical. I have family members, nieces and nephews, son and daughter that have progressive views, I don't hate them, I try to educate them, LOL. but when you promise free stuff it's hard to compete with that message.

I believe in the beginning repubs had that fear of Trump but not anymore. The Mueller report initiated and used by the dems as a tactic to regain the house opened a lot of republicans eyes. The drip drip allegations of fraud on the FISA courts, spying, biased FBI and DOJ and the constant drumbeat of impeaching Trump without citing an actual statutory violation has rallied the repubs and finding the Dems as off their collective rockers and truly believe the dems are trashing the constitution for political advantage. What the senate Dems did during the Kavanaugh hearings was disgusting. I had the highest regard for Dianne Feinstein as a lawyer, not anymore. She played the party line instead of fair application of the law. The Dems are great at deposing people that support their views and ignoring the other side. There has never been an impeachment along partisan lines. There has never been a Speaker that took such great pride and exuberance in the signing of the impeachment papers. This will follow her through history.


Just because you support what he did does not mean it's not a criminal violation, or that there's no evidence.



You obviously aren't familiar with the often rather heated discussions that went on among progressives before news broke about the phone call to Zelensky. A LOT of us believed it wouldn't be politically advantageous to impeach Trump (and no one supported doing it only because we disliked him - but it's always been clear that he plays fast and loose with the rules, and it was only a matter of time before a clearcut case of that surfaced). Besides that, as the 2018 elections showed, there's no need to go to such extremes to whip up opposition to Trump: his opposition was already about as energised as you could possibly get.

I never said and don't believe progressives or dems in general were for impeaching Trump. The dem house and senate is a different case. Trump's phone call with Zelensky was not only legal but prudent. I've posted what Joe and Barack did in 2016 with denying funds to Ukraine. That was a clear violation of the ICA of 1974, but nobody gave a shit. Presidents do what presidents do. But now because it's Trump the whole fucking world is about to blow up. When you speak of fast and loose of rules I hope you're not so shortsighted as to overlook Fast and Furious, Benghazi, night time delivery of pallets of cash to Iran without congressional approval, threatening to deny congressionally appropriated funds to Ukraine until they cave to their demands. Again nobody gave a shit, Obama wasn't impeached. The open mic incident was pretty shitty, Obama has more drone strikes than all president combined, even killed an american citizen, deported more illegals than any president in history, built the cages and separated families before Trump was a thought to be president. But when Trump did the same thing he was called a nazi, running concentration camps all because the dems didn't want to legislate aid for the border. Nancy refused to give Trump a win so the border became collateral damage, cost of doing business in the effort to destroy Trump's presidency.

Not likely given his consistently poor approval ratings, and the certainty that next time around, he won't have the benefit of running against an opponent with 25 years of constant sliming to deal with.

Biden has 40 years of history, not all of it pristeen. But who cares?

 

[Dumpington]

Matthew Continetti writes about the NEVER-ENDING IMPEACHMENT in the Washington Free Beacon:

Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held on to the impeachment articles because she was waiting for her pens to arrive. The fancy commemorative ballpoints, featuring the speaker's name engraved in gold, that Pelosi gave to colleagues at Wednesday's engrossment ceremony quickly became the subject of mockery. Republicans saw them as emblematic of Democratic partisanship and triviality. "Nothing says seriousness and sobriety like handing out souvenirs," said Mitch McConnell. "As though this were a happy bill-signing instead of the gravest process in our Constitution."

In Pelosi's eyes, impeachment is something to celebrate. It's more than an accomplishment. It's the most significant product of the 116th Congress. What McConnell calls "the gravest process" has been the preferred means of Democrats to inflict maximum damage on President Trump and possibly remove him from office before the end of his term. The trial that begins tomorrow has been years in the making. And the drive to impeach Trump won't end when the verdict is rendered. He may well end up the first president to be impeached multiple times.

Maxine Waters has been chanting "impeach 45" since the spring of 2017. Rep. Al Green introduced the first impeachment resolution that summer. Tom Steyer founded "Need to Impeach" that October. In November 2017 a group of House Democrats introduced additional articles of impeachment. The same thing happened in December 2017, January 2018, March 2019, May 2019, and July 2019. House Democrats accuse Trump of violating the emoluments clause, obstructing justice, associating with white nationalism, separating families of illegal immigrants, and more.

Pelosi resisted. Why? Not because she thought impeachment was wrong. Because none of the articles advanced by the left could win a majority of her caucus.

Then the whistleblower arrived. The story he told about shenanigans in Ukraine was enough to bring aboard moderates from swing districts. The rushed inquiry and polarized vote on two vague and weak articles betrayed the political motivations behind the enterprise. Impeachment shields Pelosi from leftwing recriminations in the event that Trump is re-elected and Democrats retain the House. And the investigations, hearings, and trial guarantee a steady stream of bad press for Trump and hostile questions that make some Republicans squirm.

Pelosi is more than happy for additional evidence to be disclosed and for the Senate to call witnesses, even after the House has impeached and when the resolution of the trial is foreordained. It's not justice she's after. It's victory in November. Expect leaks of damaging information before key procedural votes just as happened during the Kavanaugh confirmation fight.

When Trump is acquitted or the charges against him dismissed, Democrats will pronounce the verdict illegitimate and accuse Republican senators of involvement in a cover-up.

No charge is too outlandish. Pelosi and impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries have advanced the ridiculous conspiracy that McConnell has "Russian connections" of his own. "It's a win-win," Chuck Schumer told the New York Times. But there's a cautionary lesson here for Democrats from the Kavanaugh episode. As the allegations against Kavanaugh grew more & more absurd, the Republicans found themselves more unified. The senators that Democrats hope will side with them on procedural motions might demur. Susan Collins, for example, isn't anybody's pawn. "I don't think Chuck Schumer is very interested in my opinion," she said in a blistering comment to the Times. "I don't think he's really very interested in doing anything but trying to defeat me by telling lies to the people of Maine. And you can quote me on that."

 

[YDB95]

've posted what Joe and Barack did in 2016 with denying funds to Ukraine. That was a clear violation of the ICA of 1974, but nobody gave a shit.

Actually it was Trump who violated the ICA:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...05/did-trump-violate-impoundment-control-act/

The closest I could find to any evidence that Obama was guilty of the same was a couple of right wing sites like the Federalist that were referring to a dispute over other statutes, involving China rather than Ukraine, in 2011 rather than 2016. Nice try though.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "The closest I could find to any evidence that Obama was guilty..."

Barack Obama was a weak & emasculated president who was elected by progressive/liberals to manage America's decline, which he did very well. The Republicans never tried to impeach him because they didn't want to waste taxpayer time & money on something that should only be used as a last resort.

Besides, Obama was his Democratic Party's own worse enemy, overseeing enormous Democrat defeats in both the House & Senate, as that party grew steadily weaker lesgislatively. By the time Obama left office, Republicans controlled BOTH houses of congress!

With Trump winning the presidency in 2016 (again, with Barack Obama's help), the House Democrats IMMEDIATELY began planning to impeach him! They were hoping that the Mueller investigation would do the trick, but it was a bust. Finally, using Trump's Ukraine phone call, the Dems launched impeachment proceedings, and even passed two articles of impeachment WITHOUT the necessary evidence to make any of it stick!

And now, with pretty much everybody conceding that the U.S. Senate will NOT vote to remove this president from office, the Democratic Party is preparing to cry & scream again just like they did back when Trump was first elected. But what else CAN they do, with Joe Biden poised to be their presidential candidate in 2020? Trump's going to win again, and they HATE our U.S. Constitution more & more every day!

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually it was Trump who violated the ICA:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...05/did-trump-violate-impoundment-control-act/

The closest I could find to any evidence that Obama was guilty of the same was a couple of right wing sites like the Federalist that were referring to a dispute over other statutes, involving China rather than Ukraine, in 2011 rather than 2016. Nice try though.

Biden threatened to deny 1 $billion in aid if Shokin wasn't fired. Admitted to it on public media. The threat, had Obama and Biden gone through with would have violated{ ICA }. But since the Ukraine government caved under Biden's threat it became the crime of extortion. My point is, at that time no one gave a shit. By democrat standards of impeachment, both Biden and Obama should of had criminal referrals submitted to SDNY and impeached for extortion a violation of 18 USC {872}. Pubs where just not inflicted with ODS (Obama delusion syndrome ) and no desire to impeach for the sake of Obama being president.

 

[YDB95]

Biden threatened to deny 1 $billion in aid if Shokin wasn't fired. Admitted to it on public media.

Closer to the truth to say he took credit for something that, in reality, the entire Western diplomatic community was pushing for.

The threat, had Obama and Biden gone through with would have violated{ ICA }.

Nope. The ICA stipulates that if a president wants to withhold funds passed by Congress, s/he must notify Congress of how much money is involved and why it is being withheld. Trump did neither prior to the phone call with Zelensky. But that simply isn't what happened with Biden in 2015. It wasn't aid, it was a loan guarantee; and it was part of a policy developed by the State Department and implemented in conjunction with the IMF. In other words, it didn't involve funds passed by Congress, so the ICA didn't apply in any way.

But since the Ukraine government caved under Biden's threat it became the crime of extortion. My point is, at that time no one gave a shit.

Actually, just about everyone - including the Ukrainians - wanted Shokin gone. Also, the consensus among those who were involved is that Biden vastly overstated his influence on the whole thing. Either way, people most certainly did "give a shit". But it wasn't extortion, it was a coordinated international campaign of which Biden simply played a part.

By democrat standards of impeachment, both Biden and Obama should of had criminal referrals submitted to SDNY and impeached for extortion a violation of 18 USC {872}. Pubs where just not inflicted with ODS (Obama delusion syndrome ) and no desire to impeach for the sake of Obama being president.

Right, they were too busy whining about how he wasn't born in the USA.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You Dems like to move the goalposts, for sure.

The only thing Trump is guilty of is not being Hillary.

Look, you have five more years of this to cope with. Unless he repeals 22A and stays on, then longer.

You really need to learn some coping skills. Like we all did when The Great Divider was president.

 

[icanhelp1]

Closer to the truth to say he took credit for something that, in reality, the entire Western diplomatic community was pushing for.

You got 7 hours! If you don't believe me call Obama. This isn't about western shit. You wouldn't say shit if you had a mouthful of it!

Nope. The ICA stipulates that if a president wants to withhold funds passed by Congress, s/he must notify Congress of how much money is involved and why it is being withheld. Trump did neither prior to the phone call with Zelensky. But that simply isn't what happened with Biden in 2015. It wasn't aid, it was a loan guarantee; and it was part of a policy developed by the State Department and implemented in conjunction with the IMF. In other words, it didn't involve funds passed by Congress, so the ICA didn't apply in any way.


Loan/ aid, it was an agreement with Ukraine which was approved by congress and Biden arbitrarily used coercion, extortion to be exact to get Shokin fired.

Zelensky was a newby on the block, what part of that don't you get. Funding was held back until Trump and the exec branch could get a better feel of Zelensky's perseverance towards corruption.

Actually, just about everyone - including the Ukrainians - wanted Shokin gone. Also, the consensus among those who were involved is that Biden vastly overstated his influence on the whole thing. Either way, people most certainly did "give a shit". But it wasn't extortion, it was a coordinated international campaign of which Biden simply played a part.

Right, they were too busy whining about how he wasn't born in the USA.

Not the point, way to move the goal post.

 

[YDB95]

Not the point, way to move the goal post.

I didn't move the goalpost at all. You said:

Pubs where just not inflicted with ODS (Obama delusion syndrome ) and no desire to impeach for the sake of Obama being president.

And I responded with a crystal clear example, if I do say so myself, of how absurd it is to suggest the Republicans had any respect for Obama whatsoever.

Really, guys, I wish I had spent 2008-2016 in whichever parallel universe you were in, in which the Republicans accepted that Obama was the president and that he was a decent and ethical human being. That sure as fuck didn't happen in the world I was living in!

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Closer to the truth to say he took credit for something that, in reality, the entire Western diplomatic community was pushing for."

Here are Joe Biden's EXACT WORDS where he actually brags before the Council of Foreign Relations about holding up American aid to the Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY - (Vice President Biden brags about getting Ukrainian prosecutor fired - runs 1:15)

"I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee... and I had gotten a committment from Poroschenko and from Yahtsinyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn't... and as they're walking out to the press conference I said 'we're NOT going to give you the billion dollars'... and they said 'you have no authority, you're not the president'... and I said 'call him'... I said 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars'... and I said 'I'm leaving here in about six hours... if the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money!'... well, son of a bitch! He got fired!"

And THAT'S how V.P. Biden got rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company paying his son tens of thousands of dollars every week!

"Actually, just about everyone - including the Ukrainians - wanted Shokin gone."

Yes, YDB95 - the U.S. Senate seriously needs to call in both Joe & Hunter Biden as witnesses to testify under oath regarding their roles into the Ukraine firing special prosecutors under Joe Biden's threats of cutting off much-needed aid to that nation!

"Right, they were too busy whining about how he wasn't born in the USA."

Barack Obama could easily have produced his birth certificate on DAY ONE, but he chose not to, and the national news media outlets, fearful that he might NOT have been born here, opted NOT to investigateon their own, as they were already trying to shield & protect him from negative media coverage!

 

[gunthernehmen]

I didn't move the goalpost at all. You said:



And I responded with a crystal clear example, if I do say so myself, of how absurd it is to suggest the Republicans had any respect for Obama whatsoever.

Really, guys, I wish I had spent 2008-2016 in whichever parallel universe you were in, in which the Republicans accepted that Obama was the president and that he was a decent and ethical human being. That sure as fuck didn't happen in the world I was living in!

I don't think ANYBODY thought Obama was a decent human being, just that he was President.

 

[YDB95]

I don't think ANYBODY thought Obama was a decent human being,

That certainly speaks volumes about your perspective. Thank you.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I didn't move the goalpost at all. You said:



And I responded with a crystal clear example, if I do say so myself, of how absurd it is to suggest the Republicans had any respect for Obama whatsoever.

Really, guys, I wish I had spent 2008-2016 in whichever parallel universe you were in, in which the Republicans accepted that Obama was the president and that he was a decent and ethical human being. That sure as fuck didn't happen in the world I was living in!

Just search the GB for "obama" in the subject of the threads.

These same dopes are the thread starters - different Alts.

 

[YDB95]

Just search the GB for "obama" in the subject of the threads.

These same dopes are the thread starters - different Alts.

I already knew the type all too well. They always have nothing but raw contempt for every Democratic president, then when the Republicans take charge they seem to sincerely believe they were always professional and respectful. And they call us 'deranged'!

 

[gunthernehmen]

I already knew the type all too well. They always have nothing but raw contempt for every Democratic president, then when the Republicans take charge they seem to sincerely believe they were always professional and respectful. And they call us 'deranged'!

The first ten threads in this forum. Most were started by a leftie, one of them is the 157th generation of monomaniacal hatred. ALL of them are packed with venom from you and your ilk.

Senate Shenanigans
Impeachment not going so well?
Impeachment Thread
warren v sanders conflict
Did Iran accidentally just shoot down a civilian passenger plane?
Political cartoons
The 157th Week of Space Cadet Bonespur!
world's first hydrogen-powered train
Still Thankful for Scott Walker
Obama CIA Director on Trump’s Bold Action in Iraq

You are an uneducated potato.

 

[YDB95]

The first ten threads in this forum. Most were started by a leftie, one of them is the 157th generation of monomaniacal hatred. ALL of them are packed with venom from you and your ilk.

Senate Shenanigans
Impeachment not going so well?
Impeachment Thread
warren v sanders conflict
Did Iran accidentally just shoot down a civilian passenger plane?
Political cartoons
The 157th Week of Space Cadet Bonespur!
world's first hydrogen-powered train
Still Thankful for Scott Walker
Obama CIA Director on Trump’s Bold Action in Iraq

You are an uneducated potato.

If you've got anything factually incorrect to point to in any of those threads, I'm happy to consider that.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If you've got anything factually incorrect to point to in any of those threads, I'm happy to consider that.

Virtually everything you and the other nutters have ever posted. The few scraps that aren't opinion are simply wrong. Ok, he does have deplorable fashion sense.

You are so blinded with hatred that you have no sense of reality. It's actually pretty sad.

I know I was not thrilled with Obama, his 8 years. No idea what people saw in him. He looked good, I'll give him that. I'm sure I even poked some fun at him, but the relentless, frothing at the mouth RAGE you people have for the President is just morbidly fascinating. Do you have lives, outside of these rants?

 

[YDB95]

I know I was not thrilled with Obama, his 8 years. No idea what people saw in him. He looked good, I'll give him that. I'm sure I even poked some fun at him, but the relentless, frothing at the mouth RAGE you people have for the President is just morbidly fascinating. Do you have lives, outside of these rants?

If you honestly think we're the ones who are irrational after what Obama went through, I don't see any point in trying to compare opinions with you.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If you honestly think we're the ones who are irrational after what Obama went through, I don't see any point in trying to compare opinions with you.

You don't have to. Just go read your own words.

Or even better, Jack's words. He's funny when he get's on a roll, as long as you don't take him seriously.

And that academic fraud Phrodeau.

Thor may be the real deal. I'm not certain.

But just read your own words, pick a thread from 6 months or a year ago and read it with fresh eyes.

 

[YDB95]

But just read your own words, pick a thread from 6 months or a year ago and read it with fresh eyes.

Do you expect me to have some sort of a-ha moment and suddenly not think Trump is an incompetent, racist fraud? Nothing has happened in 6 months or a year to make that happen.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Do you expect me to have some sort of a-ha moment and suddenly not think Trump is an incompetent, racist fraud? Nothing has happened in 6 months or a year to make that happen.

You don't have to like him. You don't even have to approve of his methods.

It would be nice if you could gain enough perspective to realize how polarized you are. You don't even have to post it here. Just know it.

It would also be nice if you'd notice even a few of the things Trump has accomplished. Look at the unemployment rates, especially among minorities. But that may be an exercise for next term.

 

[YDB95]

It would also be nice if you'd notice even a few of the things Trump has accomplished. Look at the unemployment rates, especially among minorities. But that may be an exercise for next term.

That's not his accomplishment. It's a continuing trend that began under Obama.