11 Republicans to share stage in next US presidential debate

[geriatrickid]

"he disastrous Reagan/Bush/Bush II era could well be the accepted norm for the future leader of the world's largest "Democracy""

You somehow overlooked the only one that was impeached during that period...William Jefferson Clinton.

It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement.

The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment. The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges. The Republicans had run their November election prior with the impeachment as the principal issue in their campaign. The voters spoke, and the Republicans instead of a landslide victory, lost popular support and 5 seats in the House. The fact that the Republican party then pushed forward in the lame duck session with the impeachment hearings, despite being repudiated by the American electorate, spoke volumes about the vendetta the Republicans had against President Clinton. (Lameduck for those who are not American, refers to the short period of time Nov-January when the old house of representatives remains in office, until replaced by the newly elected members.) It can just as easily be argued that the Republican party had no mandate from the electorate to pursue the POTUS and took advantage of their lameduck session majority to push on with its personal attacks on the POTUS. As an aside, several of the Republicans who led the attacks were embarrassed as personal scandal after scandal exploded. Republicans sure like to point the finger at others all the while concealing their propensity for marriage infidelities and buggery with young men.

The sole reason this Carly "I damaged HP with My Obnoxious Arrogance and was Fired" Fiorina, is allowed on the stage with the others is that the GOP is desperate to show that it has female heavyweights. She is a big incompetent phoney, with a history of failure. I would go one step further and say that she is one nasty piece woman who should never have been allowed to manage any company.

If The Donald would just stop with some of his more incendiary comments that are intended to generate attention, he would occupy an even higher position. He is not stupid and he is not a racist or bigot. The only colour that matters for him is the colour of money.

Edited September 13, 2015 by geriatrickid

[spidermike007]

And here are two anonymous individuals posting on a forum on Thailand calling a multi-billionaire a slow thinker and idiot.

Post your life accomplishments anonymously and let's compare how you stack up against the slow thinking idiot.

I have always said it is a lot easier to become a billionaire, if you do not possess the slightest care, nor concern about ethics, morality, the well being of your fellow man, or a charitable heart. Trump fits that category times one hundred. The very idea of engaging in a fair deal goes against everything this tiny man is made of. He may be smart, I am not saying he is an idiot. What I am saying is that he is a total non visionary, when it comes to his ridiculously limited political policies.

[up-country_sinclair]

And Trump will lose the debate again. He is not very good at thinking on his feet. He only has about five things to say. He cannot improvise, as he has nothing to say, besides build a wall, and they are stealing our jobs and immigrants are terrible and I can fix everything. My prediction is that he will embarrass himself yet again.

Trump seems to be a pretty quick thinker in these videos.

Only if he is on very limited track and discussing "his" topics. When world affairs are brought up it is always the same answer. Protectionism, xenophobia, close the border. Build the wall. Problem solved. A bit of a political simpleton in my view.

Even in the videos posted above, he isn't saying anything of substance. He just keeps repeating,"I'm going to make good deals" and "I'm going to make America great again". Eventually someone is going to ask him a specific policy question (and more importantly, follow up questions) and he will be exposed.

[chuckd]

"he disastrous Reagan/Bush/Bush II era could well be the accepted norm for the future leader of the world's largest "Democracy""

You somehow overlooked the only one that was impeached during that period...William Jefferson Clinton.

It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement.

The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment. The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges. The Republicans had run their November election prior with the impeachment as the principal issue in their campaign. The voters spoke, and the Republicans instead of a landslide victory, lost popular support and 5 seats in the House. The fact that the Republican party then pushed forward in the lame duck session with the impeachment hearings, despite being repudiated by the American electorate, spoke volumes about the vendetta the Republicans had against President Clinton. (Lameduck for those who are not American, refers to the short period of time Nov-January when the old house of representatives remains in office, until replaced by the newly elected members.) It can just as easily be argued that the Republican party had no mandate from the electorate to pursue the POTUS and took advantage of their lameduck session majority to push on with its personal attacks on the POTUS. As an aside, several of the Republicans who led the attacks were embarrassed as personal scandal after scandal exploded. Republicans sure like to point the finger at others all the while concealing their propensity for marriage infidelities and buggery with young men.

The sole reason this Carly "I damaged HP with My Obnoxious Arrogance and was Fired" Fiorina, is allowed on the stage with the others is that the GOP is desperate to show that it has female heavyweights. She is a big incompetent phoney, with a history of failure. I would go one step further and say that she is one nasty piece woman who should never have been allowed to manage any company.

If The Donald would just stop with some of his more incendiary comments that are intended to generate attention, he would occupy an even higher position. He is not stupid and he is not a racist or bigot. The only colour that matters for him is the colour of money.

1. "It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement."

I agree that misleading statements are intellectually dishonest. I disagree that I have made a factually incorrect statement.

2. "The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment."

The impeachment process is handled strictly by the House of Representatives. The act of impeachment is an indictment issued by the House of Representatives against government officials. President Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by the House of Representatives.

3. "The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

.The Senate did not vote on the articles of Impeachment. The Senate voted on the two charges brought against Clinton in the impeachment but failed to convict him.

4. "The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges.

The articles of impeachment brought against President Clinton were for perjury and obstruction of justice only. He was NOT convicted on either of them and was acquitted of all charges.

What I claimed in my original post was factually correct and intellectually honest.

The United States House of Representatives did elect to Impeach President Clinton on 19 December 1998..

The United States Senate acquitted him on 12 February 1999..

Impeachment and conviction are two separate matters dealt with separately and by the two Houses of Congress independent of each other.

I have no personal interest in your opinions on Fiorina and Trump, but I would suggest the next time you claim somebody is being intellectually dishonest that you get your facts straight before you do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information:

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .... [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

[Publicus]

And here are two anonymous individuals posting on a forum on Thailand calling a multi-billionaire a slow thinker and idiot.

Post your life accomplishments anonymously and let's compare how you stack up against the slow thinking idiot.

Members of TVF are not running for president nor is any TVF member the topic of any thread.

Commands or directives to individual posters by another member are inappropriate, ill considered; condescending.

[sirineou]

And here are two anonymous individuals posting on a forum on Thailand calling a multi-billionaire a slow thinker and idiot.

Post your life accomplishments anonymously and let's compare how you stack up against the slow thinking idiot.

is this anything like anonymous TVF individuals calling calling Obama an Idiot?

[Publicus]

And Trump will lose the debate again. He is not very good at thinking on his feet. He only has about five things to say. He cannot improvise, as he has nothing to say, besides build a wall, and they are stealing our jobs and immigrants are terrible and I can fix everything. My prediction is that he will embarrass himself yet again.

Trump seems to be a pretty quick thinker in these videos.

Only if he is on very limited track and discussing "his" topics. When world affairs are brought up it is always the same answer. Protectionism, xenophobia, close the border. Build the wall. Problem solved. A bit of a political simpleton in my view.

Even in the videos posted above, he isn't saying anything of substance. He just keeps repeating,"I'm going to make good deals" and "I'm going to make America great again". Eventually someone is going to ask him a specific policy question (and more importantly, follow up questions) and he will be exposed.

Indeed.

The mainstream Republican David Brooks at the NYT noted today Trump and his followers are a rebellion, not a campaign.

If the Trump Rebellion and its slogan mongers seize the Republican party nomination it will be the electoral college firing squad for them in the general election. Same as it was for Sen Barry Goldwater in 1964 when the Republican right seized the party for one election cycle.

The Goldwater slogan was,"In your heart you know he's right," but the reply slogan that was effective across the country was, "In your guts you know he's nuts."

Goldwater won five states.

[thaibeachlovers]

And Trump will lose the debate again. He is not very good at thinking on his feet. He only has about five things to say. He cannot improvise, as he has nothing to say, besides build a wall, and they are stealing our jobs and immigrants are terrible and I can fix everything. My prediction is that he will embarrass himself yet again.

How did he "lose" the last Q & A ( it wasn't a debate ) when he barely spoke? The whole Mickey Mouse affair was a shambles. Asking about God- good grief.

[thaibeachlovers]

And Trump will lose the debate again. He is not very good at thinking on his feet. He only has about five things to say. He cannot improvise, as he has nothing to say, besides build a wall, and they are stealing our jobs and immigrants are terrible and I can fix everything. My prediction is that he will embarrass himself yet again.

Trump seems to be a pretty quick thinker in these videos.

Only if he is on very limited track and discussing "his" topics. When world affairs are brought up it is always the same answer. Protectionism, xenophobia, close the border. Build the wall. Problem solved. A bit of a political simpleton in my view.

"A bit" is a huge understatement. While most people want some honestly in politics, Trump is simply arrogant, self centered and ignorant of necessary political astuteness. Mind you, W was also a bit of an idiot too.

So, the US has had as president a lying ( I did not ..... ) adulterer, a lying ( WMD ) warmonger, and a lying ( if you like your Dr you can keep your Dr ) achieve nothing weak president.

Seems that Trump is the only candidate that hasn't actually LIED, that we know. As for the professional politicians trying to be prez., if their lips move they are lying, like all politicians.

[thaibeachlovers]

And here are two anonymous individuals posting on a forum on Thailand calling a multi-billionaire a slow thinker and idiot.

Post your life accomplishments anonymously and let's compare how you stack up against the slow thinking idiot.

is this anything like anonymous TVF individuals calling calling Obama an Idiot?

I don't know that Obama is an idiot, but he is a liar ( if you like your Dr you can keep your Dr ). I think he must be a bit slow too, as he always uses a teleprompter for his speeches.

[sirineou]

And here are two anonymous individuals posting on a forum on Thailand calling a multi-billionaire a slow thinker and idiot.

Post your life accomplishments anonymously and let's compare how you stack up against the slow thinking idiot.

is this anything like anonymous TVF individuals calling calling Obama an Idiot?

I don't know that Obama is an idiot, but he is a liar ( if you like your Dr you can keep your Dr ). I think he must be a bit slow too, as he always uses a teleprompter for his speeches.

at least he can read, which is more than I can say about his predecessor

[spidermike007]

And Trump will lose the debate again. He is not very good at thinking on his feet. He only has about five things to say. He cannot improvise, as he has nothing to say, besides build a wall, and they are stealing our jobs and immigrants are terrible and I can fix everything. My prediction is that he will embarrass himself yet again.

How did he "lose" the last Q & A ( it wasn't a debate ) when he barely spoke? The whole Mickey Mouse affair was a shambles. Asking about God- good grief.

He lost by exposing his true nature, which is anger, hatred, racism, misogyny, malcontentment, and venom. People just do not like those qualities. Once they realize who this low life is, his popularity will wane. Plus, he has nothing to say beyond his five slogans. He is an empty suit.

[geriatrickid]

"he disastrous Reagan/Bush/Bush II era could well be the accepted norm for the future leader of the world's largest "Democracy""

You somehow overlooked the only one that was impeached during that period...William Jefferson Clinton.

It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement.

The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment. The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges. The Republicans had run their November election prior with the impeachment as the principal issue in their campaign. The voters spoke, and the Republicans instead of a landslide victory, lost popular support and 5 seats in the House. The fact that the Republican party then pushed forward in the lame duck session with the impeachment hearings, despite being repudiated by the American electorate, spoke volumes about the vendetta the Republicans had against President Clinton. (Lameduck for those who are not American, refers to the short period of time Nov-January when the old house of representatives remains in office, until replaced by the newly elected members.) It can just as easily be argued that the Republican party had no mandate from the electorate to pursue the POTUS and took advantage of their lameduck session majority to push on with its personal attacks on the POTUS. As an aside, several of the Republicans who led the attacks were embarrassed as personal scandal after scandal exploded. Republicans sure like to point the finger at others all the while concealing their propensity for marriage infidelities and buggery with young men.

The sole reason this Carly "I damaged HP with My Obnoxious Arrogance and was Fired" Fiorina, is allowed on the stage with the others is that the GOP is desperate to show that it has female heavyweights. She is a big incompetent phoney, with a history of failure. I would go one step further and say that she is one nasty piece woman who should never have been allowed to manage any company.

If The Donald would just stop with some of his more incendiary comments that are intended to generate attention, he would occupy an even higher position. He is not stupid and he is not a racist or bigot. The only colour that matters for him is the colour of money.

1. "It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement."

I agree that misleading statements are intellectually dishonest. I disagree that I have made a factually incorrect statement.

2. "The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment."

The impeachment process is handled strictly by the House of Representatives. The act of impeachment is an indictment issued by the House of Representatives against government officials. President Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by the House of Representatives.

3. "The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

.The Senate did not vote on the articles of Impeachment. The Senate voted on the two charges brought against Clinton in the impeachment but failed to convict him.

4. "The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges.

The articles of impeachment brought against President Clinton were for perjury and obstruction of justice only. He was NOT convicted on either of them and was acquitted of all charges.

What I claimed in my original post was factually correct and intellectually honest.

The United States House of Representatives did elect to Impeach President Clinton on 19 December 1998..

The United States Senate acquitted him on 12 February 1999..

Impeachment and conviction are two separate matters dealt with separately and by the two Houses of Congress independent of each other.

I have no personal interest in your opinions on Fiorina and Trump, but I would suggest the next time you claim somebody is being intellectually dishonest that you get your facts straight before you do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information:

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .... [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

I stand by my statements. Here's why;

You are presenting the process of impeachment as if it was a conviction, or a finding of guilt. The vote to impeach was the equivalent of saying that there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The Republicans in the House voted to impeach on two of the four accusations. All this meant is that they could only say that they believed that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial in the senate. That is why I say your comments were misleading. At least you agree that only the Senate could determine guilt and that the Senate found the POTUS not guilty. President Clinto was not found guilty of anything. NOTHING.

Will you at least admit that the affirmative impeachment vote was not a finding of guilt? Some of those Republicans who were hectoring and berating President Clinton were involved with illicit sexual affairs on a far worse scale. Would you like to take a trip down memory lane with me?

Henry Hyde: House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Hyde had been in a torrid extra marital affair with a married woman named Cherie Snodgrass during the 1960s, which he had covered up. It only came to surface as people pointed out his hypocrisy in attacking Clinton's morals.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich: The noted philanderer admitted that he was cheating on his wife while leading the impeachment proceedings. Now that's class!

Bob Livingston: He suddenly resigned after Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt threatened to release details about what he described as four extramarital affairs by Livingston. Flynt stated that he “just wanted to expose hypocrisy. If these guys are going after the president, they shouldn’t have any skeletons in their closet.” Livingston made a public statement to the House, that he had "on occasion strayed from my marriage”. Them there's family values. What a cad.

However, the winner of the Republican hypocrite and alleged sodomizer of young men was future House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert was recently indicted on charges for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed person to cover up past sexual misconduct. As the story broke, other children from that period came out with stories of their own. Interesting enough, good old Dennis was a firm promoter of family values ,

These are some of the people who sought to pursue President Clinton for having engaged in consensual activity between two adults. If you wish to raise the issue of impeachment, then please have the decency to mention that the accused was found not guilty and that the people making the accusation(s) included several liars, depraved sex maniacs and adulterers. The hatred that we see spewing from the mouths of GOP candidates today is a by product of the where the GOP harassed and attacked at will without anyone standing up to its bullying.

[Ulysses G.]

Did the Republicans lie under oath? Bill Clinton did twice, while he was the President of the United states. As far as many people are concerned, THAT was his real sin.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[lifeincnx]

The devil is in the details.

Trump has yet to articulate "how" he will deport 11+ million illegals out of the US. When questioned up to now on the details his reply is always, "Don't worry about it. It's management. I hire the best people."

Pressed repeatedly ABC's This Week on how he would accomplish this monumental feat, Trump had no answers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if there’s no idea, how are you going to round them all up?

Where are you going to get the money, where are you going to get the forces?

Exactly how are you going to do it?

What are the specifics here?

TRUMP: George, it’s called management. And the first thing we have to do is secure the border. But it’s called management. And we’ll get people back in, the really good ones, we’re going to expedite it so they get back in, so they can at least come in legally.

But we have to do it…

STEPHANOPOULOS: You keep declaring how you’re going to do it…

TRUMP: It’s management.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — but you don’t say…

TRUMP: We don’t…

STEPHANOPOULOS: — how.

TRUMP: Excuse me, George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You declare how you’re going to to it, but you don’t say how.

TRUMP: George, I’m telling you, it’s called management.

What is really interesting is watching the GOP slowly morph into accepting their new Orange Clown into the Big Tent.

[Ulysses G.]

And here are two anonymous individuals posting on a forum on Thailand calling a multi-billionaire a slow thinker and idiot.

Post your life accomplishments anonymously and let's compare how you stack up against the slow thinking idiot.

Members of TVF are not running for president nor is any TVF member the topic of any thread.

It seems chuckd hit a nerve.

[Scott]

Let's please stay on topic. It's an interesting discussion, however.

[chuckd]

"he disastrous Reagan/Bush/Bush II era could well be the accepted norm for the future leader of the world's largest "Democracy""

You somehow overlooked the only one that was impeached during that period...William Jefferson Clinton.

It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement.

The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment. The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges. The Republicans had run their November election prior with the impeachment as the principal issue in their campaign. The voters spoke, and the Republicans instead of a landslide victory, lost popular support and 5 seats in the House. The fact that the Republican party then pushed forward in the lame duck session with the impeachment hearings, despite being repudiated by the American electorate, spoke volumes about the vendetta the Republicans had against President Clinton. (Lameduck for those who are not American, refers to the short period of time Nov-January when the old house of representatives remains in office, until replaced by the newly elected members.) It can just as easily be argued that the Republican party had no mandate from the electorate to pursue the POTUS and took advantage of their lameduck session majority to push on with its personal attacks on the POTUS. As an aside, several of the Republicans who led the attacks were embarrassed as personal scandal after scandal exploded. Republicans sure like to point the finger at others all the while concealing their propensity for marriage infidelities and buggery with young men.

The sole reason this Carly "I damaged HP with My Obnoxious Arrogance and was Fired" Fiorina, is allowed on the stage with the others is that the GOP is desperate to show that it has female heavyweights. She is a big incompetent phoney, with a history of failure. I would go one step further and say that she is one nasty piece woman who should never have been allowed to manage any company.

If The Donald would just stop with some of his more incendiary comments that are intended to generate attention, he would occupy an even higher position. He is not stupid and he is not a racist or bigot. The only colour that matters for him is the colour of money.

1. "It is intellectually dishonest to present an event in a manner, such that it misleads You have also made a factually incorrect statement."

I agree that misleading statements are intellectually dishonest. I disagree that I have made a factually incorrect statement.

2. "The full action of impeachment requires both the House and the Senate to vote yes on a motion of impeachment."

The impeachment process is handled strictly by the House of Representatives. The act of impeachment is an indictment issued by the House of Representatives against government officials. President Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice by the House of Representatives.

3. "The senate voted against impeachment. If you wish to use the impeachment to advance your political views, then at least be honest about it.

.The Senate did not vote on the articles of Impeachment. The Senate voted on the two charges brought against Clinton in the impeachment but failed to convict him.

4. "The truth is that the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted on four charges. The POTUS was found guilty on two charges.

The articles of impeachment brought against President Clinton were for perjury and obstruction of justice only. He was NOT convicted on either of them and was acquitted of all charges.

What I claimed in my original post was factually correct and intellectually honest.

The United States House of Representatives did elect to Impeach President Clinton on 19 December 1998..

The United States Senate acquitted him on 12 February 1999..

Impeachment and conviction are two separate matters dealt with separately and by the two Houses of Congress independent of each other.

I have no personal interest in your opinions on Fiorina and Trump, but I would suggest the next time you claim somebody is being intellectually dishonest that you get your facts straight before you do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For your information:

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .... [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

I stand by my statements. Here's why;

You are presenting the process of impeachment as if it was a conviction, or a finding of guilt. The vote to impeach was the equivalent of saying that there was enough evidence to proceed with a trial. The Republicans in the House voted to impeach on two of the four accusations. All this meant is that they could only say that they believed that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial in the senate. That is why I say your comments were misleading. At least you agree that only the Senate could determine guilt and that the Senate found the POTUS not guilty. President Clinto was not found guilty of anything. NOTHING.

Will you at least admit that the affirmative impeachment vote was not a finding of guilt? Some of those Republicans who were hectoring and berating President Clinton were involved with illicit sexual affairs on a far worse scale. Would you like to take a trip down memory lane with me?

Henry Hyde: House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Hyde had been in a torrid extra marital affair with a married woman named Cherie Snodgrass during the 1960s, which he had covered up. It only came to surface as people pointed out his hypocrisy in attacking Clinton's morals.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich: The noted philanderer admitted that he was cheating on his wife while leading the impeachment proceedings. Now that's class!

Bob Livingston: He suddenly resigned after Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt threatened to release details about what he described as four extramarital affairs by Livingston. Flynt stated that he “just wanted to expose hypocrisy. If these guys are going after the president, they shouldn’t have any skeletons in their closet.” Livingston made a public statement to the House, that he had "on occasion strayed from my marriage”. Them there's family values. What a cad.

However, the winner of the Republican hypocrite and alleged sodomizer of young men was future House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert was recently indicted on charges for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed person to cover up past sexual misconduct. As the story broke, other children from that period came out with stories of their own. Interesting enough, good old Dennis was a firm promoter of family values ,

These are some of the people who sought to pursue President Clinton for having engaged in consensual activity between two adults. If you wish to raise the issue of impeachment, then please have the decency to mention that the accused was found not guilty and that the people making the accusation(s) included several liars, depraved sex maniacs and adulterers. The hatred that we see spewing from the mouths of GOP candidates today is a by product of the where the GOP harassed and attacked at will without anyone standing up to its bullying.

While you are still wrong, you persist on keeping a personal attack on me and filling your post with superfluous BS about miscreant politicians.

If it will make you happy, let me agree the Republicans you named were despicable in their actions.

However, since you feel the need for me to be intellectually honest, let me point out a couple of Democrats that you missed in all the outrage you expressed at the Republicans.

John Edwards, D-NC

Gary Condit, D-CA

Tim Mahoney, D-FL

Anthony Weiner, D-NY

...and of course.

William J. Clinton, D-POTUS

I will happily admit there are more Republicans than Democrats that are charged with illicit sex. However there is a reason for that. Republicans simply have more testosterone than Democrats, Nancy Pelosi excluded.

Now back to Impeachment because you still don't get it.

1. "You are presenting the process of impeachment as if it was a conviction, or a finding of guilt."

I am saying no such thing. There are two separate actions to an impeachment.

The first action is the impeachment process (indictment) which is the sole responsibility of the House of Representatives. An impeachment is reached when a simple majority of the House votes to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. The role of the House of Representatives is finished when the impeachment papers are delivered to the Senate.

The next action is the Senate vote on the impeachment. In the case under discussion here, the Senate voted to acquit President Clinton of the two charges listed in the impeachment. Clinton was never impeached on four charges.

When the Senate acquitted President Clinton, the trial was over and the impeachment was declared a failure...but the impeachment still stood. He was simply not convicted of the charges.

2. " President Clinto (sic) was not found guilty of anything. NOTHING."

I made no such claim as this either.

Now I suggest you slowly put down the shovel, use your mouse and scroll up to my post quoted above. Read paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 and grab a cold beer.

You were wrong then and you still are but I will give you the last word.

Edit in: Just noticed Scott's post after this one made. My apologies.

Edited September 14, 2015 by chuckd

[Scott]

The next off-topic post will earn a suspension. Promise.

[thaibeachlovers]

I reckon that the next ( CNN ) debate won't attract as many viewers as the first, given that the first was really a damp squib. Most, myself included, switched on to see one of the other candidates attack Trump and be slain on stage, but that never happened. It was like going to a NASCAR race and not seeing a single crash, so, given that the next is likely to be a repeat performance, why bother?

Edited September 14, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[StasD]

Carrol and Noem are pretty women. I prefer to see them as future President but old witch Clinton

[spidermike007]

The devil is in the details.

Trump has yet to articulate "how" he will deport 11+ million illegals out of the US. When questioned up to now on the details his reply is always, "Don't worry about it. It's management. I hire the best people."

Pressed repeatedly ABC's This Week on how he would accomplish this monumental feat, Trump had no answers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if there’s no idea, how are you going to round them all up?

Where are you going to get the money, where are you going to get the forces?

Exactly how are you going to do it?

What are the specifics here?

TRUMP: George, it’s called management. And the first thing we have to do is secure the border. But it’s called management. And we’ll get people back in, the really good ones, we’re going to expedite it so they get back in, so they can at least come in legally.

But we have to do it…

STEPHANOPOULOS: You keep declaring how you’re going to do it…

TRUMP: It’s management.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — but you don’t say…

TRUMP: We don’t…

STEPHANOPOULOS: — how.

TRUMP: Excuse me, George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You declare how you’re going to to it, but you don’t say how.

TRUMP: George, I’m telling you, it’s called management.

What is really interesting is watching the GOP slowly morph into accepting their new Orange Clown into the Big Tent.

An absolutely brilliant and accurate example of how this five statement pony gets tripped up with the details. He cannot answer specific questions like this, as he has little to no policy, and no understanding of politics. He is simply a firebrand, who excites those who are tired of politics as usual. He is unelectable, despite his apparent popularity. He will eventually reveal his true nature, and it will alienate a lot of his supporters. People will only support vermin for so long. As long as he appears to be a decent guy, he has their support. He is not a decent man. He does not have a decent bone in his body. There is nothing about him that is decent. Nothing.

[thaibeachlovers]

The devil is in the details.

Trump has yet to articulate "how" he will deport 11+ million illegals out of the US. When questioned up to now on the details his reply is always, "Don't worry about it. It's management. I hire the best people."

Pressed repeatedly ABC's This Week on how he would accomplish this monumental feat, Trump had no answers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if there’s no idea, how are you going to round them all up?

Where are you going to get the money, where are you going to get the forces?

Exactly how are you going to do it?

What are the specifics here?

TRUMP: George, it’s called management. And the first thing we have to do is secure the border. But it’s called management. And we’ll get people back in, the really good ones, we’re going to expedite it so they get back in, so they can at least come in legally.

But we have to do it…

STEPHANOPOULOS: You keep declaring how you’re going to do it…

TRUMP: It’s management.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — but you don’t say…

TRUMP: We don’t…

STEPHANOPOULOS: — how.

TRUMP: Excuse me, George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You declare how you’re going to to it, but you don’t say how.

TRUMP: George, I’m telling you, it’s called management.

What is really interesting is watching the GOP slowly morph into accepting their new Orange Clown into the Big Tent.

An absolutely brilliant and accurate example of how this five statement pony gets tripped up with the details. He cannot answer specific questions like this, as he has little to no policy, and no understanding of politics. He is simply a firebrand, who excites those who are tired of politics as usual. He is unelectable, despite his apparent popularity. He will eventually reveal his true nature, and it will alienate a lot of his supporters. People will only support vermin for so long. As long as he appears to be a decent guy, he has their support. He is not a decent man. He does not have a decent bone in his body. There is nothing about him that is decent. Nothing.

Nixon was elected twice and Bush was elected twice and they were not decent men. Decency means nothing in an election.

[spidermike007]

The devil is in the details.

Trump has yet to articulate "how" he will deport 11+ million illegals out of the US. When questioned up to now on the details his reply is always, "Don't worry about it. It's management. I hire the best people."

Pressed repeatedly ABC's This Week on how he would accomplish this monumental feat, Trump had no answers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if there’s no idea, how are you going to round them all up?

Where are you going to get the money, where are you going to get the forces?

Exactly how are you going to do it?

What are the specifics here?

TRUMP: George, it’s called management. And the first thing we have to do is secure the border. But it’s called management. And we’ll get people back in, the really good ones, we’re going to expedite it so they get back in, so they can at least come in legally.

But we have to do it…

STEPHANOPOULOS: You keep declaring how you’re going to do it…

TRUMP: It’s management.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — but you don’t say…

TRUMP: We don’t…

STEPHANOPOULOS: — how.

TRUMP: Excuse me, George?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You declare how you’re going to to it, but you don’t say how.

TRUMP: George, I’m telling you, it’s called management.

What is really interesting is watching the GOP slowly morph into accepting their new Orange Clown into the Big Tent.

An absolutely brilliant and accurate example of how this five statement pony gets tripped up with the details. He cannot answer specific questions like this, as he has little to no policy, and no understanding of politics. He is simply a firebrand, who excites those who are tired of politics as usual. He is unelectable, despite his apparent popularity. He will eventually reveal his true nature, and it will alienate a lot of his supporters. People will only support vermin for so long. As long as he appears to be a decent guy, he has their support. He is not a decent man. He does not have a decent bone in his body. There is nothing about him that is decent. Nothing.

Nixon was elected twice and Bush was elected twice and they were not decent men. Decency means nothing in an election.

Well that is certainly the direction politics is going in. There is no question that politics today, does NOT attract the best and the brightest. It tends to attract the corrupt, the dysfunctional, the megolomaniacal, the freaks, those desirous of more fame and fortune, and those seeking great power. All for the wrong reasons. Is there a candidate who has one noble bone in their bodies? Maybe Sanders. Definitely not Disgusting Don. Would that noble bone last after elected? I doubt it. The office seems to corrupt those not corrupted already.

[spidermike007]

Looks like even Fox is giving up on the squirrel head. Here is a link to a good editorial about the upcoming Trump demise and implosion.

Why Donald Trump's political trajectory will end in flames.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/15/why-donald-trumps-political-trajectory-will-end-in-flames.html

Edited September 15, 2015 by spidermike007

[thaibeachlovers]

While I never thought Trump would succeed to be prez., I thank him for kicking the c**p out of those professional politicians and showing them for the grey men that they are, including HRC that he has bought in the past.

When he does realise it isn't going to happen I hope he doesn't do a Perot and hand the Dems yet another chance to destroy the US. Obama has done much to ruin the country, but he needs more time with a glove puppet like Joe to complete the job.