oh ok! Because I was not insulting Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbgeek
Printable View
oh ok! Because I was not insulting Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by herbgeek
Agreed, IL. I was referring to Trump here. I do apologize if this was not clear. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Indeed they are. Look at it this way. A year's supply of high blood pressure pills costs $12.96 USD in Algodones. Apply this to other meds and it's understandable why a reverse caravan of sorts is going on. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
My post above? This is the price I pay in Los Algodones for a year's supply of 10 MG Amlodipine for high blood pressure. Rob
It's interesting that the articles of impeachment didn't include the poll tested crime of bribery, or any other crime for that matter, but rather seem to be relying on the vagueness of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors". You'd think after 3 years of effort and multiple investigations there'd be more.
You can hope if you want but realistically you guys have just pretty much guaranteed his re-election. The liberal media got him elected with their wall-to-wall coverage of him in the first election and now the Democratic establishment has taken over by making all non-partisans irritated by their non-stop attempts to get him.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
On another note, what's up with your impeachment party and dress up event? Will you celebrate the House's efforts or will it turn into a pity party when he's acquitted in the Senate?
I don't read the future so I don't know how this will turn out but in the event of an impeachment/kick the sociopath to the curb, a full on Neighborhood Block Party in Pura 85006. I of course will be making a Moroccan stew and using the good plates I earned from scanning retail goods for six months on Shopkick. My musical contribution will be Yes from the 80's, and we have our outfits preplanned and waiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
In the event of House impeachment only, renewed activism against Trump and all that he stands for - though count me as one of the few in the neighborhood with kind words regarding Trump signing the law making animal cruelty a federal felony.
My take is that there is no sure bet here on either side. I would be making contingency plans for nationwide Trump Dumped celebrations, just in case. Rob
I would think a vote of the House for impeachment, even if the Senate doesn't agree, would be grounds for a semi-celebration. Like maybe not wearing the outfit above your station, but wearing an outfit OF your station, just one that is nicer than usual. No full blown Moroccan dish, but a dish from the general Mediterranean area. Not 80’s music but 1990’s. Etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
You know, half measures of celebration for a halfway conducted impeachment. Appropriate but not over the top.
“90’s music instead of 80’s.”
That made me laugh!
I would definitely go to a party if someone else was elected next time, for sure. I might even throw a party, and I am not a party-thrower!
And 61 pages later, a brief summation of why the ugly orange turd needs to be impeached and removed. Personally I am still waiting for someone to actually offer a defense, but considering that what he has done is indefensible I doubt one will be coming.
https://www.theamericanconservative....-overwhelming/
I don't think the facts will be particularly relevant to the vote anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I've listened to quite a bit of the proceedings from the start and other than some conspiracy theory the defense has been such weak fancy legal word smithing I'm surprised anyone at all has bought into it. I might have had a nightmare where Jim Jordan is my boss and he just called me into his office and closed the door.
Of course not. The republicans are the anti-fact party. They know that being stupid yelling a-holes works just fine if the facts aren’t in your favor. After all, look at how things turned out for justice Rapey McBeer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
It's nice to see someone conservative advocating The Sociopath of Orange's impeachment. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Facts seemed pretty thin on the ground in the case of our newest Associate Justice. Unless you count “credible accusations” as facts. Or learned interpretations of high school yearbook scribblings. Or silly playground insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Our current impeachment kerfuffle seems to be, as they say, more a political than a legal/forensic process. Whether the foolish actions of this foolish president rise to the level of a national security threat or not seemed less important to both parties than timing votes to the news cycle. With the outcome in both houses virtually predetermined, the whole process seems to be a mere sound bite generator.
You’re right, Ldahl. republicans think it’s perfectly acceptable for a president to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign. No big deal at all to them.
id like to correct your statement. Republicans think it is perfectly for a Republican President to use foreign aid to extort an ally into assisting his re-election campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I stand corrected. It would probably also be fine with them if he lied about a blowjob.
Well we have established the precedent that perjuring oneself, at least with regard to sexually exploiting subordinates, does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
One thing I don't get about the defense is that the witness testimonies, all by credible patriots, have been discounted as not being first hand accounts, yet the ones that may have the first hand accounts have been blocked from testifying by the defenses. What is Donald hiding?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
But like we've said, it's mostly mute points.
Then the question becomes why did the Democrats not invest the time and litigation necessary to compel some insider testimony? Why the need for speed above all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I think you’re right that hearing from people who were in the room firsthand, rather than hearsay from offended second and third tier mandarins would have made for a better case. Better television too, if that was the point of the exercise. I don’t think it would have been impossible to eventually drag in some hostile witnesses.
Why all the righteous pontification about the “rule of law” when you don’t seem willing to use all the legal tools available to you?
The reason given in the arguments was that this would take months and months. The way Donald has played the courts for his tax returns I'd suspect it could go past elections. But, I think both parties wanted to just be done with things, and since it's a political choice rather than legal it probably would not have changed anything anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
So now that Moscow Mitch has stated publicly that he has no intention of upholding the impeachment oath he has to take can we charge him with perjury? supposedly republicans take that seriously.
The juror's oath taken by legislators during an impeachment ceremony: ”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Will you hold Senators Warren and Sanders to the same standard considering they're positioning themselves to replace him?
now that’s funny. The Trump tactic of gaslighting. Don’t address the question, try to turn it back to the democrats. Anything but telling the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
USA Today is calling for Trump's impeachment. Rob
I don’t think there’s much question that Donald J Trump will be impeached. That doesn’t mean he’ll be removed from office.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
So “the threat to our democracy” did not warrant months of effort to combat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
But I agree this is first and foremost a political process, or perhaps rarefied political theater. If the intent was to drive up Trump’s disapproval numbers, the effort so far seems to be ineffective. Especially in the swing states.
I think when the Senate Republicans are running the process, we will hear a lot of pontificating about letting voters decide and the conflict between an elected president the bureaucracy. When the Durham report comes out, they may have ammunition to claim the previous administration abused law enforcement to affect the 2016 election. It will give the punditocracy something to chatter about until the primaries start.
IL, USA Today meant the whole enchilda including removal from office. I do agree that it's not likely the Senate will impeach. My question is - what is the price tag to America if The Unfit One Ic Orange is not kicked to the curb? Let me be more clear: If 70% if working Americans are checked out of their jobs, how long is it until 70 percent of Americans have checked out of their citizenship? Either way this goes, there will be long term negative consequences for America. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I think that gaslighting term is overused, often incorrectly. Some may even consider it gaslighting to point that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
"Donald Trump is so accustomed to bribery and extortion as a way of business that he thinks it is normal operating procedure, and can’t believe he’s done something wrong. So Republicans, who fear his base, are going to make bribery and extortion acceptable for Republican presidents." --John Dean, on Twitter @JohnWDean
While that may be true the term seemed apt in this particular case. Another phrase that would have been accurate would be bothsiderism. When Warren or Sanders goes on tv and openly states their intention to act as inappropriately as Moscow mitch feel free to come back and share it with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
And since you didn't address my concern about him purjuring himself when he takes the impeacgment oath I guess that means you are cool with it.
I only know that if he does, you'll blame me and I'm cool with that, well, if you confuse cool with accustomed. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
he could shoot someone on fifth avenue, you know. And they would still love him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Who are 'they'? The deplorables, the bitter clingers, the great unwashed masses? Or are 'they' all one and the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
Those, plus the oligarchs. Most of them, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
When you think the people you disagree with are foolish and misinformed, it’s politics.
When you think the people you disagree with are evil and willfully ignorant, it’s tribalism.
When you operate on the assumption that you are intellectually and morally superior to the people you disagree with, it’s snobbery.
When you base your politics on snobbery, you probably need to look into maintaining a secret police capability or get used to losing elections to unsavory demagogues.
It'll not be your fault when he does but assuming that you react with unconcern over the event it'll be clear that your motivations regarding perjury aren't upholding the rule of law but the simple base politics of IOKIYAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I find it difficult to argue for the moral and intellectual parity of people who would support a greed-driven, partisan megalomaniac as the official guardian and representative of The People - all of us. There's a difference between snobbery and egalitarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
It’s what he calls his base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan