His grasp of politics is light years ahead of your atrocious grammar!! Originally Posted by lustyladThat does not say much about his grasp of politics junior.
This is still a political forum and not an English comp forum right?
- WTF
- 01-26-2020, 08:05 PM
This is still a political forum and not an English comp forum right?
- WTF
- 01-26-2020, 08:07 PM
after the fact, jack. not one current Senator was elected for their view on impeachment. and it's the Democrats that will suffer the aftermath of this sham impeachment. Originally Posted by The_Waco_KidDid you pay attention to the 2018 midterm elections Einstein?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...chment/557609/
- The_Waco_Kid
- 01-26-2020, 08:38 PM
Did you pay attention to the 2018 midterm elections Einstein?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...chment/557609/ Originally Posted by WTF
The Atlantic is a libtard rag. the author is a Trump hater.
David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic. In 2001 and 2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.
to him everything is about impeaching Trump starting the day after he won the election. only because this asshat didn't think there was a tinker's chance in Hell Trump would win. but he did win so the MSM and the leftists mobilized to come up with some excuse to impeach Trump.
and if this asshat was right, why didn't the Democrats win the Senate to guarantee a majority and thus the ability to remove Trump from office? seems like this asshat author was wrong. like you.
Senators are not elected on the basis of impeaching presidents. and since you claim Trump is so hated by the "majority" of voters you'd think the Demtards would walk away with victory in the Senate. but a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum. the Republicans held the majority and thus the high ground and the Demtards have been trying to climb the mountain ever since.
you do realize your point might be made if in fact this asshat's fervent pleas to voters in the Senate races in 2018 was actually correct, right??
But .. he was wrong and it did not sway voters to vote solely on a potential and at the time not actual impeachment. so what ya want to do now? redo the 2018 election so that the Democrats hold the Senate? Sounds a lot like what the DemTards are doing now about the 2016 election, right??
- WTF
- 01-27-2020, 07:05 AM
Jesus H Christ....you asked when there was a time when impeachment was a factor in a Senate or House race.
I give you evidence of when (2018) and you then try and divert by saying they didn't win the majority.
Well they won the majority in the House partially on this issue.
Just admit you were mistaken or lying and move on.
Let me charter you a helicopter ride to Kobe's funeral
I give you evidence of when (2018) and you then try and divert by saying they didn't win the majority.
Well they won the majority in the House partially on this issue.
Just admit you were mistaken or lying and move on.
Let me charter you a helicopter ride to Kobe's funeral
- rexdutchman
- 01-27-2020, 07:32 AM
The TRIAL has been ongoing from the election to ""GET HIM"" and this is the best they can get
- oeb11
- 01-27-2020, 09:03 AM
Jesus H Christ....you asked when there was a time when impeachment was a factor in a Senate or House race.
I give you evidence of when (2018) and you then try and divert by saying they didn't win the majority.
Well they won the majority in the House partially on this issue.
Just admit you were mistaken or lying and move on.
Let me charter you a helicopter ride to Kobe's funeral Originally Posted by WTF
More from ftw - and atrocious lack of any human sympathy - with a not veiled threat to the life of another poster.
Trump did it - right ftw!!!
disgusting display of Fascist DPST totalitarianism at all and any cost. and Omar and Tlaib - ovens for those we hate. Typical
- HedonistForever
- 01-27-2020, 03:52 PM
Just watched Ken Starr give his opening remarks. Talk about impressive. It was an interesting history lesson but it was just the last few minutes when he eviscerated the House that was most impressive. Of course, as I just saw in another thread, the first and only thing Democrats would like you to consider, is the messenger. If you hate the messenger, turn them off, do not consider their words, stick your head in the sand, ignore any critical thinking. If you don't hear his words, you don't have to offer a debate about what he said, you just ignore it because, well, because it was Ken Starr and we don't like him.
Starr gave reason to why crimes, actual modern day crimes should be apart of any Articles of Impeachment. I have been saying this from day one and of course others have been saying, you don't need a crime and will reflect on a different position Dershowitz for one may have taken in the past.
Starr made a compelling argument as to why there "should" be assertion of a crime before bringing articles of impeachment and not a general abuse of power argument which is leveled at every single President by the opposition party and he gave as example, the draft of impeaching Reagan over Iran Contra which the Speaker of the House then, said no to.
Starr also came down on the side of Philbin's argument that Pelosi had mis-read the Constitution when she decided that a committee could call for subpoena's and documents before a full vote of the House was taken. Others argue differently but what Philbin and Starr have in their corner besides a compelling brief, is that the President was acting under the recommendation of the OLC at the Justice Department. This wasn't Trump's idea to willy nilly reject witnesses and documents, he was advised not to do it. As a matter of fact, as Starr laid out, it was his duty under the Constitution to do this to protect the Presidency and the powers given to the Executive by the Constitution.
In other words, Trump had no choice but to do this even if he thought it was a good idea and would acquit him. He had to do it to preserve this privilege for future Presidents as the Constitution demands he does and just like every President before him has done.
What was most compelling was Starr's argument about how the House and Nancy Pelosi failed to follow established presedent and instead said, "I can do what ever I want". Funny how when Trump said that he was routinely condemned for it. He further went into detail as to how when confronted with this denial by the President, it was her duty to take the matter to court. Ignoring this was to ignore history and the Constitution, giving cause to the argument that it was Pelosi and the House who were the biggest threats to our democracy and Constitution.
And of course the argument that this is purely a partisan impeachment by virtue of the fact that not one member of the opposition party agreed to the inquiry and as a matter of fact, two Democrats were against it.
I believe after hearing Starr's remarks, more than a few non lunatic Democrats, were agreeing with Starr's analysis, that Pelosi handled this all wrong and both Articles of Impeachment were Un-Constitutional but especially Article 2 for reasons stated above.
I think if McConnell could have stopped the proceedings after Starr's speech and called for a vote to dismiss, he might very well have gotten a few Democrats, that's how impressive his argument was.
Starr gave reason to why crimes, actual modern day crimes should be apart of any Articles of Impeachment. I have been saying this from day one and of course others have been saying, you don't need a crime and will reflect on a different position Dershowitz for one may have taken in the past.
Starr made a compelling argument as to why there "should" be assertion of a crime before bringing articles of impeachment and not a general abuse of power argument which is leveled at every single President by the opposition party and he gave as example, the draft of impeaching Reagan over Iran Contra which the Speaker of the House then, said no to.
Starr also came down on the side of Philbin's argument that Pelosi had mis-read the Constitution when she decided that a committee could call for subpoena's and documents before a full vote of the House was taken. Others argue differently but what Philbin and Starr have in their corner besides a compelling brief, is that the President was acting under the recommendation of the OLC at the Justice Department. This wasn't Trump's idea to willy nilly reject witnesses and documents, he was advised not to do it. As a matter of fact, as Starr laid out, it was his duty under the Constitution to do this to protect the Presidency and the powers given to the Executive by the Constitution.
In other words, Trump had no choice but to do this even if he thought it was a good idea and would acquit him. He had to do it to preserve this privilege for future Presidents as the Constitution demands he does and just like every President before him has done.
What was most compelling was Starr's argument about how the House and Nancy Pelosi failed to follow established presedent and instead said, "I can do what ever I want". Funny how when Trump said that he was routinely condemned for it. He further went into detail as to how when confronted with this denial by the President, it was her duty to take the matter to court. Ignoring this was to ignore history and the Constitution, giving cause to the argument that it was Pelosi and the House who were the biggest threats to our democracy and Constitution.
And of course the argument that this is purely a partisan impeachment by virtue of the fact that not one member of the opposition party agreed to the inquiry and as a matter of fact, two Democrats were against it.
I believe after hearing Starr's remarks, more than a few non lunatic Democrats, were agreeing with Starr's analysis, that Pelosi handled this all wrong and both Articles of Impeachment were Un-Constitutional but especially Article 2 for reasons stated above.
I think if McConnell could have stopped the proceedings after Starr's speech and called for a vote to dismiss, he might very well have gotten a few Democrats, that's how impressive his argument was.
- WTF
- 01-27-2020, 05:08 PM
I thi k you need to swallow Starr's jizz before posting another word.
Jesus, talk about Starr envy....you take the cake.
Starr is a hypocrite and was run out of Waco for letting all the sexual abuse be swept under the rug.
Jesus, talk about Starr envy....you take the cake.
Starr is a hypocrite and was run out of Waco for letting all the sexual abuse be swept under the rug.
- oeb11
- 01-27-2020, 05:12 PM
ftw- the usual name-calling and scatology in response to a well written and reasoned post.
Typical - it is all the Fascist DPST's have to offer - Hatred and national socialist dogma.
Typical - it is all the Fascist DPST's have to offer - Hatred and national socialist dogma.
- bambino
- 01-27-2020, 05:12 PM
I thi k you need to swallow Starr's jizz before posting another word.So, who are you going to vote for this year against Trump? Will your mother take you?
Jesus, talk about Starr envy....you take the cake.
Starr is a hypocrite and was run out of Waco for letting all the sexual abuse be swept under the rug. Originally Posted by WTF
- claudefive
- 01-27-2020, 05:27 PM
- bambino
- 01-27-2020, 05:32 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 01-27-2020, 05:42 PM
I thi k you need to swallow Starr's jizz before posting another word.
Jesus, talk about Starr envy....you take the cake.
Starr is a hypocrite and was run out of Waco for letting all the sexual abuse be swept under the rug. Originally Posted by WTF
butt .. what about those poor black athletes?? what about them!??!?!!
don't they deserve to make millions in the NFL? and then squander it?
BAHHAHHAAAAAAAAA
- WTF
- 01-27-2020, 06:15 PM
butt .. what about those poor black athletes?? what about them!??!?!!I don't care what color they are is they are sexually assaulting another human being...it should not be swept under the rug.
don't they deserve to make millions in the NFL? and then squander it?
BAHHAHHAAAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
How about you rape one11 if you're jealous ...if it is at a University Starr is running, you might get by with it.
- WTF
- 01-27-2020, 06:18 PM
