They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Andrew]

Threats of violence? That’s a new low.

Anyway...nothing to see here folks...

On May 13th Russian state TV reported that no US officials would be attending the inauguration in Ukraine, on direct orders from Trump. According to the #WhistleblowerComplaint, on May 14th Trump ordered Pence not to attend. How did the Russians know that?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Threats of violence? That’s a new low.

Not what I said....

If you are going to keep insulting people online, you should be willing to say those same words offline.
Instead, you are writing checks your mouth can't cash. Like I said, I am happy to meet at MRFest.

On May 13th Russian state TV reported that no US officials would be attending the inauguration in Ukraine, on direct orders from Trump. According to the #WhistleblowerComplaint, on May 14th Trump ordered Pence not to attend. How did the Russians know that?

Better wake Mueller from his crypt!

Btw, if you are going to cut and paste tweets, you should at least give credit.
The above is from a self-described "Russian media monitor", Julia Davis, who claims to be an expert on Russian propaganda.
She sounds about as legit as your shadowy SIGNET sources.

[Monker]

The fact is that Trump came out and admitted publicly that he talked to Ukraine about Biden.

Not a crime.

The fact is, the "transcript" proved that Trump asked Ukraine to do various favors - including investigating Biden.

Again, not a crime.

The fact is that ALL of these are impeachable acts. Pelosi did not have to wait for any more evidence because the very fact that Trump admitted these things publicly.

The house can impeach over anything they want.

EXACTLY. There does not need to be a crime to impeach a President, or judge, and remove him from office. It has ALREADY HAPPENED to federal judges who were viewed as unfit for office.

In terms of constitutional standards, there's nothing in the call showing an express quid pro quo or "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There does not need to be. The founders recognized impeachment as a political mechanism. That is why it all takes place in CONGRESS and not before the Supreme Court.

Alexander Hamilton explained "high crimes and misdemeanors" as this, "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

These are actions that are not defined by the courts or written in laws.

You are simply wrong. Abuse of Presidential power is EXACTLY why impeachment is in the Constitution. You need a better mentor than Alan Dershowitz.

Imo, the CIA whistleblower's allegations are just more blowback by the intel community towards an anti-war president.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. Trump publicly admitted to using his power as President to influence Ukraine to investigate Biden. The "transcript" clearly shows Trump asking for an investigation as a favor, which is an abuse of his power as President. THAT is evidence from the PRESIDENT HIMSELF and has nothing to do with the integrity of the whistle blower, or your conspiracy theories.

What I see is Trump saying he is leading in the polls and this entire thing is meant to save Biden, and it will backfire. He is absolutely LYING...he is behind every major Democrat in every poll.

You just lectured all of us on how the polls on Trump vs. Clinton weren't reliable until the day of the actual election.

You are a liar. I never said earlier polls were not reliable. In fact, I said I did not dispute what those early polls showed...But, that does not change the FACT that the polls showed the race was too close to call the day before the election.

Polls are a snapshot in time..."if the election were held today..." They are not predicting what will happen a month or so later.

Now, when it suits your fickle arguments, you are back to invoking far-out polls again. Which is it?

You are still lying. READ WHAT YOU QUOTED. Donald dumb-ass was the one who invoked the polls...claiming he was ahead and this was all to help Biden. I am simply corrected Donald dumb-ass because he was not ahead in ANY poll. He is lying.

What I see is Republicans using a years old conspiracy theory about Biden to distract Trump's blatant abuse of power.

I am glad Trump is asking questions.

Well, he wasn't asking questions. He was asking for favors...and I am glad he did it too. It finally pushed the pussy Democrats into acting on impeachment.

So name the laws he violated. Should be easy enough, right?

He CLEARLY abused the power of the Presidency...which is the very reason why that clause exists.

If the Dems really had the goods, Adam Schiff wouldn't be making up his own creatively-embellished version of the Trump/Ukraine phone call.
The call, and the facts, would speak for itself.

They do.

And, even if Trump wins reelection, at least the Democrats did the right thing and stood up to a President who has no respect for anything and wants everybody to bow to him, kiss his ring, and pledge loyalty like he is some kind of king or messiah...or king of the jews, whatever.

That is not what impeachment is for. That is what elections are for.

No, it is neither. It is my opinion of Fat Donny.

This impeachment inquiry just proves that the Democrats are not serious about retaking the White House. Pelosi just effectively kneecapped every candidate in the race. Huge mistake.

LOL...That is Hillaryious.

So, you have Trump clearly asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrat front-runner. A clear violation of use of Presidential power. You feel that it is OK to allow Presidential power to be used to influence other nations into demeaning other candidates...and the Democrats are "kneecapped" because they are putting an end to it. That is just fucking STUPID.

If this precedent is allowed unchecked by congress, then we (the citizens of the US) are allowing political offices to be used to influence nations to enter our politics. There is a clear difference between a firm or person being hired to create a dossier and the President of the United states holding up congressionaly approved funds to a nation and then asking that nation for political favors. One is politically stupid...and the other is an abuse of power and impeachable.

In the end, Republicans had better recognize the can of worms they are opening up by allowing this precedent to be formed. Next time, it may be a Democrat doing this...and if they don't want that to happen, they had better wise up and stop it now.

[verslibre]

Kurt Volker, US special envoy to Ukraine, has resigned one day after the release of a whistleblower report alleging a coverup by the White House of a call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President, three sources familiar with the matter confirmed to CNN.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sources-special-envoy-to-ukraine-resigns-one-day-after-whistleblower-report-released/ar-AAHWVT1?&ocid=spartanntp

[verslibre]

However, when event security finds you curled up in the fetal position behind Trixter's shopworn amps covered in your own shit and tears, you'll have no one but yourself to blame.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Posting for flashback Friday.

But, regardless, IMO, Trump is going to be impeached for treason by conspiring with Russia to win the election.

[The_Noble_Cause]

EXACTLY. There does not need to be a crime to impeach a President, or judge, and remove him from office. It has ALREADY HAPPENED to federal judges who were viewed as unfit for office.

Impeachment is not a remedy for losing elections. Sorry.

There does not need to be. The founders recognized impeachment as a political mechanism. That is why it all takes place in CONGRESS and not before the Supreme Court.

High crimes may not be defined in the criminal code, but charges brought by the house still have to be based on something beyond partisan vitriol. Right now, you don't have anything.

Alexander Hamilton explained "high crimes and misdemeanors" as this, "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

As the saying goes, even the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose. It’s pretty amusing to see you prance around as if you are some Scalia-lite constitutional purist.
Past articles of impeachment (Nixon, Clinton) all included definable crimes including perjury or obstruction. I ask again, where’s the crime? You are just a sore loser.

You are simply wrong. Abuse of Presidential power is EXACTLY why impeachment is in the Constitution. You need a better mentor than Alan Dershowitz.

Never mentioned Alan. Between your random dig at him and your relentless Bernie bashing, I think it’s fairly obvious that you are a rabid anti-Semitic.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. Trump publicly admitted to using his power as President to influence Ukraine to investigate Biden. The "transcript" clearly shows Trump asking for an investigation as a favor, which is an abuse of his power as President.

Trump asked him to investigate possible corruption. Good for Trump. You have no frame of reference on whether his request is an abuse of power as these types of phone calls are usually confidential.

THAT is evidence from the PRESIDENT HIMSELF and has nothing to do with the integrity of the whistle blower, or your conspiracy theories.

If there is no standard of proof to be met, why does evidence matter? Please be consistent.

You are a liar. I never said earlier polls were not reliable. In fact, I said I did not dispute what those early polls showed...But, that does not change the FACT that the polls showed the race was too close to call the day before the election.

This is just another lie. The very website you posted as proof of the polls being too close even called the election for Hillary.

You are still lying. READ WHAT YOU QUOTED. Donald dumb-ass was the one who invoked the polls...claiming he was ahead and this was all to help Biden. I am simply corrected Donald dumb-ass because he was not ahead in ANY poll. He is lying.

You are citing polls after going on and on and on about how all the 2016 polls were wrong and only you knew the truth. Then, when asked for evidence, you linked to a website that wrongly called the election for Hillary. You are a complete fucking joke, man!

Well, he wasn't asking questions. He was asking for favors...and I am glad he did it too. It finally pushed the pussy Democrats into acting on impeachment.

What proof do you have that heads of state don’t engage in similar deal making all the time?

So, you have Trump clearly asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrat front-runner. A clear violation of use of Presidential power.

Based on what precedent?

You feel that it is OK to allow Presidential power to be used to influence other nations into demeaning other candidates...

I feel diplomatic leaders should be allowed to speak freely without second-hand leaks from the CIA.

…and the Democrats are "kneecapped" because they are putting an end to it. That is just fucking STUPID.

Democrats will now go from discussing kitchen table issues to focusing on an issue that the vast majority of American could not give a baker’s shit over. Pelosi and co. have just handed Trump a landslide.

…If this precedent is allowed unchecked by congress, then we (the citizens of the US) are allowing political offices to be used to influence nations to enter our politics.

As most calls between heads of state are private, you don’t know whether this is a new precedent or not. You must have a real Pollyanna-ish view of politics to think all discussions are comprised of just niceties. Get real.

…In the end, Republicans had better recognize the can of worms they are opening up by allowing this precedent to be formed. Next time, it may be a Democrat doing this...and if they don't want that to happen, they had better wise up and stop it now.

Unless you have access to other private and confidential phone calls, you have no way of knowing whether it is a new precedent. The truth is, you know it’s not unusual. You just hate Trump so much that you don't care about the truth.

[Monker]

Cool, flash back Friday.

I was just thinking about what Scaramucci was saying about a month or so ago. He went on a bunch of interviews talking about Trump. At the time, I thought he was bit pissed off because Trump Twitted him. But, wow,. He went on saying that people who surround Trump think Trump does't listen to anybody, he constantly takes his own advice, he is isolated, everybody thinks he's crazy and unhinged but nobody would admit to it. He pointed to recent events where Trump looked so bad...the various shootings, his "go back to your country" racist tweets, etc...as evidence the guy was losing it. And, he predicted that it was only going to get worse.

Wow, was he ever right....it has certainly gotten worse.

[Andrew]

Nothing to see here folks. Witch-hunt!!


Breaking: White House restricted access to Trump's calls with Putin and Saudi crown prince

cnn.com/2019/09/27/pol…

[Monker]

EXACTLY. There does not need to be a crime to impeach a President, or judge, and remove him from office. It has ALREADY HAPPENED to federal judges who were viewed as unfit for office.

Impeachment is not a remedy for losing elections. Sorry.

Impeachment is a remedy for removing a President from office who abuses the power of the Presidency. Period. That is what Trump has ADMITTED PUBLICLY to doing.

There does not need to be. The founders recognized impeachment as a political mechanism. That is why it all takes place in CONGRESS and not before the Supreme Court.

High crimes may not be defined in the criminal code, but charges brought by the house still have to be based on something beyond partisan vitriol. Right now, you don't have anything.

My God, you have no clue. He will be charged with abuse of power. It is not "partisan" at all.

Alexander Hamilton explained "high crimes and misdemeanors" as this, "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

As the saying goes, even the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose. It’s pretty amusing to see you prance around as if you are some Scalia-lite constitutional purist.
Past articles of impeachment (Nixon, Clinton) all included definable crimes including perjury or obstruction. I ask again, where’s the crime? You are just a sore loser.

There doesn't need to be a "crime". Even you admitted that the House can impeach him for whatever they want.

Impeachment also covers federal judges.
John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.

Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, Commerce Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.

George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.

NONE of the above have specific "crimes". They have to do with abuse of power, or inappropriate conduct....EXACTLY what Trump admitted to. It is impeachable. Period.

You are simply wrong. Abuse of Presidential power is EXACTLY why impeachment is in the Constitution. You need a better mentor than Alan Dershowitz.

Never mentioned Alan. Between your random dig at him and your relentless Bernie bashing, I think it’s fairly obvious that you are a rabid anti-Semitic.

And, you are a liar. "Relentless Bernie bashing". Never happened.

You have invoked Dershowitz in the past...just saving your the trouble of typing your response. He's wrong.

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. Trump publicly admitted to using his power as President to influence Ukraine to investigate Biden. The "transcript" clearly shows Trump asking for an investigation as a favor, which is an abuse of his power as President.

Trump asked him to investigate possible corruption. Good for Trump.

I agree...good job at getting yourself impeached!

You have no frame of reference on whether his request is an abuse of power as these types of phone calls are usually confidential.

Dude. He PUBLICLY ADMITTED to it, even before the transcript! The transcript backs up his own admission. Too funny!

THAT is evidence from the PRESIDENT HIMSELF and has nothing to do with the integrity of the whistle blower, or your conspiracy theories.

If there is no standard of proof to be met, why does evidence matter? Please be consistent.

The whistle blower and Trump ADMITTING PUBLICLY that he discussed investigating Biden with Ukraine have NOTHING to do with each other! If the whistle blower is a lying political hack, that does not change the FACT that Trump admitted publicly that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden! LOL....you are making no sense AT ALL!

You are a liar. I never said earlier polls were not reliable. In fact, I said I did not dispute what those early polls showed...But, that does not change the FACT that the polls showed the race was too close to call the day before the election.

This is just another lie. The very website you posted as proof of the polls being too close even called the election for Hillary. [/quote]

I'm not getting into this again. If people want to go to RealClearPolitics.com and look up the final polls before election day and see for themselves that election was too close to call, that's fine. What you are talking about is RCP taking those "too close to call" states and accepting the numbers and rolling with it to get a prediction. Not a good idea! They should have just called it for what it was - too close to call.

You are still lying. READ WHAT YOU QUOTED. Donald dumb-ass was the one who invoked the polls...claiming he was ahead and this was all to help Biden. I am simply corrected Donald dumb-ass because he was not ahead in ANY poll. He is lying.

You are citing polls after going on and on and on about how all the 2016 polls were wrong and only you knew the truth.

LOL! YOU are the one who was arguing that the polls were wrong! I was the one saying they got it right. You are fucking
Hillaryious!

All I was doing was correcting President Dumb-ass who was not in the lead in ANY poll! He was flat out lying about that!

Well, he wasn't asking questions. He was asking for favors...and I am glad he did it too. It finally pushed the pussy Democrats into acting on impeachment.

What proof do you have that heads of state don’t engage in similar deal making all the time?

If anybody else is abusing their position like Trump is, they should be kicked out of office, too.

So, you have Trump clearly asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrat front-runner. A clear violation of use of Presidential power.

Based on what precedent?

You are in total denial and just making shit up now.

You feel that it is OK to allow Presidential power to be used to influence other nations into demeaning other candidates...

I feel diplomatic leaders should be allowed to speak freely without second-hand leaks from the CIA.

This was reported completely correctly and investigated by the IG...everything was followed by the book. The only reason you are complaining is that Trump got caught.

…and the Democrats are "kneecapped" because they are putting an end to it. That is just fucking STUPID.

Democrats will now go from discussing kitchen table issues to focusing on an issue that the vast majority of American could not give a baker’s shit over. Pelosi and co. have just handed Trump a landslide.

The election is more than a year away. A LOT can happen by then. Nixon was more popular than Trump all the way up to the lat few months of his Presidency. Like I said, you should stop using Dershowitz as your mentor in such things.

…If this precedent is allowed unchecked by congress, then we (the citizens of the US) are allowing political offices to be used to influence nations to enter our politics.

As most calls between heads of state are private, you don’t know whether this is a new precedent or not. You must have a real Pollyanna-ish view of politics to think all discussions are comprised of just niceties. Get real.

I said "allow". No President should ever be allowed to do this. If they are doing this in what they believe is secrecy, they should KNOW they are doing it at the risk of being impeached. If Trump is NOT impeached, it will allow for this to be done without any need for secrecy as that precedent will be set.

…In the end, Republicans had better recognize the can of worms they are opening up by allowing this precedent to be formed. Next time, it may be a Democrat doing this...and if they don't want that to happen, they had better wise up and stop it now.

Unless you have access to other private and confidential phone calls, you have no way of knowing whether it is a new precedent. The truth is, you know it’s not unusual. You just hate Trump so much that you don't care about the truth.

[/quote]

And, you are allowing your allegiance to a demagogue to blind you.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Nothing to see here folks. Witch-hunt!!


Breaking: White House restricted access to Trump's calls with Putin and Saudi crown prince

cnn.com/2019/09/27/pol…

Given that this administration has been plagued by leaked phone calls, why should this be surprising?
Do you think presidential phone calls with leaders concerning national security matters etc. should be broadcast on FB live?

[Andrew]

Nothing to see here folks. Witch-hunt!!


Breaking: White House restricted access to Trump's calls with Putin and Saudi crown prince

cnn.com/2019/09/27/pol…

Given that this administration has been plagued by leaked phone calls, why should this be surprising?
Do you think presidential phone calls with leaders concerning national security matters etc. should be broadcast on FB live?

You are beyond help. Magapalooza awaits.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Impeachment is a remedy for removing a President from office who abuses the power of the Presidency. Period. That is what Trump has ADMITTED PUBLICLY to doing.

If he admitted that, please quote it. He asked for a favor concerning Crowdstrike and later asked about Biden corruption involving Ukraine. Where's the crime?

My God, you have no clue. He will be charged with abuse of power. It is not "partisan" at all.

Two leaders talking on the phone is not an abuse. The main witness and person on the receiving end of the "abuse", Zelensky, says there was no abuse. Like I said, you have nothing but partisan butt-hurt.

There doesn't need to be a "crime". Even you admitted that the House can impeach him for whatever they want.

The articles against Nixon and Clinton all contained definable crimes. Past is prologue.
All you have is wishful thinking. If it was up to you, the House should have impeached Trump over serving fast food to college sports teams.

Impeachment also covers federal judges.
John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.

Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, Commerce Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.

George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.

NONE of the above have specific "crimes". They have to do with abuse of power, or inappropriate conduct....EXACTLY what Trump admitted to. It is impeachable. Period.

Every instance you cite is nearly 100 years old. Some even older.

And, you are a liar. "Relentless Bernie bashing". Never happened.

I was here. Yes you did. In fact, you still do.

You have invoked Dershowitz in the past...just saving your the trouble of typing your response. He's wrong.

On maybe a handful occasions, I have used a quote of his. The quote is, "in America we prosecute crimes NOT people." It's a good quote. I haven't relied on Alan for legal analysis. That said, he is def more knowledgeable than your apparent legal idols, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon.

Dude. He PUBLICLY ADMITTED to it, even before the transcript! The transcript backs up his own admission. Too funny!

Admission of what? Talking to the leader of another nation? A president can ask another leader to look into whatever he or she wants.

The whistle blower and Trump ADMITTING PUBLICLY that he discussed investigating Biden with Ukraine have NOTHING to do with each other! If the whistle blower is a lying political hack, that does not change the FACT that Trump admitted publicly that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden! LOL....you are making no sense AT ALL!

I never said the whistleblower was a liar. I do think the leak was politically motivated and I think these types of conversations take place all the time between leaders.

I'm not getting into this again. If people want to go to RealClearPolitics.com and look up the final polls before election day and see for themselves that election was too close to call, that's fine. What you are talking about is RCP taking those "too close to call" states and accepting the numbers and rolling with it to get a prediction. Not a good idea! They should have just called it for what it was - too close to call.

RCP's analysis of those polls predicted a Hillary win. There is no proof that the election was too close to call - not from you, RCP, or anyone significant in the media. The Trump victory was a surprise upset.

LOL! YOU are the one who was arguing that the polls were wrong! I was the one saying they got it right. You are fucking
Hillaryious!

Except you never said that. All you said on this forum is that Hillary had it in the bag. You are attempting to rewrite history. When Trump doesn't get impeached, you will do the same thing again.

If anybody else is abusing their position like Trump is, they should be kicked out of office, too.

So you don't know. You have no frame of reference regarding these types of calls because all you have is one selective and partisan leak from a CIA scumbag.

You are in total denial and just making shit up now.

Not at all. If Trump's behavior is an abuse of power, the CIA should retroactively leak every call every past president had with Ukraine (or any leader).

This was reported completely correctly and investigated by the IG...everything was followed by the book. The only reason you are complaining is that Trump got caught.

Phone calls between leaders happen all the time. The important question is 'why' was this singled out and reported, especially given the president's animus towards certain factions of the intelligence community. Also, the IG is overseen by the DOJ. As far as I'm aware, the DOJ already said this was nothing.

Like I said, you should stop using Dershowitz as your mentor in such things.

And you should really stop hating on prominent Jews like Bernie and Alan. I see you Adolph.

I said "allow". No President should ever be allowed to do this. If they are doing this in what they believe is secrecy, they should KNOW they are doing it at the risk of being impeached. If Trump is NOT impeached, it will allow for this to be done without any need for secrecy as that precedent will be set.

Presidents shouldn't be allowed to discuss openly with foreign leaders? Both Crowdstrike and Biden corruption merit investigation. If that is touched upon in the context of a phone call, who gives a shit? You just have an issue with it because they are both, Crowdstrike and Biden, sacred cows of the Democratic establishment. And you are on here to defend the fetid rancid corpse of the DNC at all costs.

And, you are allowing your allegiance to a demagogue to blind you.

My multiple donations to Gravel, Tulsi, and Bernie would indicate otherwise. What candidates have you donated to?

[The_Noble_Cause]

You are beyond help. Magapalooza awaits.

Not interested in your fact-free cyber insults. Like I said, if you want to talk shit, I am happy to speak at MRFest.

Also, any updates on that 100% verified dossier? What about Trump's pedophile connections? How about Manafort meeting with Assange?
Your track record for BS news is worse than ConservativeTreeHouse (or whatever).

[Andrew]

You are beyond help. Magapalooza awaits.

Not interested in your fact-free cyber insults. Like I said, if you want to talk shit, I am happy to speak at MRFest.

Also, any updates on that 100% verified dossier? What about Trump's pedophile connections? How about Manafort meeting with Assange?
Your track record for BS news is worse than ConservativeTreeHouse (or whatever).

Here is why any interaction with you is pointless. Monker also tries, but hits the same blinkered magabrick wall...

No matter who posts what here, if it’s not in line with your philosophy then it’s wrong, fact free, from a non-credible source, bullshit...whatever. Same reaction to every and all posts.
So I’m done. I’ll just ignore any future posts. You’ve become the most aggressive asshole here and if you threaten me one more time I’ll delete your account and every post you’ve ever made on here.

Trump is the most crooked, corrupt, moronic, self-serving, lying president ever. He will only be known for that, and with any luck he will rot in prison for his many crimes.

I’m on the right side of history here, but I’m also a patient guy...there is no other possible outcome.

PS. TDS only exists because the Orange Sphincter is undeservedly in office and those with half a brain cell and any shred of decency get wound up when they see such blatant shittiness affecting so many people that deserve better.

Ahhhhh. That felt good. DONE!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Here is why any interaction with you is pointless. Monker also tries, but hits the same blinkered magabrick wall...

No matter who posts what here, if it’s not in line with your philosophy then it’s wrong, fact free, from a non-credible source, bullshit...whatever.

Saying outright lies like "Hillary had permission to use a private server" or in your case, touting Trump's pedophile connections, have NOTHING to do with political philosophy. Those are outright falsehoods and they should be called out - regardless of ideology. No matter how much you hate the current president or his voters, you are not entitled to your own facts.

So I’m done. I’ll just ignore any future posts.

I couldn't care less. I'm here to discuss politics. You just bring up debunked nonsense - like your beloved dossier or pedophile innuendo. When asked to present facts or sources, you instead name anonymous SIGNET contacts. You have also cited proven charlatans like John Schindler and Seth Abramson. You are either a gullible and naive judge of character or simply have no journalistic standards. Perhaps both.

You’ve become the most aggressive asshole here

Nah, I just call out your lies. An actual example of aggressive behavior would be banning people. And that's all you. Banning people and defending the military industrial complex at every turn is not very becoming of a self-described liberal. Your values are bogus. The real RWNJ is you.

and if you threaten me one more time I’ll delete your account and every post you’ve ever made on here.

I didn't threaten you. I did say, if we were to meet, and you started calling me the same names you do on here, we would have problems. That applies to ANYBODY speaking in such a reckless matter.

Trump is the most crooked, corrupt, moronic, self-serving, lying president ever. He will only be known for that, and with any luck he will rot in prison for his many crimes.

The fact that you said little to nothing as Bush started fake wars and Obama droned innocents tells me all I need to know. Again, your values are disingenous. You have 20 Democratic candidates currently running, many with robust proposals for college education and health care. What do you choose to focus on instead? All hate, all the time.

I’m on the right side of history here, but I’m also a patient guy...there is no other possible outcome.

History is judged by the victors. So far, on almost every administration-related issue (ex. Russiagate) you are, to quote Trump, a "stone-cold loser."

PS. TDS only exists because the Orange Sphincter is undeservedly in office and those with half a brain cell and any shred of decency get wound up when they see such blatant shittiness affecting so many people that deserve better.

Glad you recognize that you suffer from TDS. Admitting you have a problem is always a good first step.

Ahhhhh. That felt good. DONE!

Once again, you proved nothing except your inability to make an argument using facts. The offer to meet at MRFest remains open. Anything else is just a display of passive-aggressive cowardice.

[Monker]

Wow, you are in complete denial. You are in denial of the facts. You are even in denial of history. All I am seeing is someone who has an unwavering loyalty to a demagogue and refusal to admit when he's wrong. That doesn't allow any space for debate, or even discussion.

In the meantime, since Ukraine broke, over 100 more members of congress turned in favor of the impeachment inquiry. This is a REAL problem - no matter how much Trump denies it. Impeachment is going to happen. Any smart political minded person would admit and start focusing on the trial in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be that smart.

And, one specific thing you asked me about, which I actually that was an interesting question. You asked who I donated to. As I have said many times, I do subscribe to any party. So, I do not donate...or caucus. I feel it is up to the members of the party to decide who to nominate. If I were to donate, I would probably donate to Weld, because I think he is closer to my views than any other candidate out there.

Impeachment is a remedy for removing a President from office who abuses the power of the Presidency. Period. That is what Trump has ADMITTED PUBLICLY to doing.

If he admitted that, please quote it. He asked for a favor concerning Crowdstrike and later asked about Biden corruption involving Ukraine. Where's the crime?

My God, you have no clue. He will be charged with abuse of power. It is not "partisan" at all.

Two leaders talking on the phone is not an abuse. The main witness and person on the receiving end of the "abuse", Zelensky, says there was no abuse. Like I said, you have nothing but partisan butt-hurt.

There doesn't need to be a "crime". Even you admitted that the House can impeach him for whatever they want.

The articles against Nixon and Clinton all contained definable crimes. Past is prologue.
All you have is wishful thinking. If it was up to you, the House should have impeached Trump over serving fast food to college sports teams.

Impeachment also covers federal judges.
John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.

Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, Commerce Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.

George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.

NONE of the above have specific "crimes". They have to do with abuse of power, or inappropriate conduct....EXACTLY what Trump admitted to. It is impeachable. Period.

Every instance you cite is nearly 100 years old. Some even older.

And, you are a liar. "Relentless Bernie bashing". Never happened.

I was here. Yes you did. In fact, you still do.

You have invoked Dershowitz in the past...just saving your the trouble of typing your response. He's wrong.

On maybe a handful occasions, I have used a quote of his. The quote is, "in America we prosecute crimes NOT people." It's a good quote. I haven't relied on Alan for legal analysis. That said, he is def more knowledgeable than your apparent legal idols, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon.

Dude. He PUBLICLY ADMITTED to it, even before the transcript! The transcript backs up his own admission. Too funny!

Admission of what? Talking to the leader of another nation? A president can ask another leader to look into whatever he or she wants.

The whistle blower and Trump ADMITTING PUBLICLY that he discussed investigating Biden with Ukraine have NOTHING to do with each other! If the whistle blower is a lying political hack, that does not change the FACT that Trump admitted publicly that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden! LOL....you are making no sense AT ALL!

I never said the whistleblower was a liar. I do think the leak was politically motivated and I think these types of conversations take place all the time between leaders.

I'm not getting into this again. If people want to go to RealClearPolitics.com and look up the final polls before election day and see for themselves that election was too close to call, that's fine. What you are talking about is RCP taking those "too close to call" states and accepting the numbers and rolling with it to get a prediction. Not a good idea! They should have just called it for what it was - too close to call.

RCP's analysis of those polls predicted a Hillary win. There is no proof that the election was too close to call - not from you, RCP, or anyone significant in the media. The Trump victory was a surprise upset.

LOL! YOU are the one who was arguing that the polls were wrong! I was the one saying they got it right. You are fucking
Hillaryious!

Except you never said that. All you said on this forum is that Hillary had it in the bag. You are attempting to rewrite history. When Trump doesn't get impeached, you will do the same thing again.

If anybody else is abusing their position like Trump is, they should be kicked out of office, too.

So you don't know. You have no frame of reference regarding these types of calls because all you have is one selective and partisan leak from a CIA scumbag.

You are in total denial and just making shit up now.

Not at all. If Trump's behavior is an abuse of power, the CIA should retroactively leak every call every past president had with Ukraine (or any leader).

This was reported completely correctly and investigated by the IG...everything was followed by the book. The only reason you are complaining is that Trump got caught.

Phone calls between leaders happen all the time. The important question is 'why' was this singled out and reported, especially given the president's animus towards certain factions of the intelligence community. Also, the IG is overseen by the DOJ. As far as I'm aware, the DOJ already said this was nothing.

Like I said, you should stop using Dershowitz as your mentor in such things.

And you should really stop hating on prominent Jews like Bernie and Alan. I see you Adolph.

I said "allow". No President should ever be allowed to do this. If they are doing this in what they believe is secrecy, they should KNOW they are doing it at the risk of being impeached. If Trump is NOT impeached, it will allow for this to be done without any need for secrecy as that precedent will be set.

Presidents shouldn't be allowed to discuss openly with foreign leaders? Both Crowdstrike and Biden corruption merit investigation. If that is touched upon in the context of a phone call, who gives a shit? You just have an issue with it because they are both, Crowdstrike and Biden, sacred cows of the Democratic establishment. And you are on here to defend the fetid rancid corpse of the DNC at all costs.

And, you are allowing your allegiance to a demagogue to blind you.

My multiple donations to Gravel, Tulsi, and Bernie would indicate otherwise. What candidates have you donated to?

[Monker]

Saying outright lies like "Hillary had permission to use a private server"

Oh, please. You know that isn't true. You just constantly have a desire to disparage people. I said I saw something online that said that, somebody asked for the link...I couldn't find it to post it, so I backed off of it. So, I screwed up. But, it's not a lie.

You don't care about this shit. All you are doing is trying to paint people in a negative way. For example, when I said the last poll I saw had Sanders behind Biden, Warren, and Harris. You called that a lie, too. But, I didn't feel like pandering to your bullshit looking it up and posting it. So, you call it my "imaginary poll" and go down this same tangent you did above. But, this wasn't some obscure link on the internet...it was all over the news. ANYBODY paying attention should have known I was right. In fact, I wasn't even paying that close of attention back then and I saw it. So, when I post not just one but TWO polls showing I was right, can you admit it? Nope...you go off on more excuses and disparaging bullshit.

Then you lace your posts with trolling....especially when you are triggered and want to change the subject. It is just so obvious. You like to dictate to others. You don't like discussion.. In fact, I think you WANT Andrew to kick you off just so you can be some kind martyr. It is very transparent and causes you to look very childish and weak.

[RPM]

These two seem strikingly Familiar to me. I think Andrew would want to get on the bus
but Monker thru his infinite wisdom and superior debating skills would convince him not too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw73TRXavLQ

[Monker]

Oh, cool...funny youtube posts to make nonsense points.

What it's like to discuss things with TNC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

[Monker]

John K. predicting the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2unasWwTe9s

[Monker]

What it is like when RPM tries to get all debatey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuFNZJe6PSM

[Monker]

Trump was obsessed with this when he was a kid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ0JUVd-iQU

[The_Noble_Cause]

Wow, you are in complete denial. You are in denial of the facts. You are even in denial of history. All I am seeing is someone who has an unwavering loyalty to a demagogue and refusal to admit when he's wrong. That doesn't allow any space for debate, or even discussion.

You are a repeat liar who doesn't even merit a response. From Hillary server abuse to imminent economic meltdowns to Russiagate, you have been wrong on virtually every issue of this administration.

I have nothing to admit being wrong about. In fact, I'm still taking victory laps after being vindicated by Russiagate's complete implosion. Can you say the same? If it was up to you, Trump would have been impeached before he was even sworn in. You have no credibility on anything.

In the meantime, since Ukraine broke, over 100 more members of congress turned in favor of the impeachment inquiry. This is a REAL problem - no matter how much Trump denies it. Impeachment is going to happen. Any smart political minded person would admit and start focusing on the trial in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be that smart.

You would need a super majority in the senate, which is unlikely to happen. The house's actions just guarantee Trump a 2020 landside and cement his place in history as being opposed by status quo establishment forces - like FDR and JFK. The optics are completely a win for Trump.

And, one specific thing you asked me about, which I actually that was an interesting question. You asked who I donated to. As I have said many times, I do subscribe to any party. So, I do not donate...or caucus. I feel it is up to the members of the party to decide who to nominate. If I were to donate, I would probably donate to Weld, because I think he is closer to my views than any other candidate out there.

You care so much about the imperiled fate of this country that you can't even give a dime to candidates you believe in? Pretty much says it all. If the conviction of your beliefs extends only to spreading bullshit on a music forum, then you pretty much don't care at all.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Oh, please. You know that isn't true. You just constantly have a desire to disparage people. I said I saw something online that said that, somebody asked for the link...I couldn't find it to post it, so I backed off of it. So, I screwed up. But, it's not a lie.

That's not what happened at all. Boomchild mentioned that Hillary was conducting official state business on unsecured server, and you replied with the following:

That's just not true. She had permission to use it.

It was only until later, when I asked for actual sourcing, did you say you saw it online and couldn't find it. You literally invented a lie and thought you could get away with it. It is symptomatic of the type of political discourse you conduct on here. It's fundamentally dishonest and it makes KC look like Water Cronkite.

You don't care about this shit. All you are doing is trying to paint people in a negative way. For example, when I said the last poll I saw had Sanders behind Biden, Warren, and Harris. You called that a lie, too. But, I didn't feel like pandering to your bullshit looking it up and posting it. So, you call it my "imaginary poll" and go down this same tangent you did above. But, this wasn't some obscure link on the internet...it was all over the news.

You are attempting to rewrite history again. You posted another factually nebulous claim without any sourcing. Yeah, sure, after harping on it, you eventually dug up a link long after the fact. So what?

ANYBODY paying attention should have known I was right. In fact, I wasn't even paying that close of attention back then and I saw it. So, when I post not just one but TWO polls showing I was right, can you admit it? Nope...you go off on more excuses and disparaging bullshit.

The guy who thought AOC was running for president is now lecturing me on attentiveness? Too funny.

Then you lace your posts with trolling....especially when you are triggered and want to change the subject. It is just so obvious. You like to dictate to others. You don't like discussion.

I'm willing to discuss any subject at any time and truly believe that discourse is the lifeblood of our country. Your repeated attempts to control how this forum is run and to limit acceptable topics has already been exhaustively documented. If you want, I will gladly post it again.

In fact, I think you WANT Andrew to kick you off just so you can be some kind martyr.

I have communicated with Andrew for nearly two decades and for the most part, considered him a friendly acquaintance. We had ups and downs, but nothing like this. It's interesting, as I'm reading Luke's book, he discusses how many friends and family members he lost over the years due to silly political disagreements. I still think this is just a temporary rough patch and a change in the political climate will restore things back to normal. Most of us are here, first and foremost, because we love the same music. Disagreements on trade policy and immigration and taxes should be secondary to all that. But If Drew wants me to go, all he has to do is ask.

It is very transparent and causes you to look very childish and weak.

If I wanted to look childish and weak, I would melodramatically threaten to quit this forum and then come back a few days later - like you. You are just an uninformed aging old queen. There's a reason this forum operates civilly when you're gone. Go take a shit.

[Monker]

Oh, please. You know that isn't true. You just constantly have a desire to disparage people. I said I saw something online that said that, somebody asked for the link...I couldn't find it to post it, so I backed off of it. So, I screwed up. But, it's not a lie.

That's not what happened at all. Boomchild mentioned that Hillary was conducting official state business on unsecured server, and you replied with the following:

That's just not true. She had permission to use it.

It was only until later, when I asked for actual sourcing, did you say you saw it online and couldn't find it. You literally invented a lie and thought you could get away with it. It is symptomatic of the type of political discourse you conduct on here. It's fundamentally dishonest and it makes KC look like Water Cronkite.

So, I posted something. You called for the link. I couldn't find it so I backed off. You are saying the same thing I did but trying to do it in a disparaging way. That is all it is.

You don't care about this shit. All you are doing is trying to paint people in a negative way. For example, when I said the last poll I saw had Sanders behind Biden, Warren, and Harris. You called that a lie, too. But, I didn't feel like pandering to your bullshit looking it up and posting it. So, you call it my "imaginary poll" and go down this same tangent you did above. But, this wasn't some obscure link on the internet...it was all over the news.

You are attempting to rewrite history again. You posted another factually nebulous claim without any sourcing. Yeah, sure, after harping on it, you eventually dug up a link long after the fact. So what?

The fact is that it was NOT "factually nebulous", or a lie, or an "imaginary poll". It was reality. Sanders was in fourth place in the polls after that debate. FACT. It was a fact that was all over the news because of how Harris rose after taking on Biden. It was so hard to miss that I felt absolutely no need to go seek out links to prove it to you. But, you are so quick to jump on this shit and add it to your list of disparaging bullshit that you got caught up in it. So, when I post a link to TWO POLLS that showed I was right, all you can do is make up more bullshit.

You have a complete inability to admit you are wrong. YOU WERE WRONG.

ANYBODY paying attention should have known I was right. In fact, I wasn't even paying that close of attention back then and I saw it. So, when I post not just one but TWO polls showing I was right, can you admit it? Nope...you go off on more excuses and disparaging bullshit.

The guy who thought AOC was running for president is now lecturing me on attentiveness? Too funny.

[

Yep...and I admitted I wan't paying very close attention even before I said whatever you are referring to. And, I admitted I was wrong...something you don't seem to have the balls to do.

It is very transparent and causes you to look very childish and weak.

If I wanted to look childish and weak, I would melodramatically threaten to quit this forum and then come back a few days later - like you. You are just an uninformed aging old queen. There's a reason this forum operates civilly when you're gone. Go take a shit.

I didn't say you WANTED to, I am saying that is how you look.

[Monker]

Wow, you are in complete denial. You are in denial of the facts. You are even in denial of history. All I am seeing is someone who has an unwavering loyalty to a demagogue and refusal to admit when he's wrong. That doesn't allow any space for debate, or even discussion.

You are a repeat liar who doesn't even merit a response. From Hillary server abuse to imminent economic meltdowns to Russiagate, you have been wrong on virtually every issue of this administration.

The economy has been stalled for over a year now with plenty of indicators of a coming recession, the Russia thing has never ended and is still in congress.

I have nothing to admit being wrong about.

In the meantime, since Ukraine broke, over 100 more members of congress turned in favor of the impeachment inquiry. This is a REAL problem - no matter how much Trump denies it. Impeachment is going to happen. Any smart political minded person would admit and start focusing on the trial in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be that smart.

You would need a super majority in the senate, which is unlikely to happen.

Not too long ago, it was impossible. Now it is "unlikely". That is not a good thing for Trump...

The house's actions just guarantee Trump a 2020 landside and cement his place in history as being opposed by status quo establishment forces - like FDR and JFK. The optics are completely a win for Trump.

This is simply NOT TRUE. You have NO WAY of knowing how all of this is going to play out and what the election will be like over a year from now.

And, one specific thing you asked me about, which I actually that was an interesting question. You asked who I donated to. As I have said many times, I do subscribe to any party. So, I do not donate...or caucus. I feel it is up to the members of the party to decide who to nominate. If I were to donate, I would probably donate to Weld, because I think he is closer to my views than any other candidate out there.

You care so much about the imperiled fate of this country that you can't even give a dime to candidates you believe in? Pretty much says it all. If the conviction of your beliefs extends only to spreading bullshit on a music forum, then you pretty much don't care at all.

And, I set you up for an EASY bit of discussion by giving you a completely serious answer to your question. But, as I thought, you can't resist going down a path of trying to disparage and insult. You have no interest in discussion. Thank you for proving it.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Oh, please. You know that isn't true. You just constantly have a desire to disparage people. I said I saw something online that said that, somebody asked for the link...I couldn't find it to post it, so I backed off of it. So, I screwed up. But, it's not a lie.

That's not what happened at all. Boomchild mentioned that Hillary was conducting official state business on unsecured server, and you replied with the following:

That's just not true. She had permission to use it.

It was only until later, when I asked for actual sourcing, did you say you saw it online and couldn't find it. You literally invented a lie and thought you could get away with it. It is symptomatic of the type of political discourse you conduct on here. It's fundamentally dishonest and it makes KC look like Water Cronkite.

So, I posted something. You called for the link. I couldn't find it so I backed off. You are saying the same thing I did but trying to do it in a disparaging way. That is all it is.

You don't care about this shit. All you are doing is trying to paint people in a negative way. For example, when I said the last poll I saw had Sanders behind Biden, Warren, and Harris. You called that a lie, too. But, I didn't feel like pandering to your bullshit looking it up and posting it. So, you call it my "imaginary poll" and go down this same tangent you did above. But, this wasn't some obscure link on the internet...it was all over the news.

You are attempting to rewrite history again. You posted another factually nebulous claim without any sourcing. Yeah, sure, after harping on it, you eventually dug up a link long after the fact. So what?

The fact is that it was NOT "factually nebulous", or a lie, or an "imaginary poll". It was reality. Sanders was in fourth place in the polls after that debate. FACT. It was a fact that was all over the news because of how Harris rose after taking on Biden. It was so hard to miss that I felt absolutely no need to go seek out links to prove it to you. But, you are so quick to jump on this shit and add it to your list of disparaging bullshit that you got caught up in it. So, when I post a link to TWO POLLS that showed I was right, all you can do is make up more bullshit.

You have a complete inability to admit you are wrong. YOU WERE WRONG.

ANYBODY paying attention should have known I was right. In fact, I wasn't even paying that close of attention back then and I saw it. So, when I post not just one but TWO polls showing I was right, can you admit it? Nope...you go off on more excuses and disparaging bullshit.

The guy who thought AOC was running for president is now lecturing me on attentiveness? Too funny.

[

Yep...and I admitted I wan't paying very close attention even before I said whatever you are referring to. And, I admitted I was wrong...something you don't seem to have the balls to do.

It is very transparent and causes you to look very childish and weak.

If I wanted to look childish and weak, I would melodramatically threaten to quit this forum and then come back a few days later - like you. You are just an uninformed aging old queen. There's a reason this forum operates civilly when you're gone. Go take a shit.

I didn't say you WANTED to, I am saying that is how you look.

Zzzzzzzz you are a proven liar.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Wow, you are in complete denial. You are in denial of the facts. You are even in denial of history. All I am seeing is someone who has an unwavering loyalty to a demagogue and refusal to admit when he's wrong. That doesn't allow any space for debate, or even discussion.

You are a repeat liar who doesn't even merit a response. From Hillary server abuse to imminent economic meltdowns to Russiagate, you have been wrong on virtually every issue of this administration.

The economy has been stalled for over a year now with plenty of indicators of a coming recession, the Russia thing has never ended and is still in congress.

I have nothing to admit being wrong about.

In the meantime, since Ukraine broke, over 100 more members of congress turned in favor of the impeachment inquiry. This is a REAL problem - no matter how much Trump denies it. Impeachment is going to happen. Any smart political minded person would admit and start focusing on the trial in the Senate. Trump doesn't seem to be that smart.

You would need a super majority in the senate, which is unlikely to happen.

Not too long ago, it was impossible. Now it is "unlikely". That is not a good thing for Trump...

The house's actions just guarantee Trump a 2020 landside and cement his place in history as being opposed by status quo establishment forces - like FDR and JFK. The optics are completely a win for Trump.

This is simply NOT TRUE. You have NO WAY of knowing how all of this is going to play out and what the election will be like over a year from now.

And, one specific thing you asked me about, which I actually that was an interesting question. You asked who I donated to. As I have said many times, I do subscribe to any party. So, I do not donate...or caucus. I feel it is up to the members of the party to decide who to nominate. If I were to donate, I would probably donate to Weld, because I think he is closer to my views than any other candidate out there.

You care so much about the imperiled fate of this country that you can't even give a dime to candidates you believe in? Pretty much says it all. If the conviction of your beliefs extends only to spreading bullshit on a music forum, then you pretty much don't care at all.

And, I set you up for an EASY bit of discussion by giving you a completely serious answer to your question. But, as I thought, you can't resist going down a path of trying to disparage and insult. You have no interest in discussion. Thank you for proving it.

Bazinga! You are so easily manipulated. I love it.

[Monker]

I accuse you repeatedly of having no interest in discussion but only disparaging and insulting. And, your only response is to call me a liar and that I am easily manipulated. Thank you for proving my point for me.