Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

127,840 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, Big_Dog said:

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.

Why did you tag him?  He isn't part of the conversation.  It's stupid, unnecessary, and accomplishes nothing.  

Me criticizing you for posting on the boards is not being the "board police".  I criticize what people say all the time.  You're not immune just because you have some weird a** fetish with tagging a particular poster 6-12 times a day even when he is not part of the conversation.  

Share this post


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

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.

Also, you didn't even attempt to answer any of the questions that I asked.  You act like you're immune from criticism.  You're not.  When you post stupid things, others are free to call it stupid.  

So stop being stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I believe that the House can legitimately subpoena the information from the Mueller report, even the classified information, on the claim that impeachment is the only remedy for holding the president legally accountable.  

And impeachment doesn't require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that DOJ and prosecutors have to meet.  

So they can begin hearings with the goal of determining if impeachment is appropriate and get access to all of Mueller's files regarding Trump's actions.  I don't think that Trump will be able to block that.  Executive privilege certainly doesn't apply here and I'm not sure declaring it all "classified" will work either.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


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

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

Except it's not. The judicial system is not being impacted by people chanting "Indict Trump!" if it's a healthy judicial system. *cough cough*

"Indict the ***********" is a political message to get people to vote for Democrats. And it's not an advantage either when the other side is already doing it. It's called playing catchup or matching the opponent.

Big_Dog likes this

Share this post


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

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.

I wonder what you'd be saying about King George back in the day

Big_Dog likes this

Share this post


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

By the way, I believe that the House can legitimately subpoena the information from the Mueller report, even the classified information, on the claim that impeachment is the only remedy for holding the president legally accountable.  

And impeachment doesn't require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that DOJ and prosecutors have to meet.  

So they can begin hearings with the goal of determining if impeachment is appropriate and get access to all of Mueller's files regarding Trump's actions.  I don't think that Trump will be able to block that.  Executive privilege certainly doesn't apply here and I'm not sure declaring it all "classified" will work either.

Trump can pardon anyone in contempt of court. You are wrong.

Share this post


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

Kavanaugh?

I said early on Fairfax should have due process.

What is rich is the fake/scm disappearing on blackface/rape/blackface.

You won't be honest but, if this was the GOP IN Virginia this would be a 24/7 story for the fake/scm.

Don't deny that or we can just stop right here.

Then I guess we'll stop. 

Project Runway GIF by Lifetime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ♒Sn4tteRBoxXeR♒ said:

Except it's not. The judicial system is not being impacted by people chanting "Indict Trump!" if it's a healthy judicial system. *cough cough*

"Indict the ***********" is a political message to get people to vote for Democrats. And it's not an advantage either when the other side is already doing it. It's called playing catchup or matching the opponent.

That's perverse.  

You WANT the Dem president to indict Trump whether there is evidence he committed "treason" or whatever other crimes you think he committed.  You WANT the DOJ/FBI to be used as a political weapon for your party's benefit.  You WANT a politically-motivated prosecution just because you oppose Trump politically. 

You WANT the entire judicial system to get warped for your party's political gain.  

That Trump is trying to do just this thing doesn't make your calls right.  It makes what you're doing just as dangerous as Trump and now you have zero credibility or moral authority to criticize what Trump is doing.  

How can you say what Trump is doing is wrong if you want the exact same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ♒Sn4tteRBoxXeR♒ said:

Trump can pardon anyone in contempt of court. You are wrong.

How does that refute what I said?

If they are given pardons then they are forced to admit they committed crimes and to testify about everything they know.  That doesn't help Trump.  It actually helps the Dems collect the information Trump might be trying to hide.

Share this post


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

That's perverse.  

You WANT the Dem president to indict Trump whether there is evidence he committed "treason" or whatever other crimes you think he committed.  You WANT the DOJ/FBI to be used as a political weapon for your party's benefit.  You WANT a politically-motivated prosecution just because you oppose Trump politically. 

You WANT the entire judicial system to get warped for your party's political gain.  

That Trump is trying to do just this thing doesn't make your calls right.  It makes what you're doing just as dangerous as Trump and now you have zero credibility or moral authority to criticize what Trump is doing.  

How can you say what Trump is doing is wrong if you want the exact same thing?

Because just because I encourage chants of "Indict Trump" doesn't mean I want all those things you laid out.

Quote

You WANT the Dem president to indict Trump whether there is evidence he committed "treason" or whatever other crimes you think he committed.

You WANT the DOJ/FBI to be used as a political weapon for your party's benefit.

You WANT a politically-motivated prosecution just because you oppose Trump politically.

You WANT the entire judicial system to get warped for your party's political gain.  

Trump didn't get elected because he was apprehensive to using "effective" political messaging. Trump didn't get 2 Supreme Court nominees on the bench because he was afraid to "go over the line" with rhetoric.

Political rhetoric is a tool to effect change in power. The changes and the rhetoric does not have to line up exactly for the greater good of society to still be advanced. You are trying to make this a partisan issue, where Democrats are supposed to hold their words to a higher standard. That's foolish when you consider that vast swathes of the population are simply too ignorant to know better and they have to be reached in whatever form WORKS.

Share this post


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

How does that refute what I said?

If they are given pardons then they are forced to admit they committed crimes and to testify about everything they know.  That doesn't help Trump.  It actually helps the Dems collect the information Trump might be trying to hide.

Step 1. Congress issues subpoenas.

Step 2. They are ignored.

Step 3. The people ignoring subpoenas are held in contempt of court.

Step 4. Trump pardons said people in contempt of court and the information is still not released.

That's the end of the line because people don't really expect elected officials to hold themselves to their oath of office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be wonderful to see Trump impeached and forced out of office. Probably not going to happen, he is so full of himself and has attracted so many evil parasites it would be joyful to see them all forced out.The right wing nuts would be triggered like when Obama was elected. Oh I know it's a pipe dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 6:57 AM, lostone said:

This all of this.

tired of this tiptoeing around issues.  Fake non partiality should go away!

 

This, all of this, didn't age well. 

Share this post


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

This, all of this, didn't age well. 

She's not commenting on the validity of the reporting, but on the editorializing. The point stands.

lostone likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HolyMoses said:

This is why I don't engage with this guy.  And why I will probably put him back on ignore.  

I have no idea what he is talking about, and he dodges good faith questions.

The truth is:  No one know what is in the Mueller report.  All we KNOW is that he has guilty pleas, convictions, and indictments on the people at the highest level of his campaign for LYING ABOUT RUSSIA.  

 

Yep, all you have to do is read everything I've posted on this. Try that why don't you.

Guilty pleas, indictments, and nothing to do with Russian collusion. Excuse me if I pause a few minutes to lol. You must be a fish because you sure as he.ll fell for this hook, line, and sinker.

Share this post


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

She's not commenting on the validity of the reporting, but on the editorializing. The point stands.

Eh let em be, he's wooping it up in this final check of LGBT progressive tyranny

Now we never have to believe a hate crime again:rolleyes:

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

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

Only to those that are sycophants for the left.  If you mean that then I agree with you, if not, then no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now