Trump and his nicknames

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
You all ought to do the honorable thing and just admit Schiff and Nadler lost this for you.
 
Last edited:
They are all scared to death of retribution. They need to be voted out they cannot satisfy their oaths.
Collins was described as," DEAD WOMAN WALKING," by Ed Rollins and they dis-invited Romney from CPAC in less than 24 hours. They are essentially tools. And that effectively destroys checks and balances.
I never expected Aquittal was in doubt, but the decision to go with no witnesses was to radically sycophant that it made the trial a farce.
Now things cannot be final, because books and evidence will continue to shame them and render the idea of vindication and finality impossible
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
a half trial because of no witnesses.
Click to expand...
13 witnesses. 28,000 documents. So the Senate didn’t want it to go on forever based on SPECULATION what Bolton might say when the Dems never subpoenaed Bolton when they could have, and his book will come out no matter what.
 
This impeachment never had a chance of removing the President. The Democrats demanded and demanded and Pelosi finally gave in. It was DOA from Day 1 and anybody who didn’t admit that was being delusional.

The question, I suppose, was whether the Democrats made a case that will increase November turnout against Trump and the GOP. Time will tell. I don’t pretend to know how undecided voters see this; my guess is that they just kept living life and ignored it, to be frank. A lot of people actually do just live life and ignore politics until their voter pamphlet comes in the mail.

It means a lot to voters with 0% chance of changing their votes. I don’t know what anybody else thinks. Mileage varies, I’d guess, but I don’t think people believe enough that Hunter Biden is going to sway a vote to think the whole thing is going to change history.

History always has surprised when it comes, though.
 
Last edited:
phil3 said:
I know of no conservative that claims whites are superior to any other race. I dont think Trump as ever said the white race is superior to other races.
Click to expand...
What? David Duke didn’t just run for President as a Democrat. He was elected as a Republican (a representative in the state of Louisiana) and ran for President as a Republican. I don’t think it is appropriate to post any of his quotes on this forum, but if you really don’t believe he thought whites are superior, by all means look it up.

We don’t have to repeat the conciliatory attitude the President took towards the people in Charlottesville who were marching around with nakedly racist slogans on their placards while chanting nakedly racist things to march to.

Honestly, why would white supremacists have rallies to “Unite the Right” if they didn’t see conservatives as their best bet to gain a foothold of support? How can conservatives reject that if conservatives can’t even admit that?

Do I think there is any racism among Democrats? Sure. It is absurd to say there is none among conservatives. Why would anybody say that? No, where it is seen, it needs to be rejected, even when it is seen in one’s own party. Pretending it doesn’t exist is an invitation for it to nest.
 
Last edited:
It was the job of the House e to bring forth any and all witnesses.The Senate’s job is essentially that of a jury.When’s the last time a jury has called for witnesses’ ? The D ems in their rush to have Trump’s presidency marred by an impeachement is on them not the senate.Haste makes waste
 
Last edited:
Actually, I pray for the president. But my feeling is that I do not have enough prayers in me to make him act nicer. The way a person deals with others had much to do with the way they were brought up. I was brought up to respect others, especially those whom I disagree with.
The problem with America is that far right and the far left pull the majority of us, who are neither completely conservative or liberal, apart. I blame the extremists on both sides for the great divide.
Trump’s personality and the way he deals with others is what turns me off. I don’t have to agree with his policies. It is him, personally, that I cannot stand.
 
He wouldn’t be my choice of a drinking buddy, either. But I am definitely favorable toward his policies. I can put up with the bad manners. It’s actually refreshing in a way. I might have been unduly influenced by my parents, who were Democrats. They very much liked Harry Truman and never tired of saying so and approving his sometimes rough speech. He was given to poking at the elites, much as Trump is. So was LBJ.

I was a Democrat too, until I realized I couldn’t simultaneously be faithful to the teaching of the Church and the values of the Dem party as regard abortion. Since then, the party has gotten even more pro-abortion but has also lurched to the left in other ways.
 
Jeanne_S said:
It was the job of the House e to bring forth any and all witnesses.
Click to expand...
That is simply not the case in US impeachments.
In every impeachment tried in the US Senate new witness were called by the Senate that were not called by the House. Every one.
 
Last edited:
I read your post and I think lots of people agree with you. If the outcome is known at the outset, why bother?
I get it. You need a different reason.
I don’t think much of," because it’s right," for right sake arguments. Impeachment is to decisive to that.
You offer Nov 2020 and Democrat party plans to take advantage. No doubt they want to. No doubt the GOP wants to. But that reason has the problem that you can blow yourself up. Nobody wants that.
I think people know why we went through this exercise. Whether they want to say it or not.
Regardless of party, we all went through the Russia investigation.
Regardless of party, we all became familiar with foreign interference and how American politicians are not supposed to invite foreign influence in the election.
Rightly or wrongly, Trump’s presidency was distracted by Mueller.
Which gets us to Ukraine. One day after Mueller testified, Trump is soliciting foreign help in his campaign from Ukraine?
Did he think nobody would notice? Did he care about round 2?
Apparently not.
Which gets us to why this impeachment. I think it’s main intention was to shine a light. Bring attention to cheating. To slow down Trump’s actions.
 
I understand that some wanted to use the impeachment proceedings to get the facts into the public record. I just have to question if the outcome is going to be what was imagined.

I’m not saying he did nothing wrong. I think he is as guilty as sin. Not only do I believe that he doesn’t think that the rules don’t apply to him, but I also believe that he doesn’t think anybody else who is “smart” plays by the rules, either. I think he believes politics is an amoral universe where winning is not only the main thing but the only thing. That is the impression I get from the way he talks. (For instance, if he figures out how to pay no taxes in spite of having made a brag-worthy amount of money, he says that would make him “smart.” He thinks voters will admire that.)

If he thinks voters have bigger fish to fry than to worry about being influenced by foreign powers and by internet trolls, I think he’s right. I think voters want to think that other people are gullible and don’t know fact from fiction, but that this “cheating” thing doesn’t affect them. In other words, he makes an assessment that is cynical and amoral but, for the purposes of his objectives, not incorrect. He doesn’t have an internal self-image that requires him to exercise integrity while winning. Nope: winning is enough.
 
And if you look at each one of those impeachment of the President, they were politically motivated. Just as this one was. None of them should have ever happened.
 
According to a friend of mine, who chatted with Trump several times and observed him in my friend’s law library, which Trump would visit on a regular basis with his legal team forever dealing with issues of bankruptcy and lawsuits, Trump’s lack of moral compass extends not only to politics but to business. He is a real shyster, and simply applies his business lack of ethics to his politics. At least he is consistent in this sense as well as, unfortunately, totally in sync with modern culture’s greed and materialism.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
David Duke is far beyond conservative or even reactionary.
Click to expand...
Well, if you define “conservative” as “doesn’t make racist remarks,” then that makes the claim that conservatives never say anything racist self-evident. What it does not make self-evident is how to define “conservative” to mean that.

Is this set of Trump Tweet statements “conservative”?
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly…
…and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…
…it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx, Tlaib hails from Detroit, and Pressley was born in Chicago. Deb Haaland was born in Winslow, Arizona. It takes Nancy Pelosi to fly to the Bronx?

So which representatives (plural) was the President tweeting about, if not those? Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia, but she was naturalized as a teenager. As for the others, they were born in THIS country.

And what do you call it when the President re-tweets false claims that Ilhan Omar “partied” on the anniversary of 9/11? Does he count as a conservative?

Just as the Church could not be safe from pedophiles until we were willing to admit that we could be harboring pedophiles, just so political parties can’t be safe from hateful attitudes unless people within each party or line of political thought are willing to admit that people with political views similar to theirs could also hold hateful views. Who is going to oppose those hateful views if they’re afraid to admit they could exist within their movement? It can’t happen.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
According to a friend of mine, who chatted with Trump several times and observed him in my friend’s law library, which Trump would visit on a regular basis with his legal team forever dealing with issues of bankruptcy and lawsuits, Trump’s lack of moral compass extends not only to politics but to business. He is a real shyster, and simply applies his business lack of ethics to his politics. At least he is consistent in this sense as well as, unfortunately, totally in sync with modern culture.
Click to expand...
He talks as if he doesn’t understand what integrity is. Sorry to those who believe he has upright views and just talks about them using overly-blunt language, but if you look at his verified quotes or listen to what he says…not so much.
 
phil3 said:
Trump is going to win in 2020 and it will be a landslide.
Click to expand...
I would rather pick the Kentucky Derby winner right now than call the November elections.
It is going to be a really long nine months.

Stay tuned. You heard it here first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top