Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Sadly NO.

Come on, the dog down the street is better than that geriatric you call a president. He rarely knows where he is.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any psychiatrist that proffers a diagnosis of a person without having examined that person should be struck off.

You seem to have no problem about making many comments on many forums about peoples' mental ability without ever meeting them!

 

 

Edited by scottiejohn
  • Agree 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

3 reasons, actually.  

 

1) Impeachment is a political process, and they could have video of Joe walking across the Whitehouse lawn with a bloody machete in one hand and a severed head in the other, and the Dems still wouldn't vote to remove him from office.

 

2) Kamala Harris.  Best insurance a president could hope for if impeachment were a possibility.  Like, if he knew he was telling campaign porkies about influence peddling and figured the truth would come out while he's in office.

 

3)  Even if they did manage to remove him from office, Kamala could pardon him (a'la Ford/Nixon).  Wait for a new president to prosecute a private citizen and I doubt a pardon is in the cards.

 

Makes no sense to actually impeach him.  But it makes a lot of sense to use the subpoena power of a House Impeachment investigation to compel witnesses and demand records.

 

 

 

However, it's only after they failed to provide any valid evidence that they changed their tune and decided (well, it seems they decided it) not to hold an impeachment vote. In particular as several GOP congressmen have stated there was no valid evidence.

 

Their master would be the most happy man if they were 'only' able to adopt the impeachment articles with a simple House majority, in order to confirm his false equivalence theory ( which was the cause of the investigation)

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, candide said:

However, it's only after they failed to provide any valid evidence that they changed their tune and decided (well, it seems they decided it) not to hold an impeachment vote. In particular as several GOP congressmen have stated there was no valid evidence.

 

 

They never changed their tune.  They never figured removal from office was even a remote possibility, just on the votes alone.  Let alone the mind bending possibility of a Kamala presidency.  They just wanted the investigation for the subpoena power.  Of course, it would have been politically stupid to say that going in.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

They never changed their tune.  They never figured removal from office was even a remote possibility, just on the votes alone.  Let alone the mind bending possibility of a Kamala presidency.  They just wanted the investigation for the subpoena power.  Of course, it would have been politically stupid to say that going in.  

 

 

Nice try!

You conveniently ignore there isn't only the removal vote, which requires a 2/3 majority.

The first impeachment vote requires only a simple House majority (ex. Trump's impeachment). They found out they could not even win it because not all GOP Reps. were ready to vote the articles, as they did not have valid evidence.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

Attendance not so good lately. He needs new material. Maybe get an actually policy platform going instead of build a wall, deepstate, witch hunt, "drill baby drill " and devising silly names for his rivals. 

 

Trump had 1.5 million people at his inaugural blowing Obama crowd size out of the water. SAD

crowd_split_social_y.jpg

 

And Biden?  🤣

  • Confused 1
  • Love It 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Everything Nothing I say is baseless. 

Wow. Clever and creative, leaving me crying in the corner in the foetal position.

Edited by Yagoda
  • Confused 1
  • Love It 1
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. Clever and creative, leaving me crying in the corner in the foetal position.

Where I believe you belong and hope you remain!

Edited by scottiejohn
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Trump's legal team brought 63 lawsuits before the Supreme Court but none were successful. Forensic audits were launched by the Republicans and came up with nothing. 

 

Jeez, not only did you get the facts wrong, you're not even in the right country.

 

https://jakartaglobe.id/news/constitutional-court-receives-63-lawsuits-disputing-election-results

 

But, like I posted before, you can make up anything you want about Trump and it won't get taken down here.

 

 

  • Confused 4
  • Agree 1
Posted
8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps I should start calling you Mr Jandal.

 

Jandals are the brand name of flip flop shoes that were sold in NZ a while back.

🙂

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

Early polls have little predictive value.

Posted
7 hours ago, ftpjtm said:

So when should candidates start to be concerned about what the public thinks about themselves and their policies? A month before the election? A week before the election? 

You are asking me the best way to integrate policy with political campaigns?

 

Here's a hint. A politician has policy convictions before the campaign begins. Their campaign is about educating the public about their policies.

 

We are not yet at the point in this campaign for the public to really care about policies.

Posted
1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

 

They never changed their tune.  They never figured removal from office was even a remote possibility, just on the votes alone.  Let alone the mind bending possibility of a Kamala presidency.  They just wanted the investigation for the subpoena power.  Of course, it would have been politically stupid to say that going in.  

 

 

So, you are saying that the Biden investigation failed because of lack of supporting facts, but the Republicans knew this at the start of the investigation?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The difference between the Indonesia lawsuits and Trump’s election fraud propaganda is that the former are still in the appeal stage while the latter have been adjudicated and dismissed.
 

 Trump's legal team sought a path to bring a case before the Supreme Court, but none of the 63 lawsuits they filed were successful.[

 

So, your "63 lawsuits with no wins" came from a statement that Biden made on Jan 7, 2021?  Long before any lawsuits could have possibly made it through any real proceeding?


Other than the "63" being wrong, "before the Supreme Court" being wrong, "none was successful" being wrong, I guess I'd have to agree with the rest.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

Come on, the dog down the street is better than that geriatric you call a president. He rarely knows where he is.

Or you are confused.

 

Perhaps you can review how much you lost on Truth Social.

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

So, you are saying that the Biden investigation failed because of lack of supporting facts, but the Republicans knew this at the start of the investigation?

 

Who said it failed?

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
Just now, impulse said:

 

So, your "63 lawsuits with no wins" came from a statement that Biden made on Jan 7, 2021?  Long before any lawsuits could have possibly made it through any real proceeding?


Other than the "63" being wrong, "before the Supreme Court" being wrong, "none was successful" being wrong, I guess I'd have to agree with the rest.

What are you talking about?

 

Trump lost tons of lawsuits during the fight over the 2020 election.

 

Do you disagree?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are asking me the best way to integrate policy with political campaigns?

 

Here's a hint. A politician has policy convictions before the campaign begins. Their campaign is about educating the public about their policies.

 

We are not yet at the point in this campaign for the public to really care about policies.

I hope you're right. Because so far Trump has been pretty effective at convincing the public that Democrats are using "lawfare" to prosecute a political opponent, even though "we are not yet at the point in this campaign for the public to really care".

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 4/8/2024 at 6:52 AM, george said:

What is Donald Trump's mental state?

He don't have one .

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

he is as stable as Hitler in 1945  , a totally deranged Narcissist,,, with reality issues ,, he should be in an institution  with bars on the windows ...only complete fools  would want him  as a president .

Edited by liddelljohn
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
On 4/8/2024 at 12:52 AM, george said:

What is Donald Trump's mental state? I direct the question primarily to those working in psychology, psychiatry, neuropsychiatry, etc., and prefer serious and professional answers. I don't work as a psychologist, but I've studied this for many, many years and have a great interest in the dark triad.

I'm sort of guessing Josephine's original posting wasn't directed at AN members - I doubt we have many working in those professions here 😁.

 

But to answer her - the man is a raving lunatic.  What that says about around 50% of the US electorate, I'll leave her to contemplate.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...