New damaging evidence brought to light concerning trump sycophants activity in Ukraine. Let's see if it is repressed for the Senate trial,

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21066219/impeachment-lev-parnas-evidence-ambassador

 

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

New damaging evidence brought to light concerning trump sycophants activity in Ukraine. Let's see if it is repressed for the Senate trial,

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21066219/impeachment-lev-parnas-evidence-ambassador

 

Hmmm.......more ammunition to show trump lies, and the corrupt nature of his minions. 

 

Is there no end to the lying and deceit of the republicans own "swamp dwellers" because they have it down to a fine art.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I supported Trump only because the alternative was so unacceptable

Now this is not a trick question, but one posed in relation to your part quote above.............

 

It was not clear before the last election that trump was capable of telling so many lies, so often and with no respect to reality in most cases, nor that he was "not very bright" (and there are enough examples so I won't quote them) or in fact that some of his past dealings were very shady, if not bordering on the criminal (again plenty of examples).

 

Now that all this has become clear and obvious, would you still make the same choice in voting for trump, or did the alternative put forward by the Democrats disgust you so much that you would still have chosen trump?

On 1/14/2020 at 10:15 AM, WalkingOrders said:

McConnell, has gotta be laughing his ass off, especially, if the whole witness can of worms gets opened. The best thing that can happen for Democrats is this ends quickly next week. The Leftist scumbag game is over! 

Agree.

 

There's an old adage among attorneys that says, "Don't ask a question that you don't already know the answer."  Dems have been doing it since their fiasco started.  Mueller couldn't even deliver for them in testimony, and he had two years and hundreds of pages of a report to do it.

Then Dems paraded all of these "opinion" witnesses to testify as to their feelings about aid to Ukraine.  Even their guy Sondland had to admit that his testimony was about presumption and that Trump told him emphatically that he wanted nothing in return for the aid.  Sondland is the only first-hand contact with Trump with any first-hand evidence; and it's in Trump's favor.

 

Democrats: the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences. 

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

New damaging evidence brought to light concerning trump sycophants activity in Ukraine. Let's see if it is repressed for the Senate trial,

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21066219/impeachment-lev-parnas-evidence-ambassador

 

No wonder Republicans don't want any witness!

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

New damaging evidence brought to light concerning trump sycophants activity in Ukraine. Let's see if it is repressed for the Senate trial,

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21066219/impeachment-lev-parnas-evidence-ambassador

 

Apparently, there is more to come at the time of the trial. Could it be that Pelosi was waiting for these additional releases of documents.... ????

https://www.axios.com/energy-department-ukraine-american-oversight-5e71a689-e617-4bbd-a98f-40ebbae04e0c.html

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

Now this is not a trick question, but one posed in relation to your part quote above.............

 

It was not clear before the last election that trump was capable of telling so many lies, so often and with no respect to reality in most cases, nor that he was "not very bright" (and there are enough examples so I won't quote them) or in fact that some of his past dealings were very shady, if not bordering on the criminal (again plenty of examples).

 

Now that all this has become clear and obvious, would you still make the same choice in voting for trump, or did the alternative put forward by the Democrats disgust you so much that you would still have chosen trump?

I would still rather have Trump than Hillary, or s as by leftist for that matter. 
 

I know there are thousands of examples of Trumps lies and shady dealings, but in your opinion:

 

What is the worst lie he has told?

 

What is the shadiest of the dealings he has been involved in? 
 

 

 

 

Oh and I aint here to whine. I am here to gloat!!! Cuz this obvious sharade is over! and The Real Donald Trump is gonna be Re-elected soon enough. Indictments are coming for the clowns! It must feel like a giant thumb from the clouds rubbing the tops of the Democrat pea brain skulls into sand! Oh the tears are gonna fall! Cry on! Nothing else they can do is there.

On 1/15/2020 at 3:20 PM, Eric Loh said:

+ 1 plus I want to see TBL produce evidence of Dem lying as much as Trump or having world leaders laughing at his POTUS. He back the wrong horse but too proud to admit. 

Obviously not paying attention. I've said many times I was opposed to HRC and he was the only opposition available ( no independent was going to win ), not so much backing him, though he's done many things I do support and some I don't.

Should the Dems come up with a decent candidate, I'd support them over him, but the Dems have produced no such candidate so far, and as the campaigning season starts soon, unlikely to emerge. So far it's a repeat of 2016 where I don't support any of the Dem's candidates, and as he's the only likely GOP candidate to contest the election it's him in preference to the Dem's collection of, IMO, misfits.

 

plus I want to see TBL produce evidence of Dem lying as much as Trump

Pretty poor deflection.

On 1/15/2020 at 7:30 PM, xylophone said:

Now that all this has become clear and obvious, would you still make the same choice in voting for trump, or did the alternative put forward by the Democrats disgust you so much that you would still have chosen trump?

If HRC was the alternative- ABSOLUTELY. Given the present Dem candidates- ABSOLUTELY. Biden and the "native American", LOL. Bernie shouldn't even be running, given his heart attack. Bloomberg, LOL. I haven't even heard of the others.

The Dems leadership must still cry themselves to sleep every night for sabotaging Bernie- he would have been a shoo in, IMO.

Edited January 16, 20206 yr by thaibeachlovers

On 1/15/2020 at 10:10 PM, candide said:

Apparently, there is more to come at the time of the trial. Could it be that Pelosi was waiting for these additional releases of documents.... ????

https://www.axios.com/energy-department-ukraine-american-oversight-5e71a689-e617-4bbd-a98f-40ebbae04e0c.html

Oh dear, shame then that the senate doesn't have to include those documents then.

Perhaps Nancy should have waited for them before concluding the "investigation" in the house.

On 1/15/2020 at 9:28 PM, candide said:

No wonder Republicans don't want any witness!

and they don't have to have any.

Nothing to fear.

On 1/15/2020 at 2:48 PM, Ricohoc said:

Agree.

 

There's an old adage among attorneys that says, "Don't ask a question that you don't already know the answer."  Dems have been doing it since their fiasco started.  Mueller couldn't even deliver for them in testimony, and he had two years and hundreds of pages of a report to do it.

Then Dems paraded all of these "opinion" witnesses to testify as to their feelings about aid to Ukraine.  Even their guy Sondland had to admit that his testimony was about presumption and that Trump told him emphatically that he wanted nothing in return for the aid.  Sondland is the only first-hand contact with Trump with any first-hand evidence; and it's in Trump's favor.

 

Democrats: the undisputed Champions of Unintended Consequences. 

The president's supporters complain about a lack of first hand witnesses but fail to mention that the white house aggressively blocked them (and documents) to an unprecedented degree in American history. Wanting it both ways. Hoping enough of the American people don't see that clear hypocritical contradiction. Also labeling Sondland as "their guy" meaning the democrats is incredibly silly. 

On 1/11/2020 at 2:55 PM, simple1 said:

trump does not have a remit to reshape the Courts for years to along ultra conservative partisan lines. 

???????????????????

Are you saying that Trump should have nominated judges that opposed his agenda? He has the right to nominate anyone he chooses, but you want him to stab himself in the back?

That doesn't make sense.

A post containing a trolling representation of the Democrat party has been removed.  Members have been warned previously for posting trolling representations of the Republican party as well.  Let's stop with the name calling of a trolling nature. 

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and they don't have to have any.

Nothing to fear.

They don't have to have any... However, it would not be supported by public opinion. It's a tragic choice for them. On the one hand, If they don't accept new witnesses and evidence, they will be seen as covering up Trump. On the other hand, If they accept new witnesses, they will make it worse for Trump.

 

Source of figure:

https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/most-voters-want-more-impeachment-witnesses-as-senate-prepares-for-trial/

 

Edited January 16, 20206 yr by candide

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

???????????????????

Are you saying that Trump should have nominated judges that opposed his agenda? He has the right to nominate anyone he chooses, but you want him to stab himself in the back?

That doesn't make sense.

As I have already mentioned, trump did not receive the mandate from the majority of voters to fundamentally change the judicial system to mirror his biases. The longer trump remains in power it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump to become President. Should the Dems gain power IMO it would be a good time to amend aspects of the Constitution to address a President who acts as though he/she is above the law supported by a sycophant Senate. i.e. an unrepresentative 'king'

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As I have already mentioned, trump did not receive the mandate from the majority of voters to fundamentally change the judicial system to mirror his biases. The longer trump remains in power it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump to become President. Should the Dems gain power IMO it would be a good time to amend aspects of the Constitution to address a President who acts as though he/she is above the law supported by a sycophant Senate. i.e. an unrepresentative 'king'

Under the American system a president does not have to receive a mandate to do anything, other than being elected, IMO. I'm sure you are aware that while HRC received a majority of votes, that was from a limited number of voters as many did not vote.

 

Trump, at least, is doing what he said he would do before being elected. Far as I know he hasn't tried to do anything he didn't campaign on, with the exception, IMO, of his pro Israeli stance.

Are you aware of the process to amend the constitution? They would require GOP support to do it.

The founding fathers did take account of it as they fought a war to gain independence from kings. It's why Trump has limited powers to act independently- ie the courts that stopped his immigration program.

All this stuff about Trump being a dictator etc is, IMO, ridiculous, and propaganda by anti Trumpers.

23 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As I have already mentioned, trump did not receive the mandate from the majority of voters to fundamentally change the judicial system to mirror his biases. The longer trump remains in power it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump to become President. Should the Dems gain power IMO it would be a good time to amend aspects of the Constitution to address a President who acts as though he/she is above the law supported by a sycophant Senate. i.e. an unrepresentative 'king'

trump did not receive the mandate from the majority of voters

 

This is completely irrelevant to the structure of the federal government of the United States, which is a Republic and which elects the president and affords his powers accordingly. 

 

it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump

 

The founding fathers would more likely be aghast at the recent power grab through reinterpretation of the constitution and suppression of freedoms of speech by political correctness. They themselves were not very politically correct.

Dems should amend the Constitution?  How exactly does that happen? It doesn't, and it won't. The makeup of the Congress doesn't necessarily fuel or guarantee any amendment to the Constitution.

 

History tells us that if the people want the Constitution amended -- if it is something truly important to them and necessary -- the people in the states will ratify the amendment.  Some folks need to read up on that process.  Under the current process, it would take 75% of the states to agree with the amendment and ratify it.  That means 38 states of the 50 must ratify (which takes a couple years or more to complete).  There's also a very small window for failure.  Only 12 states could reject an amendment and still pass. 

 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

All one has to do is look at how the Electoral College voting occurs in states and one can predict/determine the chances of particular amendments passing.

 

There's also a way that the People can fuel their own amendments and completely bypass Congress through Article 5 of the Constitution, but that is a topic for another time.

 

 

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

As I have already mentioned, trump did not receive the mandate from the majority of voters to fundamentally change the judicial system to mirror his biases. The longer trump remains in power it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump to become President. Should the Dems gain power IMO it would be a good time to amend aspects of the Constitution to address a President who acts as though he/she is above the law supported by a sycophant Senate. i.e. an unrepresentative 'king'

I think the Founding Fathers would be much more concerned about people spending their entire lives in “pubic service” and getting rich as a result of their “service” than they would be about Trump.

3 hours ago, candide said:

They don't have to have any... However, it would not be supported by public opinion.

Maybe the question was asked: "Do you want the Bidens as witnessess" 

 

I personally have no problems with witnesses...call them all. All. Every one. Confirm Judges in the morning, trial every day into the afternoon, stretch it out till election day.

Edited January 17, 20206 yr by Nyezhov

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I think the Founding Fathers would be much more concerned about people spending their entire lives in “pubic service” and getting rich as a result of their “service” than they would be about Trump.

How do we know the trump organisation is not enriching itself due to trump being President? I for one would think it unbelievable the trump family is pulling their collective heads in. Unfortunately we will have to wait for the completion of criminal prosecution after trump finishes his term for his criminality to finally come to light.

 

2 hours ago, rabas said:

trump did not receive the mandate from the majority of voters

 

This is completely irrelevant to the structure of the federal government of the United States, which is a Republic and which elects the president and affords his powers accordingly. 

 

it occurs to me the founding fathers did not take into consideration the likes of trump

 

The founding fathers would more likely be aghast at the recent power grab through reinterpretation of the constitution and suppression of freedoms of speech by political correctness. They themselves were not very politically correct.

Is it not the trump administration that is busily engaged in efforts to suppress Freedom of Speech e.g. by calling out critics as scum and terrorist sympathisers. In fact the trump administration, IMO, is the 'Deep State' by such actions as rejecting oversight by Congress.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

<SNIP> All this stuff about Trump being a dictator etc is, IMO, ridiculous, and propaganda by anti Trumpers.

Disagree. trump is sailing as close as he currently can to put in-pace an authoritarian government. If it were not for some Courts he would be  a lot further than he currently is. Should trump win 11/20, IMO, the Republic is in great danger as would the global Rule of Law.

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

How do we know the trump organisation is not enriching itself due to trump being President?

Lets say he is. How do you feel about the Clinton foundation then?

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

trump is sailing as close as he currently can to put in-pace an authoritarian government

How. Examples. With reference how it deviates from the norm of Presidents.

 

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

If it were not for some Courts he would be  a lot further than he currently is.

What court has reined him in and what for?

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Lets say he is. How do you feel about the Clinton foundation then?

Though one of the favourite conspiracy subjects by the Right, so far as I know the Clinton Foundation has never been proven guilty of malfeasance. 

6 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Lets say he is. How do you feel about the Clinton foundation then?

But but but..... anything Clinton.

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

How. Examples. With reference how it deviates from the norm of Presidents.

 

What court has reined him in and what for?

various Appeal Courts

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Though one of the favourite conspiracy subjects by the Right, so far as I know the Clinton Foundation has never been proven guilty of malfeasance. 

Got it. Clinton pulling millions of dollars in  donations while she was Sec of State and Presidential candidate (that have since dried up) were a "conspiracy", while Trumps corporation selling an extra $80 room is the end of the Republic.

 

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

various Appeal Courts

Thats not an answer, which means you have none.

 

If the anti Trumpers would tone down the hyperbole, they would have a better chance to reach 63 million Americans and convice them their fav candidate could do a better job. Dont let the Internet Echo Chamber confuse you, all the screeching convinces no one except those who are beleivers anyway.