Jump to content
trex

Donald Trump

Recommended Posts

bobsharp

Listening to the News today I am more convinced now than ever that Trump will not finish his term. As I have also commented his mouth will be his down fall. In his conference the other day he mentioned Americas  hypersonic missiles, apparently this was top secret until he put his mouth in gear. Todays revelations that he included Iran and Impeachment in conversations with associates also in my opinion is leaked very confidential information that he has verbalised. The one thing about fawning cronies is that when the wolf comes to the door as it will for Mr Trump they will not hang around to be part of the meal. Bye Donald, it ain't been nice knowing ya.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
milky_26

trump wishes kim jong un a happy birthday but north korea say even if kim likes trump that is not enough to restart talks unless the us agree to their demands. i thought we were told that trump was the bestest negotiator of all time

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51074956 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
7 hours ago, milky_26 said:

trump wishes kim jong un a happy birthday but north korea say even if kim likes trump that is not enough to restart talks unless the us agree to their demands. i thought we were told that trump was the bestest negotiator of all time

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51074956 

 

We have indeed been told that, countless times, by the Great Negotiator himself.  I would be interested in reading a list of deals he has negotiated in his three years as president.  It would be a very short list, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

We have indeed been told that, countless times, by the Great Negotiator himself.  I would be interested in reading a list of deals he has negotiated in his three years as president.  It would be a very short list, I think.

 

Is that completely new deals or previous (cancelled) deals just re-worded and put out as if they were something new, but are just the same deal as before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JFK-1

I was actually somewhat accosted by a Trump supporter because I was depicting him and his actions to be idiotic. The usual kind of thing. You should get out of the country if you don't like it. Anybody opposing Trump is a traitor to America everybody should get behind the President.

 

A friend quickly interjected with would that be the same way all the Republicans got behind Obama when he was the president? Were they all traitors to America?

That pretty much nipped it in the bud. There was a sentence or two of Trump like bluster about  supporting the nation with not a word in response to Republican efforts to undermine Obama no matter what he did then the clown storms off.

I just don't grasp what they see in this obvious idiot who can scarcely string together a coherent sentence far less a line of thought. You could probably pick some random guy off the street who would be more rational than Trump. He has absolutely no redeeming traits or talents.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
15 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Is that completely new deals or previous (cancelled) deals just re-worded and put out as if they were something new, but are just the same deal as before.

 

 

New deals only, I'm afraid.  So that excludes NAFTA, in which merely some of the details were tweaked.

 

I can think of deals that he's cancelled, such as the Iranian deal, the Paris Climate Accord, and the TPP, and I can think of deals he's tried to make but failed (Mexico paying for the Wall and NK, e.g.) but I'm hard-pressed to come up with new Donald Deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
21 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

New deals only, I'm afraid.  So that excludes NAFTA, in which merely some of the details were tweaked.

 

I can think of deals that he's cancelled, such as the Iranian deal, the Paris Climate Accord, and the TPP, and I can think of deals he's tried to make but failed (Mexico paying for the Wall and NK, e.g.) but I'm hard-pressed to come up with new Donald Deals.

 

Mmmmmm, interesting.

 

But he's 'locked her up' hasn't he?

And built that beautiful wall (that Mexico paid for)

Oh and replaced Obamacare with the bestest most fantastic brilliant Trumpcare, hasn't he?

And he's surely sacked those auditors for taken years to audit his tax returns?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackLadd
40 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

I was actually somewhat accosted by a Trump supporter because I was depicting him and his actions to be idiotic. The usual kind of thing. You should get out of the country if you don't like it. Anybody opposing Trump is a traitor to America everybody should get behind the President.

 

A friend quickly interjected with would that be the same way all the Republicans got behind Obama when he was the president? Were they all traitors to America?

That pretty much nipped it in the bud. There was a sentence or two of Trump like bluster about  supporting the nation with not a word in response to Republican efforts to undermine Obama no matter what he did then the clown storms off.

I just don't grasp what they see in this obvious idiot who can scarcely string together a coherent sentence far less a line of thought. You could probably pick some random guy off the street who would be more rational than Trump. He has absolutely no redeeming traits or talents.
 

 

Nobody sane could listen to the clown garble at a maga rally and come away with any other conclusion than he is nuts and his base brainwashed. Scary actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
59 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

I was actually somewhat accosted by a Trump supporter because I was depicting him and his actions to be idiotic. The usual kind of thing. You should get out of the country if you don't like it. Anybody opposing Trump is a traitor to America everybody should get behind the President.

 

A friend quickly interjected with would that be the same way all the Republicans got behind Obama when he was the president? Were they all traitors to America?

That pretty much nipped it in the bud. There was a sentence or two of Trump like bluster about  supporting the nation with not a word in response to Republican efforts to undermine Obama no matter what he did then the clown storms off.

I just don't grasp what they see in this obvious idiot who can scarcely string together a coherent sentence far less a line of thought. You could probably pick some random guy off the street who would be more rational than Trump. He has absolutely no redeeming traits or talents.
 

He appeals hugely to the baser instincts of man and especially to the disenfranchised in America. How far has man actually grown through generations to make them less susceptible to propaganda? Not a lot.

 

 

Edited by Riccarton3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JackLadd

So the crook is being tried for obstruction while blocking any witnesses in Senate scam trial. You couldn't make it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer

He’s such a cretin yet has somehow convinced the disenfranchised that he actually gives a **** about them. How he’s done it I have no idea

Edited by Jamhammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
6 hours ago, Jamhammer said:

He’s such a cretin yet has somehow convinced the disenfranchised that he actually gives a **** about them. How he’s done it I have no idea

See Boris!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

See Boris!

I know. I mean I was daft when I was young but how daft do you have to be man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1216539112154521601

 

The official White House Twitter account has just lied about . . . the weather.

 

At 2am local time it is currently 8°C in Washington with a forecast max of 16 for Monday.

 

How deeply creepy is it that an official decision was made to lie about the weather to the people of America. Such a banal thing. And possibly doctor a photo by adding a snow effect in order to do it? Or at least, use an old photo. So routine under this administration--and all by design, if you believe the goal is to make it impossible for people to trust facts and reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
18 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1216539112154521601

 

The official White House Twitter account has just lied about . . . the weather.

 

At 2am local time it is currently 8°C in Washington with a forecast max of 16 for Monday.

 

How deeply creepy is it that an official decision was made to lie about the weather to the people of America. Such a banal thing. And possibly doctor a photo by adding a snow effect in order to do it? Or at least, use an old photo. So routine under this administration--and all by design, if you believe the goal is to make it impossible for people to trust facts and reality.

 

Not long before democracy is back to elite only voting levels again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo

So how credible are all these new revelations, Giuliani's letter, Lev Parnas etc etc, is this the smoking gun or at least another nail in 'The Don's' coffin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
9 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

So how credible are all these new revelations, Giuliani's letter, Lev Parnas etc etc, is this the smoking gun or at least another nail in 'The Don's' coffin.

 

I'm at the point where none of it matters. Apologists will say "both sides are just as bad as each other" and Trump cult members will discount any new evidence anyway.

 

That said I did find it funny how Devin Nunes was sure to get himself onto Fox News with the quickness to suddenly remember that he had spoken to Lev Parnas before (after denying ever even being aware of his existence previously).
 

I hope many more moments like this one are to come for the utter scumbag:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
On 12/01/2020 at 02:32, Jamhammer said:

He’s such a cretin yet has somehow convinced the disenfranchised that he actually gives a **** about them. How he’s done it I have no idea

 

Hatred and fear. Works every time. If people would start thinking for themselves and cutting through the bullshit, then we might have a chance. I was hoping that the internet might help in that respect but sadly all it seems to have done is entrenched folk in their hatred and fear even more than before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Hatred and fear. Works every time. If people would start thinking for themselves and cutting through the bullshit, then we might have a chance. I was hoping that the internet might help in that respect but sadly all it seems to have done is entrenched folk in their hatred and fear even more than before.

It’s like they don’t actually see what he does or hear what he says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
2 hours ago, Jamhammer said:

It’s like they don’t actually see what he does or hear what he says

 

They (being his base) don't want to see it and don't want to hear it.

 

He's anti-abortion, pro-White, and opposed to any form of gun control. That will get him about 50-60 million votes right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood
1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

They (being his base) don't want to see it and don't want to hear it.

 

He's anti-abortion, pro-White, and opposed to any form of gun control. That will get him about 50-60 million votes right there.

Sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

They (being his base) don't want to see it and don't want to hear it.

 

He's anti-abortion, pro-White, and opposed to any form of gun control. That will get him about 50-60 million votes right there.

How can two countries so close together, (Your own and his) be so totally different?

Im so glad my daughter chose Canada and not elsewhere to live

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
On 11/01/2020 at 19:58, JackLadd said:

So the crook is being tried for obstruction while blocking any witnesses in Senate scam trial. You couldn't make it up. 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by alwaysthereinspirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
14 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

So how credible are all these new revelations, Giuliani's letter, Lev Parnas etc etc, is this the smoking gun or at least another nail in 'The Don's' coffin.

Parnas worked for the Trump family decades ago. 

LOADS of pictures of Parnas with Trump in all manner of events. 

 

There's stuff all over Twitter tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
6 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Are you sure about that?

 

It's not Trump who is preventing any witness testimony, it's his toadies in the Senate.

 

A trial where witnesses are banned by senators who have already announced their intention to have a quick acquittal. And those people have just taken an oath to be impartial.

 

Oh America. How are the mighty fallen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
15 hours ago, Jamhammer said:

It’s like they don’t actually see what he does or hear what he says

 

Or don't care.

 

Political discourse on the right in particular is dying, being replaced by people whose prejudices match jeering against the opposing side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
6 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Or don't care.

 

Political discourse on the right in particular is dying, being replaced by people whose prejudices match jeering against the opposing side. 

It’s just negativity and fear. Growing up the was no doubt about who “we” were. Every party told us where they stood. If you were a pleb the Labour Party was your go to. They told you what they would do for you. You knew what the Tories would do TO you and the liberals, a bit like the SD’s now were irrelevant.

Now they all just seem to campaign on a “Vote for them and you’ll end up with x, y and z. Vote for us and you won’t” They’re not promising anything they just fear monger for votes and a party that fails to address the fears can’t win. It’s how Indyref was decided. “No pound and yer pensions will be *******”

SNP’s response, “Nah you’ll be alright” didn’t cut it.

I find modern politics thoroughly depressing but vote with my heart knowing full well I’m not gonna win.

A bit like being a West Ham fan 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
8 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's not Trump who is preventing any witness testimony, it's his toadies in the Senate.

 

A trial where witnesses are banned by senators who have already announced their intention to have a quick acquittal. And those people have just taken an oath to be impartial.

 

Oh America. How are the mighty fallen.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the House hold the trial and then pass it on to the Senate (jury)

"I rest my case" is usually the last we see of witnesses after the prosecution has spoken the aforementioned words. Unless there's a new trial for the same charges I doubt we'll see any new witnesses. Unless its one (Democrat) witness for one (Republican) witness.

The House had the chance to subpoena their witnesses. They didn't. Pelosi is now looking to change the rules and thinks as speaker of the House she has the same power with the Senate. McConnell wont back down to her. Interesting times coming up. Democrat Presidential hopeful senators stuck in the senate 6 days a week while their non senate opponents run around the country campaigning. Poor Bernie being cheated again. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobsharp
12 hours ago, annushorribilis III said:

Parnas worked for the Trump family decades ago. 

LOADS of pictures of Parnas with Trump in all manner of events. 

 

There's stuff all over Twitter tonight.

As a law enforcement officer in two country's if I had kept regular company  with characters such as Parnas I would more than likely be accused of something like conduct unbecoming, and either seriously cautioned., reprimanded or fired. And here we have a President who does these things, and then for the world to see lies about the relationships and he still receives support from the full Republican Senate, and amazingly the Evangelical right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobsharp
36 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the House hold the trial and then pass it on to the Senate (jury)

"I rest my case" is usually the last we see of witnesses after the prosecution has spoken the aforementioned words. Unless there's a new trial for the same charges I doubt we'll see any new witnesses. Unless its one (Democrat) witness for one (Republican) witness.

The House had the chance to subpoena their witnesses. They didn't. Pelosi is now looking to change the rules and thinks as speaker of the House she has the same power with the Senate. McConnell wont back down to her. Interesting times coming up. Democrat Presidential hopeful senators stuck in the senate 6 days a week while their non senate opponents run around the country campaigning. Poor Bernie being cheated again. 

 

 

 I won't try to correct you because I don't know enough to do so. However, what I assumed (a dangerous practise) was that Congressional commitees were basically the investigators, Congress then became the prosecutors, and submitted their charges to the Court that being the Senate. The Democrat will provide the prosecutors namely Managers who will present the case to the full Senate who will be the Jury. The Chief Justice will then sit as the judge to provide legal governance over the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
1 hour ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the House hold the trial and then pass it on to the Senate (jury)

"I rest my case" is usually the last we see of witnesses after the prosecution has spoken the aforementioned words. Unless there's a new trial for the same charges I doubt we'll see any new witnesses. Unless its one (Democrat) witness for one (Republican) witness.

The House had the chance to subpoena their witnesses. They didn't. Pelosi is now looking to change the rules and thinks as speaker of the House she has the same power with the Senate. McConnell wont back down to her. Interesting times coming up. Democrat Presidential hopeful senators stuck in the senate 6 days a week while their non senate opponents run around the country campaigning. Poor Bernie being cheated again.

 

From the Constitution... Article I Section 2:

 

The House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of Impeachment.

 

Article I Section 3:

 

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

To put it into practical terms, the House is the only body which can undertake to Impeach a public official for his/her conduct ("sole power"). Once they have decided to do so, the trial on whether that person is guilty of the offenses claimed by the House is conducted by the Senate. The Chief Justice presides when the President is on trial but acts as a judge carrying out the rules for the trial set forth by the Senate (using their "sole power"). The closest "civilian" analogy to the House in this situation is a Grand Jury, which many jurisdictions in the US utilise to authorise major charges to be brought against someone, and then the Senate would be like a high court hearing the case. A Grand Jury views gets presented with a summary of the available evidence, and if they approve, the District Attorney may charge the individual with the alleged crimes and have them heard at trial. Note that this does not prevent additional evidence from being presented at trial.

 

What you are describing as happening now between Pelosi and McConnell, is politics. The House did subpoena witnesses who refused to appear and/or produce documents. There was law available to the House via which they could hold those who refused to appear or produce documents in contempt and the House decided against doing this. Honestly, I have no idea why and think it was a political mistake.

 

The Senators have now sworn affirmatively to the following oath: "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"

 

Republican senators took this oath after weeks of saying they would not be impartial and then came right back out after swearing to this oath and said they would not be impartial. The Senate has also decided it will do as little as it possibly can to actually investigate It seems fine to me, politically, for Pelosi to attack this state of affairs as a sham, which is exactly what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annushorribilis III
1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

As a law enforcement officer in two country's if I had kept regular company  with characters such as Parnas I would more than likely be accused of something like conduct unbecoming, and either seriously cautioned., reprimanded or fired. And here we have a President who does these things, and then for the world to see lies about the relationships and he still receives support from the full Republican Senate, and amazingly the Evangelical right.

I've recently started following Sarah Kendzior/Gaslit Nation - it's staggering that the Trump "crime family" ( as they call them) have gotten away with so much. The GOP just doesn't care .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
11 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

From the Constitution... Article I Section 2:

 

The House of Representatives...shall have the sole power of Impeachment.

 

Article I Section 3:

 

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

To put it into practical terms, the House is the only body which can undertake to Impeach a public official for his/her conduct ("sole power"). Once they have decided to do so, the trial on whether that person is guilty of the offenses claimed by the House is conducted by the Senate. The Chief Justice presides when the President is on trial but acts as a judge carrying out the rules for the trial set forth by the Senate (using their "sole power"). The closest "civilian" analogy to the House in this situation is a Grand Jury, which many jurisdictions in the US utilise to authorise major charges to be brought against someone, and then the Senate would be like a high court hearing the case. A Grand Jury views gets presented with a summary of the available evidence, and if they approve, the District Attorney may charge the individual with the alleged crimes and have them heard at trial. Note that this does not prevent additional evidence from being presented at trial.

 

What you are describing as happening now between Pelosi and McConnell, is politics. The House did subpoena witnesses who refused to appear and/or produce documents. There was law available to the House via which they could hold those who refused to appear or produce documents in contempt and the House decided against doing this. Honestly, I have no idea why and think it was a political mistake.

 

The Senators have now sworn affirmatively to the following oath: "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"

 

Republican senators took this oath after weeks of saying they would not be impartial and then came right back out after swearing to this oath and said they would not be impartial. The Senate has also decided it will do as little as it possibly can to actually investigate It seems fine to me, politically, for Pelosi to attack this state of affairs as a sham, which is exactly what it is.

 After the original witness subpoenas were filed and ignored the Democrats could have filed with the courts to have the ignored subpoenas complied with. They didn't. 

The House was the equivalent of a Grand Jury. They brought in their witnesses, they brought in their evidence and the laid out their case. It now goes to the jury. The Senate. They need 67 I think guilty's. It wont happen. They know it wont happen but they're to far gone now to back out. 

You mention impartial and the oath. But only mention Republicans. Do you believe Democrats running for President against Trump can be impartial in a vote to remove the man who's job they treasure?

This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
27 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

 After the original witness subpoenas were filed and ignored the Democrats could have filed with the courts to have the ignored subpoenas complied with. They didn't.

 

Yeah, I said that. Dumb, and inexplicable.

 

27 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

The House was the equivalent of a Grand Jury. They brought in their witnesses, they brought in their evidence and the laid out their case. It now goes to the jury. The Senate. They need 67 I think guilty's. It wont happen. They know it wont happen but they're to far gone now to back out.

 

More or less. Importantly, more evidence and new witnesses can be called in the Senate Trial, just as with a normal trial following a Grand Jury. The Republicans and media claiming otherwise are clowning everybody trying to claim otherwise. It'd be absolutely ludicrous if the criminal justice system actually worked the way they're claiming. Another analogy, it would be as if the police would have to speak to every potential witness to decide whether someone ought to be charged with a crime, and anyone they didn't talk to beforehand couldn't be called at trial.

 

27 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

You mention impartial and the oath. But only mention Republicans. Do you believe Democrats running for President against Trump can be impartial in a vote to remove the man who's job they treasure?

This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

 

I wouldn't expect actual impartiality from them, no. They have not come out and said they were planning to be entirely non-neutral and then gone and taken an oath to properly be the opposite, however.

 

The trial will indeed be a travesty, but that's because even on overwhelming evidence, the Senate will not convict.

 

Edited by Justin Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yeah, I said that. Dumb.

 

 

More or less. Importantly, more evidence and new witnesses can be called in the Senate Trial, just as with a normal trial following a Grand Jury. The Republicans and media claiming otherwise are clowning everybody trying to claim otherwise. It'd be absolutely ludicrous if the criminal justice system actually worked the way they're claiming. Another analogy, it would be as if the police would have to speak to every potential witness to decide whether someone ought to be charged with a crime, and anyone they didn't talk to beforehand couldn't be called at trial.

 

 

I wouldn't expect actual impartiality from them, no. They have not come out and said they were planning to be entirely non-neutral and then gone and taken an oath to properly be the opposite, however.

 

The trial will indeed be a travesty, but that's because even on overwhelming evidence, the Senate will not convict.

Some good TV watching through the cold night coming up. Unless I'm forced to binge watch the Crown by the boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
18 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Some good TV watching through the cold night coming up. Unless I'm forced to binge watch the Crown by the boss.

 

My boss forced me into it.  It isn't too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
3 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

My boss forced me into it.  It isn't too bad.

We're 4 in,  season 1. Is it bad I hate Prince Philip already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig Gordons Gloves
2 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

 After the original witness subpoenas were filed and ignored the Democrats could have filed with the courts to have the ignored subpoenas complied with. They didn't. 

The House was the equivalent of a Grand Jury. They brought in their witnesses, they brought in their evidence and the laid out their case. It now goes to the jury. The Senate. They need 67 I think guilty's. It wont happen. They know it wont happen but they're to far gone now to back out. 

You mention impartial and the oath. But only mention Republicans. Do you believe Democrats running for President against Trump can be impartial in a vote to remove the man who's job they treasure?

This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

 

Isn't that a quote from Father Ted? When it was the sheep competition?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alwaysthereinspirit
1 hour ago, Craig Gordons Gloves said:

 

Isn't that a quote from Father Ted? When it was the sheep competition?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
5 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

We're 4 in,  season 1. Is it bad I hate Prince Philip already?

 

No.Join the crowd.

 

He's much more likeable in the latest season (different actor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
18 hours ago, Craig Gordons Gloves said:

 

Isn't that a quote from Father Ted? When it was the sheep competition?

 

 

Not sure where it comes from originally but t looks very much like something Groucho Marx would have said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z

There are no words.

 

'You're a bunch of dopes and babies': Inside Trump's stunning tirade against generals

“I want to win,” he said. “We don’t win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.”

Trump by now was in one of his rages. He was so angry that he wasn’t taking many breaths. All morning, he had been coarse and cavalier, but the next several things he bellowed went beyond that description. They stunned nearly everyone in the room, and some vowed that they would never repeat them. Indeed, they have not been reported until now.

“I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” Trump told the assembled brass.

Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called “locker room talk,” this was the gravest insult he could have delivered to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers, rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion on their faces, but questions raced through their minds. “How does the commander in chief say that?” one thought. “What would our worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?”

This was a president who had been labeled a “draft dodger” for avoiding service in the Vietnam War under questionable circumstances. Trump was a young man born of privilege and in seemingly perfect health: six feet two inches with a muscular build and a flawless medical record. He played several sports, including football. Then, in 1968 at age 22, he obtained a diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that exempted him from military service just as the United States was drafting men his age to fulfill massive troop deployments to Vietnam.

. . .

Others at the table noticed Trump’s stream of venom had taken an emotional toll. So many people in that room had gone to war and risked their lives for their country, and now they were being dressed down by a president who had not.

 

In the most clear terms: **** Trump, and all who sail in him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobsharp

I refuse to comment on his statements, it would be just too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Potter

never will be there whole place is a shithole, sorry but im

a pure scottish bam, bad enough wi guns herelol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf

Last week, we passed the 60,000 mark since Trump became president.

 

That's people who have crossed the border from the USA into Canada seeking refugee status.

 

No "big" names that I'm aware of, and mostly non-America citizens who are nervous about their status in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobsharp
11 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

Last week, we passed the 60,000 mark since Trump became president.

 

That's people who have crossed the border from the USA into Canada seeking refugee status.

 

No "big" names that I'm aware of, and mostly non-America citizens who are nervous about their status in the USA.

 I seem to recall quite a number were refugees from Puerto Rico after the hurricane. They were worried that they were about to be deported so came to Canada. I also seem to recall they came seeking asylum, but you cannot seek asylum from a Country that has already granted you asylum, or there is no danger of threat to life etc. So Canada it seems in some cases bent the rules for humanitarian purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z

I easily hate this individual to a far greater degree than I do the bumbling, arrogant incompetent in the White House. He's done more to destroy the foundations of American democracy possibly than anyone in history.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf
5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I easily hate this individual to a far greater degree than I do the bumbling, arrogant incompetent in the White House. He's done more to destroy the foundations of American democracy possibly than anyone in history.

 

 

 

McConnell's hypocrisy is jaw-dropping, but he's aided and abetted by all the other Republicans in Congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maple Leaf

Trump will be attending an anti-abortion rally on Friday.

 

That will delight his base.  And he has to keep his base happy in the run up to the November election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JFK-1

Republicans have a great interest in foetuses. A greater interest than in actual people. All concerned about them while in the womb but once out of it f*%# them. They wont give existing humans healthcare while raving about the welfare of a foetus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...