Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Legendary SB said:

So a Republican majority in congress will impeach Trump?  Good luck with that.

And what happens then?  We end up with President Pence.  I'm ok with that.

I wouldn't be so sure that Pence is squeaky clean either...

There's this little issue coming up for Republicans... 2018. Humor me for a second...

So lets say, early next year Mueller comes out with a report that confirms most of what we already know. Drump in bed with Putin, Pee Tape, money laundering, etc... Do you honestly think that republicans could go back and sell non-action to their constituents? They're in a lose-lose.

Either they stick by Drumpf and go down with the ship, or they impeach drumpf and torpedo the ship themselves....

 

 

Democrats just need to sit there and stay the f*ck quiet...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    9627

  • Leon Troutsky

    8096

  • Psychic Gibbon

    7930

  • AF89

    6238

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Saving for posterity...just sayin'

Besides some of the negatives (like some dumb tweets) I'm getting what I voted for.  I wanted an outsider who was willing to change the old status quo Washington and (GOP) and take care of the nasty,

That's your fall back, I should've just posted that for you to save you some time.  

Posted Images

I strongly prefer that Trump stay in office for his full term, with the cloud of collusion hanging over his head. The GOP agenda will be best hindered under those circumstances.

That said, if the investigation turns up impeachable offenses, I'm in favor of rule of law over personal preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, achilles return said:

so the extent of the gop strategy for passing massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country is just to lie and say "man, our tax code is soooooo old!" a lot.

 

Has full details of the plan been released yet?  I've looked and all I've found is high level bullet points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

Assuming Trump is impeached (which I highly doubt happens, just wishful thinking by you guys), Constitutionally the order of succession is:

  1. Vice President Mike Pence
  2. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
  3. Senate President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch
  4. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
  5. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin
  6. Secretary of Defense James Mattis
  7. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
  8. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
  9. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue
  10. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross
  11. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta
  12. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price
  13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson
  14. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao
  15. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry
  16. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
  17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin
  18. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly

I don't see any dems on that list, do you?

There is zero constitutional basis for skipping this whole list.

What does the fact that no Dems are on this list have anything to do with impeachment? Do you really think that Dems believe that HRC or Bernie will become president ONCE drumpf is gone?

No.

Do you really think that ANY republican could get a d@mn thing through while impeachment proceedings are going on?

No. Which is the whole point.

Do you really think that republicans will be able to skate through impeachment proceedings without losing a seat?

No... How's Ryan going to sell that to his base?

And finally, do you really think that IF (and that's a giant IF, since he was most likely in the know) Pence gets through, that he's going to keep Drumpf's cabinet?

Again, no...

 

 

Once impeachment proceedings start, it sets up 2 major things...

1. Drumpf gets jack squat done. Period.

2. Republicans get to either go down with the ship or they get to blow it up themselves...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

So a Republican majority in congress will impeach Trump?  Good luck with that.

And what happens then?  We end up with President Pence.  I'm ok with that.

 Why wouldn't a Republican Congress impeach Trump? 

 Don't think there are circumstances where they would? 

 It almost sounds like you don't think they should regardless of the findings. 

 So that begs a question: if there is solid evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to hack the election, should he be impeached? 

 What if it was just his campaign but he had knowledge? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Legendary SB said:

OK thanks for clarifying.  Not you, but I think some Dems are delusional in the fact that they think if Trump gets impeached then Hillary or Bernie miraculously become president.  Some idjits legitimately believe that.

Some do. They think they can nullify the vote. That won't happen.

 

I just think the stink from drumpf will stick to the republicans who have voted with him. And that will be problematic in 2018 for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

First of all I don't think there was legit collusion and secondly the Russian "influence" is a joke at that.  $100K of Facebook ads when Hillary spent over $1 billion?  If you think $100K of Facebook ads can tip the scales over $1 billion of spending, the media in your court, etc...  then that's some serious return on investment of that $100K.  

And if we're going to be investigating the election I want an audit of all the voters to make sure every vote was legit.  Not to change the outcome but to look deeper into our election process and root out voter fraud.  Anybody committing voter fraud (like voting multiple times, etc...) should be put in jail.

 

The Russian influence was a huge deal. The Intelligence communities believe so, and universally.

And it isn't about the $100k. They could've spent $10, it's still a no-go. Hillary is allowed to spend money on an election in this country, other countries are not. So it could be HRC spending $1000000 trillion, and Russia spending $4.76, and it's still a no-go.

 

As far as the voter fraud is concerned, they've looked into it. They've investigated. It's a boogieman, meant to keep you guys on your toes when an election doesn't go your way. It doesn't happen. In most of the cases where it did happen, it was found to be just a mistake. And in the last few cases to be prosecuted, guess what? It was a republican... Take Colorado for example. 1 case of voter fraud in 2016. Steve Curtis, a conservative radio host and former Colorado Republican Party chairman forged his ex-wife's mail in ballot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Legendary SB said:

News flash: Clinton likely took plenty of foreign money and there's evidence to prove it in the hacked e-mails.  Very likely a lot more foreign money and influence than anything Russia did:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/take-the-money-what-we-learn-from-the-clinton-campaigns-emails-on-taking-donations-from-foreign-agents/article/2605023

Ahh... a couple of points with this.

Point 1... the Clinton Foundation took money and the Campaign took money from lobbyist. Hardly Russians buying FB ads on her behalf.

Point 2... What difference does it make what HRC did? If she committed a crime, prosecute her. Who cares? Someone else violating the law doesn't mean drumpf can violate the law...

 

The Lawyers in here can explain this in more detail, but claiming that someone else committed a crime is not a valid defense on why you committed the crime...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

I'm not saying that at all.

Russia buying Facebook ads is not illegal.  That's on Facebook and on Russia.  UNLESS Russia was colluding with Trump to do so which is very difficult to prove.

If Clinton took foreign money directly for her campaign, that IS illegal.  

Russia buying political ads is completely illegal...

 

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

 

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;

Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);

Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;

Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.

 

Edited by Optimus_Cr1m35
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, achilles return said:

this is our society

bEla99W.png

and they're cutting the top rate, raising the bottom rate, eliminating the estate tax, eliminating the amt. when these cuts cause the deficit to explode they'll turn around and claim we have to cut social security and medicare. they're willing to burn society down if it means they could rule the ashes. if they are not stopped it will end in violence.

Lol at the doom and gloom.  Also, wealth and income are not synonymous.  

The top 10% income earners paid 70% of the federal income taxes and earned 47% of the income.  

The bottom 50% income earners paid 2% of the federal income taxes and earned 11% of the income.  So yes, it's no surprise to anyone that lowering tax rates is going to benefit the people that actually pay the taxes.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kicker said:

Lol at the doom and gloom.  Also, wealth and income are not synonymous.  

The top 10% income earners paid 70% of the federal income taxes and earned 47% of the income.  

The bottom 50% income earners paid 2% of the federal income taxes and earned 11% of the income.  So yes, it's no surprise to anyone that lowering tax rates is going to benefit the people that actually pay the taxes.  

 

 

Well, the part you're ignoring is that middle 40%... the 40% that makes 42% of the income and pays 28% of the taxes. The rates go down for the top 10%, but up for the middle 40%

 

So if you aren't broke or if you aren't filthy rich, you get to pay more...

Edited by Optimus_Cr1m35
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

IF Democrats are going to introduce articles of impeachment it should be over the firing of Comey and his meddling in the House investigation via Nunes.  Insulting NFL players isn't grounds for impeachment.

Well it's not like Dems can only do it once

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

OK but again Russia and Facebook are on the hook for that.  Has nothing to do with Trump unless collusion can be proved which is very difficult to do.  Even if there were a dozen meetings between Trump people and Russians what does that prove?  An incoming president is going to have to deal with Russia diplomatically on a multitude of issues.  

And if they did collude (which I don't think they did) wouldn't they have made more of an effort than $100K in facebook ads going against the Clinton machine of over $1 billion?  Common sense...

Dude, you're going to justify whatever evidence is put in front of you. Here's a thought... If Drumpf had nothing to hide in regards to Russia, why be so sneaky?

If you have kids, you know what I mean. My 8 year old will keep his hand in his pocket any time he has something he shouldn't have. It's his tell. Every single time I ask him, whats in your pocket, he says the same thing, with the same dumb@ss look on his face "Nothing".

And every time, he's lying and I find something in his pocket.

 

Same with your boy Drumpf. Every time the Russia thing comes up, he attempts to deflect, calls it "Fake News", etc. And guess what happens? Another drumpf-russia story comes out that he lied about.

 

So just answer this one, super simple question...

If the meetings were innocent, why lie about them? Why leave them off your paperwork?

Edited by Optimus_Cr1m35
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

 

The Lawyers in here can explain this in more detail, but claiming that someone else committed a crime is not a valid defense on why you committed the crime...

Au contraire.* I have it on good authority that JDave has argued the "But your honor, he did it too" defense to great success on many occasions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Does not represent a real legal opinion and should not be construed as legal advice. By reading this, you agree to absolve and hold harmless BrockSamson from any future liability or legal claims related to this statement, and to send him $19.99 a month for the foreseeable future via U.S. mail or Bitcoin equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, achilles return said:

no one here believes that. 

Both statements are probably true, but sadly, I think *takes time to swallow pride* SB's is more true. That is, there is no doubt some idjits definitely believe that (I seent it!), and there's at least a chance one of those idjits posts regularly on this board.

Edited by BrockSamson
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Au contraire.* I have it on good authority that JDave has argued the "But your honor, he did it too" defense to great success on many occasions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Does not represent a real legal opinion and should not be construed as legal advice. By reading this, you agree to absolve and hold harmless BrockSamson from any future liability or legal claims related to this statement, and to send him $19.99 a month for the foreseeable future via U.S. mail or Bitcoin equivalent.

(Gets to the bottom)

To quote James Cameron "What the ****!"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eatcorn said:

I strongly prefer that Trump stay in office for his full term, with the cloud of collusion hanging over his head. The GOP agenda will be best hindered under those circumstances.

That said, if the investigation turns up impeachable offenses, I'm in favor of rule of law over personal preference.

Rep. Mike Quigley recently said in an interview he expects Mueller's investigation to take 1-2 years, so we'll be a little over halfway through the first term before Mueller gets down to brass tacks anyways. 

I want him out of office yesterday, but I also really hope he doesn't get impeached  unless there's no other choice. I'd rather him finish his first term and not run again while stopping further damage through his agenda. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...