Printable View
https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/po...eachment-odds/Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Literally people who put their money where their mouth is have Trump Impeachment the LEAST likely now compared to any other point in his term. ;) But please Aimless, continue to get your news from MSNBC.
You've forgotten that polls and bookies got Trump's election odds quite wrong. And you still can't spell for shit! Want to wager on the weather? :rolleyes:
House judiciary committee has already moved forward with this. Whether or not they actually impeach trump, they may nevertheless gather and make public more information relevant to an impeachment decision, just as they have with the findings of the Mueller investigation (which clearly describes conduct that would've gotten anyone but the president charged with obstruction of justice). The success of impeachment depends on the character of gutless Republicans legislators, but the process of laying out the case for impeachment does not. What puzzles me is that someone who purports to care about the law—and about the integrity of the republic—would not want Trump to be impeached; then again, you've always been a little pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There was no Russian collusion. If there was Mueller would have jumped over any hurdle to try to get Trump impeached. The entire thing is all about butt hurt Dems who are looking for any possible reason to deflect blame for Clinton's loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If Democrats truly believed Trump was a Russian plant than they would want to move as swiftly as possible to remove him. They aren't doing that though. Just a slow drip of news stories about the next meaningless thing this committee or that committee does. They have a house majority, push it or shut up already.
If you're a campaign in a US election, and you find out Russia is trying to meddle in the election in various ways and you fail to report that to law enforcement, but instead share polling data with them, what would you call that exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
In any case, if Trump were to be impeached it would not be for Russian collusion as there is probably not enough evidence as of yet to prove criminal conduct ("collusion" isn't actually a legal term, what you're looking for is criminal conspiracy - they might try for 'abetting' though), but would be for various other offenses including by probably not limited to the following:
1) Obstruction of justice
2) Violation of the emoluments clause
3) Campaign finance violations
They could have had him for obstruction of justice they day he fired Comey and the emoluments thing has been there from day 1, so the idea that they're just chomping at the bit to impeach him but can't find a reason is laughable.
Compare with what they went after Nixon with:
Article I: Obstruction of Justice Passed 27–11 Democrats: 21 yes, 0 no, Republicans: 6 yes, 11 no Article II: Abuse of Power Passed 28–10 Democrats: 21 yes, 0 no, Republicans: 7 yes, 10 no Article III: Contempt of Congress Passed 21–17 Democrats: 19 yes, 2 no, Republicans: 2 yes, 15 no Article IV: Cambodia bombing Failed 12–26 Democrats: 12 yes, 9 no, Republicans: 0 yes, 17 no Article V: Failure to pay taxes Failed 12–26 Democrats: 12 yes, 9 no, Republicans: 0 yes, 17 no
They might be able to get him on 2 and probably 5 as well. Maybe 3? He hasn't bombed Cambodia yet, so he's safe on that count.
They also impeached Clinton for lying, which is basically a freebe since Trump basically never lets a day pass without lying at least once.
We agree on something, then.Quote:
They have a house majority, push it or shut up already.
Comey told Trump three times that he wasn't under investigation, so how would firing him be obstruction?
What difference is that supposed to make? You think you can try and impede an federal investigation just because it doesn't concern you personally... yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Nothing was impeded. The funny part is that up until Trump fired Comey most Democrats didn't like Comey and wanted him fired too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Trump can't run on the promises he made to the American public:
There is still no "beautiful", affordable, Universal Health Care with Patient Protections (for pre-existing conditions) or lower costs for premiums and OOP costs, or prescription drug costs.
Absolutely nothing on Infrastructure.
He didn't "bring back" the Coal Industry. Or the Auto Industry.
He didn't balance the budget, but grew our debt by Trillions.
He didn't "Drain the Swamp", but made it swampier.
When he took the Oath of Office, he promised to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. In his inaugural speech, he promised to lead by uniting.
He's a pathological liar.
:bored:
Again, what difference is that supposed to make? You think it's ok to attempt to impede an federal investigation but fail, because you're bad at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
With Comey's testimony that Trump told him to let the Flynn investigation go and the various other kinds of pressure he tried to bring to bear to make the Russia matter go away, it would not take a particularly skilled prosecutor, if this were a criminal trial of some random schmuck, to join the dots.
The bill attempts to nationalize and centralize many aspects of voting under the federal government, when elections have always been state function. The federal government is managed by representatives elected by/for the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The bill itself contains a lot of debatable stuff, such as mandatory paper ballots. Voting against it isn't voting "against security" any more than voting to restrict free speech after a terror attach is voting "for terrorism".
McConnell and his fellow Republican senators are free to present an alternative bill or amendments to the proposed bills if those issues are the reason why they chose to obstruct efforts to shore up election security. Given their reluctance to uphold the constitution, I'm a little skeptical of their excuses.
The attempt to impede is obstruction, whether it's successful or not. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The FEC sets minimum standards, so claiming State's Right is pretty lame. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You know damn well that many state election systems are outdated and vulnerable, that a few were successfully hacked in 2016, and that ALL our intelligence agencies warn of persistent and ongoing threats. There should be a back-up system in every state.
If McConnell and (R) don't like paper ballots (which have led to state-specific design problems in the past, like *hanging chads*) they should offer an alternative! Instead of just blocking bills and crying about the criticisms in Trumpian style, here's their chance to put country before party....
National Cathedral's Top Clergy Condemn Trump's 'Dehumanizing Words' and 'Racialized Rhetoric'
https://time.com/5640453/national-ca...rump-rhetoric/
The statement, released Tuesday, isn’t so much an appeal for Trump to retract or soften his statements as a call for the nation as a whole to reject them.
It asks: “After two years of President Trump’s words and actions, when will Americans have enough?”
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
I believe this is known as "owning the libs"
https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...hooting-2019-8
Should be interesting to see what his base "chants" next time, and how he reacts. :bored:
NRA..NRA..NRA..NRA..:(Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Trump has declared that US flags will be lowered to half-mast until 8/8, in recognition of the massacres in Texas and Ohio.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/n...yton-shootings
I don't know who's advising him, but 8/8 has significance to the White Nationalist community because it corresponds to H/H in the alphabet, or Heil Hitler. WTF?!
"Fix this problem that I've decided is a priority because I like to make conspiracy theories about why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There's no evidence that ballots were compromised. And there has been steadfastly disingenuous resistance to voter reforms such as identification requirements. I'd love to see a compromise that admitted both raising election standards and requiring IDs are both common-sense measures, but instead we get more of your "when did you stop beating your wife" approaches.
Is "common sense" Dread-speak for "things I wish were true, but aren't supported by any evidence"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Oh please. The GOP is vociferously against a federal level ID requirement. Because they won't be able to use it to disenfranchise legitimate Democratic voters. They want ID requirements but only implemented at the state level, and only in areas where they can carefully craft it to work against the other party. You don't see any significant effort by the party to implement voter id laws in California. They couldn't control it there. Nor do you see the GOP-controlled legislatures passing it in states like Montana, Alaska, or Wyoming, where it would mostly disenfranchise older rural white voters, i.e. disproportionately Republican voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
But US citizens who have presented SS cards and Birth Certificates to the DMV have ended up in ICE custody. So much for "common sense" measures. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And just because there's "no evidence" that voter ballots were compromised in 2016 doesn't mean it can't/won't happen in 2020. But we may never know, since the Trump administration de-funded the domestic terrorism task force, under-funded cyber security, and didn't prioritize federal election security. They still insist that Russian hacking was a Hoax perpetuated by angry Democrats. :rolleyes:
Also NVA (Flemish nationalists) offered wallonia for sale
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
WTF? Tin pot dictator delusions of grandeur.
Just out of curiosity Lewk, what would be your response of Obama had ordered American companies to behave in a certain way? How is this acceptable governance by any libertarian/conservative standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Trump is decompensating in plain sight, for the whole world to see.
But not one person in his orbit dares to disrupt his destructive behavior, even tho it means bad things for our nation and democracy....because they're afraid that losing his favor means losing their political power?
Forget MAGA...Trumpism IS the swamp. :(
Obviously I'm opposed to the idea of the POTUS just saying "do this" but uh its Twitter and Trump says a lot of things. There is no force of law here so while embarrassing it doesn't actually *do* anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Plenty of libertarians voted for Trump, because they saw it as voting for the "lesser of two evils". SSSocialism was framed as the big scary beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Spoiler alert: today's GOP is not the party of personal liberty, privacy, freee markets, conservative fiscal spending, orLaw & OrderJustice. It's the party of Trump; a cult of personality, crony capitalism, favoritism, and blind loyalty to an authoritarian that thinks bully dominance is leadership.
Who's the big scary beast now? :bored:
You can't be a Trumpapologist and a libertarian at the same time. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Hold my beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I don't consider myself a Trump supporter but I do consider him better than Hillary. I voted Libertarian. I've actually been pleasantly surprised by several policy decisions as well as judicial appointments. While this trade war garbage is crap and his Twitter feed is just embarrassing, he put two great justices on the SCOTUS and has already reshaped several lower courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I was going to make a "what's a leppo?" joke but it's obvious the real question here is, "What are principles?"
Considering I don't vote for him or donate to him what exactly is your beef? I defend Trump when he does things I like and don't defend things I think are shit. Imagine, following your principals and not a personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I think Obama got tarred with the socialist brush for saying far less overtly socialist things. Is Trump a socialist too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Again, this is Twitter and this is Trump. Half the shit he says on that platform is nonsense. Meanwhile Obama helped push actual socialist(lite) legislation such as Obamacare and the God forsaken Frank-Dodd act which has substantially increased the regulatory burden on business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
In a campaign prior to being in office I care more about rhetoric, once you are in office? I care way more about actions. Not that I like Trump going off on Twitter but until it transforms into actual policy it seems pretty low on the list of worries.
Sure you can. If you just repeat personal buzzwords like complex, holistic, and interconnected enough times, you can be any two things, no matter how mutually exclusive, at the same time. You've demonstrated that on here often enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Twitter Link
1) The barely contained chuckle reminds me of green shirt guy.
2)The world is laughing in his face, and he doesn't even catch the joke...
Pedantic semantics is a Fuzzy thing. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
A libertarian wouldn't be excusing Trump's authoritarian actions. Stacking the courts with conservative judges doesn't automatically mean libertarians are on board. :bored:
Trump's tweets are considered policy directives. His tweets have also replaced formal WH press briefings. Wake up. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski