Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yep, but the flaw is laid bare and is system breaking if Trump wins a second term while losing the popular vote 47%-52%.The flaw is not "the system" if Trump still manages 47%.
Visitors to the Federal Depository Library Program's websiteFor a jab, that's kinda a backhanded compliment of targets.
BIhNsAtPbPIIs hardly descriptive. While Youtube isn't likely to catch you off guard with porn, it can still be NSFW...
I think it is in fact the case that the average liberal actually believes that Trump had no right to be elected, somehow, and that removing him is actually the right thing to do because he is a bad person.I know many liberals who are repelled by the fact he WAS elected, zero (nor even read of one) who believes he had no right to it. There wasn't a "birther" contingent when it came to Trump. At all (AFAIK), let alone enough to be called "the average".
This might actually be the best case scenario for Democrats.From a pure politics / election stand point... yes, it would be.
I look forward to Trump doing this during the senate trial.I hope that this is just being snarky but sometimes I think people really DO look forward to this. They salivate at the thought of the other side crossing a line so that they can gleefully rush forward and exploit every new possibility and probably a few of their own, instead of, you know, holding people accountable, or trying to stop future occurrences of abuses.
I don't think anyone but you read all of this as a scheme to disparage trump.Myself and Crunch you mean. But point made. Continue your tangent.
But I think OUR society, of which she is by all measures a successful participant in, has it's own pull.
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,That thing you're looking at? Not a window or even a partisan lens. That's called a mirror.
When I'm not being a tin-foil-hat-wearing isolationist anyhow...
Sorry I didn't pay enough attention to Clinton for your liking.
McConnell is making it clear there will never be a conviction on this bull*censored* but Democrats are going for it anyway so it’s clearly all about the electionWhile there's a lot not to like about the whole process, you seem to be suggesting that if the Senate is dead set against it, the house should neglect their responsibilities if they observe impeachable offenses.
I'm also expressing the view that what the Democrats are doing is harming their chances of removing him rather than helping. But hey, whatever floats your boat.I tend to agree with this. The decision to impeach is being treated more as theater, a political cudgel, a PR campaign and so on. Had they simply moved forward where they believed they had the grounds to do so, then at least it could be seen as members of the house believing they were doing their duty.
I think the crux of the matter is that "Orange Man Bad" has made people aware of just how powerful the office of PotUS is, and they don't like it. except they're blaming Orange Man for being the problem rather than the office itself.While Obama was in office we also had discussions of this nature. It's not ALL O.M.B., but he does make it harder to ignore the cracks in the system.
An emperor, a king who could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and if Congress agrees, is not subject to our laws, at least for his term in office?But the law would kick in after that term... It's not like it's diplomatic immunity where you can run someone over and never face justice for instance.
