192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 12:16 pm
@hightor,
Trump's lackey was always bound to follow his master's lead. I had the unfortunate experience of hearing my dad read the Torygraph's description of how Johnson watched the election, with Budweiser!

No Englishman would drink that ****. It's the shittiest piss known to man, and it's what a Trumpoid Quisling would drink.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 12:19 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
No Englishman would

allow thousands of girls be raped and cover it up. True story.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  -1  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 12:40 pm
I don't drink beer, but Budweiser must be the worst.

'Budweiser overtakes Foster's to become UK's second-biggest beer brand'

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/alcohol/budweiser-overtakes-fosters-to-become-uks-second-biggest-beer-brand/568461.article
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 12:43 pm
@Brand X,
It's still ****, so is Fosters.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 02:39 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
Not as embarrassing as their undying belief that this impeachment guff will achieve anything positive for the dems.

I really doubt that the Democrats believe that this process is doing anything positive for them.

I'll quickly concede that knowing anyone's real inner intentions with respect to this or any issue is not a possibility - we can only speculate. In the case of the Trump impeachment the evidence is mixed. Pelosi some time ago expressed the view that Impeachment, if it occurs, must have a clear criminal foundation and there must be a level of bipartisan support for it. Now they are proceeding without meeting either condition . What changed?

Two distinct events followed: (1) Poll measured support for the left wing Democrat Nomination contenders started falling and Biden, still without a commanding lead, began to appear as a less and less effective candidate. Forecasts of an expected Trump victory in the election became more frequent and visible. (2) The events attending the Trump call with the newly elected Ukrainian President surfaced, in what still appears to have been an organized inside job with significant involvement by Rep. Schiff. (Presidents, by the way have the Constitutional obligation to conduct our Foreign relations - not the bureaucrats in the State & Intelligence Departments. History is replete with deals between States and their leaders - it is the norm, not the exception.)

Suddenly the Schiff/Nadler continuing investigations were reenergized, now on a new issue, unrelated to the failed Mueller investigation and all that attended and followed it. Meanwhile Speaker Pelosi suddenly changed her former tune with respect to her standards for proceeding with impeachment.

The result to date is an impeachment indictment that, unlike all previous impeachments, is without a clear criminal charge, and with virtually no chance of being approved in the Senate. Polls so far indicate only minority support for it among voters generally and fairly decisive opposition to it among self-identified independent voters - those who count most in election predictions.

Overall I find it hard to detect any rational basis for this ongoing action either in the political ambitions of Democrats, or the interests of the country (our economy is doing very well, even amidst a worldwide slowdown, and serious, long-standing issues on trade, immigration and regulatory reform are at last being addressed - albeit with little help or collaboration from Democrats).

One could argue that the only remaining rational motive is an altruistic conviction on the part of Democrats that Trump really represents a serious threat to our institutions and must be removed at any cost. That, I suspect is close to your view. I find it very hard to buy that one, particularly given the sometimes irrational desperation that has long attended Democrat efforts to find any basis to impeach Trump, going back to his inauguration, and the many irregularities, and sometimes flatly illegal behaviors, that have attended it - not least the many very partisan violations of past procedure, misrepresentations and false claims that attended the recent Schiff/Nadler hearings. There's not much in the way of an altruistic defense of our constitution & institutions in that. It is clear that Democrats had long ago convicted Trump in their minds and have spent the last three years merely looking for a pretext for doing so. Now, with a remarkably weak case they are going forward.

I suspect Democrats lost hope of winning the election and resolved on desperate measures to get rid of or discredit Trump . Unfortunately, for them, they have become carried away by their own preconceptions and momentum. As things turned out they don't have much of a case and so far Poll results indicate more harm than benefit for them as a result

Looks like TDS to me.
Lash
 
  0  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 06:39 pm
@Brand X,
Jesus Christ. Austerity is worse than I’d imagined. That is some rank piss-water.
Builder
 
  -2  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 06:44 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Pelosi some time ago expressed the view that Impeachment, if it occurs, must have a clear criminal foundation and there must be a level of bipartisan support for it. Now they are proceeding without meeting either condition . What changed?


When put on the spot about her claim to being Christian, she did claim to pray for "our president" every day.

Builder
 
  -3  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 06:47 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Jesus Christ. Austerity is worse than I’d imagined.


Australia's reserve bank will be sending the cash rate to zero in our new year, ridiculing the torie govt claim that we're in surplus, and things are looking very promising for 2020.

I guess it pays to have almost total control over media outlets these days.

Saves a lot in damage control tactics.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 06:47 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
she did claim to pray for "our president" every day.

People do pray to Satan. Cool
Builder
 
  -3  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 07:38 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
People do pray to Satan.


How'd that pan out for Hillary's pals, Huma and Anthony?


https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/591f40d21165e3156f470704/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Huma-Abedin.jpg
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 09:30 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
How'd that pan out for Hillary's pals, Huma and Anthony?

Well, they are free. I bet they still have money also. A far cry from people associated with Trump.
Builder
 
  -2  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 11:11 pm
@coldjoint,
When the villain is Obama, not Trump, news suddenly becomes not worth reporting

By Kyle Smith

November 20, 2019

Quote:
So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.” Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished. If they could have used one of those Men in Black memory-zappers on us, they would have. Sheepishly, the two news organizations explained that, you see, the UN data was from 2015 — part of a border crackdown that had begun years earlier.

We all know who the president was in 2015. It wasn’t evil, child-caging monster President Trump. It was that nice, compassionate, child-caging monster President Barack Obama.

Zap. The story made Obama look bad. Hence the story was removed. Not updated or corrected, removed.


People are wising up. Between the relentless attacks in the MSM, to the relentless bullshit from the DNC, the swinging voters are showing their discontent.

source
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 11:15 pm
@coldjoint,
Focus, cj, focus!

This is not about the one who did not win the presidency or her friends, fiends and associates. It is about the tiny-handed creature, possible spawn of Satan and his horrific shredding of the Constitution and the laws of The United States.
Sturgis
 
  1  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 11:27 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
...Budweiser...no Englishman would drink that...


In fairness, Johnson was hatched in the U.S. For some reason, many Americans think Budweiser is the best thing since time began.
I confess, I drank a few bottles of Budweiser. Less than a dozen though. My tastebuds craved real flavor.

...I also loved getting Guinness on tap in local spots.

For a real disgrace, there's also Bud Light. I never understood the purpose of light beers. Then again, for many years, gin was my preferred brain-fogger.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 11:44 pm
@Sturgis,
When I was still drinking, I'd preferred the Budweiser to any other, e.g. Pilsner Urquell.

Original Budweiser (Budweiser Budvar), I mean.

https://i.imgur.com/fO9GrSW.jpg
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Sun 15 Dec, 2019 11:54 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
his horrific shredding of the Constitution and the laws of The United States.

Projection. Try harder.
0 Replies
 
Abigailer
 
  -3  
Mon 16 Dec, 2019 12:30 am
Let's guess if he can be re elected
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2019 01:51 am
@Walter Hinteler,
This is the original, not the crap you posted.

https://digitalcontent.api.tesco.com/v1/media/ghs/snapshotimagehandler_1104082080.jpeg?h=540&w=540
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2019 05:18 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Hallmark Channel pulls ads for wedding-planning site over image of gay ceremony
Hallmark, after significant blow-back from their decision, has now apologized and reversed it. So, good for them and for those who mounted pressure against the bigotry behind the initial decision.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2019 05:43 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
The way that this impeachment trial will work is that , unlike a criminal court, the decision makers have already stated that they are advocates for Trump.
The guy I pity is Justice Roberts, he cannot afford to be(or giving an appearance of being) an advocate but Trump will , like the ignoramus he is, will demand of him, an obligation. In my mind, Plump will be obstructing jutice through the trial proceedings.
I have little hope that Roberts will do anything that will be legally/constitutionally worthwhile. He will perform ceremonially, leaving all the nuts and bolts of procedure in the hands of the Senate - meaning, of course, McConnell.

In going forward, McConnell will be well briefed/appraised of potential pitfalls regarding Roberts' presence and role and he'll manipulate process to avoid any such. Roberts will be happy with that.

Edit: CNN has a very good piece here

Also: a short discussion with Cass Sunstein Here Note the final comment from Sunstein. If McConnell acts as we are certain he will act (in direct violation of the constitutional directives as laid out by Hamilton) any corrective isn't going to come from Roberts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.31 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 02:39:06