B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
Fortunately even the rabid radicals in the House could not get enough representatives to agree with you.
Nolte: You Get What You Vote For and in Democrat-Run Cities You Get Riots
- Status
And yet folks like Nancy Pelosi become Remarkably wealthy By being in Congress.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Your claim is beyond ridiculous. If you really believe this, I feel sorry for you.7_Sorrows:
If I would have replaced 104,000 with 4, would you say the same thing?
I think its almost 108,000 now.
Glad I don’t live in your world.
D
dscath
Guest
Your not answering my question…
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
the rabid leftiata in congress wanted impeachment articles to incluse the emoluments clause. those who understand what the emoluments clause actually means sisnt let them.
They did not charge him with extortion of a foreign leader. Why? Because he didn’t.
They didn’t charge him with violating the emoluments clause. Why? Because he didn’t.
They didn’t charge him with collusion with Putin. Why? Because he didn’t.
No, it wasn’t. If they wanted to charge him with extortion, they could have. They chose not to because he didn’t and they knew it.
They didn’t because he didn’t and they knew it.
And they didn’t because he didn’t and they knew it.
They chose not to because he didn’t, they knew it, and they were incredibly dishonest.
You mean the ones he was acquitted of? I did.
The calculation was they couldn’t prove something that didn’t happen.
Last edited:
They didn’t charge him with extortion. They didn’t because he didn’t. Even Zelensky said he didn’t. They, effectively, charged him with beating Clinton in the election. It was a diabolical and corrupt attempt at a coup.
The term started with quid pro quo, but focus panels showed that term ineffective. They moved to bribery, but that wasn’t true at all. They tried extortion, but again, that didn’t happen. So, vague charges like abuse of power has to be used.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
impeachment is a political device, so they could have impeached him for walking on the grass.
The democrats turned it into a sham.
The democrats turned it into a sham.
I’m sure it crossed their minds.
Which was not present in the president’s actions, which is why they used a vague charge.
The sham was the dishonest and corrupt hearings held by Schiff and later Nadler.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Your argument has no foundation. President Trump has not killed anyone.
D
dscath
Guest
Opining is quite different from arguing.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
So he idly set by and let the pandemic rage across America while he was playing golf or at Mar-a-lago? You are saying he took no action whatsoever? Got it.7_Sorrows:
No, he has just failed to address a threat to Americans so badly that 100000+ are dead.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
That is your opinion and there are many who do not share it.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
a threat that the experts said would kill 2.2 million Americans.
Trump saved 2.1 million American lives, heshould be your hero for this. You should have a poster if him on your bedroom wall (maybe right next to your Che Guevara poster).
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
cough Vietnam, Obama killing more with drones than Bush, Bahrain cough
S
StudentMI
Guest
It’s a small country in the Middle East. During the Arab Spring, the populace rose up against the military dictatorship in protest. Security personnel shot into groups of people, videos were uploaded, etc. And in the midst of all this, when the US was championing the other Arab Spring protests and planning their coup in Libya, Hillary made a statement that they stood with the government of Bahrain against the people because it’s an important dock for US ships. Protestors were subsequently tortured, executed, whole nine yards.
- Status