ADVERTISEMENT

If Republicans didn’t put party over country

Imagine if our political parties didn't put their party above the American citizens.

giphy-downsized-large.gif
 
He lied under oath.

Yes. That is indeed the definition of "perjury". Which is what I'd stated.

It wasn't a violation of the Constitution, however. Trump bribing another country using Congressionally approved money is a direct Constitutional violation. It is 1000x worse than Clinton lying about a blowjob.
 
Yes. That is indeed the definition of "perjury". Which is what I'd stated.

It wasn't a violation of the Constitution, however. Trump bribing another country using Congressionally approved money is a direct Constitutional violation. It is 1000x worse than Clinton lying about a blowjob.

I agree with you.

But what I'm saying is Clinton's situation was a little bigger than "Oops, I goofed."
 
Yes. That is indeed the definition of "perjury". Which is what I'd stated.

It wasn't a violation of the Constitution, however. Trump bribing another country using Congressionally approved money is a direct Constitutional violation. It is 1000x worse than Clinton lying about a blowjob.
What if Clinton gave military secrets to foreign countries to cover up his trist?

I have zero doubt Clinton would have done that to hide the truth. Nobody should but their country in that position. He should have been out because of that. Period.
 
4 more years, Supreme Court we will add more conservatives, Dow will be 30k by Nov, and socialism is dead. Sounds like a plan.
 
What if Clinton gave military secrets to foreign countries to cover up his trist?

"tryst"

And, why WOULDN'T we impeach AND remove over that?

Again: what is the point of "tacking on" hypotheticals to make Clinton's case "worse"? The FACT is that Clinton did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT attempt any bribery of foreign governments.

If the Founders were concerned about "marital impropriety" as an impeachable issue, they'd have stated it.
They WERE VERY CONCERNED about the use of office for BRIBERY and influence of foreign governments.

That IS what we are talking about here, and it is now well-established by the facts. And the WH has not allowed anyone to testify otherwise - IF there is exonerating evidence, then they should be scrambling to get people in the administration to testify to that. Instead, they are obstructing that testimony. There's ONLY ONE REASON you obstruct that testimony, and that reason is that you are guilty.
 
Every Dem candidate is advocating for open borders?

JFC

When they all raise their hand to say they would decriminalize illegal immigration, WTF do you think that means? When they leading candidates (other than Joe) say they would end deportations, WTF do you think that means?

If you took as much issue with their idiotic stances as you did with descriptive language of their idiotic stances you’d find we agree on the matter. But apparently you’re fine with these idiotic stances. Good for you.
 
When they all raise their hand to say they would decriminalize illegal immigration, WTF do you think that means? When they leading candidates (other than Joe) say they would end deportations, WTF do you think that means?

If you took as much issue with their idiotic stances as you did with descriptive language of their idiotic stances you’d find we agree on the matter. But apparently you’re fine with these idiotic stances. Good for you.
Still mischaracterizing, bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackNGoldBleeder
"tryst"

And, why WOULDN'T we impeach AND remove over that?

Again: what is the point of "tacking on" hypotheticals to make Clinton's case "worse"? The FACT is that Clinton did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT attempt any bribery of foreign governments.

If the Founders were concerned about "marital impropriety" as an impeachable issue, they'd have stated it.
They WERE VERY CONCERNED about the use of office for BRIBERY and influence of foreign governments.

That IS what we are talking about here, and it is now well-established by the facts. And the WH has not allowed anyone to testify otherwise - IF there is exonerating evidence, then they should be scrambling to get people in the administration to testify to that. Instead, they are obstructing that testimony. There's ONLY ONE REASON you obstruct that testimony, and that reason is that you are guilty.

so this is worse than potentially giving away military secrets to foreign countries.

we know Clinton didn’t do this because we asked him. Just ask a guy that lied under oath if he gave away military secrets.

makes sense, I am coming around.

you realize Trump would have far fewer supporters if the right thing was done with Clinton and the office was expected to be treated to a far higher standard.

this is what grew from that shit pile all those years ago. The Power Game.
 
"tryst"

And, why WOULDN'T we impeach AND remove over that?

Again: what is the point of "tacking on" hypotheticals to make Clinton's case "worse"? The FACT is that Clinton did NOT violate the Constitution, did NOT attempt any bribery of foreign governments.

If the Founders were concerned about "marital impropriety" as an impeachable issue, they'd have stated it.
They WERE VERY CONCERNED about the use of office for BRIBERY and influence of foreign governments.

That IS what we are talking about here, and it is now well-established by the facts. And the WH has not allowed anyone to testify otherwise - IF there is exonerating evidence, then they should be scrambling to get people in the administration to testify to that. Instead, they are obstructing that testimony. There's ONLY ONE REASON you obstruct that testimony, and that reason is that you are guilty.
See Clinton foundation. That was acceptable in the Obama administration
 
Yes but it never should of got to that point. Player got a BJ in the Oval office, we should be celebrating that sort of achievement, I think it is in the bro code somewhere.

Lol.

No, I agree. It should have never been pushed that far, especially when the man leading the charge was Newt Gingrich.
 
When they all raise their hand to say they would decriminalize illegal immigration, WTF do you think that means? When they leading candidates (other than Joe) say they would end deportations, WTF do you think that means?

If you took as much issue with their idiotic stances as you did with descriptive language of their idiotic stances you’d find we agree on the matter. But apparently you’re fine with these idiotic stances. Good for you.

JFC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
See Clinton foundation. That was acceptable in the Obama administration

LOLWUT?

The Clinton Foundation has 0 indictments.
Jeff Sessions claimed he needed "evidence of a crime" to investigate.

So, this has nothing to do with "the Obama administration"; it has to do with Rule of Law.
They've broken no laws. If there is evidence to the contrary, then why isn't DOJ pursuing it?
 
so this is worse than potentially giving away military secrets to foreign countries.

we know Clinton didn’t do this because we asked him.

Again - there is ZERO evidence, and 8 years of GWB administration didn't pull anything up.

You're Gish Galloping with complete Red Herrings here.
 
See Clinton foundation. That was acceptable in the Obama administration

Clinton Foundation:
0 Indictments

Trump Foundation:
  • Shut down by NYS
  • Trump and his children are banned from ever serving on any charitable foundation Board for 10 years
  • Trump's kids required to undergo "training" on charitable foundations and conflicts of interest as part of settlement
  • Trump Co required to pay back stolen $2M
  • Trump Co required to pay another $2.1 M in fines


Those are EQUIVALENT to you? Get your head out of your ass, bro.
 
Good jobs report and wages up things going well. Enjoy the ride and try and get rid of the hate. Things are good.

Thanks Obama. ;)

Sad part is you actually believe that.

Congress needs to get after the trade agreement which should help the economy even more.

The impeachment is going to cost the dems. They should have come up with some sort of censure and moved on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biggreydogs
Sad part is you actually believe that.

Congress needs to get after the trade agreement which should help the economy even more.

The impeachment is going to cost the dems. They should have come up with some sort of censure and moved on.

Do I think the economy rebounded under Obama? Uhh, yeah.

Do I think Trump inherited a good economy? Uhh, yeah.

Do I think the economy will be in good shape when Trump leaves office? If he gets a second term, no.

In all likelihood, whoever is POTUS in 2021 will oversee another economic collapse. It would be better for the Democrats long-term if Trump were still in office.

No, it won't backfire on Dems. The Senate won't convict and then worse corruption will become public in 2020, making Republicans look complicit.

Both parties are very myopic.
 
LOLWUT? Clinton was impeached for it.
Five Democrats (Virgil Goode, Ralph Hall, Paul McHale, Charles Stenholm and Gene Taylor) voted in favor of three of the four articles of impeachment, but only Taylor voted for the abuse of power charge.
 
LOLWUT?

The Clinton Foundation has 0 indictments.
Jeff Sessions claimed he needed "evidence of a crime" to investigate.

So, this has nothing to do with "the Obama administration"; it has to do with Rule of Law.
They've broken no laws. If there is evidence to the contrary, then why isn't DOJ pursuing it?
Thank you James Comey.
 
The Clinton. Foundation got $10 to $20 million from Saudi’s Arabia.

ukranian steel magnate Pinchuk gave $10 to $20 million.

Algeria, Qatar, and Oman also donated millions.

I bet they didn’t want or get anything in return.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biggreydogs
The Clinton. Foundation got $10 to $20 million from Saudi’s Arabia.

ukranian steel magnate Pinchuk gave $10 to $20 million.

Algeria, Qatar, and Oman also donated millions.

I bet they didn’t want or get anything in return.

Do you really want to talk about corrupt charities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT