Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

I know the Chesapeake has some hog farm run off pollution problems, but has that effected your drinking water too?

I think he's simply saying that there's a solid 32% of brainwashed cretins that will never take impeachment of trump as anything more than a stitch up.

Of course how actually engaged that 32% will be is another issue.

Share this post


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

To get a R congress to vote impeachment would require OVER THE TOP evidence.  Hell, there's evidence that he's an immoral, lying narcissist and Congress barely makes a peep.

To get an impeachment vote means the R's have no other option.  They can't change the subject any longer, they can't ignore it, they can't bring up Hilary.

I would hope at that point that it would be obvious to the general public too.  I hope.

I'm not sure that that's the case - the D's are the majority in the house, and w/the slim majority in the Senate?  I think that there are enough rational thinking Rs who hope to have their seats for a few years after Trump that would go across the aisle if they thought that that was the better long-term play for their personal political ambitions.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not at all - I *am* observing that if the removal of the President and the VP come about as a result of Mueller's investigation?  That a large part of the populace is not going to believe it, and that they are more likely to blame the incessant plea from the Democrats for Trump's impeachment that began even before he was sworn in.  

 The "impeach him" noise has been heard, and will be remembered - and divorcing that from any factual findings will be a very difficult thing to do.  

I don't disagree with the observation/prediction. Which is why Trump & Pence will never be impeached together. Republicans are well aware of the base they have cultivated, they know the violence they'd bring to the country if pushed hard enough, and they're not going to let themselves become targets of the outrage they've been stoking in them for decades.

If both Pence and Trump are implicated with enough evidence that the GOP cannot ignore it, Pence will be forced to resign, Trump will be forced to appoint someone the GOP can control, and then Trump will either resign or be impeached as the necessary sacrificial goat required to appease the public. The GOP still have their president for now, they accept the next president will be a Democrat, and they hope they get one more SCOTUS appointment before then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years until the next election..two years for the Republicans to ditch Trump and Pence and win their old traditional republican base back.

I wouldn't be so confident of a Dem win in 2020. They've shown little solidarity in cleaning their own house out in the last two years. Pelosi may be their best card...she's got Two years to be a voice of reason and unification in a profile that everyone sees nationwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody think, absent live footage of Trump and Pence eating the bodies together, that any type of impeachment could be concluded before '20? Watergate just drug on and on before impeachment slowly solidified toward reality. With all the tools the minority in the House and the majority of the Senate can use to slow the process, unless McConnell decides to throw Trump off the back of the sleigh, there's little chance ousting Trump could be done before the campaigning season begins. It's more likely that the Mueller report will come out and the House will use it's investigation powers to dump a stream of Trumpian waste into the media, making it harder for the thoughtful on the right to defend him. And more likely for him to be primaried. Pence, in that situation, would become a modern day Hubert Humphrey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mike G said:

To get a R congress to vote impeachment would require OVER THE TOP evidence.  Hell, there's evidence that he's an immoral, lying narcissist and Congress barely makes a peep.

To get an impeachment vote means the R's have no other option.  They can't change the subject any longer, they can't ignore it, they can't bring up Hilary.

I would hope at that point that it would be obvious to the general public too.  I hope.

What would it take for Democrats to vote against impeachment given that they are campaigning for it prior to having a case at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“conspiracy against the US, false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, inaugural committee disclosure violations, and laws prohibiting contributions by foreign nations and contributions in the name of another person.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/trumps-inauguration-committee-accused-money-laundering-false-statements-sdny-subpoena/#.XFoRICXBLzo.twitter

going to need it's own thread .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Does anybody think, absent live footage of Trump and Pence eating the bodies together, that any type of impeachment could be concluded before '20? Watergate just drug on and on before impeachment slowly solidified toward reality. With all the tools the minority in the House and the majority of the Senate can use to slow the process, unless McConnell decides to throw Trump off the back of the sleigh, there's little chance ousting Trump could be done before the campaigning season begins. It's more likely that the Mueller report will come out and the House will use it's investigation powers to dump a stream of Trumpian waste into the media, making it harder for the thoughtful on the right to defend him. And more likely for him to be primaried. Pence, in that situation, would become a modern day Hubert Humphrey.

The thoughtful on the right didn’t vote for him last time. It is Trump’s Party now. Pick any of the Faithful here; do you see them turning away from Trump for anything in the Mueller report other than a party switch back to the democRAT Party?  No way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You think you heard hateful when Hillary was running?  if this comes to be, that'll be mild discontent in comparison, I'd expect fighting in the streets.   

Why? Seriously?

I really don't folllow Mrs. Pelosi all that much. I get the hate machine is being turned on her now that Hillary is not running for anything, but what fictional or non-fictional horrible crime does all the Right think she did?

I know the shtick with Hillary was she was a socialist who hated the country and would destroy the economy and democracy in general as soon as she was sworn in. What is Nancy's deal? Mandatory castration? Have to watch goat porn? What?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Why? Seriously?

I really don't folllow Mrs. Pelosi all that much. I get the hate machine is being turned on her now that Hillary is not running for anything, but what fictional or non-fictional horrible crime does all the Right think she did?

I know the shtick with Hillary was she was a socialist who hated the country and would destroy the economy and democracy in general as soon as she was sworn in. What is Nancy's deal? Mandatory castration? Have to watch goat porn? What?

 

You really need to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not at all - I *am* observing that if the removal of the President and the VP come about as a result of Mueller's investigation?  That a large part of the populace is not going to believe it, and that they are more likely to blame the incessant plea from the Democrats for Trump's impeachment that began even before he was sworn in.  

The "impeach him" noise has been heard, and will be remembered - and divorcing that from any factual findings will be a very difficult thing to do.  

If trump is impeached or jailed or whatever., surely the democrat calls are proven to be correct?

Surely the current list of indictments, guilty pleas and sentences show corruption?

 

 

Share this post


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

To get a R congress to vote impeachment would require OVER THE TOP evidence.  Hell, there's evidence that he's an immoral, lying narcissist and Congress barely makes a peep.

To get an impeachment vote means the R's have no other option.  They can't change the subject any longer, they can't ignore it, they can't bring up Hilary.

I would hope at that point that it would be obvious to the general public too.  I hope.

If the general public are anything like Not Guilty they will *never* accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Why? Seriously?

I really don't folllow Mrs. Pelosi all that much. I get the hate machine is being turned on her now that Hillary is not running for anything, but what fictional or non-fictional horrible crime does all the Right think she did?

I know the shtick with Hillary was she was a socialist who hated the country and would destroy the economy and democracy in general as soon as she was sworn in. What is Nancy's deal? Mandatory castration? Have to watch goat porn? What?

 

She stands between power and those that believe such power is their divine right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Female. DemocRAT. She could really fetch some hate if she was black, but I don’t reckon she’ll be wearing blackface anytime soon. 

Share this post


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

Female. DemocRAT. 

That but mostly she's a long term elite politician. It's a job like sin eating or executioning that, if done for a time with some success, inevitably makes folks hate thems that toil at it just because of the nature of the work.

Share this post


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

What would it take for Democrats to vote against impeachment given that they are campaigning for it prior to having a case at all?

Did all the Democrats in the house / senate campaign on that or are you just making things up again? Pretty sure it wasn't a campaign promise for everyone that got elected, but I'd be happy to see you back up your shit with some proof.

Share this post


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

Why? Seriously?

Seriously? Because to the Republicans willing to take to the streets, gun in hand, the hatred that's been stoked against Hillary can easily be turned against Pelosi. The issue wasn't the imagined crimes the right-wing shock jocks (& GOP) tried to pin on her - they were always the excuse. Seeing a pantsuit-wearing, politically powerful Democratic woman beat their "strongman" GOP alternative is exactly the image they've been coaxed into a spittle-flecked rage over for years. Remember, these are people that would (& probably still do) buy Glenn Beck's conspiracies.

Reason & rationality isn't going to have any part of said rebellion. The "faithful" don't need an excuse, Jones, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck will fill in the blanks for them, they just need to get angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - you admit that you're crowing and making a lotta noise about nothing?    Cool. 

Isn't that what this place is for?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If the general public are anything like Not Guilty they will *never* accept it.

But....but....but - he's got principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Seriously? Because to the Republicans willing to take to the streets, gun in hand, the hatred that's been stoked against Hillary can easily be turned against Pelosi. The issue wasn't the imagined crimes the right-wing shock jocks (& GOP) tried to pin on her - they were always the excuse. Seeing a pantsuit-wearing, politically powerful Democratic woman beat their "strongman" GOP alternative is exactly the image they've been coaxed into a spittle-flecked rage over for years. Remember, these are people that would (& probably still do) buy Glenn Beck's conspiracies.

Reason & rationality isn't going to have any part of said rebellion. The "faithful" don't need an excuse, Jones, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck will fill in the blanks for them, they just need to get angry.

I thought Beck quit, took his social justice blackboard and went pretty much just on-line.  Is he back?

Share this post


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

The thoughtful on the right didn’t vote for him last time. It is Trump’s Party now.

I disagree, I think there were those on the right that saw Trump as a vehicle to execute THEIR strategy and would happily throw him and his baggage under the bus if it furthered their plans in regards to court appointments and tax cuts. There IS a thoughtful right, the trick is to figure out what they're thinking.  Does ANYBODY believe the Koch's are not thoughtful?

Share this post


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

I thought Beck quit, took his social justice blackboard and went pretty much just on-line.  Is he back?

Nah, he's still online only. However, as PA amply proves, even the most braind dead of right-wingers can handle the Internet these days. If Trump & Pence both get impeached, he'll be jumping on outrage bandwagon & making up conspiracies as to how Pelosi framed Trump faster than you can say "Mormon hypocrite"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

I disagree, I think there were those on the right that saw Trump as a vehicle to execute THEIR strategy and would happily throw him and his baggage under the bus if it furthered their plans in regards to court appointments and tax cuts. There IS a thoughtful right, the trick is to figure out what they're thinking.  Does ANYBODY believe the Koch's are not thoughtful?

Probably quite thoughtful, except on the subject of social security.  Their daddy burned hatred of social security into their DNA.  Well, at least the two power-broker brothers.  The others are quite different creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not mine - I'm up on a ridge in the Shenandoah valley.  How 'bout you explain what you find wrong with my observations and thoughts about likely reactions? 

Pence was seen talking to Flynn, and admitted that he knew of Flynn's transgressions before the inauguration, but he said nothing....

Share this post


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

Two years until the next election..two years for the Republicans to ditch Trump and Pence and win their old traditional republican base back.

I wouldn't be so confident of a Dem win in 2020. They've shown little solidarity in cleaning their own house out in the last two years. Pelosi may be their best card...she's got Two years to be a voice of reason and unification in a profile that everyone sees nationwide.

I’m fairly certain your grasp of the American body politic is flimsy.  I have no idea what you mean by “solidarity in cleaning their own house out “ given that the DemocRAT party added 40 new Congress critters introducing an unprecedentedly diverse freshman class with a huge amount of them being women.

please stick to commenting on things you know something about whatever that may be.

Share this post


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

Seriously? Because to the Republicans willing to take to the streets, gun in hand, the hatred that's been stoked against Hillary can easily be turned against Pelosi. The issue wasn't the imagined crimes the right-wing shock jocks (& GOP) tried to pin on her - they were always the excuse. Seeing a pantsuit-wearing, politically powerful Democratic woman beat their "strongman" GOP alternative is exactly the image they've been coaxed into a spittle-flecked rage over for years. Remember, these are people that would (& probably still do) buy Glenn Beck's conspiracies.

Reason & rationality isn't going to have any part of said rebellion. The "faithful" don't need an excuse, Jones, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck will fill in the blanks for them, they just need to get angry.

Umm, Glenn Beck retired from the hate-spew business years ago.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, Glenn Beck retired from the hate-spew business years ago.

No, he was "retired" from Fox News years. He still spews hate, just from a less prolific platform. He's got a show on the Blaze Network still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, Glenn Beck retired from the hate-spew business years ago.

No, he was "retired" from Fox News years. He still spews hate, just from a less prolific platform. He's got a show on the Blaze Network still.

I haven't paid much attention to him, but what I've seen is pretty mild, certainly anti-Trump, and he has recant/apologized many times for damaging America with his former hate-spewing ways. Not that I'm proposing him for sainthood

-DSK

Share this post


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

No, he was "retired" from Fox News years. He still spews hate, just from a less prolific platform. He's got a show on the Blaze Network still.

He owns Blaze. Or did when he started it anyway. I haven't kept close tabs either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mark K said:

He owns Blaze. Or did when he started it anyway. I haven't kept close tabs either.  

I believe Beck's company merged with another one at some point, but they're still broadcasting. Not as off-the-wall batshit crazy as he was during the early Obama / Tea Party years, but still not giving any love to progressives. Like most of the GOP support framework, he's indeed not a fan of Trump... but he's going to take him over any Democrat. Impeach the GOP politicians ahead of Pelosi and he'll be linking her to the pizza parlour child abuse in under 24hrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Why? Seriously?

I really don't folllow Mrs. Pelosi all that much. I get the hate machine is being turned on her now that Hillary is not running for anything, but what fictional or non-fictional horrible crime does all the Right think she did?

I know the shtick with Hillary was she was a socialist who hated the country and would destroy the economy and democracy in general as soon as she was sworn in. What is Nancy's deal? Mandatory castration? Have to watch goat porn? What?

 

I think you misunderstood my intent:  It's not hate for Mme Pelosi - but a recognition of distrust of the Democrats in general among many of the hard-core right. If the Pres and VP are disposed w/the result being that the D Speaker became President?  I don't think that that would sit well with most on the right, and I could see the result of that distrust and what would be perceived as a political coup turning into a violent response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you misunderstood my intent:  It's not hate for Mme Pelosi - but a recognition of distrust of the Democrats in general among many of the hard-core right. If the Pres and VP are disposed w/the result being that the D Speaker became President?  I don't think that that would sit well with most on the right, and I could see the result of that distrust and what would be perceived as a political coup turning into a violent response. 

I think you misunderstand.

The "distrust" you speak of might as well be called what it is..... irrational hatred stoked by constant harping of right-wing media. What did Hillary do that was so bad, other than be a prominent woman Democrat and get investigated for years? What has Pelosi done? I'm interested in hearing it.

The existence of this huge skew is very apparent, and the right is always trying to build a false equivalence that there's an equal hate-spew from the far left. Wrong on two counts, there really isn't much of a far left in the US, and they don't own any mega-million media companies.

The hatred of Clinton and Pelosi (and any powerful Democrat) is just as substantive as if Pepsi drinkers hate-hate-HATED Coke drinkers, from believing their advertising.

-DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

what would be perceived as a political coup turning into a violent response. 

I think you over-estimate the appetite for violence in the general population. The 3%'ers, Proud Boys, some of the Christian Identity and white nationalists would probably show up but I think the vast majority of regular people would simply demand order be restored. Then demand these groups be stomped flat as domestic terrorists. A lot of these guys are inheritors of that anarchist/post-apocalyptic/end times fantasy of the 70's and 80's but won't last when it's shown how much of a minority they are. If that kind of violence was probable, we would have seen it after the 2000 and 2016 elections.

What it really comes down to is those that get spun up at the thought of political violence are a minority of a minority (hence the 3%er term) and the idea that the 3rd Infantry Division would desert in mass to support them or that a bunch of wannabe's running around in camo could stand up to a veteran military unit is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call bullshit on the “it’s a coup” opinion.

IF impeachment proceedings received the proper votes in the House and the Senate, such a 2/3rds majority would require the assent of enough Republicans to make this a bipartisan affair.

Trump/Pence would have been investigated by Republicans, impeached by Republicans & judged by Republicans with full knowledge of the ramifications.

FOXy News would be on board and the lemmings would follow, chanting “for the good of the nation.”

Do not underestimate the power of propaganda.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I call bullshit on the “it’s a coup” opinion.

IF impeachment proceedings received the proper votes in the House and the Senate, such a 2/3rds majority would require the assent of enough Republicans to make this a bipartisan affair.

Trump/Pence would have been investigated by Republicans, impeached by Republicans & judged by Republicans with full knowledge of the ramifications.

FOXy News would be on board and the lemmings would follow, chanting “for the good of the nation.”

Do not underestimate the power of propaganda.

Any talk about impeachment (except perhaps on partisan forums like this) is premature imo. Pelosi understands this. 

Let Mueller and the NY Southern District finish their work and assess the situation then. Absent some pretty damning findings, we’re just going to have to wait 22 months to have our say. In the meantime, we can only blame the morans that voted for this weasel in the first place. It was plainly obvious well before the ‘16 elections that the man was (and is) not fit for office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The violent response is a joke. Who are the old fat white guys going to go after? Prius and Subaru owners?  They will just bitch and moan louder and put bumper stickers on their trucks. Any armed response will end faster than the dance contest at the old folks home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You think you heard hateful when Hillary was running?  if this comes to be, that'll be mild discontent in comparison, I'd expect fighting in the streets.   

Quoted for its appeal to civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's unravel that a bit. Speaker Pelosi only becomes Pres if your boy Shitstain and his boy Mike get the boot for, you know, selling out the country to Putin and that this only happens over and above the objections of McConnell who when he was informed of the Russian election interference in September 2016 threatened to cast it as partisan politics. With that proviso, you're saying that should all that come to pass, we had better not install Speaker Pelosi as the Constitution requires because you'd expect fighting in the streets.

I'll admit that it's hard to separate what you think from what you want. To your point, yeah, these guys might whip out their dogballs.

image.png.751865ad67e2970128a1491b46c00f39.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This will give Mueller a few more things to mull over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Probably quite thoughtful, except on the subject of social security.  Their daddy burned hate into their DNA.  Well, at least the two power-broker brothers.  The others are quite different creatures.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think you misunderstood my intent:  It's not hate for Mme Pelosi - but a recognition of distrust of the Democrats in general among many of the hard-core right. If the Pres and VP are disposed w/the result being that the D Speaker became President?  I don't think that that would sit well with most on the right, and I could see the result of that distrust and what would be perceived as a political coup turning into a violent response. 

I think you missed mine too.

If you ask the average Republican what would happen if Pelosi was president that would be bad, what would the list look like? Outside of a generalized hate for all things Democrat, I honestly don't know what they think she would do.

Share this post


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

I think you missed mine too.

If you ask the average Republican what would happen if Pelosi was president that would be bad, what would the list look like? Outside of a generalized hate for all things Democrat, I honestly don't know what they think she would do.

She'd legalize abortion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

She'd legalize abortion!

Post-natal abortion at that.

Share this post


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

Post-nasal abortion at that.

Kinda like post-nasal drip, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Let's unravel that a bit. Speaker Pelosi only becomes Pres if your boy Shitstain and his boy Mike get the boot for, you know, selling out the country to Putin and that this only happens over and above the objections of McConnell who when he was informed of the Russian election interference in September 2016 threatened to cast it as partisan politics. With that proviso, you're saying that should all that come to pass, we had better not install Speaker Pelosi as the Constitution requires because you'd expect fighting in the streets.

I'll admit that it's hard to separate what you think from what you want. To your point, yeah, these guys might whip out their dogballs.

<SNIP stupid picture that has nothing to do with the conversation>

You really do like responding to your own projections instead of what I said, don't you?    I'm merely sharing observations, and making a prediction of likely reactions should a certain series of events come to pass.   "Your boy Shitstain"?  When have you ever heard me advocate for Trump?  Advocating against some of the baseless bullshit flying around in here certainly doesn't equate to that - but, I know you like to say so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Republican Revolt thing is a fantasy IMHO as far as a grassroots effort. What exactly does anyone think will happen? Bunch of deplorables grabbing their guns and heading to the White House? Does anyone think this would have any other result than rednecks in jail?

The danger comes from Republicans in government, not from Billy Bob's Gun Club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I think you missed mine too.

If you ask the average Republican what would happen if Pelosi was president that would be bad, what would the list look like? Outside of a generalized hate for all things Democrat, I honestly don't know what they think she would do.

You're right - I did miss that, I thought you were inquiring as to why I thought there would be angst, and IMHO, that's got nuttin' to do w/the fact that the Speaker is Mme Pelosi.    To your question?   Aside from the fact that she has different legislative priorities than I do, and that I think that she suffers from the same ailment that many/most of our legislators do, in that they don't feel the need to completely understand what they're proposing/voting on before they do, I don't think I could come up with a list of bad "things" that would be specific to Mme Pelosi.   Anger/disagreement w/much of the D agenda?  Yeah, I think that there'd be plenty of that.   

Look at the response we've seen from the left since Trump was elected - and he WAS elected.  Can you imagine that the response from the right would be muted should it come to pass that Mme Pelosi is deposited into the WH without being elected?    As to the violence?  I don't see it as an armed revolt marching up the steps in DC as much as I see it as smaller groups who feel disenfranchised responding with violent protest.   The Watts riots weren't an armed insurrection - but, they certainly were a violent protest, weren't they? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right - I did miss that, I thought you were inquiring as to why I thought there would be angst, and IMHO, that's got nuttin' to do w/the fact that the Speaker is Mme Pelosi.    To your question?   Aside from the fact that she has different legislative priorities than I do, and that I think that she suffers from the same ailment that many/most of our legislators do, in that they don't feel the need to completely understand what they're proposing/voting on before they do, I don't think I could come up with a list of bad "things" that would be specific to Mme Pelosi.   Anger/disagreement w/much of the D agenda?  Yeah, I think that there'd be plenty of that.   

Look at the response we've seen from the left since Trump was elected - and he WAS elected.  Can you imagine that the response from the right would be muted should it come to pass that Mme Pelosi is deposited into the WH without being elected?    As to the violence?  I don't see it as an armed revolt marching up the steps in DC as much as I see it as smaller groups who feel disenfranchised responding with violent protest.   The Watts riots weren't an armed insurrection - but, they certainly were a violent protest, weren't they? 

 

If the Ds were smart and managed to boot Tump out the door or force him to resign, I think their best move would to be slow-rolling anything on Pence with the understanding he doesn't run in 2020. I actually would love to see a no-incumbent race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If the Ds were smart and managed to boot Tump out the door or force him to resign, I think their best move would to be slow-rolling anything on Pence with the understanding he doesn't run in 2020. I actually would love to see a no-incumbent race.

It'd be a chance to reset things, at the least. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It'd be a chance to reset things, at the least. 

 

They might fight over the center instead of the wing-nuts for a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Post-natal abortion at that.

I can think of a number of instances where that would be very desirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right - I did miss that, I thought you were inquiring as to why I thought there would be angst, and IMHO, that's got nuttin' to do w/the fact that the Speaker is Mme Pelosi.    To your question?   Aside from the fact that she has different legislative priorities than I do, and that I think that she suffers from the same ailment that many/most of our legislators do, in that they don't feel the need to completely understand what they're proposing/voting on before they do, I don't think I could come up with a list of bad "things" that would be specific to Mme Pelosi.   Anger/disagreement w/much of the D agenda?  Yeah, I think that there'd be plenty of that.   

Look at the response we've seen from the left since Trump was elected - and he WAS elected.  Can you imagine that the response from the right would be muted should it come to pass that Mme Pelosi is deposited into the WH without being elected?    As to the violence?  I don't see it as an armed revolt marching up the steps in DC as much as I see it as smaller groups who feel disenfranchised responding with violent protest.   The Watts riots weren't an armed insurrection - but, they certainly were a violent protest, weren't they? 

 

So can I ask you a few things Chesapeake?

Do you think that a foreign government TRIED to influence our election in favor of Trump?

Do you think they were ABLE to influence our election, in any way, in favor of Trump?

I've got to be honest, I don't care for the guy.  I think his lying and immorality and lack of knowledge are disgusting.

And I don't feel he's got the best interests of all/most Americans in mind.

I DO feel that Russia was able to influence the election in favor of Trump.  Enough to get him elected, possibly.

And I really have a hard time with other people not seeing/believing the evidence that the lies/omissions attempt to cover up.

 

 

Share this post


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

So can I ask you a few things Chesapeake?

Do you think that a foreign government TRIED to influence our election in favor of Trump?

Do you think they were ABLE to influence our election, in any way, in favor of Trump?

I've got to be honest, I don't care for the guy.  I think his lying and immorality and lack of knowledge are disgusting.

And I don't feel he's got the best interests of all/most Americans in mind.

I DO feel that Russia was able to influence the election in favor of Trump.  Enough to get him elected, possibly.

And I really have a hard time with other people not seeing/believing the evidence that the lies/omissions attempt to cover up.

Ask anything ya want - I'll do my best. 

I think that it's beyond question that the Russians tried to influence the last election.  Tom Ray shared an article in a different thread that opined that the Russian effect was minimal in comparison to the impact of the rhetoric flying from both campaigns, and the media commentators.   I don't like him either - I think he epitomizes much of what I dislike and try hard every day to rise above in human nature. 

Lemme ask you something - do you think that my mention of the fact that Trump was elected was intended to be a statement of support for him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ask anything ya want - I'll do my best. 

I think that it's beyond question that the Russians tried to influence the last election.  Tom Ray shared an article in a different thread that opined that the Russian effect was minimal in comparison to the impact of the rhetoric flying from both campaigns, and the media commentators.   I don't like him either - I think he epitomizes much of what I dislike and try hard every day to rise above in human nature. 

Lemme ask you something - do you think that my mention of the fact that Trump was elected was intended to be a statement of support for him? 

Are you talking about President Trump or Tommy Dogballs?  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ask anything ya want - I'll do my best. 

I think that it's beyond question that the Russians tried to influence the last election.  Tom Ray shared an article in a different thread that opined that the Russian effect was minimal in comparison to the impact of the rhetoric flying from both campaigns, and the media commentators.   I don't like him either - I think he epitomizes much of what I dislike and try hard every day to rise above in human nature. 

Lemme ask you something - do you think that my mention of the fact that Trump was elected was intended to be a statement of support for him? 

Nah, probably not.

MY opinion is they DID have an influence, and possibly altered the outcome.

So it drives me nuts to see what he's doing, foreign and domestic.  Things that I feel hurt our country and our standing as a world leader.

I know bitching about that really does no good, but I think the investigation can't wrap up soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pres Trump, of course.  Thanks for that - I can see that my wording was confusing. 

Just being contrary.

Oh, I wonder if that still works?

Lemme try......

dogballs

(Edit) Yep.  Still works.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ask anything ya want - I'll do my best. 

I think that it's beyond question that the Russians tried to influence the last election.  Tom Ray shared an article in a different thread that opined that the Russian effect was minimal in comparison to the impact of the rhetoric flying from both campaigns, and the media commentators.   I don't like him either - I think he epitomizes much of what I dislike and try hard every day to rise above in human nature. 

Lemme ask you something - do you think that my mention of the fact that Trump was elected was intended to be a statement of support for him? 

I didn't read the article...but how can it be accurate when the investigation into the interference hasnt been completed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh! Imagine that!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Let's unravel that a bit. Speaker Pelosi only becomes Pres if your boy Shitstain and his boy Mike get the boot for, you know, selling out the country to Putin and that this only happens over and above the objections of McConnell who when he was informed of the Russian election interference in September 2016 threatened to cast it as partisan politics. With that proviso, you're saying that should all that come to pass, we had better not install Speaker Pelosi as the Constitution requires because you'd expect fighting in the streets.

I'll admit that it's hard to separate what you think from what you want. To your point, yeah, these guys might whip out their dogballs.

image.png.751865ad67e2970128a1491b46c00f39.png

I don't buy the civil war stuff. Let's say Trump and Pence were impeached and Nancy was made POTUS. Certainly there would be some Teahadis out looking for some trouble...but only a very tiny minority of them will whipping out their dogballs and waving them at police.  

 A few nuts getting their dogballs shot off them does not a civil war make.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. My point was that warning about the dire circumstances (civil war) attending an unlikely event (McConnell even putting such a trial on the Senate calendar) struck me less as analysis as wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation" - Trump SOTU

well......maybe not....

House intelligence chair announces sweeping investigation into Trump's finances and Russia

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/house-intelligence-transcripts-mueller/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And if that wasn't fun enough. Looks like Nadler has some questions for Whitaker. I'd take to Fifth.

Nadler tees up subpoena for Whitaker — just in case

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/house-judiciary-prepares-matthew-whitaker-subpoena/index.html?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_content=2019-02-05T17%3A21%3A03&amp;utm_source=twCNNp&amp;utm_term=image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 7:59 PM, learningJ24 said:

I disagree, I think there were those on the right that saw Trump as a vehicle to execute THEIR strategy and would happily throw him and his baggage under the bus if it furthered their plans in regards to court appointments and tax cuts. There IS a thoughtful right, the trick is to figure out what they're thinking.  Does ANYBODY believe the Koch's are not thoughtful?

Here's a pro tip on how to perform that trick: look at the pre$$ corporation they $pon$or.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the indictment fits, you must not acquit!"

(Possible Adam Schiff line)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's  30+ tweets by Seth that are pretty interesting.

 

6/ QUOTE #3 (CBS): "The [probe] isn't compiling the story of one pivotal election, but of something larger, more complicated and—from a counterintelligence perspective—more nefarious. The final report may be so highly classified that a meaningful portion may not be made public."

 

10/ QUOTE #5: "'[This is] work the [Senate Intel] committee will do for the next decade. And it has helped even our intelligence community's understanding of Russia's capabilities and intent behind this.' This was not, he stressed, 'Let's go screw with the Americans in 2016.'"

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richard-burr-on-senate-intelligence-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was nothing to the allegation Russia meddled.  I know several folks here have said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff+Guy will be along shortly to tell us that there was no Russian election interference except for Hillary who the Democrats shouldn’t have nominated so that we wouldn’t have gotten Shitstain. It’s really the Democrats fault. Belief me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I thought there was nothing to the allegation Russia meddled.  I know several folks here have said that.

Yeah, but they've moved on and doubled down on the "there'll be no conviction for collusion". They like that since collusion isn't a crime, regardless of the crimes that one commits & can be indicted/convicted for that constitute collusion, so they can word game their way around being wrong. Still, this thread is going to be a goldmine later. Whichever way it goes, the Dog/Sol quote dredging will be most amusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff+Guy will be along shortly to tell us that there was no Russian election interference except for Hillary who the Democrats shouldn’t have nominated so that we wouldn’t have gotten Shitstain. It’s really the Democrats fault. Belief me.

The truth is probably more likely that both sides were compromised, just in different ways. 

The investigation is about national security, and how it is put in jeopardy by social media plus the same old base desires: money, sex and power.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t read anything credible that said Hillary’s campaign was anything but a target. The Steele report was contracted through a law firm cut out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yeah, but they've moved on and doubled down on the "there'll be no conviction for collusion". They like that since collusion isn't a crime, regardless of the crimes that one commits & can be indicted/convicted for that constitute collusion, so they can word game their way around being wrong. Still, this thread is going to be a goldmine later. Whichever way it goes, the Dog/Sol quote dredging will be most amusing. 

The rule of law is what is important. Nobody, not one single person is above the law. So far, there have been a bunch of convictions for trying to subvert the process, and the rule of law. 

Share this post


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

The truth is probably more likely that both sides were compromised, just in different ways. 

The investigation is about national security, and how it is put in jeopardy by social media plus the same old base desires: money, sex and power.

Sex?.... How did I miss that part?..... Or are you talking about Butina and Erickson?..... Or the Peepee tapes?.....

 How do I miss all the good stuff!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I haven’t read anything credible that said Hillary’s campaign was anything but a target. The Steele report was contracted through a law firm cut out.

The dossier consisted of information, or dis-information, solicited from Kremlin officials and was funded by the Hillary campaign and the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I haven’t read anything credible that said Hillary’s campaign was anything but a target. The Steele report was contracted through a law firm cut out.

Who was using the cutout and paying for it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff+Guy will be along shortly to tell us that there was no Russian election interference except for Hillary who the Democrats shouldn’t have nominated so that we wouldn’t have gotten Shitstain. It’s really the Democrats fault. Belief me.

Why would I need to say anything when you obviously know what I think about everything, and are more than willing to suggest that your opinion of my thoughts is a more accurate representation of my position than what I actually said?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

The dossier consisted of information, or dis-information, solicited from Kremlin officials and was funded by the Hillary campaign and the DNC.

The DNC and Hillary campaign paid Perkins Coie as a cutout. The Steele dossier used Russian sources about ... Kremlin officials. The same dossier had earlier been funded by Republicans although it's not clear there was a cutout.

The issue was whether the Hillary campaign was compromised by the Russians, compromised meaning doing the bidding of the Russians. Again I've seen nothing credible to indicate that. Indeed Hillary walked all over Putin in her time as Secretary of State. She even got him to sell Gaddafi down the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Putin hated feared Hillary. Is there any doubt to that?

FIFY

I remember a time when Romney was running that Russia was a menace that the Obama Administration severely underestimated. Imagine if O-man had caved to Putin like Donny Boy.

IMAGINE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team America spent 100K of campaign donor cash to cover Abbie Lowell's legal fees for representing Jared.  Good times.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429172-trump-campaign-spent-nearly-100k-of-donor-money-on-law-firm?fbclid=IwAR3ZBbpSugFcM6_ennRQ4XwNRYNnVM-3TpesbLjqIuNMrETBIm8_d0tw2lg

Share this post


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

Team America spent 100K of campaign donor cash to cover Abbie Lowell's legal fees for representing Jared.  Good times.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429172-trump-campaign-spent-nearly-100k-of-donor-money-on-law-firm?fbclid=IwAR3ZBbpSugFcM6_ennRQ4XwNRYNnVM-3TpesbLjqIuNMrETBIm8_d0tw2lg

plus serious cash for “event space” at a Trump hotel.

Poor Mueller is trying to tie this up but Team America keep dropping another gift of an illicit nature in his lap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Monday night, ABC News reported that investigators subpoenaed documents from the inauguration committee. Today ProPublica adds another key detail, confirming that the inauguration did pay the exorbitant $175,000 fee to the Trump Hotel. And it quotes tax law experts describing this as an obvious crime. “It could be a tax law violation,” Brett Kappel, an attorney at Akerman LLP who advises nonprofits, tells ProPublica.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/trumps-inaugural-crimes-hotel-investigation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Team America spent 100K of campaign donor cash to cover Abbie Lowell's legal fees for representing Jared.  Good times.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429172-trump-campaign-spent-nearly-100k-of-donor-money-on-law-firm?fbclid=IwAR3ZBbpSugFcM6_ennRQ4XwNRYNnVM-3TpesbLjqIuNMrETBIm8_d0tw2lg

Are such payments okay?  I don't know.  Multi-millionaires getting their legal fees covered by hard working Americans.

That said, I have no doubt the Faithful are cool with their donations being used that way.

If it were being done by their opposition, they'd be calling them names for being fleeced like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites