Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

141,269 posts in this topic

Just now, Billy Ocean said:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (****) filed a federal lawsuit last summer, a judge from the District Court for the District of Columbia who was appointed by George W. Bush dismissed the ****'s constitutional challenge for lack of standing. As of January, 2019, the **** is appealing the dismissal.

Mods, why is the acronym E F F censored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

Mods, why is the acronym E F F censored?

I imagine ffs1970 probably tried to get around the curse filter with "**** you" a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ♒Sn4tteRBoxXeR♒ said:

I'll take Kamala Harris if it means Trump will be indicted

 

4 minutes ago, ♒Sn4tteRBoxXeR♒ said:

I don't care when

If this turns into some "lock him up" talking point by Democrats, then they will be just as guilty of undermining democracy as Trump has been.  Jumping to conclusions and demanding the jailing of political opponents without the evidence and facts to support that is dangerous and needs to stop.

It's wrong when Trump went around chanting "lock her up".  It's wrong for you and Democrats to do the same against Trump.

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

If this turns into some "lock him up" talking point by Democrats, then they will be just as guilty of undermining democracy as Trump has been.  Jumping to conclusions and demanding the jailing of political opponents without the evidence and facts to support that is dangerous and needs to stop.

It's wrong when Trump went around chanting "lock her up".  It's wrong for you and Democrats to do the same against Trump.

What about chanting "LockED them up!!"

Or a Call and response:

"George P."

Locked him up!

Paul Manafort

Locked him up!

MIchael Cohen:

Locked him up!

Michael Flynn: . . . 

etc. etc. 

Sn4tteRBoxXeR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

If this turns into some "lock him up" talking point by Democrats, then they will be just as guilty of undermining democracy as Trump has been.  Jumping to conclusions and demanding the jailing of political opponents without the evidence and facts to support that is dangerous and needs to stop.

It's wrong when Trump went around chanting "lock her up".  It's wrong for you and Democrats to do the same against Trump.

This is a load... It's not the same.

 

Screaming "lock her up" over something that wasn't criminal <> Holding someone accountable when they've blatantly obstructed justice, at a minimum. If we never see the report because the report is actively hidden by the subject of the report, that's an issue.

 

If the report is provided to Senate and the House, and both the GOP and Dems say "Nothing worth reporting", then you're point is taken.

Door Gunner and GEORGIAfan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Centrists are jumping back into the universal healthcare debate.  I personally prefer Medicare 4 America, but this plan could be compelling for those who love market solutions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

If this turns into some "lock him up" talking point by Democrats, then they will be just as guilty of undermining democracy as Trump has been.  Jumping to conclusions and demanding the jailing of political opponents without the evidence and facts to support that is dangerous and needs to stop.

It's wrong when Trump went around chanting "lock her up".  It's wrong for you and Democrats to do the same against Trump.

Fine then.

 

"Give him a trial"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HolyMoses said:

Or a Call and response:

"George P."

Locked him up!

Paul Manafort

Locked him up!

MIchael Cohen:

Locked him up!

Michael Flynn: . . . 

etc. etc. 

that's actually really good

Share this post


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

What about chanting "LockED them up!!"

Or a Call and response:

"George P."

Locked him up!

Paul Manafort

Locked him up!

MIchael Cohen:

Locked him up!

Michael Flynn: . . . 

etc. etc. 

That's fine because all of them have been convicted based on strong evidence of crimes.  I'm talking about people jumping to things like "elect Harris and indict Trump".  That's dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ♒Sn4tteRBoxXeR♒ said:

Fine then.

 

"Give him a trial"

A trial comes after an indictment.  If there's not enough evidence to indict him then there's no point of a trial.  

How about we all just wait to see what evidence is presented first and then draw conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

This is a load... It's not the same.

 

Screaming "lock her up" over something that wasn't criminal <> Holding someone accountable when they've blatantly obstructed justice, at a minimum. If we never see the report because the report is actively hidden by the subject of the report, that's an issue.

 

If the report is provided to Senate and the House, and both the GOP and Dems say "Nothing worth reporting", then you're point is taken.

You kind of proved my point...we wait for the report and the evidence and THEN draw conclusions about Trump's guilt or innocence.  That's not what happened here.  

"I want Kamala Harris so we can indict Trump" presumes, without evidence, that Trump has commited a crime.  

And of course if they try to bury the report then that's an issue and it has to be addressed.  But calling for prosecuting somebody before evidence of criminal behavior is exactly what "lock her up" was about. What they ACCUSED Clinton of doing was illegal.  But the investigations concluded that she didn't do those things and yet they yelled "lock her up".  

We cannot allow the judicial system to be used for short term partisan political advantage.  Nobody will like how that ends.

Big_Dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You kind of proved my point...we wait for the report and the evidence and THEN draw conclusions about Trump's guilt or innocence.  That's not what happened here.  

"I want Kamala Harris so we can indict Trump" presumes, without evidence, that Trump has commited a crime.  

And of course if they try to bury the report then that's an issue and it has to be addressed.  But calling for prosecuting somebody before evidence of criminal behavior is exactly what "lock her up" was about. What they ACCUSED Clinton of doing was illegal.  But the investigations concluded that she didn't do those things and yet they yelled "lock her up".  

We cannot allow the judicial system to be used for short term partisan political advantage.  Nobody will like how that ends.

Don't we already know that though? Hasn't he obstructed out in the open? Is it even debatable?

Sn4tteRBoxXeR and Door Gunner like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Don't we already know that though? Hasn't he obstructed out in the open? Is it even debatable?

@WhenFalconsWin  doesn't see it that way. Old age has damaged his eye sight and thinking ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Don't we already know that though? Hasn't he obstructed out in the open? Is it even debatable?

It is debatable.  But the person who has the most evidence to answer that question is Mueller and, increasingly, the House committees and SDNY.  

I hear what you're saying about obstruction.  There's a lot more evidence of that than other allegations.  I'm responding more to this amorphous free-floating anger that translates into things like "he's a traitor" and "he committed treason" and "indict him" before all of the evidence is out there.  

When we're talking about accusations of criminal behavior against political opponents, we have to be extremely careful.  It's too easy to let that slip into the dangerous partisan "lock her up" stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Big_Dog said:

@WhenFalconsWin  doesn't see it that way. Old age has damaged his eye sight and thinking ability.

Who the f*** cares how he sees things?!?!?!?!

Why the f*** do you insist on tagging him every other gotdam post?  Edit:  He is not even part of this conversation!!! You already acknowledged that he's not going to respond in good faith or add anything productive.  What is the point?  

Stop it, please.

SpongeDad likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

 

Stop it, please.

Image result for police car gifs 

Officer Trout,  I'm just doing the ole 'eye for an eye' with him. Sorry it upsets you and officer Drakester.

Share this post


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