Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 24 of 35

Thread: If the Democrats hadn't won the House in 2018

  1. #1

    If the Democrats hadn't won the House in 2018

    Republicans would have let Donald Trump literally get away with murder if the Democrats hadn't won the House in 2018.

    Lt Col Vindman, a decorated hero with shrapnel still embedded in his body, being called a spy and other awful names for telling the truth shows how far these asinine Republicans would have gone to absolve their King Trump of any and all misdeeds. Unreal.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by khufu View Post
    Republicans would have let Donald Trump literally get away with murder if the Democrats hadn't won the House in 2018.

    Lt Col Vindman, a decorated hero with shrapnel still embedded in his body, being called a spy and other awful names for telling the truth shows how far these asinine Republicans would have gone to absolve their King Trump of any and all misdeeds. Unreal.
    So true. If Republicans controlled the House the whistleblower report would never have seen the light of day...trump and Rudy would be well on the way to concocting fake smear material with the Ukrainians, and trump’s criminal empire would be at full strength.

    As it stands now, trump’s time in office will be remembered as a failed presidency that accomplished nothing beyond fueling racism and divisiveness in America.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallcock View Post
    Who do you work for? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Mossad? I bet the whole story about the Lizard people and their tentacles was merely a distraction, or more accurately, an abstraction from the real game you're playing.

    I'm onto you. Your lies are old but you tell them well.

  3. #3
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    39,892
    The deficit would be lower....


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by khufu View Post
    Republicans would have let Donald Trump literally get away with murder if the Democrats hadn't won the House in 2018.

    Lt Col Vindman, a decorated hero with shrapnel still embedded in his body, being called a spy and other awful names for telling the truth shows how far these asinine Republicans would have gone to absolve their King Trump of any and all misdeeds. Unreal.
    Taking shrapnel in service of one's country deserves respect, and may also be evidence of valour if a soldier knew he was putting himself in harms way. However, having shrapnel inside you doesn't make you any more correct in your opinions, less committed to your political ideology, or less politically motivated in your actions. It doesn't play well to point out mistakes made by veterans, but veterans make mistakes and succumb to their biases just like anyone else.

    While Vindman's testimony hasn't been made public yet (except for selective leaks), if he acted on mere suspicion, it sure looks like he overreacted. That happens when your political ideology gets the best of you.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Oven View Post
    Taking shrapnel in service of one's country deserves respect, and may also be evidence of valour if a soldier knew he was putting himself in harms way. However, having shrapnel inside you doesn't make you any more correct in your opinions, less committed to your political ideology, or less politically motivated in your actions. It doesn't play well to point out mistakes made by veterans, but veterans make mistakes and succumb to their biases just like anyone else.

    While Vindman's testimony hasn't been made public yet (except for selective leaks), if he acted on mere suspicion, it sure looks like he overreacted. That happens when your political ideology gets the best of you.
    He was a direct witness to the events in question.

    There is no evidence of his testimony’s being politically motivated...unless you, like your friends at Fox, are saying that his being an immigrant of Jewish descent makes him fundamentally untrustworthy and not a true American.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallcock View Post
    Who do you work for? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Mossad? I bet the whole story about the Lizard people and their tentacles was merely a distraction, or more accurately, an abstraction from the real game you're playing.

    I'm onto you. Your lies are old but you tell them well.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Knuckle Ball View Post
    He was a direct witness to the events in question.

    There is no evidence of his testimony’s being politically motivated...unless you, like your friends at Fox, are saying that his being an immigrant of Jewish descent makes him fundamentally untrustworthy and not a true American.
    There's a difference between being "anti-American" (which I don't believe he is) and being politically motivated (which I believe he was/is).

    Who at Fox said that being an immigrant of Jewish descent makes you not a true American? That sounds made up to me. That network's editorial stance is strongly pro Israel and pro Jewish American.

    Now if you told me that someone at Fox said being a staunch liberal Democrat makes you anti-American - that I could believe!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Oven View Post
    There's a difference between being "anti-American" (which I don't believe he is) and being politically motivated (which I believe he was/is).

    Who at Fox said that being an immigrant of Jewish descent makes you not a true American? That sounds made up to me. That network's editorial stance is strongly pro Israel and pro Jewish American.

    Now if you told me that someone at Fox said being a staunch liberal Democrat makes you anti-American - that I could believe!
    Nobody said it. Laura Ingraham came closest by characterising him as "invested" and maybe with a personal bias- if I remember correctly.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Nobody said it. Laura Ingraham came closest by characterising him as "invested" and maybe with a personal bias- if I remember correctly.
    She fairly laid out Vindman's publicly available world view and it does not jive with the President's. This is the problem for the Democrats. Finding bureaucrats to offer hearsay or opinions that challenge Trump is not actually evidence.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,984
    Blog Entries
    1
    Listening to the crap from Laura Ingraham shows how Trump's blind followers come up with the nonsense about the "bad' Democrats, sheer hate for Trump:

    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...132452297.html


    On ignore: Disrespectful Individuals!!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Oven View Post
    There's a difference between being "anti-American" (which I don't believe he is) and being politically motivated (which I believe he was/is).

    Who at Fox said that being an immigrant of Jewish descent makes you not a true American? That sounds made up to me. That network's editorial stance is strongly pro Israel and pro Jewish American.

    Now if you told me that someone at Fox said being a staunch liberal Democrat makes you anti-American - that I could believe!
    There is no evidence of his testimony being in any way politically motivated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallcock View Post
    Who do you work for? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Mossad? I bet the whole story about the Lizard people and their tentacles was merely a distraction, or more accurately, an abstraction from the real game you're playing.

    I'm onto you. Your lies are old but you tell them well.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,984
    Blog Entries
    1
    Then:

    Joe Scarborough Ridicules Laura Ingraham and John Yoo’s ‘Breathtaking’ Espionage Claim: ‘Oh My God, the Idiocy’:

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scar...od-the-idiocy/

    So much so that John Yoo actually apologized when he appeared on the CNN's Chris Cuomo show.

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-...t-col-vindman/

    As usual we have Fake Fox News and their handful of very partisan Anchors.


    On ignore: Disrespectful Individuals!!

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,984
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    The deficit would be lower....
    Much higher with billions more to build the wall. Mexico were supposed to have paid for it. Wonder what went wrong there!!


    On ignore: Disrespectful Individuals!!

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by bver_hunter View Post
    Then:

    Joe Scarborough Ridicules Laura Ingraham and John Yoo’s ‘Breathtaking’ Espionage Claim: ‘Oh My God, the Idiocy’:

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scar...od-the-idiocy/

    So much so that John Yoo actually apologized when he appeared on the CNN's Chris Cuomo show.

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-...t-col-vindman/

    As usual we have Fake Fox News and their handful of very partisan Anchors.
    Plus the plugged up one, Dutch Oven.
    I'm a bitter house**** baby....so why don't you **** me.

  14. #14
    The U.S. House of Representatives passed the resolution that formalizes the next steps in the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. The final vote was 232-196, with former Republican and current independent Rep. Justin Amash voting yes and two Democrats voting no. Not a single Republican voted in favor, which tells you they wouldnt have done anything if they still held the reigns of power. Trump's response: "Witch hunt."

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by khufu View Post
    The U.S. House of Representatives passed the resolution that formalizes the next steps in the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. The final vote was 232-196, with former Republican and current independent Rep. Justin Amash voting yes and two Democrats voting no. Not a single Republican voted in favor, which tells you they wouldnt have done anything if they still held the reigns of power. Trump's response: "Witch hunt."
    With Republicans so solidly behind Trump on this issue, and some fractures in the Democrats, would you predict: a) that the Dems will get even this many votes for an actual impeachment motion at the end of the inquiry (if, in fact, it ever ends before the 2020 elections and the GOP takes back the House), or b) that there is any chance at all that impeachment would be upheld by the Senate?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by khufu View Post
    Not a single Republican voted in favor, which tells you they wouldnt have done anything if they still held the reigns of power. Trump's response: "Witch hunt."
    That's an extremely prejudicial comment that perhaps shows a lack of understanding on the relationship between the branches of our government.

    Not every breach by a President is impeachable. The House could censure the President which would be cleaner, quicker and perhaps more fitting of the offense. It's likely some Republicans would have gotten on-board and voted for censure.

    Now you just have the Dems swinging for the fences and all the votes going down partisan lines.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by WyattEarp View Post
    That's an extremely prejudicial comment that perhaps shows a lack of understanding on the relationship between the branches of our government.

    Not every breach by a President is impeachable. The House could censure the President which would be cleaner, quicker and perhaps more fitting of the offense. It's likely some Republicans would have gotten on-board and voted for censure.

    Now you just have the Dems swinging for the fences and all the votes going down partisan lines.
    Trump tried to use his position as POTUS to pressure a foreign government to manufacture dirt on a political adversary. He threatened to stop military aid if they did not comply. If that is not impeachable conduct then nothing is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallcock View Post
    Who do you work for? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Mossad? I bet the whole story about the Lizard people and their tentacles was merely a distraction, or more accurately, an abstraction from the real game you're playing.

    I'm onto you. Your lies are old but you tell them well.

  18. #18
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    39,892
    Quote Originally Posted by bver_hunter View Post
    Much higher with billions more to build the wall. Mexico were supposed to have paid for it. Wonder what went wrong there!!
    In the context of the US budget wall spending is peanuts.


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Knuckle Ball View Post
    There is no evidence of his testimony being in any way politically motivated.
    I believe there is testimony that contradicts Vindman's account. Didn't Morrison today just say the transcript was a fair representation of the call?

    I'm not sure how we can stack up witnesses who have differing opinions in this case and choose the ones we want to believe.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    In the context of the US budget wall spending is peanuts.
    That was a head scratcher for me as well. Beav is prone to hyperbole.

    Throw that one in the box marked "resistance".

  21. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14,984
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by onthebottom View Post
    In the context of the US budget wall spending is peanuts.
    The biggest spending of course went to huge tax cuts for the richest, with crumbs to the median and low incomes. Well that was supposed to miraculously balance the budget. All it did was balloon the deficit!!


    On ignore: Disrespectful Individuals!!

  22. #22
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    39,892
    Quote Originally Posted by bver_hunter View Post
    The biggest spending of course went to huge tax cuts for the richest, with crumbs to the median and low incomes. Well that was supposed to miraculously balance the budget. All it did was balloon the deficit!!
    Nope again, tax revenue is up.


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  23. #23
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    39,892
    Quote Originally Posted by WyattEarp View Post
    That was a head scratcher for me as well. Beav is prone to hyperbole.

    Throw that one in the box marked "resistance".
    He’s not a thinker, he’s a pre packaged talking points type


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by WyattEarp View Post
    I believe there is testimony that contradicts Vindman's account. Didn't Morrison today just say the transcript was a fair representation of the call?

    I'm not sure how we can stack up witnesses who have differing opinions in this case and choose the ones we want to believe.
    I don’t know about Morrison’s testimony...I haven’t heard or read anything about it yet. From your post, though, I don’t think Morrison’s statement contradicts Vindman’s. The transcript may indeed be a “fair representation” of the call. Vindman’s report that there is even more incriminating evidence that was deleted from the transcript does not mean that the transcript itself is somehow wrong or inaccurate.

    From what I have seen, all of the witnesses (except Gordon Sondland) corroborate the whistle blowers report. Unfortunately, Sondland had some difficulty remembering critical details that the others clearly recall?

    In answer to your second question, is that not the reality of any proceeding such as this? Some witnesses may seem more credible than others...some witnesses may contradict one another...and juries have to decide whom they do and do not believe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallcock View Post
    Who do you work for? The Illuminati? The Freemasons? The Mossad? I bet the whole story about the Lizard people and their tentacles was merely a distraction, or more accurately, an abstraction from the real game you're playing.

    I'm onto you. Your lies are old but you tell them well.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •