Danzy wrote: » Ted Cruz, a true shi7sack of a man still had a point when he said the Democrats were reducing themselves to the anti Trump party.
Boggles wrote: » "Lying" Ted Cruz whose wife Trump absolutely and disgustingly ridiculed? The GOP is now the Trump party and that spineless fúcktard is one of the reasons.
Boggles wrote: » You do know Schiff would be privy to a lot more information than you or your 12 toed twitter sources?
Overheal wrote: » Again, no more egregious than lawmakers pretending theres No There There, or that the Mueller Report proved there was no evidence of obstruction of justice. I can't hold Schiff to a standard that doesn't exist for Republicans.
Danzy wrote: » Whatever your feelings on Trump, this is pretty light so far. They maybe should have gone for censure rather than impeachment. This isn't going to run to next year.Ted Cruz, a true shi7sack of a man still had a point when he said the Democrats were reducing themselves to the anti Trump party. They are going out of there way now to keep their own out of the news and him in it. Failure to impeachment will be seen as vindication.
Overheal wrote: » Saying that either party spends a great deal of its time opposing the other doesn't really say anything of meaningful value.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Keep it up folks, loving all these posts from users bending over backwards trying to justify and excuse lies being told about someone just because you don't like their political views.
White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials. Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.
Boggles wrote: » Oh Oh. Plot thickens.
SJW Lover wrote: » This will blow up in the Democrat's faces. Nowhere near enough to impeach. The whistleblower is relying on what colleagues have told him. It's not even direct evidence. More anonymous sources. The Democrats really are a joke.
keano_afc wrote: » Open to correction here as I havent fully looked into this, but is it fair to say that the Democrats think Trump asking Ukraine to look into Biden using federal money to bribe them into bailing out his son, is an impeachable offence?
Veritas Libertas wrote: » I'd say blowing his nose without a tissue is an impeachable offence for them at the moment. If the impeachment does go ahead as you describe though, would a republican Senate convict him assuming what you wrote is true? I would hope so; but doubt it.
Danzy wrote: » It is becoming their sole defining feature. Do they not feel any of their own policies stand on merit.
SJW Lover wrote: » The only thing that thickens is MSNBC and CNN's advertising revenue as people like yourself tune in for the next year hoping for a "gotcha" moment. Meanwhile, the show goes on.
Overheal wrote: » Not really though. Remember you’re trying to contrast them to a party that proudly made its mission undermining a president for 8 years, up to and including violating their oaths of office which stipulated they advise and consent on judicial nominees; they instead shut down the process just to spite partisan issues.
Boggles wrote: » Remember lad, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. Welcome to boards by the way.
Danzy wrote: » No, while that was disgraceful I did not mean it. I was talking about the Dems and the Trump obsession.
notobtuse wrote: » The standard for libel shouldn't be lowered, just applied equally to everyone. The problem is the mainstream media and press won't stop their agenda driven lies and deception against Trump and republicans unless they're hit in the pocketbook, as things stand. The press knows they don't need to adhere to journalistic standards, as long as some old stupid Supreme Court ruling (that should be revisited) gives them free license to commit malice, libel and slander.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » The standard is higher for public figures and members of the press because they risk offending people all the time, that's why you must prove what they said was done with malice. You are advocating to remove this need to prove malice when dealing with these groups.(at least the judge you referenced was) This is far too slippery a slope to go down. I agree that clearly the likes of CNN MSNBC et al are doing these dirty tricks, and it obfuscating public discourse. But this is not the way to fix it... It will all come down to who has the biggest wallet and who can handle the most lawsuits.
notobtuse wrote: » Can you see any other way of getting the media to report honestly and fairly? If not then drastic measures need to be taken to correct injustices.
drunkmonkey wrote: » That American chap on newstalk predicted this about the whistleblower (mole) in the Whitehouse and said Trump would probably let out a story to expose them. If it was my Whitehouse I'd probably do the same. It would be niave to think Trump doesn't know who it is.
In contemporary Russia, unlike the old USSR or present-day North Korea, the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable.
ebbsy wrote: » This is exactly what Trump wants. Is anybody talking about the Democrat contest ? Nope.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » The only way forward is for us as a species getting accustomed to digesting information without it being forced upon us. It will take time, as we are currently stuck with Vladimir Sukov's legacy, for the time being, until we start to wake up. The internet age has largely contributed to this. Changing our(your) laws regarding freedom of speech is not the way forward. The US is lucky to have the best rights to freedom of expression.
