bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Rue said: How sad. In today's America Lincoln, Truman, so many others based on having no money when they got elected would not even be looked at. You have to be rich and have a plane with your name on it. Pathetic. Barack Obama was not rich...but he is now. Nice try.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rue said: They will have to because the Republican Senators prevented a proper impeachment trial. They blocked evidence and witnesses and stated before the trial they had already made up their minds to protect Trump and prevent the trial. I myself would not be surprised if Trump would be re-elected. It says a lot for the collective psyche of the US with their political system. They accept corruption, dictatorship, abuse of power, lying and uttering non stop alsehoods to the media that are proven false, using the Twitter to write fractured insulting syntax, being rude, firing people non stop. No problem. It means nothing. Electing a President based on a reality t.v. show and him walking in front of a plane with his name while the song MONEY MONEY MONEY blares out, that's the kind of man, that's the role model Americans want. No statesmanship, no uniting visions and certainly no legislation, just the removal of regulations. A Presidency whose entire legacy will be based on insults, telling Americans what was wrong, but leaving no vision. Is it a surprise. The irony is some say Trump is a builder, he built buildings. He never did. Never did he build anything. He piggy backed onto construction projects charging them a royalty fee to use his name to advertise the project. This man when he did supposedly run construction never paid his workers and left a string of unpaid debts from the money he borrowed to build the project unpaid. He parasites off of the work of others. He played pyramid schemes with other people's money and labour and that is the man America wanted. Imagine a country with statesmen like the US had, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, Wilson, T and FD Rooseevelt, JFK, Truman to name a few and this is what they have lowered their expectations of their leader to. Its sad and I again can only think once Nixon sucked any remaining naïve belief in politics having admirable people out of the soul of America, its been a slide down to the most base and crass of politicians. Americans don't care. They seem to have given up in expecting anything of value in a leader. Its all about picking someone who defines everything by how able he is to order others about and brag about his personal material comforts. The degradation happened by degrees, the temperature slowly turned up until the frog of decency boiled alive. In Dante’s Inferno the damned are getting exactly what they want. The crime is the punishment. Contrapasso. Americans are getting the president they want. Now it’s about seeing how much he can get away with. Reminds me of Rob Ford. The guy was practically smoking crack in front of the cameras whilst vehemently denying it, and his staunchest supporters backed the denial. Pure entertainment if it wasn’t for the fact that he influenced major decisions that impacted people. Edited January 28, 2020 by Zeitgeist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Barack Obama was not rich...but he is now. Nice try.... You missed the point. He came rich as President, he was not elected because he walked in front of a plane with his name on it while the song MONEY MONEY MONEY blared. He was not elected because of his reputation of being rich. Anyone once a Senator, Congressman or President yes becomes rich in addition to whatever else they were preceding entry to office. Obama aint in Chicago worrying about the communities he once did. He is on a private island relaxing. Edited January 28, 2020 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rue said: You missed the point. He came rich as President, he was not elected because he walked in front of a plane with his name on it while the song MONEY MONEY MONEY blared. He was not elected because of his reputation of being rich. Anyone once a Senator, Congressman or President yes becomes rich in addition to whatever else they were preceding entry to office. Obama aint in Chicago worrying about the communities he once did. He is on a private island relaxing. Obama raised $750 million from large and small donors in 2008, not personal wealth. Ergo, your premise is flawed. Winning requires lots of cash, regardless of personal wealth. Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc. were not wealthy men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Obama raised $750 million from large and small donors in 2008, not personal wealth. Ergo, your premise is flawed. Winning requires lots of cash, regardless of personal wealth. Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc. were not wealthy men. see post below Edited January 28, 2020 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Obama raised $750 million from large and small donors in 2008, not personal wealth. Ergo, your premise is flawed. Winning requires lots of cash, regardless of personal wealth. Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc. were not wealthy men. I stated , " In today's America ..." I should have been more clear and said Trump's era. Your responses are fair if I was referring back to Nixon's era and past that. I concede that. I only meant Trump's era. Also my point is the distinction between needing money to run and personal wealth does not address the perception that today to run for office you better be rich like Trump or Bloomberg because the need to raise money from outside sources necessarily corrupts a politician before they can run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Rue said: I stated , " In today's America ..." I should have been more clear and said Trump's era. Your responses are fair if I was referring back to Nixon's era and past that. I concede that. I only meant Trump's era. Also my point is the distinction between needing money to run and personal wealth does not address the perception that today to run for office you better be rich like Trump or Bloomberg because the need to raise money from outside sources necessarily corrupts a politician before they can run. I agree it takes lots of cash to finance a credible campaign today, but that is regardless of personal wealth. Mike Bloomberg is trying to buy the Democratic nomination with limited polling success. Most others in the race are relative paupers, like Mayor Pete, but doing better. Money is also needed for other federal and state office campaigns by political parties. The ability to raise money from the many is also considered a direct form of public support and endorsement. U.S. taxpayers are also asked to donate money to the federal campaign finance fund in their tax returns. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 28, 2020 Report Share Posted January 28, 2020 31 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: I agree it takes lots of cash to finance a credible campaign today, but that is regardless of personal wealth. Mike Bloomberg is trying to buy the Democratic nomination with limited polling success. Most others in the race are relative paupers, like Mayor Pete, but doing better. Money is also needed for other federal and state office campaigns by political parties. The ability to raise money from the many is also considered a direct form of public support and endorsement. U.S. taxpayers are also asked to donate money to the federal campaign finance fund in their tax returns. Bloomberg is dumping so much ad money that we see all his ads in Canada. No wonder the other candidates are miffed at him for showing-up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Bloomberg is dumping so much ad money that we see all his ads in Canada. No wonder the other candidates are miffed at him for showing-up. For real....Mike Bloomberg has already blown $200 million for television & cable ad buys, saturating the media landscape in key states. His obnoxious commercials are running multiple times throughout the day, wearing on many regardless of the campaign. Bloomberg is not even on the primary ballot in early states. A 60 second Super Bowl is expected....Canadians can be thankful for simsub ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 19 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Impeachment has been weaponized.... So has the Constitution. Let me guess, it always was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Soooo the defence is officially put your head in the sand and GOP Senators will have to face their constituents claiming they didn't want to hear important evidence. Alan Dershowitz, a man who defended OJ and Jeffery Epstein said infront of the Senate that even if Trump did everything he's being accused of, which is getting harder and harder to deny, it's still not an impeachable defence and a POTUS can do whatever he wants. I eagerly await the GOPs response when a Democrat POTUS tries to say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 26 minutes ago, Boges said: I eagerly await the GOPs response when a Democrat POTUS tries to say that. The U.S. Senate has never removed a sitting president before for far worse. Did you really think that was going to happen just because Trump wanted to get dirt on the Bidens ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 47 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: The U.S. Senate has never removed a sitting president before for far worse. Did you really think that was going to happen just because Trump wanted to get dirt on the Bidens ? Getting dirt on the Bidens is one thing. Attaching it as a condition for 100’s of millions of dollars in military aid is criminal, worse than bugging a hotel (Watergate), and we know how that ended for Nixon. If Republicans look the other way, they are placing Trump above the law and setting the conditions for dictatorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: Getting dirt on the Bidens is one thing. Attaching it as a condition for 100’s of millions of dollars in military aid is criminal, worse than bugging a hotel (Watergate), and we know how that ended for Nixon. If Republicans look the other way, they are placing Trump above the law and setting the conditions for dictatorship. Or having a BJ in the Oval Office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said: Getting dirt on the Bidens is one thing. Attaching it as a condition for 100’s of millions of dollars in military aid is criminal, worse than bugging a hotel (Watergate), and we know how that ended for Nixon. If Republicans look the other way, they are placing Trump above the law and setting the conditions for dictatorship. There were no conditions. Money was released without anything in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Boges said: Or having a BJ in the Oval Office. It wasn't about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Shady said: It wasn't about that. It was about lying and obstruction of justice. Something Trump's impeachment has in spades. At least Clinton actually co-operated with congress. Edited January 30, 2020 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Just now, Boges said: It was about lying and obstruction of justice. Something Trump's impeachment has in spades. In regards to a sexual harassment lawsuit. There's no underlying crime in Trump's case. There was in Clinton's. Trump hasn't lie under oath. And there is no obstruction of justice without a underlying crime. There's nothing to obstruct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Shady said: There's no underlying crime in Trump's case. That's complete BS https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/ Quote TRUMP’S FIVE CRIMES CONNECTED TO UKRAINE: I. BRIBERY (18 U.S.C. § 201) II. SOLICITING FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION (52 U.S.C. §§ 30109, 30121) III. COERCION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY (18 U.S.C. § 610) IV. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS (18 U.S.C. § 641) V. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512) Quote Trump hasn't lie under oath. Edited January 30, 2020 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 17 minutes ago, Boges said: That's complete BS https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/ He hadn’t been charged with any crime. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Shady said: He hadn’t been charged with any crime. Sorry. Neither was Clinton...so what's your point then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Shady said: He hadn’t been charged with any crime. Sorry. DOJ opinion says a sitting POTUS can't be indicted. It's what made the Mueller report a useless endeavour. The remedy is impeachment. POTUS commits a crime, is impeached because of said crime, is acquitted because a partisan Senate refuses to have a trial with actual witnesses and are afraid POTUS will Tweet mean things about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, Boges said: DOJ opinion says a sitting POTUS can't be indicted. It's what made the Mueller report a useless endeavour. The remedy is impeachment. POTUS commits a crime, is impeached because of said crime, is acquitted because a partisan Senate refuses to have a trial with actual witnesses and are afraid POTUS will Tweet mean things about them. But there aren’t any crimes even listed in the articles of impeachment. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Shady said: But there aren’t any crimes even listed in the articles of impeachment. Sorry. His actions in Ukraine were an abuse of power that encompassed several crimes. Bribery is in the constitution as an impeachable offence and that's pretty much what Trump did. I cited 5 crimes that are related to Trump's abuse of power in Ukraine. The Article of imepachment is abuse of power. Edited January 30, 2020 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 57 minutes ago, Boges said: His actions in Ukraine were an abuse of power that encompassed several crimes. Bribery is in the constitution as an impeachable offence and that's pretty much what Trump did. I cited 5 crimes that are related to Trump's abuse of power in Ukraine. The Article of imepachment is abuse of power. No it wasn't an abuse of power. The money was released, without any conditions. No, Trump didn't bribe anyone. You really need to stop listening and/or reading leftwing blogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.