kilns wrote: » Condemning or abusing/calling names a big difference
kilns wrote: » Wow if you believe that, that is really pathetic, there is no place for that kind of stuff in any walk of life
notobtuse wrote: » kilns wrote: » It's how my daughter learned what the term eejit means. Hopefully as a future member of congress for the Republicans she has better morals than her father and those currently there
kilns wrote: » It's how my daughter learned what the term eejit means.
notobtuse wrote: » Everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has an ass....
notobtuse wrote: » Sure. It's politics.
kilns wrote: » Hopefully as a future member of congress for the Republicans she has better morals than her father and those currently there
kilns wrote: » I am not going to even entertain you anymore. Pathetic
notobtuse wrote: » She's a democrat...
Boggles wrote: » So you actively campaign for a Democrat? :pac:
notobtuse wrote: » Back on topic... If Trump was such a threat to our democracy that Pelosi had to rush impeachment, why then did she invite Trump to give his SOTU speech before the House? It gave Trump a powerful platform to celebrate his accomplishments and present his future agenda. The US Constitution merely requires the president provide Congress a report detailing the state of the union... you know... the one Pelosi tore up. Of course the Senate could always have invited Trump to give his SOTU address, but it would have been a much smaller venue with much less pomp and circumstance.
ebbsy wrote: » Watch out, there are a few brain dead snitches on this thread...………. The very worst kind, with not backbone, just like the Democrats.
notobtuse wrote: » The youngest is not yet a politician. She wants to practice law first. And hopefully she will see the light before she enters politics. The oldest did. But even if she remained a democrat when she enters politics, yes, I would actively campaign for her to some extent. Hey, according to you I have no morals.
Boggles wrote: » I imagine because the Office of the POTUS still gets respected not the 'dotting dotard' that currently sits in it. Republicans used vehemently stand for it before they coronated King Trump and rewrote the constitution.
notobtuse wrote: » I believe Thomas Jefferson ended the practice of giving the SOTU in a speech… around 1802. It wasn’t until Woodrow Willson became president that it went back to being a speech, around 1915. So there is just about as much history for not having the SOTU given as a speech as there is to give it as a speech. And Pelosi and Shiff didn’t give a rat’s ass about tradition, due process, or fair play in their impeachment farse, why would she care about tradition regarding the SOTU if Trump represented such a danger? And Pelosi broke tradition anyway at the SOTUS by presenting Trump as only "the president of the United States." Previous House speakers have all introduced thepresident by saying they had the "high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States."
Trump is a race-baiting, xenophobic, bigot who doesn't know anything about anything and he should go to hell
Boggles wrote: » Yeah she doesn't like him personally because well I think Lindsey Graham said it best. Nancy is nice to Trump in comparison to that TBF.She prays for him, daily.
Boggles wrote: » https://twitter.com/i/status/1225509603242323974
Boggles wrote: What tangible evidence have you that Pelosi tearing up sheets will put Democratic Voters off and will make them not vote?
notobtuse wrote: » Clinton was impeached for two actual crimes he committed. Trump was impeached for two non-crimes.
eagle eye wrote: » There is a long history of Democrats not voting if they don't like the candidate or policies. I lived over there for four years, my wif is from there, and have have many friends and family who I'm regularly in touch with. Of the fourteen that I've spoke to over the last couple of days ten are embarrassed by her actions, two are delighted and the other two are in not caring section. A lot of them don't like Trump but don't like Sanders or Warren either. I'd guess based on our conversations that between five and eight of them will vote regardless. I think if Biden or somebody of a similar type gets the nomination that you'll get maybe ten or eleven of them at the polls but most of them are not happy about things right now as regards their party. Now I know this is a very small sample size but these are mostly very big democrats, lots of them are members of the party and normally you'd be ignored at best if you criticised a potential nominee but not this time around. I think they reflect the middle class earner in the United States on the Democratic side.
eagle eye wrote: » I'd love to hear from others with Democrat friends over there that you've been talking to very recently just to see if what I'm hearing is similar to what you are hearing too.
Boggles wrote: » Nancy is leader of the house, she is not a potential nominee. Standing up to Trump and calling out his narcissistic bullshít is what the grass roots Democrats want. It's what every single democrat has been doing since he took office. I'm afraid your friends would be outliers in that respect.There will be no "going high" in this election.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Clinton was acquitted, he is as innocent as Trump if we are going by your standards.
notobtuse wrote: » But Clinton had reason to be humble and sorry for his actions... Trump didn't as he committed no crime and the House impeachment was a farce.
Cody montana wrote: » Are you willing to back up this comment when Bolton's book comes out soon? Let me guess, Bolton is a liar, lefty, never trumper, etc.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I will repeat Going by your standards, Clinton is as innocent as Trump. It doesn't matter if you believe "Clinton had reason to be humble and sorry for his actions" no more than wether I think Trump should be jailed for his. As you pointed out, Trump was acquited, as I pointed out Clinton was also aqquited and is therefore by your own standards as innocent as Trump.
notobtuse wrote: » Yes, both were not removed from office. Both, IMO, should never been impeached in the first place. But the comment of mine you reference was merely a response to a poster showing the difference between Clinton and Trumps public comments after their acquittals, and why I thought they both were made in appropriate fashion.
