TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED
- Thread starter BigBlackBull76
- Start date
I believe the next election will settle how America truly thinks about Trump approximately 17 months from now. One side will celebrate and the other will be enraged. In the meantime, it might not be in the spirit of the thread, but go Raptors Go!!!!
Last edited:
By Steve Duin | For The Oregonian/OregonLive
During a recent extended stay in Italy, I tried to do my country proud. I didn’t parade around in shorts with a selfie stick. I tipped extravagantly in the restaurants of Florence.
And I read the Mueller Report.
I’m not sure where that engagement with the special counsel’s investigation currently ranks among our patriotic duties, but it’s the starting point for any discussion about Russian’s dramatic interference in the 2016 presidential election.
A serious conversation about Donald Trump’s efforts to obstruct Robert Mueller’s two-year investigation can not be filtered through Attorney General William Barr or your friends at Fox.
As Mueller said Wednesday, with characteristic reserve, about a potential appearance before Congress, “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.”
Those 448 redacted pages spoke to me, and they’re calling to you.
Almost immediately, the report makes several things clear. Collusion was never at issue, no matter how often it appeared on Trump’s Twitter feed or was “invoked in public reporting about the investigation.”
And coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to interfere with the election “was never established.”
Offers were made. Meetings at Trump Tower were held. Invective from @TEN_GOP, a Russia-controlled Twitter account, was gleefully recycled by Donald Trump Jr. and Kellyanne Conway.
But over the course of two years, 2,800 subpoenas and five hundred search-and-seizure warrants, “Bob Mueller and his group of 18 killers” – as Trump calls them – never conclude that Republicans choreographed the social-media attacks directed at Hillary Clinton.
Obstruction? Obstruction is another issue altogether.
The evidence that Trump is a clear and ever-present danger to our democracy unfolds in the second half of Mueller’s report.
In plumbing for truth, the special counsel had to deal with false statements from among others, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen.
“After a year of discussion, the President declined to be interviewed,” Mueller notes, despite “numerous accommodations to aid the President’s preparation and avoid surprise.” The written answers that Trump eventually provides are so vague and vacuous as to be wholly “inadequate.”
Yet Mueller still lays out the compelling argument that Trump was so obsessed with the fear that the investigation would diminish him and his Electoral College victory that he pressured former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to interfere with it.
On June 17, 2017, Trump twice called McGahn at home, ordering him to call Rod Rosenstein and say “the special counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.” One perceived “conflict” for Trump? That Mueller once disputed fees relating to his membership at a Trump golf club in Virginia.
Three of the Report’s most daunting conclusions:
- “The evidence accordingly indicates that news that an obstruction investigation had been opened is what led the President to call McGahn to have the special counsel terminated.”
- “Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.”
- “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
Mueller doesn’t go that far. As he said Wednesday, a president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office, so it would “be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”
Yet he carefully noted, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
For two years, then, Mueller and staff did essential work. They did not leak preliminary findings to Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson. They ignored Stormy Daniels. They have not publicly castigated the report’s editing by William Barr.
They chose their words carefully, and you should read them with similar vigilance and dispatch.
-- Steve Duin
ref: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/201...eport-its-your-patriotic-duty-steve-duin.html
Here you all go for those who cant read or dont want to and your welcome.
The Entire Mueller Report read out loud for you.
Go obstruction of justice go!
I realized enough was enough': A [Life-Long Republican *Insert] law professor and former Trump transition staffer says Congress should impeach Trump
And now, a longtime Republican lawyer is also voicing support for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. This past weekend, George Mason University Law Professor J.W. Verret — who's advised every Republican presidential pre-transition team for the last 10 years and served as counsel for Republicans on the House Financial Services committee — went viral on Twitter for stating that he supports impeachment after reading the Mueller report.
"Finished a second read through the Mueller Report. I don't say this lightly, as a lifelong Republican, former [Republican] Hill staffer, and someone who has worked on every [Republican] campaign and pre-transition team for the last ten years. There is enough here to begin impeachment proceedings," he wrote.
In a follow-up piece for The Atlantic, Verret, who teaches corporate and securities law, said he joined Trump's pre-transition team (each major party presidential candidate sets up a team before the election to get a head start on the transition) despite misgivings about the then-Republican nominee.
Verret explained that even after leaving his post as an economic policy advisor on the Trump pre-transition effort in October 2016 over "awkward" policy disagreements, he didn't join the so-called "Never Trump" movement.
He wrote that while "politics is a team sport" where people can be reasonably expected to follow their leader even if they sometimes disagree with them, he viewed the Mueller report as a "tipping point" and the Republican party's current standing by Trump as verging into "a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct."
While the report documented extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump or anyone associated with his campaign with criminal conspiracy related to Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
On the question of obstruction, the Mueller report laid out 11 different areas of Trump's conduct they examined for potential obstruction but said the office could not come to a "traditional prosecutorial decision" as to whether Trump obstructed justice.
Read more:Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice
The report said that while they could not indict the president on charges of obstruction of justice, they were also unable to "reach a judgment" that "the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice" — leaving the next steps up to Congress to determine whether Trump's actions warrant impeachment.
Some have questioned the political feasibility of impeachment, given that Trump would need to be not only impeached by the House but convicted by a two-thirds majority of the currently Republican-controlled Senate.
But Verret argued that the House opening up impeachment hearings, which he compared to a grand jury hearing, could bring more information to light and the resulting shift in popular opinion could result in congressional Republicans feeling "emboldened" to convict.
"Republicans who stand up to Trump today may face some friendly fire," Verret said. "Yet, in time, we can help rebuild the Republican Party, enabling it to rise from the ashes of the post-Trump apocalypse into a party with renewed commitment to principles of liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law."
REF: https://www.businessinsider.com/jw-...ransition-staffer-supports-impeachment-2019-4
The Entire Mueller Report read out loud for you.
Go obstruction of justice go!
I realized enough was enough': A [Life-Long Republican *Insert] law professor and former Trump transition staffer says Congress should impeach Trump
- George Mason University Law Professor J.W. Verret went viral on Twitter for stating that he supports impeachment after reading the Mueller report.
- Verret, who briefly advised the Trump pre-transition team in 2016, said he viewed the Mueller report as a "tipping point" and the Republican party's current standing by Trump as verging into "a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct."
And now, a longtime Republican lawyer is also voicing support for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. This past weekend, George Mason University Law Professor J.W. Verret — who's advised every Republican presidential pre-transition team for the last 10 years and served as counsel for Republicans on the House Financial Services committee — went viral on Twitter for stating that he supports impeachment after reading the Mueller report.
"Finished a second read through the Mueller Report. I don't say this lightly, as a lifelong Republican, former [Republican] Hill staffer, and someone who has worked on every [Republican] campaign and pre-transition team for the last ten years. There is enough here to begin impeachment proceedings," he wrote.
In a follow-up piece for The Atlantic, Verret, who teaches corporate and securities law, said he joined Trump's pre-transition team (each major party presidential candidate sets up a team before the election to get a head start on the transition) despite misgivings about the then-Republican nominee.
Verret explained that even after leaving his post as an economic policy advisor on the Trump pre-transition effort in October 2016 over "awkward" policy disagreements, he didn't join the so-called "Never Trump" movement.
He wrote that while "politics is a team sport" where people can be reasonably expected to follow their leader even if they sometimes disagree with them, he viewed the Mueller report as a "tipping point" and the Republican party's current standing by Trump as verging into "a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct."
While the report documented extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump or anyone associated with his campaign with criminal conspiracy related to Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
On the question of obstruction, the Mueller report laid out 11 different areas of Trump's conduct they examined for potential obstruction but said the office could not come to a "traditional prosecutorial decision" as to whether Trump obstructed justice.
Read more:Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice
The report said that while they could not indict the president on charges of obstruction of justice, they were also unable to "reach a judgment" that "the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice" — leaving the next steps up to Congress to determine whether Trump's actions warrant impeachment.
Some have questioned the political feasibility of impeachment, given that Trump would need to be not only impeached by the House but convicted by a two-thirds majority of the currently Republican-controlled Senate.
But Verret argued that the House opening up impeachment hearings, which he compared to a grand jury hearing, could bring more information to light and the resulting shift in popular opinion could result in congressional Republicans feeling "emboldened" to convict.
"Republicans who stand up to Trump today may face some friendly fire," Verret said. "Yet, in time, we can help rebuild the Republican Party, enabling it to rise from the ashes of the post-Trump apocalypse into a party with renewed commitment to principles of liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law."
REF: https://www.businessinsider.com/jw-...ransition-staffer-supports-impeachment-2019-4
LETS MAGA
Last edited:
Hey lefties - explain one thing to me.
How come Trump obstructed justice to a crime (conspiracy) he didn’t commit???
While under subpoena to supply this evidence - Hillary deletes 33,000 emails - uses bleach bit to insure her hard drive is clean - then has her aids pound her electronics to smithereens with hammers - and - that is NOT obstructing justice -
I REALLY wanna know!!!!!!!!
How come Trump obstructed justice to a crime (conspiracy) he didn’t commit???
While under subpoena to supply this evidence - Hillary deletes 33,000 emails - uses bleach bit to insure her hard drive is clean - then has her aids pound her electronics to smithereens with hammers - and - that is NOT obstructing justice -
I REALLY wanna know!!!!!!!!
First off although I don't see your post directed solely at however I'm going to state up-front again for the record that not a lefty and only lean slightly left libertarian at least according to the Political Compass website survey. I took the survey out of entertainment and don't say its scientifically accurate however you can see my certificate below where my compass points. I agree with Milton Freedman who is a hard-right libertarian alot on politics and economics however I do strongly disagree with him on the following points which puts me back left:
- The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
- No, corporations under US law if considered to be a US person entity should be contributing members to society. Unlike my other Libertarian cohorts who are strongly against any regulation I feel companies should be regulated to ensure they are being good stewards of the environment. ******* just see the films Erin Brokervich and the Promised Land with Matt Damon working for the fracking industry. Tech companies are another example of US companies trampling all over citizens rights to privacy and I agree should be regulated.
- Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.
- No, Native and indigenous people should never have land brought and stolen from them.
- In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
- I don't agree with this statement where as many other libertarians and right leaning authoritarians do.
It's an interesting survey and I'd be interested in seeing other people's results of where you lean also if you want to post them. You can take the test here:
Too many of people in general come online automatically assuming that if your against one-thing (i.e. Trump, or Repubs) that automatically equates to you being for something else (i.e. Clinton, or lefty). Its not always so black and white, one or the other, this or that in life. I'm more grey and slightly black if you will.
I've always been fiercely independent and middle of the road neither far left or hard right in my political outlook, never subscribed or followed any one political parties policies blindly, nor EVER been registered to any party.
I agree and have no problem with investigating and convicting Hillary Clinton for the nuking of her emails which impeded an investigation. I never liked her, don't care for her or her policies much. I've seen the evidence on the Russian money going to her campaign as well and she is on the take too - just like Donald Duck is wholly owned, brought, and sold by the Kremlin.
Hillary is a private citizen, take her to court and have at it. But she is not the sitting President presiding over executive governance on behalf of the American People with all types of questionable actions and business that have took place and is still on-going. And with the President they are not a private citizen so you can't just take them to a regular court hence why an impeachment hearing is needed to investigate further into the cover-up, corruption, and yes conspiracy that has not been uncovered.
Hell just recently it was reported that employees at Deutsche Bank who had flagged suspicious transactions and accounts related to Donald Trump to their superiors which were never reported over to US Authorities. The investigation has not been thorough enough into what Trump wants to remain covered up or his ties and reason of his fealty to foreign powers he has shown. They got something on him and the American people have a right to know just what kind of puppet is up in the white-house.
EF: https://www.motherjones.com/politic...n-accounts-linked-to-trump-and-jared-kushner/
Where Trump not an un-hinged, lying, conniving, criminal, racist (i.e. the Kenyan birther bullshit, full page on calling for the death penalty of the Central Park-5, Charlottesville non-condemnation) narcissistic, draft dodging, no tax paying, Russian conspiracist (he got too many interests and people all linked up with Russia for my comfort to trust him), idiot I would be full in the tank for him. Just too many negatives and from the outset I knew he was guilty of covering up his many misdeeds. He is corrupt not unlike most of the politicians and people in high office in life both Dems and Repubs.
I actually did find him entertaining during the Republican primaries which I did watch a majority of them and I think his administrations tough stance on China, albeit only Americans are paying the costs for the tariffs is a commendable approach to leveling the playing field with a trading partner who is not adhering to the World Trade Organization rules and forsing technology exchange, or outright intellectual property theft on American businesses. I think the Iran business is just a good distraction for the other BS all happening with him domestically.
Now with all that being said, NO ONE, and I mean no one is above the law. Point, blank & Period!
“Although the President has broad authority under Article II, that authority coexists with Congress’s Article I power to enact laws that protect congressional proceedings, federal investigations, the courts, and grand juries against corrupt efforts to undermine their functions…We were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise valid Article II powers.”
— The Mueller Report, Volume II
REF: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ler-report-strongly-hints-that-trump-s-guilty
I subscribe to the Ben Shapiro podcast and I found his EP on "To Impeach or Not to Impeach" interesting. While I agree with him on more than half the stuff he says and think the man is intelligent I find him not authentic with being a free thinker or being honest that a law was broken and a crime was committed.
Ben Shapiro's position too was that 'No Crime was committed'. This is playing into the false narrative that William Barr and Trump are trying to weave into the public discourse. This is not true and hence why Mueller had to come out and publicly clarify for the record in his own words.
So once again lets go over this slow, what crime did Trump actually commit?
Ok lets go to the law library and look up 'Obstruction of Justice':
: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.
I get that Mr. Trump wasn't happy with an investigation being initiated into whether he conspired/colluded with Russia and he says it was under false pre-tenses. However there was probable cause and Mueller had legal authorities to go far and wide and where-ever crimes may be uncovered in which multiple convictions were made by the Mueller's investigators with a whole cast of merry men who surrounded Mr. Trump and related to Russian influence such as his Campaign Manager, personal lawyer, his National Security Advisor, his Attorney General had to recuse himself, his long time friend and Aid Roger Stone (he will be convicted soon without a doubt).
Hell if you heard that someone from Hillary Clinton's camp was in London talking to some foreign ambassador about China having dirt on Trump before the campaign and she had another staff member over in Beijing talking shady business don't you think the US Federal authorities would take a look into that matter and then you see the Chinese release all of these emails on the Trump Campaign and you hear Hillary say "Hey China if your listening, why don't you find Trump's tax records and release them." Then next thing you know you got China carpet bombing the American public on social media with a disinformation campaign. Don't you think some investigation would be in order to find out what was all going on with that?
Mueller's 10-ish minute statement came after a nearly two-year-long investigation into Russia's attempted interference in the 2016 election and whether the President, or anyone close to him, had obstructed that probe. Mueller's words on the charge of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign largely comported with the 400+ page report released by the special counsel's office this spring, making clear that there was "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."
But it was Mueller's words on the possibility that Trump had sought to obstruct the investigation where Mueller clearly wanted to leave his mark. He emphasized two things of real importance -- both of which, with a bit of reading between the lines, provided a glimpse into what Mueller really thinks regarding Trump and obstruction. Here they are:
1) "If we had had confidence that the President had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so."
2) "Charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."
Let's take those statements one by one.
The first is an echo of a key line in the Mueller report -- and one that Attorney General William Barr included in his four-page summary letter sent to Congress in the immediate aftermath of the Justice Department receiving the report -- that said this: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Trump ignored that line in his assessment of the report's findings, tweeting: "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!"
Remember that Mueller is someone who chooses his moments -- and his words -- very carefully. (He barely spoke publicly for the entirety of the special counsel investigation.) So, it's impossible to dismiss the fact that Mueller called out specifically the report's finding that the President had not been exonerated on obstruction. In fact, Mueller reiterated the fact that, had his office been able to exonerate Trump, they would have done that. And they did not.
That point leads to Mueller's second critical statement. There's been much debate as to whether Mueller would have indicted Trump on obstruction if the special counsel's office was not governed by Justice Department precedent that said a sitting President cannot be indicted. Attorney General William Barr told a Senate committee earlier this month that Mueller "stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would've found obstruction."
It's impossible to hear Mueller's assertion on Wednesday that "charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider" as anything but a direct response (and rebuttal) to that claim by Barr. Mueller said flatly Wednesday that the reason that the special counsel's office did not consider charging Trump with obstruction was because it was not an option he was allowed to consider under Justice Department precedent.
Could you reconcile the two statements -- Barr's to the Senate and Mueller's today? Maybe. You could understand Mueller's statement as saying his office didn't consider charging Trump because of the OLC ruling, not that they didn't actually charge Trump for that reason. That would make the comments by Barr and Mueller both true. And that's possible, but man, it feels like a stretch.
Mueller knew -- or at least hoped -- this would be his last major moment in the klieg lights. He chose his words carefully. He emphasized certain elements of his report, particularly where he and Barr seemed to differ, purposely. He wanted to make clear where his hands were tied, why they were tied and what that tying them meant for his ability to bring a case against Trump.
What Mueller was saying Wednesday is actually better understood by what he was not saying -- and what he was not saying was that the President of the United States was an innocent victim in all of this. (And Trump claimed just that in a tweet following Mueller's statement, "Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you," Trump tweeted.)
Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction by the President. Mueller didn't say he wouldn't have charged Trump even without the guiding OLC ruling. And in so doing, he said a whole hell of a lot.
REF: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/poli...ussia-probe-bill-barr-donald-trump/index.html
Last edited:
* NOT A BBB76 statement below but one I thought was good from a blog I peruse where they are all ardent Trump supporters. Again as I stated above I would be full in the tank (Cool Image) if not for the glaring FACTUAL issues I cited with the individual and he has committed a crime while sitting in the office of the President. Convict, Convict, Convict.
I'm pragmatic, middle of the road, and ground-zero, not a lefty nor do I care about Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, or Shillary.
But Trump has been guilty as hell from day one for me and its not a matter of this (trump) or that (Hillary) we can be more critical thinking and deserve better than this or that frik and frak as a nation.
*Disclaimer: I warn you up-front for the negative zionist rhetoric below and I don't subscribe to it nor endorse their comments however think about some of whom the die-hard Trump supporters are.
An insight into the mind of diehard Trump supporters
February 14, 2019
"No, I am not referring the folks who voted for Trump. That was the right thing to do. [Insert: See Article Below]
I am talking to the diehard idiots today who still are pretending that MAGA will happen.
They are the kind of infantile ignoramuses who will delight in such animations…
The Saker
REF: http://thesaker.is/an-insight-into-the-mind-of-trump-supporters/
Why voting for Trump was the right thing to do (7 reasons)
April 21, 2017
Now that Trump has already comprehensively betrayed all his campaign promises and that he 100 first days in office are marked by nothing else but total chaos, incompetence, betrayals of his closest friends and allies, recklessly dangerous and utterly ineffective grandstanding in foreign policy, there are a lot of people out there who say “I told you so!”, “how could you take this clown seriously!” and “are you now finally waking up from your delusional state?”. Yes, a superficial survey of what Trump did since he got into the White House could appear to make these nay-sayers look right. But in reality, they are completely wrong. Let me explain why.
First, what these nay-sayers apparently ignore is that there are innumerable examples in history of the elites turning against each other, usually in times of crises. In the case of Trump, I submit that there overwhelming empirical data out there that a good part of the world elites really and truly were terrified of a possible Trump victory. The kind of hysterical, completely over-the-top hate campaign in which the US Ziomedia engaged in against Trump is something which I have never seen before and which, in my opinion, proves that the Neocon-run propaganda outlets (the Ziomedia, Hollywood) saw Trump as a major danger to their interests. Now, whether Trump had any chance against such powerful “deep state” actors or not is immaterial: Trump was a chance, a possibility and, I would argue, the only option to try to kick the Neocons in the teeth. And don’t give me Sanders or Stein as possible options, they were both 100% fake – just look at how both of them did Hillary’s dirty job for her (Sanders with his endorsement of her even though he was cheated out of a victory and Stein with her ridiculous recount). Even if Trump had just a 1% chance of prevailing, voting for him was an opportunity to achieve regime change in the USA and the American people grabbed it. They did the ethically and pragmatically correct thing. Trump was really the only choice.
Second, you can think of the elections as a giant opinion poll. What the American voter did is to send two messages urbi et orbi. First to the rest of the planet: Not in our name! We don’t support this regime! And then to the Neocons: we hate you. In fact, we hate you so much that we are willing to even vote for a guy like Trump just because we hate Hillary even more. As to the message to the Ziomedia it was crystal clear: liars! We don’t trust you! Go screw yourselves, we will vote for the man you hate with such a passion precisely because we deny you the right to tell us what to think. Yes, Trump proved to be a fake and a liar himself, but he will also be a one term President as a direct consequence of his betrayals. And it is quite possible that Kushner or Pence will now run the Empire on behalf of his real bosses, but the world will also know that this was not what the American people wanted.
Third, this gigantic vote of no-confidence in the Ziomedia will now ******* the regime to engage in all sorts of more or less subtle maneuvers to try to crack down on free speech in the USA. This is good news for two reasons: a) they will fail and b) they will show their true face. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the others are now becoming overt agents of oppression whereas in the past they still had (an admittedly thin) veneer of respectability. Now that it has become clear that the Internet is the last free-speech zone and that more and more Americans realize that Russia Today or Press TV are far superior news sources than the US Ziomedia, the level of influence of the US propaganda machine will continue to plummet.
Fourth, if we look at the immoral, self-defeating and, frankly, stupid decisions of Trump in the Middle-East and in Far-East Asia we can at least find some solace in the fact that Trump is now betraying all his campaign promises. Hillary would have done more or less the same, but with what she would definitely present these policies as having a mandate from the American people. Trump has no such excuse, and that is very good indeed. Voting for Trump took the mandate away from the Ziocons.
Fifth, remember the “basket or deplorables”? “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” If Hillary had been elected, then the ideology which made her characterize the average American as ugly bigot would be ruling the country by now. But she was defeated. Thus, it is becoming undeniable that there are two Americas out there: one which I call the “alliance of minorities” and the other what I would called “real America” or “mainstream America”. The defeat of Hillary has sent a powerful message to these minorities reminding them that they are exactly that – minorities – and that a political agenda centered on the hatred of the majority is not a viable one. This empowering of the majority of US Americans is, I think, a much needed development whose effects will hopefully felt in future elections.
Sixth, Trump already got one more or less decent Supreme Court Justice in. He might get another one in before he is impeached or his term ends. Hillary would have probably nominated the first Black or Latino genderfluid freak, a Chabad-Lubavitch rabbi or even Alan Dershowitz Himself (with a capital “H”) to the supreme court and dared anybody to vote them down. Of course, compared to the risks of nuclear war, a Supreme Court Justice nominee might not appear to be crucial, but for those living inside the USA such nominations can make a huge difference.
Seventh and last but not least, nuclear war is simply too horrible and threatens the future of the entire human race. I submit that we all, every one of us, has a moral duty to do everything we can to avoid it and to make it less likely, even if we can only act at the margins. This is one of those very rare cases where a single-issue vote really does make sense. I don’t care how bad Trump turned out to be. In fact, even if he turns out to be even worse than Hillary, I submit that it is absolutely undeniable that on the day the Election took place Hillary was the candidate for war and Trump the candidate for peace. Those who claim otherwise seem to have forgotten that Hillary promised us a no-fly zone over Russian forces in Syria. They also forget this absolutely crucial statement made by Hillary Clinton in early December of 2012:
So while “Monday morning quarterbacking” is fun, it is also absurd. Those who now tell us “I told you so” are right but for the wrong reasons, whereas those who supported Trump were wrong, but for the right reasons. Trump betrayed his campaign promises, but those who voted for him could not simply assume that he would do that, especially not when there was no reason at all to believe that Hillary would betray hers: does anybody seriously believe that after being elected on a promise of war she would have turned into a dove of peace? Of course not.
Simply put: Hillary was guaranteed bad. Trump was possibly bad. The logical choice was therefore obvious, especially when ‘bad’ would most likely mean nuclear war.
REF: https://thesaker.is/why-voting-for-trump-was-the-right-thing-to-do-7-reasons/
I'm pragmatic, middle of the road, and ground-zero, not a lefty nor do I care about Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, or Shillary.
But Trump has been guilty as hell from day one for me and its not a matter of this (trump) or that (Hillary) we can be more critical thinking and deserve better than this or that frik and frak as a nation.
*Disclaimer: I warn you up-front for the negative zionist rhetoric below and I don't subscribe to it nor endorse their comments however think about some of whom the die-hard Trump supporters are.
An insight into the mind of diehard Trump supporters
February 14, 2019
"No, I am not referring the folks who voted for Trump. That was the right thing to do. [Insert: See Article Below]
I am talking to the diehard idiots today who still are pretending that MAGA will happen.
They are the kind of infantile ignoramuses who will delight in such animations…
The Saker
REF: http://thesaker.is/an-insight-into-the-mind-of-trump-supporters/
Why voting for Trump was the right thing to do (7 reasons)
April 21, 2017
Now that Trump has already comprehensively betrayed all his campaign promises and that he 100 first days in office are marked by nothing else but total chaos, incompetence, betrayals of his closest friends and allies, recklessly dangerous and utterly ineffective grandstanding in foreign policy, there are a lot of people out there who say “I told you so!”, “how could you take this clown seriously!” and “are you now finally waking up from your delusional state?”. Yes, a superficial survey of what Trump did since he got into the White House could appear to make these nay-sayers look right. But in reality, they are completely wrong. Let me explain why.
First, what these nay-sayers apparently ignore is that there are innumerable examples in history of the elites turning against each other, usually in times of crises. In the case of Trump, I submit that there overwhelming empirical data out there that a good part of the world elites really and truly were terrified of a possible Trump victory. The kind of hysterical, completely over-the-top hate campaign in which the US Ziomedia engaged in against Trump is something which I have never seen before and which, in my opinion, proves that the Neocon-run propaganda outlets (the Ziomedia, Hollywood) saw Trump as a major danger to their interests. Now, whether Trump had any chance against such powerful “deep state” actors or not is immaterial: Trump was a chance, a possibility and, I would argue, the only option to try to kick the Neocons in the teeth. And don’t give me Sanders or Stein as possible options, they were both 100% fake – just look at how both of them did Hillary’s dirty job for her (Sanders with his endorsement of her even though he was cheated out of a victory and Stein with her ridiculous recount). Even if Trump had just a 1% chance of prevailing, voting for him was an opportunity to achieve regime change in the USA and the American people grabbed it. They did the ethically and pragmatically correct thing. Trump was really the only choice.
Second, you can think of the elections as a giant opinion poll. What the American voter did is to send two messages urbi et orbi. First to the rest of the planet: Not in our name! We don’t support this regime! And then to the Neocons: we hate you. In fact, we hate you so much that we are willing to even vote for a guy like Trump just because we hate Hillary even more. As to the message to the Ziomedia it was crystal clear: liars! We don’t trust you! Go screw yourselves, we will vote for the man you hate with such a passion precisely because we deny you the right to tell us what to think. Yes, Trump proved to be a fake and a liar himself, but he will also be a one term President as a direct consequence of his betrayals. And it is quite possible that Kushner or Pence will now run the Empire on behalf of his real bosses, but the world will also know that this was not what the American people wanted.
Third, this gigantic vote of no-confidence in the Ziomedia will now ******* the regime to engage in all sorts of more or less subtle maneuvers to try to crack down on free speech in the USA. This is good news for two reasons: a) they will fail and b) they will show their true face. YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the others are now becoming overt agents of oppression whereas in the past they still had (an admittedly thin) veneer of respectability. Now that it has become clear that the Internet is the last free-speech zone and that more and more Americans realize that Russia Today or Press TV are far superior news sources than the US Ziomedia, the level of influence of the US propaganda machine will continue to plummet.
Fourth, if we look at the immoral, self-defeating and, frankly, stupid decisions of Trump in the Middle-East and in Far-East Asia we can at least find some solace in the fact that Trump is now betraying all his campaign promises. Hillary would have done more or less the same, but with what she would definitely present these policies as having a mandate from the American people. Trump has no such excuse, and that is very good indeed. Voting for Trump took the mandate away from the Ziocons.
Fifth, remember the “basket or deplorables”? “Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” If Hillary had been elected, then the ideology which made her characterize the average American as ugly bigot would be ruling the country by now. But she was defeated. Thus, it is becoming undeniable that there are two Americas out there: one which I call the “alliance of minorities” and the other what I would called “real America” or “mainstream America”. The defeat of Hillary has sent a powerful message to these minorities reminding them that they are exactly that – minorities – and that a political agenda centered on the hatred of the majority is not a viable one. This empowering of the majority of US Americans is, I think, a much needed development whose effects will hopefully felt in future elections.
Sixth, Trump already got one more or less decent Supreme Court Justice in. He might get another one in before he is impeached or his term ends. Hillary would have probably nominated the first Black or Latino genderfluid freak, a Chabad-Lubavitch rabbi or even Alan Dershowitz Himself (with a capital “H”) to the supreme court and dared anybody to vote them down. Of course, compared to the risks of nuclear war, a Supreme Court Justice nominee might not appear to be crucial, but for those living inside the USA such nominations can make a huge difference.
Seventh and last but not least, nuclear war is simply too horrible and threatens the future of the entire human race. I submit that we all, every one of us, has a moral duty to do everything we can to avoid it and to make it less likely, even if we can only act at the margins. This is one of those very rare cases where a single-issue vote really does make sense. I don’t care how bad Trump turned out to be. In fact, even if he turns out to be even worse than Hillary, I submit that it is absolutely undeniable that on the day the Election took place Hillary was the candidate for war and Trump the candidate for peace. Those who claim otherwise seem to have forgotten that Hillary promised us a no-fly zone over Russian forces in Syria. They also forget this absolutely crucial statement made by Hillary Clinton in early December of 2012:
There are also persistent rumors that Hillary was the one who told Bill to bomb Serbia. So this women (sorry, I cannot call her a “lady”) does have a record and that record is a frightening one. God only knows what would have happened if she had become the President. She clearly is a hateful maniac with a personal hate for Putin. There is absolutely no evidence indicating that Trump had that kind of hateful personality.
So while “Monday morning quarterbacking” is fun, it is also absurd. Those who now tell us “I told you so” are right but for the wrong reasons, whereas those who supported Trump were wrong, but for the right reasons. Trump betrayed his campaign promises, but those who voted for him could not simply assume that he would do that, especially not when there was no reason at all to believe that Hillary would betray hers: does anybody seriously believe that after being elected on a promise of war she would have turned into a dove of peace? Of course not.
Simply put: Hillary was guaranteed bad. Trump was possibly bad. The logical choice was therefore obvious, especially when ‘bad’ would most likely mean nuclear war.
REF: https://thesaker.is/why-voting-for-trump-was-the-right-thing-to-do-7-reasons/
* One other funny post I saw on the Saker blog
Trump goes full retard… (UPDATED)
November 02, 2018
I can’t say that I am ‘surprised’, but still, I am. That he would actually do this really makes reality even weirder than fantasy. Check out what The Donald posted today:
I think that if I was a kinder person I would probably be embarrassed for him, but I cannot muster enough kindness in me for that. To me, he looks like one delusional and pompous ass with a serious narcissistic personality disorder to boot. To think that he actually controls the US nuclear arsenal (at least in theory) is outright frightening.
I suppose that these “tweets” are this idiot’s idea of communicating a message so I will place this in the “speeches and statements” section and nevermind that “tweets” are something which is associated with bird and, hence, bird-brains.
I really wonder what his IQ must be.
I can barely imagine the contempt in which is clown must be held in Moscow, Beijing or Tehran…
Reagan at least was funny. This clown does not even have that.
So yes, Hillary would have been worse, but that’s truly the best I can say about the man.
If that is what leads the Empire, expect the latter to tank very fast.
The Saker
UPDATE: Who thought that the Iranians had no humor? Check out this “reply” from no less than Major General Qasem Soleimani, commander of its Quds ******* and 2017 “Saker man of the year”:
According to RT, Soleimani also wrote “Come! We are waiting, I am your enemy. Quds ******* is your enemy. You start this war, but we will finish it.”
REF: http://thesaker.is/trump-goes-full-retard/
Trump goes full retard… (UPDATED)
November 02, 2018
I can’t say that I am ‘surprised’, but still, I am. That he would actually do this really makes reality even weirder than fantasy. Check out what The Donald posted today:
I think that if I was a kinder person I would probably be embarrassed for him, but I cannot muster enough kindness in me for that. To me, he looks like one delusional and pompous ass with a serious narcissistic personality disorder to boot. To think that he actually controls the US nuclear arsenal (at least in theory) is outright frightening.
I suppose that these “tweets” are this idiot’s idea of communicating a message so I will place this in the “speeches and statements” section and nevermind that “tweets” are something which is associated with bird and, hence, bird-brains.
I really wonder what his IQ must be.
I can barely imagine the contempt in which is clown must be held in Moscow, Beijing or Tehran…
Reagan at least was funny. This clown does not even have that.
So yes, Hillary would have been worse, but that’s truly the best I can say about the man.
If that is what leads the Empire, expect the latter to tank very fast.
The Saker
UPDATE: Who thought that the Iranians had no humor? Check out this “reply” from no less than Major General Qasem Soleimani, commander of its Quds ******* and 2017 “Saker man of the year”:
According to RT, Soleimani also wrote “Come! We are waiting, I am your enemy. Quds ******* is your enemy. You start this war, but we will finish it.”
REF: http://thesaker.is/trump-goes-full-retard/
BBB76 is still delusional and in complete denial. And of course, he never admitted he was a fool for believing the tripe from liberal media. We're not surprised. It's the modus operandi of the left.
@BigBlackBull76 can obviously correct me but his dislike of Trump does not automatically make him a lefty. I have differences with him over Trump too and he stated he is more of a libertarian if you want to put a label on him on occasions where we spoke before. I am not an American but if I could vote in an American election Trump would have my vote in 2016 and probably in 2020 as well. And if you read @BigBlackBull76's material he is far from foolish as his arguments are very detailed and airtight. Trump is not perfect and definitely Hillary wasn't either. Even retroactively I would consider Trump to be the better choice and that's where myself and @BigBlackBull76 disagree as there are issues yet to be resolved with Russia to the satisfaction of all Americans, Trump's taxes, and even his high school records. But I would think Hillary had more areas of concern starting off with at least 30,000 scrubbed emails.
My difference with you is my opinion of where he sits on the political continuum. @BigBlackBull76 is a big guy and he is more than capable of defending his perspectives. I differ with him too but after awhile I have began to respect his perspectives even though like you I am in opposition with his conclusions at times.
I take it you are not a stranger on this thread as there are plenty others that share @BigBlackBull76 's anti-Trump sentiments? And outside this site there are many others too as you are most likely aware. It is true that nothing would convince them that Trump had no involvement with Russia. If after we all pass and we are on the other side of reality, hopefully on the other side of the Pearly Gates, they could all ask the Almighty God about Trump's involvement with Russia. If He said Trump was innocent, they would all accuse God as being a liar.
I think this guy might have a different pulse on America than you do @BigBlackBull76 ?
Home - David Harris Jr.
Latest News See More News Catch the latest Episode! Click for Podcast Show Page
davidharrisjr.com
Not looking good for the dolts who picked any of the first four poll options....76% of the Democrap controlled House today voted NOT to proceed with an impeachment resolution:
He should start another poll. How long till the house votes on a second impeachment.
To make the conversation more interesting I will temporarily play devil's advocate. I think Mueller will speak later this week maybe there might be some hope of impeachment there @submission52 ?
