1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The majority support for HRC came from the liberal coasts, not from middle America, didn't it. That's not an overall support from the entire country. Most of the country didn't want her as president.

Have to agree with you that the male dominated 240 years run of male presidency is not coming to an end anytime soon. 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

They had no choice. It likely would have taken over a year to force those top insider witnesses through the courts. Of two bad choices, going ahead or being stalled out of doing anything, they made the only logical choice. 

Not to mention that a timely impeachment put an indelible stain on Trump's presidency. Also I would like to note that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats can drag this process out for as long as they want by not sending over the articles of impeach for a senate trial. The House Dems will probably wait well into next year before sending them over, if at all. The optics of senate trial during Trump's campaign  should look very good for the Democrats early next fall.

A post using an intentional miss-spelling of Trump's name has been removed.  If you do not want your post to be removed, please spell people's names correctly.

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The rich have always screwed the poor. The last time they destroyed the world economy with funny money not one of them went to jail for it. The system, IMO is rigged. Neither Dems nor the GOP have done anything to make the world a better place for ordinary people, IMO.

Yeah I agree also.

 

I find it shocking that it seems as though the DNC and Democratic Establishment has been trying to 'push' Mayor Pete for awhile now. They are also keeping people uninformed about his very shady past in small NW Indiana. Check out StatusCoup on YouTube for interviews and some real good coverage on Mayor Pete aka the DNC's 'spotlight mid-western candidate.'

 

The reason for mentioning this is to add to your point regarding making the world better for ordinary people. It has been reported on that the DNC's candidate has a history of gentrification and institutionalized racist stances or lack of answers regarding the killing of blacks. This is all the while he is promoted as being 'liked' in the 'black community.' He seems to be the opposite of someone making it better for ordinary people. Again, we can the DNC is screwed up and people need to get out of the bi-partisan political arena 'theater' and go after The Establishment and The Machine itself.

 

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Have to agree with you that the male dominated 240 years run of male presidency is not coming to an end anytime soon. 

 

Didn’t have anything to do with her being a woman, to pretend it did would be a lie. 

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

If it had gone as planned, it would have worked out well for the left. Secret hearings with strategic leaks to the press right up to the election. Fortunately, once Trump released the transcript all bets were off and the left shifted into damage control. 

No transcript was released.

 

once trump released notes of a part of the conversation thinking it cleared him it led to his impeachment.

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The majority support for HRC came from the liberal coasts, not from middle America, didn't it. That's not an overall support from the entire country. Most of the country didn't want her as president.

Exactly. I do find it positive to see that Trump has lost some of his base since his presidency.

He was 'against' the establishment, he duped people into making them think he was against 'Big Gov.' In reality, he continues it but with more of a Neo-conservative/fascist approach.

 

Did he drain the swamp? No. Did he build the wall? He used funds illegally. Did he stop the wars? No, without authorization from congress he is in 7 different countries. Against abortion but The President continues supporting violent regimes and death in the middle-east.

 

And can you believe people still support this guy?

6 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Didn’t have anything to do with her being a woman, to pretend it did would be a lie. 

To pretend Trump won on his own merits is also a lie. You know it and so do Russia, 

32 minutes ago, choff56 said:

Not to mention that a timely impeachment put an indelible stain on Trump's presidency. Also I would like to note that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats can drag this process out for as long as they want by not sending over the articles of impeach for a senate trial. The House Dems will probably wait well into next year before sending them over, if at all. The optics of senate trial during Trump's campaign  should look very good for the Democrats early next fall.

I don't think she will hold it very long. A week to a month max I reckon. The thing is to try to push for witnesses and if as expected McConnell won't and/or Romney fails to try to get some republican votes to force a fairer trial at least many more Americans will know by then that the exoneration that 45 seeks will be fake and empty. Not relevant to his base of course because to them the dear leader can do no wrong but for independents and some democrats that voted 45 in 2016. 

1 hour ago, HuskerDo said:

The deregulation was indeed needed as previous career politicians with NO business background implemented such regulations with no forethought. They didn't understand the ramifications of the regulations they were putting in place. Most were just done for "donors" benefit.

 

As for the tax breaks for the rich, well, that's a subject that will take a long time to figure out. It's not much different than the tax breaks years ago for the rich (remember the so-called "trickle down" theory?) Give tax breaks to the rich and they'll have more money to invest to make the economy stronger and thus "trickle down" to the regular guy. Why not just give the tax break to the "regular guy" to begin with? 

 

Then again the US is 20+ trillion in debt so it might not matter who the tax breaks go to as it obviously doesn't help with the national debt.

Some deregulation was needed, but not opening public lands to major oil and lumber companies, the ability to put poisons into streams and lakes, trying to eliminate many consumer protections, censorship of scientists working for the government, air pollution regulations slashed-coal, auto, power plant emissions...allowing more leverage or banks, more private prisons, less oversight of pay day loan sharks...

I mean there there are hundreds more that help businesses 

 

As far as trickledown, it obviously doesn’t work, or Trump would not be president.  The rich continue to own much more of all assets everywhere 

31 minutes ago, choff56 said:

Not to mention that a timely impeachment put an indelible stain on Trump's presidency. Also I would like to note that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats can drag this process out for as long as they want by not sending over the articles of impeach for a senate trial. The House Dems will probably wait well into next year before sending them over, if at all. The optics of senate trial during Trump's campaign  should look very good for the Democrats early next fall.

The problem with that scenario is that Dems also have to campaign for re election next year. They can't afford to be tied up in a process that is actually going to assist Trump's re election, IMO. They need to get it out of the way.

 

optics of senate trial during Trump's campaign  should look very good for the Democrats early next fall

The GOP leadership in the house can just vote without a trial, if they so wish. There are no procedural rules that say they have to have a trial, far as I know.

 

18 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

To pretend Trump won on his own merits is also a lie. You know it and so do Russia, 

Of course Trump didn't win on his merits. He won because middle America voted against her, IMO.

All this to-and-fro of argument could easily be resolved if, on about October 15th next year, the Chinese announced that all negotiations were to be suspended.

The Dow would collapse and the rest would be....well, anyone's guess.

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't think she will hold it very long. A week to a month max I reckon. The thing is to try to push for witnesses and if as expected McConnell won't and/or Romney fails to try to get some republican votes to force a fairer trial at least many more Americans will know by then that the exoneration that 45 seeks will be fake and empty. Not relevant to his base of course because to them the dear leader can do no wrong but for independents and some democrats that voted 45 in 2016. 

Regardless, as long as the economy is good, voters usually vote for continuation. The Dems only hope, IMO is for the economy to collapse, or for him to be impeached. However, if they could come up with a reincarnated Jack Kennedy for the election, things might be different.

59 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

A lot of people like lower taxes and deregulation. 
 

To be clear, as the poor don’t pay income taxes in the US, all income tax cuts are for the rich. 
 

If the left really cared about the taxes the poor pay, why do the support so many regressive taxes, and so many subsidies for the rich? 
 

Why is a guy making $60k a year being taxed such that a guy making $250k a year gets a rebate on his  Tesla? 
 

 

They have been trying change this for decades.  Where have you been?  The entire tax code needs to be rewritten.  Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they want everything that taxes pay for ????

The rich pay very few taxes either because their money is offshore, or they simply manipulate the system as Donald and his father has.  They all have series of shell companies that can’t be tracked.  Many large corporations don’t pay taxes either, and less is coming in after trump has been in, but spending is up significantly.

I agree, but it seems you have the parties reversed

 

8 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Interesting to watch the Democrat party destroy itself.

 

Go Nancy go!

Doing the same thing that the British labour party did! 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Democrats were the party of slave owners. The GOP ended slavery.

...and once, scary big lizards roamed the Earth....

7 hours ago, bendejo said:

f he loses he will scream "rigged election," just like he did a few days before the 2016 election when he thought he would lose.  He'll stonewall and scream "hoax" like he's doing now with his trial.  He'll refuse to leave the WH and not accept the successor.  Who is going to do anything about it? 

He wouled be arrested and 'escorted' off the premises.

 

In fact, I would  guess Trump, oned he leaves the Presidency, will  be indicted and convicted of a variety of offenses on both the Federal and State level, mostly involving tax evasion, money laundering and fraud.

 

Trump will not be convicted in the Senate and removed from  President simply becuase  the Repubs control the Senate.  That does not mean the investigation into his  actions will stop.

 

There are 3 huge cases on the docket for the Supreme Court to review all involving release of his taxes and potential criminal liability.  If he loses these cases and  he has to show the records- he can expect  to be indicted.

 

IMO- once he realizes his goose is cooked- he will cut a deal to resign; Pence becomes President and pardons Trump.  As part of the deal-  the New York State Governor then pardons Trump on the State charges.

 

Ever wonder why Trump has fought so hard to hide his tax returns? Plenty of illegal activity will be evident  once  the records are rleased.

 

 

Just when you thought there were no surprises left...

 

In the category of which "Americans want Trump ousted post-impeachment", here's one for the history books:

 

TRUMP'S OWN BASE!

 

SURPRISE!!!

 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

Trump Should Be Removed from Office

the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

 

 

What is Christianity Today Magazine?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_Today

Christianity Today magazine is an  evangelical  Christian  periodical that was founded in 1956...The Washington Post calls Christianity Today, "evangelicalism's flagship magazine"...

 

...The founder, Billy Graham, stated that he wanted to "plant the evangelical flag in the middle-of-the-road...

 

Billy Graham? Who's that?

 

Isn't he the major Evangelical guy who helped turn the tide on the impeachment of Richard Nixon?

 

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

To pretend Trump won on his own merits is also a lie. You know it and so do Russia, 

You implied Trump won because Hillary was a woman. 
 

I said that to claim she lost because she was a woman is a lie.

 

Now you change the subject. 
 

Typical 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

I agree, that’s why I was shocked the Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses, particularly given the left’s long history of fairness.

They were allowed to call witnesses. They called people who could not testify anything about what Trump did or not, like the Bidens, and it was logically refused. They also called real witnesses, but they had been already called in before by the Dems (ex. Sondland). Surprisingly enough, they did not call any Trumper in....

25 minutes ago, Redline said:

They have been trying change this for decades.  Where have you been?  The entire tax code needs to be rewritten.  Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they want everything that taxes pay for ????

The rich pay very few taxes either because their money is offshore, or they simply manipulate the system as Donald and his father has.  They all have series of shell companies that can’t be tracked.  Many large corporations don’t pay taxes either, and less is coming in after trump has been in, but spending is up significantly.

I agree, but it seems you have the parties reversed

 

Who is they? 
 

What is it they are trying to change? 
 

So you would support a flat tax? 
 

That the rich pay no or little taxes is a lie. Look at what percentage of all income taxes are paid by by the to 10% of taxpayers. 
 

The bottom 40-50% pay no income tax.

 

What large corporations don’t pay corporate income taxes? Again, this is just a lie. A strong argument can br made that corporate income taxes should be zero, as ultimately it’s the consumer that pays them making them regressive. 
 

People and companies that cheat on their taxes should be prosecuted, but you seem to want to persecute people that are taking advantage of legal incentives, why? Don’t like the rules, change them, but don’t punish people that follow them. 
 

I’m all for streamlining the tax code and getting rid of subsidies and deductions, but that’s probably not going to come from the right, and absolutely not going to come from the left. They lose to many votes. People who don’t pay taxes never support cutting taxes, and people that do never support raising them. 
 

I think everyone should pay the same rate, what do you think?
 

 

 

6 minutes ago, candide said:

They were allowed to call witnesses. They called people who could not testify anything about what Trump did or not, like the Bidens, and it was logically refused. They also called real witnesses, but they had been already called in before by the Dems (ex. Sondland). Surprisingly enough, they did not call any Trumper in....

Yes, they were only allowed to call witnesses Adam Schiff approved. 
 

This seems fair, so I’m sure Chuck and Nancy will agree to the same rules. Let’s just use the rules from the impeachment hearing, swap party names and move ahead with it. 
 

 

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

So it’s your position that Republicans are NOT part of the whole world, correct? 
 

What about the three Democrats that voted against impeachment, are the not part of the whole world as well? 
 

Please tell us more about how stupid they all are...

It would take far too long to tell you more about how stupid they are.

37 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Isn't he the major Evangelical guy who helped turn the tide on the impeachment of Richard Nixon?

 

 

Wasn’t he...

A post with a trolling video has been removed. 

1 hour ago, blazes said:

All this to-and-fro of argument could easily be resolved if, on about October 15th next year, the Chinese announced that all negotiations were to be suspended.

The Dow would collapse and the rest would be....well, anyone's guess.

Why would the Dow collapse if the Chinese announced they would negotiations? 

15 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, they were only allowed to call witnesses Adam Schiff approved. 
 

This seems fair, so I’m sure Chuck and Nancy will agree to the same rules. Let’s just use the rules from the impeachment hearing, swap party names and move ahead with it. 
 

 

Yes, they had to be approved and the rule was fair: only witnesses who could possibly have witnessed something were allowed to testify. Pro-Trump witnesses were welcomed (ex. Sondland).

 

I agree that the same rule should be applied during the Senate trial

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I am simply looking at the alternatives. Four more years of the human wrecking ball, Warren, or Sanders? Come on. I am a centrist, and do not want either of those two super liberals. Bloomberg is great. He is far sharper than Trump, and just a few years older, but not nearly as feeble, thin skinned, criminal, destructive, or illiterate. Plus, he can negotiate!

 

I agree that the alternatives appear somewhat meager, they are not easy to market and sell

 

hence, I'd not be surprised if Trump makes it a 2nd time, provided he survives the ongoing process

 

You can never trust polls anymore. I trust the odds makers a lot more. Oddschecker currently shows Trump running better than 50% to win a second term, and it actually increased after the impeachment. That would be unlikely if a majority of Americans wanted him gone. So Reuters can have all the polls they want showing yeah or nay. But I think someone putting real money down is probably going to have a more accurate and less biased view.