View Full Version : Merry Kissmyass Nancy.....
BPTactical
12-17-2019, 15:44
Oooohhh, dis gonna be good.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Letter-from-President-Trump-final.pdf
Aloha_Shooter
12-17-2019, 15:58
Great letter. Finally someone in the GOP with the cojones to call them out for their deceptive practices -- and he's someone I never really thought of as being in the GOP.
Love it! Trying to figure out how to save that, print it, and send it to others.
A strongly worded letter is way better than arresting some of the people who openly break the laws.
Won?t load for me. I?ll have to try when I get home. Any letter to Bert?s favorite person is probably worth reading.
Read the first page or two. TLDR.
No more valuable than a ranting forum post on a website like this, and it is written in the same style. You guys call it a win, and his worshipers eat it like doctrine and pray facing D.C., the other guys don't give two shits any more than they care about this post right here. Suffice to say, while this opinion will be unpopular, it appears to be juvenile to me, about as moronic as a defendant in a court case laying out all the reasons why they shouldn't be guilty in a letter written to the accuser. Only stupid people do that shit.
Personally, I think he did it to make sure the Dems set their course for the center of the sun.
Taking back the House and the potential to have SCOTUS with a 7-2 advantage is worth it.
Great-Kazoo
12-17-2019, 17:57
Read the first page or two. TLDR.
No more valuable than a ranting forum post on a website like this, and it is written in the same style. You guys call it a win, and his worshipers eat it like doctrine and pray facing D.C., the other guys don't give two shits any more than they care about this post right here. Suffice to say, while this opinion will be unpopular, it appears to be juvenile to me, about as moronic as a defendant in a court case laying out all the reasons why they shouldn't be guilty in a letter written to the accuser. Only stupid people do that shit.
So in your professional (not as an online attorney) opinion, all of us who don't like the way this has been handled since TRUMP WON! in 16... We're stupid and juvenile?
How would you say those who didn't like TRUMP WINNING, have acted since that day in November? Or are you in denial, there has been an overt attempt to overthrow the election and this administration.
hurley842002
12-17-2019, 18:00
Read the first page or two. TLDR.
No more valuable than a ranting forum post on a website like this, and it is written in the same style. You guys call it a win, and his worshipers eat it like doctrine and pray facing D.C., the other guys don't give two shits any more than they care about this post right here. Suffice to say, while this opinion will be unpopular, it appears to be juvenile to me, about as moronic as a defendant in a court case laying out all the reasons why they shouldn't be guilty in a letter written to the accuser. Only stupid people do that shit.
And we know you are a "Never Trumper", so your posts regarding him are about as relevant as his letter....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BushMasterBoy
12-17-2019, 18:31
This is the letter in images. Hope this helps those that can't see it in PDF format.
79673
79674
79675
79676
79677
Bailey Guns
12-17-2019, 18:37
No more valuable than a ranting forum post on a website like this...
We'll see how accurate that is in November 2020.
And why do you feel the need to label those who agree with Trump on this issue as "worshipers"? Doing that is just as juvenile as those things you say you disagree with.
I'd much rather see him write a letter like that than to condense them into a type of typical, blowhard tweet he's known for. I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment in his tweets but THAT strikes me as far more "juvenile" than this letter. It may be he wrote the letter himself (or edited it to his liking) rather than run several versions written by professional political writers thru various focus groups to see how they play with people...like a typical politician would. One of the things people constantly say is that they like his brawling, non-politically polished style and I happen to agree. If that makes me a Trump "worshiper", so be it. Though if that's the case maybe you should look that word up because I don't think you know what it means.
Great-Kazoo
12-17-2019, 18:37
This is the letter in images. Hope this helps those that can't see it in PDF format.
79673
79674
79675
79676
79677
Could you simplify that for the lawyers on the forum ;)
BushMasterBoy
12-17-2019, 18:43
"Could you simplify that for the lawyers on the forum"
In answer to our distinguished member of the forum from Arizona, I will say this: "The purpose of the government is to protect the people".
Bailey Guns
12-17-2019, 18:44
I can...
"Hey, democrats! Fuck you! Enjoy the next 5 years, bitches!"
BPTactical
12-17-2019, 18:53
The most important thing to remember about this document is it has been officially presented to the House and Senate.
It is now official and entered into the Presidential archives.
There is nothing in this document that is not true.
If DJT has done one thing perfectly it has been to call the D's bluff.
Bluff called.
He just forced them to either back off or double down on impeachment.
4D chess while the D's fumble with Chinese checkers.
Bitch slap
https://youtu.be/yVjFwcdQlN0
The image of the letter is a little blurry. When I started reading, I first thought it was addressed to "The Horrible Nancy Pelosi". [LOL]
So in your professional (not as an online attorney) opinion, all of us who don't like the way this has been handled since TRUMP WON! in 16... We're stupid and juvenile?
That seems like a Cluster B kinda' thing to do.
Great-Kazoo
12-17-2019, 20:04
That seems like a Cluster B kinda' thing to do.
Could you show us on the doll, where the president triggered you
https://i.imgur.com/ax9SIiJh.jpg
Can someone snag the final page in an image format too?
BushMasterBoy
12-17-2019, 20:46
Can someone snag the final page in an image format too?
79682
Thanks! I have saved the pics and will read it, and further distribute it if the content merits same. I’ve not been able to put my crying baby down long enough to read it this evening.
TEAMRICO
12-18-2019, 00:00
Why hasn’t OxArt responded yet?
Great-Kazoo
12-18-2019, 00:39
Why hasn?t OxArt responded yet?
Disbarred ?
Look the guy doesn't like trump. His prerogative. Yet to consider those who support, or voted for, him akin to the way leftist deride anyone who also does, is laughable.
All he needs to do is throw out the racist, or RUSSIAN / Ukraine card now.
BUT, BUT, I PLAY A LAWYER ON LINE.
Staring in to the hollow idol's eyes
Great-Kazoo
12-18-2019, 00:40
Space filler to tag how many post there are. # 25 with this.
I DO like Bert's "Merry Kissmyass" quote, I'm stealing that.....
Excellent letter. Hopefully this will be the end of Pelosi’s reign on the house. That crazy looking bitch needs some plastic surgery or a coffin. She looks like death.
I’m glad Trump has the balls to call it likes he sees it, whether it’s the demonrats, the leftist media, or some foreign dictator dbag. He is all for America.
speaking of Nancy, apparently she admitted that the whole impeachment is a scam yesterday.
On Tuesday in Washington, D.C., at Politico’s Women Rule Summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) admitted the impeachment process of President Donald Trump has been going on for “two and a half” years.
When asked about criticisms of “the speed” of the House Democrats impeachment, Pelosi replied, “Speed? It’s been going on 22 months—two and a half years, actually.”
https://www.statedepartmentwatch.or...-going-on-two-and-a-half-years-actually/
So tell us Nancy, how is it that you started this Impeachment 2 1/2 years ago long before the Ukrainian phone call.
Are you admitting that this whistle-blower, quid-pro-quo, was a set-up and you and the Deep State have been planning it for years?
Yes, yes I think you are.
speaking of Nancy, apparently she admitted that the whole impeachment is a scam yesterday.
On Tuesday in Washington, D.C., at Politico’s Women Rule Summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) admitted the impeachment process of President Donald Trump has been going on for “two and a half” years.
When asked about criticisms of “the speed” of the House Democrats impeachment, Pelosi replied, “Speed? It’s been going on 22 months—two and a half years, actually.”
https://www.statedepartmentwatch.or...-going-on-two-and-a-half-years-actually/
So tell us Nancy, how is it that you started this Impeachment 2 1/2 years ago long before the Ukrainian phone call.
Are you admitting that this whistle-blower, quid-pro-quo, was a set-up and you and the Deep State have been planning it for years?
Yes, yes I think you are.
Like!
DavieD55
12-18-2019, 18:50
https://i.ibb.co/tL2Sw4C/FB95-IMG951576640063184.jpg (https://ibb.co/7kpHxXy)
Speaking of partisanship, where is NYNCO?
Speaking of partisanship, where is NYNCO?
Have you been in a coma? [Sarcasm2]
Have you been in a coma? [Sarcasm2]
I must missed what happened to him. Lots of others who use to be very active, but stop posting.
OtterbatHellcat
12-19-2019, 00:36
I'm voting for Bert in 2020.
BushMasterBoy
12-19-2019, 03:51
The president has been impeached by the House of Representatives.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755
Bailey Guns
12-19-2019, 05:00
The president has been impeached by the House of Representatives.
More accurately, the president has been impeached by a majority of democrats in the House of Representatives.
Proving that this was nothing more than political retribution, Pelosi is now waffling on whether or not to send articles of impeachment to the senate for a trial. And that's because they're afraid of what might come out if certain witnesses are called. This was a scam against the nation, plain and simple.
I'm just livid about the 52 Republican "Non Votes". WTF???
Assholes too busy transferring their payoffs from Soros into their offshore accounts and shopping online for new houses and toys?
BPTactical
12-19-2019, 08:53
Funny thing, the ONLY place bi-partisanship was shown was in "NOE" votes for Impeachment.....
hollohas
12-19-2019, 09:18
Pelosi said she's probably not even going to send it to the Senate...guess why...because the Senate won't be "fair". Yeah, because secret basement meetings were fair. You got to be shitting me.
In any case, if they don't send it to the Senate, it's basically null and void. It means nothing at that point. Dems know they don't have a case, so they are just going to keep playing their games.
I'm so sick of these bullshit games.
Pelosi said she's probably not even going to send it to the Senate...guess why...because the Senate won't be "fair". Yeah, because secret basement meetings were fair. You got to be shitting me.
In any case, if they don't send it to the Senate, it's basically null and void. It means nothing at that point. Dems know they don't have a case, so they are just going to keep playing their games.
I'm so sick of these bullshit games.
Yeah, because the Senate trial will call for witnesses, and testimonies, and facts, and etc, which will pull down the pants of a LOT of Dems.....
Can't have that now, can we?
Great-Kazoo
12-19-2019, 09:55
Pelosi said she's probably not even going to send it to the Senate...guess why...because the Senate won't be "fair". Yeah, because secret basement meetings were fair. You got to be shitting me.
In any case, if they don't send it to the Senate, it's basically null and void. It means nothing at that point. Dems know they don't have a case, so they are just going to keep playing their games.
I'm so sick of these bullshit games.
Actually she's withholding some articles. This way if the senate votes to dismiss, she'll throw another impeachment charge against trump
Lindsey doesn't want a Senate trial because it could expose the dirty bastards from both parties.
There are no crimes in the articles. It's not up to the Senate to make the case for the House. Why give them any validation at all?
The Dems in the House keep asserting that Trump didn't ask "How high?" when they asked him to jump. They keep pushing that they're a "co-equal branch of government". Yet they didn't pursue taking their subpoenas to court to have the 3rd co-equal branch arbitrate (probably because they had nothing to stand on but their anger).
My hope is that the Dems pay dearly for this BS. They cheapened the process based on lies and deception.
Funny thing, the ONLY place bi-partisanship was shown was in "NOE" votes for Impeachment.....
And Pelosi said she wouldn't move forward if there wasn't bi-partisan support for it. She just can't admit that she's lost control of her party.
I'm just livid about the 52 Republican "Non Votes". WTF???
Assholes too busy transferring their payoffs from Soros into their offshore accounts and shopping online for new houses and toys?
Where did you get these numbers from?
These were the totals for both articles:
Article I: Abuse of Power
Total Dem.Rep. Ind.
Yes 230 229 0 1
No 197 2 195 0
Present 1 1 0 0
Not voting 3 1 2 0
Article II: Obstruction of Congress
Total Dem.Rep. Ind.
Yes 229 228 0 1
No 198 3 195 0
Present 1 1 0 0
Not voting 3 1 2 0
ETA: Sorry for the formatting, but I'm apparently not smart enough to get it to format properly for vBulletin.
hollohas
12-19-2019, 12:00
Actually she's withholding some articles. This way if the senate votes to dismiss, she'll throw another impeachment charge against trumpThere are only two articles of impeachment. She's not going to send either over to the senate yet which means the Senate won't have anything to vote on. The Senate can't dismiss it if it's not there to be voted on.
It buys them time to play more games. It puts the impeachment into a holding pattern so they can continue to campaign on it. Which is only going to hurt the Dems more. They have no smart play here.
Aloha_Shooter
12-19-2019, 12:14
More accurately, the president has been impeached by a majority of democrats in the House of Representatives.
Proving that this was nothing more than political retribution, Pelosi is now waffling on whether or not to send articles of impeachment to the senate for a trial. And that's because they're afraid of what might come out if certain witnesses are called. This was a scam against the nation, plain and simple.
Pelosi said she's probably not even going to send it to the Senate...guess why...because the Senate won't be "fair". Yeah, because secret basement meetings were fair. You got to be shitting me.
In any case, if they don't send it to the Senate, it's basically null and void. It means nothing at that point. Dems know they don't have a case, so they are just going to keep playing their games.
I'm so sick of these bullshit games.
Yeah, because the Senate trial will call for witnesses, and testimonies, and facts, and etc, which will pull down the pants of a LOT of Dems.....
Can't have that now, can we?
Not just that. I think the theory is that as long as she hasn't sent it to the Senate, they can't hold a trial which means no rebuttal witnesses, no finding of "not guilty" -- which means the Dems can keep chanting and talking about him being impeached without having someone else say, "but he was exonerated" as they kept saying for Clinton. All they have done is make it more blatant that none of them (except possibly Tulsi Gabbard) have any real devotion to or understanding of the Constitution, none of them believes in duty to anything but their anti-Western, pro-Marxist ideology.
There are no crimes in the articles. It's not up to the Senate to make the case for the House. Why give them any validation at all?
The Dems in the House keep asserting that Trump didn't ask "How high?" when they asked him to jump. They keep pushing that they're a "co-equal branch of government". Yet they didn't pursue taking their subpoenas to court to have the 3rd co-equal branch arbitrate (probably because they had nothing to stand on but their anger).
My hope is that the Dems pay dearly for this BS. They cheapened the process based on lies and deception.
There are several pending federal court cases concerning House subpoenas and Executive Privilege.
For instance: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/19/impeachment-appeals-court-house-don-mcgahn-testimony-subpoena/2696585001/
Some pundits have suggested that is the reason the House is delaying sending to the Senate. If the court rules that the witnesses must appear, they can then add more "evidence" to their case before the Senate.
Martinjmpr
12-19-2019, 12:28
The other problem with a senate trial is that there are a number of active senators running for prez on the dem side. McConnell could drag out the process into the early primary season which would mean that senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would be in a no-win situation: Either they attend the trial and miss the very important early primaries, or they skip the trial which lets their non-Senator competitors call them out for their hypocrisy and blatant self interest. Either way they lose.
Yeah, I really think the dems painted themselves into a corner here. And now they have to explain to the less intelligent members of their base that after screaming "IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!" for the last 3 years that impeachment, by itself, doesn't do squat to actually remove the president from office.
BushMasterBoy
12-19-2019, 12:30
The US Senate is comprised of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 independents. It is my opinion that a two thirds vote to convict the president will not occur.
The dems are just planning to drag out the senate hearings as long as possible in hopes of messing with Trump?s chance of reelection. If it went to the senate quickly then he would likely be exonerated and they would rather have him campaigning with the shadow of doubt looming over him.
There are several pending federal court cases concerning House subpoenas and Executive Privilege.
For instance: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/19/impeachment-appeals-court-house-don-mcgahn-testimony-subpoena/2696585001/
Some pundits have suggested that is the reason the House is delaying sending to the Senate. If the court rules that the witnesses must appear, they can then add more "evidence" to their case before the Senate.
Those cases are from the Executive pushing back. They didn't appear to be necessary for the impeachment vote in the House.
It's amusing. Cast a differing opinion that differs in any way shape or form from praise for Obama and you're instantly labeled a racist. Oops, sorry, I typoed that.
Substitute "Trump" and "Never Trumper", respectively. Amusing that I didn't see a single person consider alternative perspectives. I am a busy person and frankly don't care. Also if you want to insult me you'd have to meet me to get material.
Nowhere did I insult anyone here, I called the action of Trump moronic. Why is it moronic? It appeases only his followers (e.g., people here), but it telecasts all of his arguments in advance of a trial. Many of the people here know it is moronic but reason it away (Sure, nobody else would ever do that, but Trump is...), and there's the always present belief of some kind of conspiratory grand scheme to "piss off liberals". If your political decisions are merely based on pissing off your opposition, then you are neither an effective leader nor are you an effective adult, that's tribal leadership, not national, and if our country is to survive at all, that shit needs to stop (but it isn't going to). If he wanted an epic hollywood action finish, he should've saved it for closing arguments, you know... when people besides GOP would be paying attention. Any liberals read this? No. But instead, you lay out all of your strategies in advance, giving them the maximum opportunity to diffuse, dismiss, adapt, and overcome their story with months to think about it. If he wanted the last word, he would've had his chance. Now, Pelosi gets the final say which mitigates what would have been an excellent opportunity.
Not that it'll make a difference insofar as this is concerned, impeachment is usually political suicide for the party pursuing it, much less over vague charges "Abuse of power". For those that call me a never Trumper, you may as well call me a "racist" too. You're wholly unable differentiate between the church of Trump and someone who voted for him. I don't praise juvenile, unprofessional or tribal antics from any party. The thing about my morals is they don't adapt and disappear when I "like" someone". What I find amusing is how a lot of people are no better than the politicians they bitch about... praising Trump for the same stuff they'd be swearing at Clinton or Obama for. (FFS, at least be consistent in what you stand for and/or condemn)
BushMasterBoy
12-19-2019, 21:06
God protects fools and children and I'm no kid. Think of this forum as a big wall of graffiti, then read between the lines.
Bailey Guns
12-19-2019, 21:35
It's amusing. Cast a differing opinion that differs in any way shape or form from praise for Obama and you're instantly labeled a racist. Oops, sorry, I typoed that.
<snip>
If your political decisions are merely based on pissing off your opposition, then you are neither an effective leader nor are you an effective adult, that's tribal leadership, not national, and if our country is to survive at all, that shit needs to stop (but it isn't going to).
I don't think I've been disrespectful to you at all in my disagreements with you. I happen to disagree with the quote in bold above, too (along with some of the other things you've said).
I find it pretty to agree with you about Trump being an ineffective leader and an ineffective adult. You may find that, according to your standards. But by objective reasoning on his accomplishments I'd say that statement is pretty hard to substantiate, other than by measuring him according to your subjective standards. He owns a business empire and he won his first race for political office which just happened to be the highest elected office in the land. He's had numerous political "wins" since he's been president including several legislative victories. He draws more people to his political events than any other politician I recall. My guess is he'll easily be elected to a second term barring something unusual happening in the next year...which is plenty of time for something to happen.
And you calling people "worshipers" is no different than someone calling you a "never Trumper".
Bailey Guns
12-19-2019, 21:51
There are only two articles of impeachment. She's not going to send either over to the senate yet which means the Senate won't have anything to vote on. The Senate can't dismiss it if it's not there to be voted on.
It buys them time to play more games. It puts the impeachment into a holding pattern so they can continue to campaign on it. Which is only going to hurt the Dems more. They have no smart play here.
It also may mean that, in essence, Trump was never really impeached according to one Harvard law professor who testified on behalf of democrats during the impeachment proceedings:
The back-and-forth rhetoric comes as Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law School professor who testified for Democrats at the impeachment inquiry earlier this month, wrote an explosive op-ed asserting that if Democrats do not forward the impeachment articles to the Senate as dictated by the Constitution, then Trump was never even impeached at all. The Constitution dictates that after impeachment by a majority in the House, a two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to remove a president from office.
Feldman cautioned that impeachment "means the House sending its approved articles of impeachment to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached."
Therefore, "if the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn?t actually impeached the president," Feldman said." If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn?t truly impeached at all."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-impasse-trump-impeachment-trial-dems-cold-feet
I think they do have a smart play. Or maybe one that's less dumb than the others. Forward the articles to the senate while McConnell wants to keep the trial brief. Just let it run it's course. Everyone already knows they fucked up. If they take time to play more stupid games it gives McConnell motive to change his mind and really hurt them by calling witnesses in a senate trial the dems don't want called. Do it, get it over with quickly. Then make a big deal of quickly getting back to work on a legislative agenda in the house.
But Pelosi is trying to dictate to McConnell the terms of a senate trial. That's a huge mistake. People everywhere are really tiring of this democrat fiasco. Dems are even jumping ship to the other side. Tulsi Gabbard gave Pelosi the big middle finger by voting present. Even hard-core leftist media outlets are saying it's time to move on.
It also may mean that, in essence, Trump was never really impeached according to one Harvard law professor who testified on behalf of democrats during the impeachment proceedings:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-impasse-trump-impeachment-trial-dems-cold-feet
I think they do have a smart play. Or maybe one that's less dumb than the others. Forward the articles to the senate while McConnell wants to keep the trial brief. Just let it run it's course. Everyone already knows they fucked up. If they take time to play more stupid games it gives McConnell motive to change his mind and really hurt them by calling witnesses in a senate trial the dems don't want called. Do it, get it over with quickly. Then make a big deal of quickly getting back to work on a legislative agenda in the house.
But Pelosi is trying to dictate to McConnell the terms of a senate trial. That's a huge mistake. People everywhere are really tiring of this democrat fiasco. Dems are even jumping ship to the other side. Tulsi Gabbard gave Pelosi the big middle finger by voting present. Even hard-core leftist media outlets are saying it's time to move on.
The second the "high crimes" were reduced to "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" is when the grenade blew up for middle-America. The best thing for Pelosi to have done would've been to drop it all and blame obstructionism. Spending all that time alleging briberty, quid pro quo, etc., and then impeaching on those two is hilariously petty to even the non-political layperson; only the far left adherents celebrated it.
It kind of reminds me of the "War of the Worlds" ending.
From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and impeached, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God in his wisdom put upon this earth.. the hyperactive progressive
My boss looked at me this morning, and said, wide eyed, "did you watch the impeachment last night?" When I said, "no," he said, "it was crazy. We are without a president now." I said, "no, it has to go to the Senate now, they will vote. But the President is still the President. He still has all his powers." He looked at me half-believing, half-scared.
In that way, the Democrats have won. Scaring normal people to death.
-John
Bailey Guns
12-20-2019, 06:40
^^ I heard similar talk like that around yesterday. It's amazing how little the average person knows about how the government functions.
I?d guess an overwhelming percentage of Trump haters were triggered when the media posted everywhere that he had been impeached and yet there he was, still being president.
As unaware of the process as most of the haters are, I bet some of them think if Trump was removed from office that there would be some sort of emergency election or something. I doubt most of them realize that the VP is next man up.
Great-Kazoo
12-20-2019, 09:15
As unaware of the process as most of the haters are, I bet some of them think if Trump was removed from office that there would be some sort of emergency election or something. I doubt most of them realize that the VP is next man up.
They're after Pence too. The comments i've read on more progressive web sites is. They believe when and if Trump goes, so does Pence. Handing pelosi the CIC job. What decade did they stop teaching these things in skol?
This was over a year ago, but Trey Gowdy laid things out so clearly;
http://youtu.be/PIVzua11qYc
There were only a few actors that created so much of this mess.
I would really like to see Trey Gowdy play a role in a Senate trial.
Another great clip casting light on the impeachment angle and bias over a year ago;
http://youtu.be/Rbo0Lodbub0
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
Aloha_Shooter
12-20-2019, 09:57
A lot of people are mistaking Trump's actions and interpreting them as if we had reasonable rational people in Congress and the bureaucracy. Under normal circumstances (i.e., dealing with reasonable rational people), I agree that simply pissing people off is not an effective leadership style. However, I believe what Trump is doing is poking his opponents enough that they lose their self-control and he's able to effectively undercut them. That actually IS an effective leadership style, albeit not one we are used to seeing at the national level and not one that we would want to see applied universally.
Remember that Trump comes from a background of creative destruction, both in his negotiations and his administrative style. He hires people and fires them quickly until he finds someone he thinks is effective. The moment they cease to be effective or cease to do things the way he wants, he gets rid of them. That is NOT how DC generally operates and it drives the establishment nuts -- but it has worked for Trump for 30 years or so.
The media and the Democrats have been driven absolutely crazy by Trump's constant needling to the point that the media has abandoned any pretext of objectivism or neutrality (which they laughingly claimed during the previous 30 years). In doing so, they have exposed themselves even to the American public that wanted to believe CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC was reporting news or that Democratic legislators really wanted to represent "the common (wo)man". Of course, some people will absolutely refuse to see what's in front of their noses but current polls show more and more of the independents/moderates are seeing through the Leftist lies. Trump's still a dick but he's a dick we can live with more than the alternative.
Bailey Guns
12-20-2019, 10:11
Trump's still a dick but he's a dick we can live with more than the alternative.
That's about where I stand with him. That, and I actually like the way he badgers democrats and their commie media friends. It's about time someone did.
I voted for him for SCOTUS. Anyone that acts like he's all bad or all good (or anyone else, even Hillary for that matter) is fooling themselves. Even some of Obama's actions were not bad. (not many, but it is important to recognize).
The reason Trump got elected has little-to-nothing to do with his resume (many are far, far better than his, and much of his is exaggerated and false, which is why he cannot release his tax returns), and everything to do with the same thing that got Greta "elected" to be be the president of ditching school, despite being wholly unqualified to discuss climate to even a Labrador retriever.
Being great at acting, and faking emotion.
I've warned people before: Trump does not actually have real positions, he just likes attention. He was a NY democrat just before he became the GOP president, and donated to HRC. He's hobnobbed and bought influence since before most users were born here. "Draining the swamp" is not something he does, he is a part of his own swamp. He does TRUMP, that's it. He doesn't care about 2A, he just likes your attention, which makes him apt to switch positions on a whim.
Many of his policies have been good. Many have also been bad. Obama was ironically better for firearm rights. (someone prove me wrong [UZI])
Domestically, many of Trumps policies have been positive; but then again, so would've 85% of GOP style candidates.
Internationally, Trump has caused a lot of damage / much of it has been a train-wreck, although like anything, nothing is ever all bad. One international problem is that Trump is freakishly easy to manipulate himself.... It's important to have "unpredictable", and a leader with such a crystalline personality disorder is anything but, especially once they've seen the pattern he falls into.
This was over a year ago, but Trey Gowdy laid things out so clearly;
There were only a few actors that created so much of this mess.
I would really like to see Trey Gowdy play a role in a Senate trial.
Another great clip casting light on the impeachment angle and bias over a year ago;
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
Name one person Trey Gowdy has helped charge with an actual crime.
He talks a good game and is fun to watch, but has done nothing to actually follow through with putting anyone away for anything.
Jordan is the same.
Lots of smoke to appease the pissed-off masses, but never any fire.
As if a single member has that kind of power.
From Gowdy's resignation statement;
I will not be filing for re-election to Congress nor seeking any other political or elected office; instead I will be returning to the justice system. Whatever skills I may have are better utilized in a courtroom than in Congress, and I enjoy our justice system more than our political system. As I look back on my career, it is the jobs that both seek and reward fairness that are most rewarding.
I'm hearing that one of the Dems Constitutional scholar witnesses is now saying that if the House doesn't transmit the impeachment to the Senate, then Trump is not impeached. Impeachment is a process, not a vote. This should be entertaining.
Aloha_Shooter
12-20-2019, 21:10
I've warned people before: Trump does not actually have real positions, he just likes attention. He was a NY democrat just before he became the GOP president, and donated to HRC. He's hobnobbed and bought influence since before most users were born here. "Draining the swamp" is not something he does, he is a part of his own swamp. He does TRUMP, that's it. He doesn't care about 2A, he just likes your attention, which makes him apt to switch positions on a whim.
Trump's past was why I was skeptical of him during the primaries but the Democratic sliming has actually driven him deeper into supporting conservative positions. I'm okay with that.
Many of his policies have been good. Many have also been bad. Obama was ironically better for firearm rights. (someone prove me wrong [UZI])
False. The reaction to Obama's policies were better for firearm rights but Obama and Holder plotted to create gun crimes with Operation Fast and Furious so they could undercut firearm rights. Obama tried to place firearm limits on federal lands, it was Republicans that restored them.
Internationally, Trump has caused a lot of damage / much of it has been a train-wreck, although like anything, nothing is ever all bad. One international problem is that Trump is freakishly easy to manipulate himself.... It's important to have "unpredictable", and a leader with such a crystalline personality disorder is anything but, especially once they've seen the pattern he falls into.
No. Much as I dislike his continued salesmanship, Trump hasn't caused damage internationally, he has forced the socialists and globalists to face facts. In doing so, he's hurt some feelings and made the Europhiles feel butt-hurt but he hasn't actually caused any damage. If anything, he's solidified America's position by showing he means it when he's pushing "America First" policies. Sure, he's said nice things about Kim Jong Un, things I wish he hadn't said, but he didn't stop or reduce our monitoring of North Korea. He's had a pattern of saying nice things to ease negotiations but his history shows he's a sonuvabeesh outside the niceties. We've needed that approach in international engagement for decades because the globalists felt they could walk all over Clinton and both Bushes while Obama not only bent America over to take it, he gave the Leftists a bigger toy to do it with.
Cite one case where Trump has been manipulated by other countries. If he's so easy to manipulate, why don't they do it instead of whining all the time?
Bailey Guns
12-20-2019, 21:20
Obama was ironically better for firearm rights. (someone prove me wrong)
What exactly do you mean by that? Serious question because I wanna respond but I want us to be on the same page. Are you talking legislation wise or some other way?
What exactly do you mean by that? Serious question because I wanna respond but I want us to be on the same page. Are you talking legislation wise or some other way?
Net effect, not platform. Not talking about what legislators wanted, talking about what we ended up with. During Obama's era we saw CCW restored in parks, sweeping increases in reciprocity, strong firearm lobby, etc. Largely the "cause" is because he was viewed as the enemy, so any action was met with rabid attacks, no matter how slight, while Trump is viewed as "the friend", so any action will be reasoned away as a necessary evil, no matter how severe in comparison .
PS: There's not much point in discussing various other replies if people can't concede at least a few points. I'm not going to waste time arguing against dissonance, altering virtually all actions of trump and inventing reasoning to be "positive" to fit the belief he's the perfect person to "save the country". He's not all bad. But he's definitely not "gods gift to the country". Want an example of manipulation? Erdogan. North Korea (generally). Xi. Russia. E.g. Kim manipulated Trump to get world recognition, first meeting, Chinese help, concessions left and right, Trump says nice things about him, blah blah blah, and all Kim had to do is predictably stroke his ego just right. I'm not go into fifteen pages of elaboration because no matter the depth, it will be reasoned away as somehow "winning" - Charlie Sheen.
Bailey Guns
12-20-2019, 22:17
Not buying it. The only reason we got carry in parks is because it was tied to the CARD Act (or whatever it was called). Obama sure as hell didn't want it but he had no choice. And the CARD Act turned out to be some pretty terrible legislation that was good for the credit card industry and horrible for the consumer.
You're other argument, he's so bad on guns he's actually good, doesn't really make sense. It's like saying you whacked your hand off when you just had the flu so you wouldn't have to wait in line at the emergency room. An argument can also be made that Trump, despite his epic failures on gun policy (specifically the bump-stock ban), is far better for gun owners than Obama. Again, not policy but effect. You sure as hell couldn't buy an AR-15 for $350 during the Obama years. Ammo is plentiful again, too. Parts are available. There are all sorts of positives. He's the leader of a party that DOESN'T include all sorts of gun control in it's platform. Make no mistake...I don't view Trump as a friend to gun owners. At all. He's proven that. But I didn't see Reagan as a friend to gun owners, either. Neither Reagan nor Trump was in the same anti-gun class as Obama, though.
Especially interesting is your stance that you're not going to discuss anything unless people actually agree with you. And you have the nerve to say Trump acts childish.
Not buying it. The only reason we got carry in parks is because it was tied to the CARD Act (or whatever it was called). Obama sure as hell didn't want it but he had no choice. And the CARD Act turned out to be some pretty terrible legislation that was good for the credit card industry and horrible for the consumer.
You're other argument, he's so bad on guns he's actually good, doesn't really make sense. It's like saying you whacked your hand off when you just had the flu so you wouldn't have to wait in line at the emergency room. An argument can also be made that Trump, despite his epic failures on gun policy (specifically the bump-stock ban), is far better for gun owners than Obama. Again, not policy but effect. You sure as hell couldn't buy an AR-15 for $350 during the Obama years. Ammo is plentiful again, too. Parts are available. There are all sorts of positives. He's the leader of a party that DOESN'T include all sorts of gun control in it's platform. Make no mistake...I don't view Trump as a friend to gun owners. At all. He's proven that. But I didn't see Reagan as a friend to gun owners, either. Neither Reagan nor Trump was in the same anti-gun class as Obama, though.
Especially interesting is your stance that you're not going to discuss anything unless people actually agree with you. And you have the nerve to say Trump acts childish.
Guns are cheap is your argument (for effect)? Your analogy is also way off.
Firearm companies have been dropping like flies and filing for bankruptcy. NRA dropped a hot turd on itself this year. Gun stores have been plopping over like a 114 year old in a heat wave.
Guns were expensive in the Obama years only because demand was freakishly high. It also brought a lot of new shooters into the fold because "I can't sit on the fence anymore, even if I'm broke all the time, Obama gunna ban all the guns!". People were buying 8, 10, 20 AR's. Money flowed back into R&D, lots of new product releases and development, stocks boosted, the artificial panic resulted in a greater penetration of 2A people. And nothing was ever banned. (Kind of how liberals foam at the mouth that Trump is going to "Ban abortion". Not happening, people don't understand politics)
Call it irony, call it what you want, but every aspect of the firearm industry and lobby thrived from 2008-2016.
You have to be crazy to say Trump has had a "positive" indirect effect on the industry. Not that it's his fault, it's panic cycles.
Bailey Guns
12-21-2019, 11:55
So, let's see if we have this straight:
Nancy Pelosi isn't sending the articles of impeachment to the senate until she gets her way on setting the rules of the senate trial. Nancy isn't in the senate yet she's attempting to use her power to influence how the senate operates. Wouldn't that be an "abuse of power" by obstructing how the senate operates?
Nancy Pelosi says she'll send the articles of impeachment to the senate if she gets what she wants in terms of how the trial is conducted. She'll give something if she gets something. Isn't that the definition of a quid pro quo? Or bribery?
So who should be impeached here? Trump or Pelosi?
The House is not a co-equal branch of government, obviously.
Bailey Guns
12-21-2019, 12:29
The house is democrat controlled...so they're more equal than the others.
...
So who should be impeached here? Trump or Pelosi?
You can't impeach a Crypt Keeper.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/08/nancy-pelosi-pursed-mouth-AP-Photo-J.-Scott-Applewhite-640x480.jpg
or
http://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/theknow-denverpost-com-crypt.jpg?w=620
One is pure evil, the other is just a TV character...
So, let's see if we have this straight:
Nancy Pelosi isn't sending the articles of impeachment to the senate until she gets her way on setting the rules of the senate trial. Nancy isn't in the senate yet she's attempting to use her power to influence how the senate operates. Wouldn't that be an "abuse of power" by obstructing how the senate operates?
Nancy Pelosi says she'll send the articles of impeachment to the senate if she gets what she wants in terms of how the trial is conducted. She'll give something if she gets something. Isn't that the definition of a quid pro quo? Or bribery?
So who should be impeached here? Trump or Pelosi?
Well written and a good point. If they can do that a bit more terse, and without the regular political lingo attached by either party (which you've mostly avoided), I think that would really resonate with independents and moderates if they ran a very plain ad campaign.
E.g. something in the lines of:
After a partisan vote for impeachment on party lines for what has been identified as a constitutional high crime of "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress", the majority chair, Nancy Palosi, has stated she will refuse to forward the articles to the Senate for a trial and a vote as required, until and unless the Senate agrees to let Ms. Palosi, a house representative, dictate the rules of the Senate process.
Does this mean that Ms. Palosi, a house representative, is leveraging her majority chair to manipulate senate process, in an ongoing effort to remove the president for "obstructing congress" and "abusing power"?
They already have to contend with the rush job due to the "urgency" in preventing another abuse of power and defense of the Constitution.
...and then they create an unnecessary delay.
Aloha_Shooter
12-22-2019, 08:49
Net effect, not platform. Not talking about what legislators wanted, talking about what we ended up with. During Obama's era we saw CCW restored in parks, sweeping increases in reciprocity, strong firearm lobby, etc. Largely the "cause" is because he was viewed as the enemy, so any action was met with rabid attacks, no matter how slight, while Trump is viewed as "the friend", so any action will be reasoned away as a necessary evil, no matter how severe in comparison .
So your argument is that the gun owners reacting to Obama caused good things so Obama was better for firearm rights? Okaaaaayyyy .....
There's not much point in discussing various other replies if people can't concede at least a few points. I'm not going to waste time arguing against dissonance, altering virtually all actions of trump and inventing reasoning to be "positive" to fit the belief he's the perfect person to "save the country". He's not all bad. But he's definitely not "gods gift to the country". Want an example of manipulation? Erdogan. North Korea (generally). Xi. Russia. E.g. Kim manipulated Trump to get world recognition, first meeting, Chinese help, concessions left and right, Trump says nice things about him, blah blah blah, and all Kim had to do is predictably stroke his ego just right. I'm not go into fifteen pages of elaboration because no matter the depth, it will be reasoned away as somehow "winning" - Charlie Sheen.
Because you don't have any rebuttal. Cite one way Trump has been manipulated to real effect by a foreign leader. How do you think Erdogan manipulated Trump? What did Erdogan get? Erdogan is stil trying to find a way to push us the way Turkey pushed past administrations. Buying Russian weapons hasn't worked so far.
Trump saw saying nice things about Kim as a step toward getting Kim to change his behavior but he didn't ease up on the monitoring or sanctions. Kim hasn't received bucket loads of cash the way his father did from Clinton. I was against giving Kim the world recognition he desperately wanted but he hasn't got anything from it except maybe some pictures and untranslated video for his domestic propaganda.
How exactly has Trump been easy on Russia outside of saying diplomatic platitudes? What exactly do you think Xi manipulated Trump to do? All I see are increases in CHinese sanctions that got China to do what Trump wanted (partially).
I'm a telepath so I can't see what you're thinking but so far you are just saying "Orange Man Bad" without citing anything real or substantive -- and I've despised Trump since the 80s so I'm hardly a Trump apologist. I think the guy is a low-class arrogant egotist and can cite specific instances of those points but your contentions that he's easily manipulated or that Obama was better for firearm rights fail completely for lack of evidence.
theGinsue
12-22-2019, 11:14
[ETA: Didn't like the link I originally posted as it was on Facebook. Found this more lengthy one instead]
Uh, what? Have another drink Nancy. (Start watching @ 11:10. @ just after 12:00 says all we need to know,.)
oM5Zso-gRvo
Pelosi insists that she needs assurances of a "fair process" before sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate - and that the Senate needs to live up to their Constitutional oaths. Last time I checked the Constitution, it required processes be fair for the accused, not the accuser. Funny though, for how long have we been hearing the Democrats telling us the Constitution is an outdated document that doesn't apply today? Now, they want to pretend like what they're doing is Constitutionally sound. Not sure which Constitution they're reading, but it's certainly not the one the Founding Fathers of the United States put into place.
Need Facebook to view this
https://www.facebook.com%2Fbjvangundy%2Fvideos%2F102212250 15674899
I get a 'blocked' response.
ETA: There you go. I thought it amazing that she's calling both the President and the Senate as "rogue". Yeah, it's everybody but you, Nancy.
http://youtu.be/s4DH3Is4YQ8
IMO, there are way too many people in government that appear to be 'not all there'.
http://youtu.be/PvwrxXMZr2M
A little levity flashback:
http://youtu.be/SHG0ezLiVGc
BushMasterBoy
12-22-2019, 21:44
I need a bigger budget, not an impeachment circus. Could somebody in Congress please brief our distinguished colleague from California on the current military situation.
79730
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to know: Given the dog and pony show in the House, taking weeks to draft articles of impeachment, then delaying referring said articles to the Senate, where they are sure to die, apparently with the collusion of the Republicans, what are the Democrats(and republicans) attempting to divert public attention away from? Epstein investigation about to reveal that both parties are rife with pedophiles? some sort of international economic catastrophe that bot parties are responsible for? Waiting for the other shoe to drop...
Note: I'm not a Trump guy. He's a classic East Coast Oligarch with the morals of an alley cat, that only assumed the appearance of being a "conservative" long enough to get elected. I can think of about 50 people more qualified to be President, including the guy who picks up my trash every week. That being said, I still think he's better than any of the Democrat contenders in the previous election cycle, or the current one.
BushMasterBoy
12-23-2019, 00:09
As a share of the U.S. economy, the national debt stood at 78 percent of GDP in 2018. But the CBO says it will rise to 93 percent by the end of 2029. Again, those numbers put the ratio at levels not seen since just after World War II.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/694199256/u-s-national-debt-hits-22-trillion-a-new-record-thats-predicted-to-fall
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to know: Given the dog and pony show in the House, taking weeks to draft articles of impeachment, then delaying referring said articles to the Senate, where they are sure to die, apparently with the collusion of the Republicans, what are the Democrats(and republicans) attempting to divert public attention away from? Epstein investigation about to reveal that both parties are rife with pedophiles? some sort of international economic catastrophe that bot parties are responsible for? Waiting for the other shoe to drop...
Note: I'm not a Trump guy. He's a classic East Coast Oligarch with the morals of an alley cat, that only assumed the appearance of being a "conservative" long enough to get elected. I can think of about 50 people more qualified to be President, including the guy who picks up my trash every week. That being said, I still think he's better than any of the Democrat contenders in the previous election cycle, or the current one.
A conspiracy of any kind gives them far too much credit. Politicians are generally stupid people, only with overly inflated egos, and leak worse than a ripped screen door in a submarine. I thought Nancy was even going to start talking a'boot her hairy legs there for a second (ref to Ginsue's video). If you want to announce something to your family, tell a politician a "secret" and they'll all get the news even faster.
Those cases are from the Executive pushing back. They didn't appear to be necessary for the impeachment vote in the House.
Hmm
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/23/breaking-house-argues-in-court-filing-don-mcgahn-testimony-needed-for-impeachment-evidence/
As we suspected, albeit against much criticism, House counsel Doug Letter has responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-340e-df23-a57f-7ece77a90000)]
This court filing today bolsters the unspoken background motive for delayed House Impeachment Managers. The House Judiciary Committee is using impeachment as support for their ongoing effort to gain: Don McGahn deposition, and Mueller grand jury material (6e). The goal is opposition research; impeachment is a tool to establish legal standing to obtain it. Everything else is chaff and countermeasures.
Get articles of impeachment and vote for them...then try to get evidence. Ready...Fire.....AIM!!!!
They're doubling down and trying to make something of Russia again. Yeah, that'll work well for them.
This is just the beginning.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/02/2020-resistance-dem-operatives-open-new-leak-clearing-house/#more-179950
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.