President Trump

Chateau Vin · Post by **Chateau Vin** » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:25 pm

Nicklasss wrote:Federal election next Monday in Canada. Will Trudeau will keep it seat?

One of the worst offer ever for that election.

Nic

LOL... Like someone is complaining about own bruises to a person who has a broken leg.....

jal · Post by **jal** » Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:26 am

And now this:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics ... index.html

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:05 am

I was going to create a poll but I didn't want to be accused of trolling.

But, a quick question here:

Hillary Clinton, 2016 Democratic Party Standard Bearer just three short years ago:

Sane?

or

Insane?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:48 am

She’s more grounded than the bozos reporting on her.
Admittedly a pretty low bar.

Clinton didn’t say Gabbard* is a Russian asset, as in working for the Russians. Clinton said she's an asset to the Russians, as in disruptive to the Ds and having foreign policy positions more aligned with Putin and Trump than with most Ds.

Though it’s hard to imagine her getting anywhere close to being the nominee, Gabbard may be the only D (maybe Sanders too) that would convince me to stay home on Election Day. Easy enough to say in MD. I’d hold my nose and vote for her if I lived in FL.

*I don’t think she actually named Gabbard, but everyone knew who she was talking about.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:14 am

LOL I love both Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders — let’s make sure not to discuss politics tomorrow Dave, especially when drunk!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:32 pm

I don’t get too worked up about Gabbard or Sanders. While I disagree with many of their positions, I don’t think they would undermine our democratic institutions, behave as erratically, or be as corrupt as Trump.

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:20 pm

DavidG wrote:Clinton didn’t say Gabbard* is a Russian asset, as in working for the Russians. Clinton said she's an asset to the Russians, as in disruptive to the Ds and having foreign policy positions more aligned with Putin and Trump than with most Ds.

Its not that the russkies want her to be elected. They want her to run as a third party candidate and take enough votes away from the Democratic candidate so Trump will win. She doesn't have to be compromised to be an asset to their plans.
The Russian disinformation machine has already been at work on the internet to help promote her. Gabbard currently has more support from Republicans than she has from Democrats.

marcs · Post by **marcs** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:54 pm

Gabbard is in trouble because she dissents from the bipartisan DC policy of ongoing regime change wars, that's all and that's it.

This new habit of seeing any kind of meaningful political dissent as "foreign disinformation" or "Russian interference" is really disturbing to me, it's very reminiscent of the line used against e.g. the civil rights movement in the 60s which was also depicted as a result of foreign interference.

JCNorthway · Post by **JCNorthway** » Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:38 am

Interesting testimony today . . .

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:50 pm

That's a very broad brush you're painting with Marcs. There's Trump, where the evidence of Russian meddling was overwhelming and conclusive. And Gabbard, where the accusation of policy positions aligning with Russia and the concern that her run may weaken the Ds chances, are more nebulous. Have any other candidates' professed policies been tagged as pro-Russia? They certainly dont all share the same positions, so clearly there is dissent there from whatever party line you say must be followed.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:03 am

Gabbard 2020:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-can-defe ... opin_pos_3

I honestly don't understand why she is not polling better. She has my vote!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:32 am

JimHow wrote:Gabbard 2020:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-can-defe ... opin_pos_3

I honestly don't understand why she is not polling better. She has my vote!

https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/03/the-f ... ma-critic/
Islamophobic Modi supporter
Until recently openly homophobic
David aduke endorsement, though rejected, still a turn off
DINO, going back to the Obama administration

Blanquito · Post by **Blanquito** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:06 pm

DavidG wrote:
JimHow wrote:Gabbard 2020:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-can-defe ... opin_pos_3

I honestly don't understand why she is not polling better. She has my vote!
https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/03/the-f ... ma-critic/
Islamophobic Modi supporter
Until recently openly homophobic
David aduke endorsement, though rejected, still a turn off
DINO, going back to the Obama administration

Gabbard has the support of 2% of Democrats, 7% of independents, and 28% of Republicans.

Just more proof that Jim in a DINO as well.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:22 pm

Ha wow and it’s the RIGHT that is intolerant.
Patrick’s definition of a true Democrat is someone who agrees with him 100% of the time.
Yeah, that’s a winning formula in the general.
Ooookay.
Imagine that, a politician who does not vote in lockstep with his/her party 100% of the time.
The horror.
So when is the impeachment and removal from office coming?
And when are we going to have public hearings?
I’m still waiting.
It’s been months since the Mueller report came out.

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:30 pm

Vote in the House on the rules for public hearings takes place this week.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:08 pm

Looking forward to the bipartisan groundswell vote for impeachment, Chris, can't wait.
Like 90% of the population is screaming for removal of this guy.
It'll be President Pence by year's end.
Mitch McConnell, Barry-Goldwater-like, will be paying that visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave any day now.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:28 pm

Gabbards 2% among dems sounds about right given 50 candidates.

The "must vote with the party 100% of the time" litmus test is a solid indication of why we have almost no one left anywhere near the middle.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:38 pm

JimHow wrote:Ha wow and it’s the RIGHT that is intolerant.
Patrick’s definition of a true Democrat is someone who agrees with him 100% of the time.
Yeah, that’s a winning formula in the general.
Ooookay.
Imagine that, a politician who does not vote in lockstep with his/her party 100% of the time.
The horror.
So when is the impeachment and removal from office coming?
And when are we going to have public hearings?
I’m still waiting.
It’s been months since the Mueller report came out.

LOL

I'll take Hyperbole for $1000 Alex.

A: Intolerance

Q: What is disagreement with Jim's POV?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:46 pm

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who disagrees with me.
I don't believe I have personally insulted ANYone here, call them a DINO or anything like that, if they disagree with me.
I may have loudly disagreed with your positions, but i don't feel the need to attack people personally like the AOC crowd does on the left and the Trump crowd does on the rght.

My political heroes are people like George Mitchell, Ed Muskie, Olympia Snowe, Bill Cohen, Margaret Chase Smith...

You may be noting a trend there.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:49 pm

DINO is a personal insult and evidence of intolerance? I use it as a term for someone who is a Democrat but espouses many positions taken by Republicans. So a bit of hyperbole, but certainly not a personal insult. Apologies if you find that offensive.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:08 pm

A Democrat who espouses MANY positions of Republicans?
Because I happen not to think there are sufficient grounds for Trump to be impeached?
Hmm.
Of all the candidates I'm probably closest to Bernie in my political beliefs, hardly espousing positions of many Republicans. I like Warren too. And Joe.
I'll take any of the Democrats except Harris, I just don't like her, she reminds me of Hillary. Phony.
And i don't think the DINO term has been the only one utilized here with either me or anyone who just happens not agree with 100% of the Dem party line. I could go back and pull out some quotes but I'm too lazy.
I think there was quite a bit of ridiculing going on when everyone thought Mueller was going to come in and be the hero of the left and some of us just happened to disagree.
Or of those who actually dare to just not happen to like Hillary Clinton for what she stands for, separate from all the crazy Fox News Bengazi shit.
I guess we are about to find out in 2020 wgo is "right" and who is "wrong," whether Orange Head will get impeached, and whether he gets convicted, and whether the process works in favor of or backfires against the Democrats.

I stand by the predictions I've been making all along:

Orange will be impeached.

Orange will not be convicted.

Impeachment will be a net negative for the Democrats running for reelection in the House. It will help certain House members in certain districts, but will hurt moderate House members in moderate or Republican-leaning districts.

Orange will be reelected in 2020, in part because the Democrats will have impeached him which will seem like an unfair, hyper-partisan process to swing voters and will energize the right into an insane frenzy, and in part because they will shoot themselves in the foot as they usually do and will nominate a weak candidate.

jal · Post by **jal** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:33 pm

You're too defensive Jim, no need to defend your credentials.
Here's someone who seems to agree with you:

https://www.marketwatch.com/discover?ur ... amp_social

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:17 pm

Amen, my brother Barack.
It’s why I had him in my top ten of American presidents.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:26 pm

I don't think you're a DINO Jim.
Patrick called you that, I suspect mainly TIC.
I used the term for Gabbard.
I'm not one to castigate for minor differences or to demand "purity."
To claim otherwise to argue against my positions is one of those logical fallacies, I can't recall which.
I think we're pretty close in our policy and candidate preferences.
I like Warren more than Sanders because I think she will be more flexible when it comes to the reality of M4A.
Marcs tells me my impression of Sanders as inflexible is misinformed.
He gave me a lot to think about at our post-Zachy's tasting dinner.

As to impeachment, I agree it will go no further than the House.
I disagree that it will be a net negative. Time will tell.

I was hopeful that the Mueller report would have more impact. I don't recall ridiculing anyone for saying otherwise, but I did ridicule those that said the whole concept of Russian interference was fake news/made up. My recollection was that there was ridicule on both sides of that issue. I may have started it. If so, mea culpa and apologies.

Mueller clearly showed that Russian interference happened. Trump was welcoming if not complicit. His campaign team was complicit. I still find it hard to understand how anyone who has read the report and looked at the indictments and convictions can still say that the Russian interference story is wholly fake/made up. Reasonable people can disagree on the magnitude of the impact, or lack of it. The facts are so clear that to completely deny it happened seems more than a disagreement based on political leaning or different interpretation. I do think it's important to recognize that it happened, that it will happen again, and that it needs to be countered. There are more important things than fighting about that so I'll apologize again for any ridicule and say that I'm just as mystified by the "never happened/made up" position as those who hold it must be by mine.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:30 pm

Yes I was responding to Blanquito.
And I assure you, I don't take anything personally, I've been called things a million times worse.
Heck, I've had to have police protection, both as a politician and as a lawyer.
I'm just concerned about whether others will be offended by political discourse that descends into personal insult.
Thus what I said the other day, that i should stop posting in this thread lest people think I'm trolling.
One thing i make no apology for:
I think the left wing has become almost as intolerant as the Orange Head crowd.
And I have like zero respect for the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Maybe Nancy has come out of my doghouse a little bit for the way she has been outwrestling orange Head.
I am so critical of the Democratic Party because i want the Democrats to succeed but in the end I think their leadership is just same old Beltway crap, the new boss is same as the old boss.

Jay Winton · Post by **Jay Winton** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:12 pm

Washington Nationals-World Series Champions!! This is something we all can celebrate!!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:44 pm

Great game last night.
Their whole post-season was remarkable.

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 8:03 pm

Ok, simple question:

If the quid pro quo is proven to have happen beyond a doubt, is that an impeachable offense? Does that fall under the definition of: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"?

Racer Chris · Post by **Racer Chris** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:10 pm

Whether it is a crime or not, it violates the oath of office to uphold the constitution, since taking something of value from a foreign government is constitutionally prohibited.
I would call that a high crime and therefore impeachable.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:59 pm

Ultimately the definition is whatever the House and Senate says it is.

In my opinion, no quid pro quo is necessary. Asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on your political opponents is impeachable. Withholding aid makes it worse. Then there’s obstruction of justice and a half dozen other things warranting impeachment and removal from office.

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:34 pm

DavidG wrote:Ultimately the definition is whatever the House and Senate says it is.

In my opinion, no quid pro quo is necessary. Asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on your political opponents is impeachable. Withholding aid makes it worse. Then there’s obstruction of justice and a half dozen other things warranting impeachment and removal from office.

David, I don’t disagree, but I think it’s difficult enough as it is and will be impossible to get a conviction without quid pro quo

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:56 pm

It would be impossible to get a conviction if he shot someone on 5th Ave.
Perhaps a slight exaggeration.
I hold little to no hope of conviction.
I do expect more clear cut evidence of wrongdoing to come out.
The Rs in the Senate won’t care.
Trump won’t resign.
It won’t matter to the Trump faithful, or to the never Trumpers whose minds are made up.

The question is whether the exposure will be easy enough to understand for those whose minds aren’t made up. Whether it will appear outrageous enough to motivate people to vote. Whether the media both-sides it or reports it as news instead of entertainment.

jal · Post by **jal** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:07 pm

I am holding on to the hope (wish) that the Republicans will convict. I think with the Democratic Party looking so different than it did only four years ago, the Republicans have a historic opportunity to put someone half decent in the White House and win handily. Their biggest liability right now is Trump.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:14 am

Just a fun little exercise, let's just pretend the two following facts are true.

I realize people disagree, etc., I realize this is just more anti-Clinton bullshit, etc., but just humor me for a minute.... Just assume, for the heck of it, that the two following facts are true:

1. Donald Trump had a 35 minute phone conversation with the president of Ukraine telling him to investigate Joe Biden, his political opponent.

2. Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of a medicine factory in Sudan, killing dozens of innocent civilians, on the day that Monica Lewinsky testified before a federal grand jury that the the 20 year old intern gave the 50 year old prez a blow job in America's Oval Office.

Which president should be removed from office?

You can only pick one.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:20 am

...Let me add a couple facts to the equation...
Assume further that Clinton shoved a cigar into the 20 year old intern's vagina and smoked it, and then lied about it under oath in a federal court proceeding.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:26 am

Let's add another president to the equation:

Again, just for shits and giggles, let's assume that:

1. Democratic Party hero/icon Lyndon Baines Johnson fabricated the predicate for the Gulf of Tomkin Resolution in the Vietnam War, leading to the deaths of 58,000 Americans and over 1,000,000 Vietnamese, most of them civilians.

2. Donald Trump thinks Putin is keen.

Which of the two should be removed from office?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:36 am

Here's another one:

1. Beloved assassinated president John Kennedy repeatedly statutorily rapes underaged interns in White House swimming pool, causing at least one to suffer deep depression and suicidal ideation. He then arranges for longtime aid and Boston Irish pol, Kenny O'Donnell, to receive oral sex on repeated occasions from said intern(s).

2. Mainstream media makes fun of Orange Head because of his repeated odd attraction to his oldest daughter.

Behavior most justifying impeachment:

1. JFK

2. Orange.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:13 am

I'm not a religious man.

Indeed, I am an atheist.

A kind, benevolent dictator.

A mere, humble, country lawyer from Maine.

A religious man, though, I am not.

And yet, my favorite quote from all of literature, from all the many books I have read....

“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuMkKKuFB2w

Orange Head is an abomination, a dictator, a certain risk to our great democracy.

Let's defeat him overwhelmingly in 2020 and kick this nitwit out!

But...

The Democratic Party, I assure you, should not be casting stones....

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:32 am

Which one of those men is President today? That's the only one that can be impeached. The rest of the comments are irrelevant to the question at hand.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:42 am

Couldn’t disagree with you more David.
If the standards change from administration to administration then there are no standards and we are at the mercy of whatever mob happens to be ruling.

Edmund G. Ross was right, thank goodness.

I take it you don’t want to play the game and answer the questions.
That’s ok, nobody is forcing you to. I understand why you don’t want to go down into that rabbit hole.