Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

18 minutes ago, Zontar said:

My mindset is socalists and progressives destroy everything they touch and make society and the world worse. They cannot be trusted. Plot , scheme, steal to get power. See Mueller and impeachment.

The longer they are kept from the reins of power the better. Since socialists are plotting for more power in the US, the most influential country on earth,  I have an interest.

Soooo......you're a nut, then?

19 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

But, that is what the vote was about. To have a transparent plan in place to deal with the impeachment investigation.

The bi-partisan question is a red-herring. That the Repubs voted against it is a stain on them, not the process.

So much this. I can't like this post enough.

2 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Soooo......you're a nut, then?

This is the definitely most reasonable conclusion.

 

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

So much this. I can't like this post enough.

How was "it has to be bipartisan and it will be" which Pelosi repeatedly maintained and echoed by a sympathetic media a red herring ?

 

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Soooo......you're a nut, then?

Scorn by a socialist doesn't make the point you think you're making.

3 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Scorn by a socialist doesn't make the point you think you're making.

I'm pretty comfortable with my mental stability and grasp of reality, thanks.  Sorry for getting personal.

6 minutes ago, Zontar said:

How was "it has to be bipartisan and it will be" which Pelosi repeatedly maintained and echoed by a sympathetic media a red herring ?

 

That the Republicans refuse to make it bi-partisan is not on Pelosi.

9 minutes ago, Zontar said:

How was "it has to be bipartisan and it will be" which Pelosi repeatedly maintained and echoed by a sympathetic media a red herring ?

 

Cause members of both parties sit on the committees.  That’s bipartisan. And it’s only the beginning, not the end.  Who knows if any GOP will vote against trump.  You want to bury it before that even has a chance to happen just like you dismiss the mueller report which showed collusion between trump and Russia, crimes and put many in jail. Nothing to see right?

why discuss an issue when absolutely nothing will ever be enough to convince you?  When the facts don’t matter why bother ?

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That the Republicans refuse to make it bi-partisan is not on Pelosi.

It is when going forward is predicated on the need for bipartisan ship, like she said.

8 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I'm pretty comfortable with my mental stability and grasp of reality, thanks.  Sorry for getting personal.

Ok, if you're sure.

3 minutes ago, Zontar said:

It is when going forward is predicated on the need for bipartisan ship, like she said.

You're essentially arguing:

1) if the jury wont convict today, no point in having a trial (and actually they're just at the investigation stage so a better argument is, if the jury wont convict today, no reason to call the cops at all)

2) the investigation is not credible because the GOP doesnt support it, ignoring the majority of the House who did (satisfying the constitutional requirement).  Why does the GOP position matter but the Dem position doesnt?

3) The process is actually more fair to Trump than in past impeachment inquiries

You're not even debating that Trump is guilty, you're arguing he should get off in spite of the evidence against him.

6 minutes ago, Zontar said:

It is when going forward is predicated on the need for bipartisan ship, like she said.

"But here’s the thing: These hearings are being conducted with the full involvement of the Republican members of the three committees doing the inquiring. Not only are Republicans given equivalent time for questioning, but any member of any of the committees — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight — is welcome to attend any of these sessions."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/23/protect-trump-republicans-are-staging-display-lawlessness-its-failing/

15 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That the Republicans refuse to make it bi-partisan is not on Pelosi.

This is key. 

1) never let facts get in the way of a good denial

2) you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink

Close to 15k lies or misleading statements during his presidency, he wouldn't know the truth if if smacked him upside his head.

Fun Article in Vanity Fair:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/wall-street-tries-to-get-its-mind-around-a-warren-presidency

Quote

“A DECISION BETWEEN SICKNESS AND DEATH”: WALL STREET TRIES TO GET ITS MIND AROUND A WARREN PRESIDENCY

At least she’s a capitalist, unlike Bernie. And in a pick-your-poison election, many Wall Streeters see her as much, much better than Trump and his chaos.

BY 

WILLIAM D. COHAN

OCTOBER 11, 2019

 

43 minutes ago, Zontar said:

How was "it has to be and it will be" which Pelosi repeatedly maintained and echoed by a sympathetic media a red herring ?

 

Interesting take... How do you define bipartisan?

use of "Globalist" reveals who the poster's sources are, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon for instance.

That's where this person gets their ideas. Not worth any more of my time.

"As the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt put it, “Where the term originates from is a reference to Jewish people who are seen as having allegiances not to their countries of origin like the United States, but to some global conspiracy.” Greenblatt said it’s “disturbing” when public officials “literally parrot this term which is rooted in prejudice.”

 

Nothing to see here. 

Here is a novel new idea on how not to answer a question.

 

Edited November 1, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

6 hours ago, Zontar said:

From what I gather the sexual /power dynamic of a superior over a subordinate in the workplace is a big part of it no matter if it was consensual. Pretty much sounds like this case

this is one of those things that contain multiple true things.

yes, the member of congress did have a sex relationship with a subordinate, and that's a bad look no matter what the circumstances.  Her resignation is more punishment than I'd ask for, but she made that call. No laws were broken.

yes, the member of congress is a victim of revenge porn and whoever did it tried to extort her with more photos. That breaks several laws -- revenge porn is against the law in California -- and I hope law enforcement fries whoever's responsible for that. 

Remember this Zontar person posting that the American election was influenced by millions of illegal voters?

and he hasn't shown his source.

Probably cause it's Alex Jones and he doesn't want to admit that. Not sure why that would be.

 

Quote

 

Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens

Trump may have won popular vote

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - November 14, 2016

 

 

Alex Jones is  likely where Zontar gets the stuff that he posts here. and  Breitbart.

Edited November 1, 20196 yr by Mark F

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Nothing to see here. 

.

risks job, prospects, now they're trying to see if they can prosecute him.

You know, that this man is without a doubt, a hero, squeaky clean, above reproach, and telling the truth. And the people attacking him are worthless liars, who have zero to lose when they carry out their mission for the vile Trump.

Edited November 1, 20196 yr by Mark F

well Beto is out

https://deadline.com/2019/11/beto-orourke-drops-out-2020-1202775051/

4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Fun Article in Vanity Fair:

 

He says Wall street should worry about Warren cause 1 she wants to ban fracking.

the frackers have never, not once, turned a profit, they are and have been losing money in the biliions for years. If Wall street likes that, they are nuts.

I suppose some wall street firms get some nice fees out of the fracking scam.

seriously look it up, the fracking project is a scam. Encouraged and promoted by that great lefty environmentalist Obama.

also, the wall street guys would know if Trump is gaming the system, which they wouldn't like cause they are not in on it.

Edited November 1, 20196 yr by Mark F