Cog wrote:
I guess if you want immunity from any crime just run for president on the Democrat side and you can't be touched. Hell, even better than that, just mention a Democrat might have committed a crime and you will find yourself the one in trouble.
.
Have the impeachment. The further the Dems go down this road, the more it will hurt them. It will also hurt the country as the partisan divide will become a chasm with a good chance of violence. But the Dems simply don't care about that either. Dems started a war back in 1860 over the election of a Republican president and I guess history will have to repeat itself with them.
Pops wrote:The whistleblower is irrelevant, trump invited ukraine and china to investigate his opponents on live TV. He'll be impeached.
The old saw holds,
When process is against you argue the facts,
when facts are against you argue the process
when both are against you tune in FOX
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Funny thing about politics, bias is completely relative.
Among consistently conservative respondents, 47 percent chose Fox News as their main source “for news about government and politics.” The next largest group, 11 percent, chose local radio. Responses among liberals, by contrast, were much more fragmented. Fifteen percent of consistently liberal respondents chose CNN, 13 percent chose NPR, 12 percent chose MSNBC and 10 percent chose the New York Times.
Pew also asked whether the respondents trusted a given news source (or hadn’t heard of it). Eighty eight percent of consistently conservative respondents said they trust Fox News, compared with 52 percent of consistent liberals who say they trust MSNBC. In fact, among consistently conservative respondents, only four news sources are trusted by at least half the respondents: Fox News, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh’s radio and Glenn Beck’s radio show. For consistently liberal respondents, there are nine: NPR, PBS, BBC, New York Times, NBC News, CNN, ABC News, MSNBC and CBS News.
Pops wrote:The whistleblower is irrelevant, trump invited ukraine and china to investigate his opponents on live TV. He'll be impeached.
Plantagenet wrote:I think we all see how this works now----its OK for a D to secretly contact a foreign country and collude with them to get a dossier filled with lies about an R in order to pass those on to the FBI and the media just before the election, but its impeachable for an R to publicly call on a foreign country to investigate corruption that involves a D.
Got it!
jedrider wrote:Fox News has normalized a lie about the origins of the Russia investigation
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277089/fox-news-steele-dossier-lie-trump-witch-hunt
Pops wrote:Facts are simple:
Trump solicited a foreign government (now 2) to 1. meddle in our election by exonerating Russia for meddling in our election
Pops wrote: ....meddle in our election by dirtying his opponent, again.
No arguing this, he released the notes himself, did it again on TV.
Plantagenet wrote:Politics is a dirty business.
I wish the Ds and Rs would talk about the issues instead of attacking each other, but politics in the US these days is largely about attacking your opponent.
Pops wrote:Plantagenet wrote:Politics is a dirty business.
that's your excuse? anything goes?
a manchurian candidate is better than a Democratic one?
we're in trouble
.
Pops wrote:[
.....a manchurian candidate is better than a Democratic one?
Plantagenet wrote: We also know that the claims in the whistleblower report that Trump offered a quid pro quo over the phone to Ukraine are just more lies.
jedrider wrote:The House appears to have enough impeachable evidence already. The only question is will the Senate eventually abandon being a toady to Trump and redevelop an identity of their own? If Trump is deposed, then who would take his place? Is it worth replacing a lame duck President?
Outcast_Searcher wrote:jedrider wrote:The House appears to have enough impeachable evidence already. The only question is will the Senate eventually abandon being a toady to Trump and redevelop an identity of their own? If Trump is deposed, then who would take his place? Is it worth replacing a lame duck President?
Says who? What evidence is that? What CNBC believes isn't evidence, by the way.
Cog wrote:But what do we know? We know that Trump asked a foreign government to investigate an American citizen for any illegal acts they may have done there. That is not only not illegal for a president to do so, it is well within the executive's authority and responsibility to do so.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests