Election 2020 - Page 31 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15040543
Drlee wrote:Warren is much younger than Trump.


No, she's not. Trump is only three years her senior...
By late
#15040618
blackjack21 wrote:




maybe you ought to read the Congressional Record from time-to-time. Newt Gingrich was as bi-partisan as Tip O'Neill.




Lived through it, alsp that's what historians think.

"A little over a year ago, a 28-year veteran Republican congressional staffer, Mike Lofgren, decided to leave his job, but he didn’t go quietly. In a widely read parting essay published at Truthout.org, he asserted that the party he’d spent his career in had been taken over by crackpots and lunatics...

The GOP, Lofgren argued in the aftermath of the debt-ceiling debacle, increasingly resembled “an apocalyptic cult"...

When Lofgren started his career in the early 1980s, he writes, the GOP had an influential moderate wing — “politicians of the old school, who could reach across the aisle, make a deal, and stick to it” — and bipartisan coalitions were still possible.

So what happened? Lofgren joins a bipartisan intellectual consensus that Newt Gingrich is largely to blame by destroying the old committee system, concentrating power in the speaker’s office and practicing “scorched-earth tactics”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertai ... story.html

You do know there is life outside lala land?
By late
#15040625
Hindsite wrote:
If it were not for all the fake news and left-wing propaganda coming out the MSM, I believe President Trump should win reelection easily.



See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil...

Btw, "fake news" was coined to describe Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica, and others like them.

You know, like the child prostitution ring in the cellar of a pizza place that didn't have a cellar.

There are literally thousands of other fake stories like that, from the deranged Right.
By Hindsite
#15040636
late wrote:See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil...

Btw, "fake news" was coined to describe Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica, and others like them.

You know, like the child prostitution ring in the cellar of a pizza place that didn't have a cellar.

There are literally thousands of other fake stories like that, from the deranged Right.

The majority of fake news lately has been coming from the Left, who have Trump Derangement Syndrome from getting humiliated and beaten like a drum by the Trump of God.
HalleluYah
By late
#15040641
Hindsite wrote:
The majority of fake news lately has been coming from the Left, who have Trump Derangement Syndrome from getting humiliated and beaten like a drum by the Trump of God.



When you consider that the recent midterms were a bloodbath for Republicans, and that over the last few months Independents have been moving in polls toward impeachment...

Trump needs swing voters, and there isn't much chance of him getting them again.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do ... ent-trump/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do ... m-in-2020/
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040643
late wrote:Lived through it, alsp that's what historians think.

So we've got some dipshit historians then. The House under Gingrich was prolific at passing legislation with Clinton.

The piece was sharp, eloquent and all the more damning for being produced not by a progressive activist, but by a longtime aide to Rep. John Kasich of Ohio, a conservative fiscal hawk.

He he. Kasich.

The GOP, Lofgren argued in the aftermath of the debt-ceiling debacle, increasingly resembled “an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe” in which “a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.”

You do realize Kasich had deep ties to Goldman Sachs. They didn't appreciate the fight to raise the debt ceiling. I can see why that would seem apocalyptic to a bond merchant, but it wasn't to most Americans.

The absurd thing about Lofgren is that as part of the fiscal hawks, the last time the House passed a balanced budget was under Newt Gingrich. That ended with Hastert and became ludicrous under Boehner and Ryan.

Kasich could team up with liberal Democrats such as Ron Dellums to rein in boondoggles such as the B-2 bomber program.

Red Ron Dellums was a communist. John McCain teamed up with Barack Obama to kill off the F-22 leaving us stuck with the F-35. These guys never understood why they became hated.

So what happened? Lofgren joins a bipartisan intellectual consensus that Newt Gingrich is largely to blame by destroying the old committee system, concentrating power in the speaker’s office and practicing “scorched-earth tactics” that were carried on by successor Tom DeLay.

Moron. Tom Delay was never speaker of the House. The old committee system was utterly corrupt. Can you say Dan Rostenkowski? James Traficant? How about the Keating Five? Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, Don Riegle, and John McCain? Jim Wright and the House Bank? You've lived through all this have you? So have I.

The Fall of Jim Wright—and the House of Representatives
Those of us seeking to understand what has gone wrong with Congress are always on the lookout for characters who can be cast as villains in the institution’s history. Standard discussions (including McKay Coppins’s recent Atlantic story) often center on Newt Gingrich, and certainly this decade’s revelations about Dennis Hastert’s terrible past now make him a superlative heel. But for those who want to look across the aisle, Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D-Tex., in Congress 1955-1989, Speaker 1986-1989) is sometimes singled out.

Indeed. Newt Gingrich fought for what he believed in, but he was also stamping out decades of corruption that festered and that many Republicans were fine to tolerate. Oddly, they could get away with this today if they would just pave the fucking roads and fix the bridges in the United States instead of dumping tons of money in Afghanistan, Iraq, or running huge trade deficits with China.

Wright’s speakership occupied a pivotal place in Congress’s history, a moment in which the era of the “Sun and Moon parties” (with Democrats as the dominant star and Republicans as the orbiting satellite) was giving way to one of balanced partisan competition. No doubt, this was an exceptional challenge. But Wright failed spectacularly, in a way that discredited institutionalism by making it seem like a lame cover for simple corruption.

Indeed. That is why the House became the image of corruption in American politics.

As Wright traveled his path to the Speakership, America’s political landscape was transforming. Party politics in Texas when Wright began his career was Democratic politics; Republicans were not completely absent from the scene, but they were treated by the real players as a superfluous sort of local color. The Speaker of the House when Wright arrived to the House was Sam Rayburn, whom the younger Texan Wright looked up to with filial reverence. In Wright’s reckoning, the House when he arrived was marked by its cooperative style in which members’ “mutual assumption of honor. . .held things together.”1 Not until he was a dozen election cycles in did Wright draw a serious general election opponent in 1974. He prided himself on his “almost unvarying practice never even to mention the name of my opponent. I talked instead of what I believed and what I was trying to achieve.”2

Given Wright’s comfort with the familiar one-party political scene, Republicans’ slow post-Civil Rights return from obscurity in the South was bound to unsettle him.

Well written. It shows that the racists didn't all leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans. On the contrary, the Republicans paid dearly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Once he had the Speaker’s gavel, it was quickly evident that Wright had left the consensual politics of his younger days behind. Both his fellow Democrats and Republicans found him to be imperious and easily offended by dissent; as Flippen puts it, “he dictated more than he consulted.” Wright restructured the Democratic whip operation without consulting his caucus’s elected whip, Tony Coelho; he tried (unsuccessfully) to mount a leadership takeover of the House Administration Committee; he delayed naming his Rules Committee appointments so that the ultimate recipients would “remember they were the Speaker’s appointees”; and he grabbed extra office space.3 Members also thought he was addicted to arbitrary deadlines and limits on debates.

Jim Wright pissed a lot of people off, and it ended up that many in his own party turned on him.

Throughout the 1980s, there was a simmering dispute among congressional Republicans: whether to participate unreservedly in Democrat-led governance, as House Minority Leader Bob Michel preferred, or to adopt a more confrontational stance, as upstart Newt Gingrich loudly advocated. When O’Neill was Speaker, Michel’s way of thinking held its own. But Wright’s tendency to steamroll Republicans ensured that Gingrich would steadily accumulate influence.

As I pointed out, Newt Gingrich provided leadership while Bob Michel was happy to acquiesce. Gingrich even let Bob Michel wield the gavel as a temporary speaker once. It was sort of sad and pathetic, as I remember. You show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.

By drawing partisan lines, Wright gave Republican moderates—moderates in style, not necessarily in policy preferences—no place to go but into the camp of Republican militants.”

Again, well put. Trump historically has been politically more moderate, but in style not so much. The people who hate him--the George F. Will types--are unmistakably wed to style over policy. In my opinion, people who will compromise substance for style simply need to be defeated politically. They're weak and they will fold.

Wright learned that the CIA had taken actions specifically with the intent of stonewalling Congress’s fact-finding in war-torn Nicaragua and El Salvador, and generally came to believe that the administration was acting in bad faith. In response, he became embroiled in a war of words with the spy agency, which accused him of improperly leaking classified information.

The CIA turned on him. He he. Trump by contrast is no fool. He's fighting the entire swamp and the more they wrestle Trump, the more their corruption gets exposed. Their style of fight only works on people who grovel for acceptance and approval--who play defense when attacked.

Newt Gingrich picked up that scent and identified it as one of Democrats’ biggest weaknesses. He thought Wright’s relationship to money was a relic of an earlier era, writing in his own memoir: “Just as Spiro Agnew had discovered that the style of corruption taken perfectly for granted in 1960 Maryland would destroy him as Vice President a decade later, the habits and practices that were perfectly survivable in Texas a generation earlier would not pass the national standards of the late 1980s.” He knew that gunning for Wright would make him unpopular with those happy with the institutional status quo, but he rightly calculated that it was a political risk worth taking given the public’s general wariness of Congress.

Right. Trump similarly understands that these fights drive his negatives up, but they drive up the negatives of his adversaries even higher. In Trump world, there's no such thing as bad press.
By late
#15040646
blackjack21 wrote:
So we've got some dipshit historians then. The House under Gingrich was prolific at passing legislation with Clinton.


He he. Kasich.


You do realize Kasich had deep ties to Goldman Sachs. They didn't appreciate the fight to raise the debt ceiling. I can see why that would seem apocalyptic to a bond merchant, but it wasn't to most Americans.

The absurd thing about Lofgren is that as part of the fiscal hawks, the last time the House passed a balanced budget was under Newt Gingrich. That ended with Hastert and became ludicrous under Boehner and Ryan.


Red Ron Dellums was a communist. John McCain teamed up with Barack Obama to kill off the F-22 leaving us stuck with the F-35. These guys never understood why they became hated.


Moron. Tom Delay was never speaker of the House. The old committee system was utterly corrupt. Can you say Dan Rostenkowski? James Traficant? How about the Keating Five? Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, Don Riegle, and John McCain? Jim Wright and the House Bank? You've lived through all this have you? So have I.

The Fall of Jim Wright—and the House of Representatives

Indeed. Newt Gingrich fought for what he believed in, but he was also stamping out decades of corruption that festered and that many Republicans were fine to tolerate. Oddly, they could get away with this today if they would just pave the fucking roads and fix the bridges in the United States instead of dumping tons of money in Afghanistan, Iraq, or running huge trade deficits with China.


Indeed. That is why the House became the image of corruption in American politics.


Well written. It shows that the racists didn't all leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans. On the contrary, the Republicans paid dearly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Jim Wright pissed a lot of people off, and it ended up that many in his own party turned on him.


As I pointed out, Newt Gingrich provided leadership while Bob Michel was happy to acquiesce. Gingrich even let Bob Michel wield the gavel as a temporary speaker once. It was sort of sad and pathetic, as I remember. You show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser.


Again, well put. Trump historically has been politically more moderate, but in style not so much. The people who hate him--the George F. Will types--are unmistakably wed to style over policy. In my opinion, people who will compromise substance for style simply need to be defeated politically. They're weak and they will fold.


The CIA turned on him. He he. Trump by contrast is no fool. He's fighting the entire swamp and the more they wrestle Trump, the more their corruption gets exposed. Their style of fight only works on people who grovel for acceptance and approval--who play defense when attacked.


Right. Trump similarly understands that these fights drive his negatives up, but they drive up the negatives of his adversaries even higher. In Trump world, there's no such thing as bad press.



Historians have to play within the rules. If they live in lala land, they can't get published. They are right, you are mostly wrong.

Newt was just fine with corruption, as long as it benefited him...

Trump is not fighting corruption, he is adding to it hugely. Or in your parlance, he is turning the swamp into an ocean.

Trump is also doing what all wannabe dictators do, attacking the people and institutions that could restrain his grab for power.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040654
late wrote:If they live in lala land, they can't get published.

We live in an age of self-publishing. Some publishers might refuse an author, but nothing stops an author from getting published in today's world.

late wrote:Trump is not fighting corruption, he is adding to it hugely.

By investigating Biden's quid-pro-quo to help his son beat a Ukrainian prosecutor using US taxpayer dollars? By inquiring why Hunter Biden got a free ride on Air Force II to conduct business on his own behalf and walked away with $1.5B from a bank with ties to the Chinese government where his father went easy with them on trade deals? That's suggesting that fighting corruption or even investigating corruption is itself an act of corruption. That's like saying opposing illegal immigration is racist. It's standard fare for the left these days.

late wrote:Trump is also doing what all wannabe dictators do, attacking the people and institutions that could restrain his grab for power.

Trump already has power. Wannabe dictators are trying to get into power. You do realize the difference don't you?
By Hindsite
#15040655
late wrote:When you consider that the recent midterms were a bloodbath for Republicans, and that over the last few months Independents have been moving in polls toward impeachment...

Trump needs swing voters, and there isn't much chance of him getting them again.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do ... ent-trump/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do ... m-in-2020/

That looks like they don't have enough votes for impeachment. That is probably why Pelosi is not calling for a vote on the House floor.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040659
Hindsite wrote:That looks like they don't have enough votes for impeachment. That is probably why Pelosi is not calling for a vote on the House floor.

It will cost Pelosi the House. This is what swing district Democrats are facing, and these are the places that real political junkies are watching:



The bottom line is that Jerry Nadler failed at the House Judiciary Committee. Now they are trying the House Intelligence Committee and coordinating with the CIA. However, following the Iraq War and promises of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and all the bullshit with Benghazi, Libya generally and Syria, the CIA's reputation is in the gutter. They are like a lot of politicians who seem to think they still have credibility or are held in high esteem in the public trust.

Here's another twist their trying to float--taking a secret vote to impeach.



House votes are all public. If Pelosi even tried it, the Republicans could stage a walkout. The neoconservatives/neoliberals are at their wits end. Nothing they are trying is swaying the public. Trump's poll numbers are fine and his fund raising is going well.

The funniest in all of this is Mitt Romney. That guy still thinks he can become president. If you can't beat Barack Hussein Obama, you ain't becoming president. I got news for ya.

The Democrats have completely lost their marbles. They are going to run a candidate promising to decriminalize border crossing and providing health care plans to illegal aliens at taxpayers' expense. Crap, even Pence--personality of a fencepost that he is--could beat anything the Democrats have to offer right now.
By late
#15040684
Hindsite wrote:
That looks like they don't have enough votes for impeachment. That is probably why Pelosi is not calling for a vote on the House floor.



Which is what happened in Watergate. You are looking at the beginning of a trial, and saying the jury won't convict. Patience, little one, it's coming.
By late
#15040687
blackjack21 wrote:
We live in an age of self-publishing. Some publishers might refuse an author, but nothing stops an author from getting published in today's world.


By investigating Biden's quid-pro-quo to help his son beat a Ukrainian prosecutor using US taxpayer dollars? By inquiring why Hunter Biden got a free ride on Air Force II to conduct business on his own behalf and walked away with $1.5B from a bank with ties to the Chinese government where his father went easy with them on trade deals?

That's suggesting that fighting corruption or even investigating corruption is itself an act of corruption. That's like saying opposing illegal immigration is racist. It's standard fare for the left these days.


Trump already has power. Wannabe dictators are trying to get into power. You do realize the difference don't you?



1) Academics have a saying, "publish or perish". When they say that, they mean in the journals of their discipline. What I usually suggest (although I know they never will, and wouldn't understand it if they did) is go to your local college or university, and spend some time reading historical journals. It would be educational..

2) Delay, distract, deny, Moscow rules. That is the Distract portion. Gas and oil have been corrupt since the formation of the Texas Oil Cartel, over a hundred years ago. Trump is trying to do the same thing, but that's not why people are mad...

3) Biden was part of an effort to reduce the level of corruption. He was a part of a team that included the IMF, the EU, and the United States. What you are doing is trying to cover up Trump's attempt to undermine democracy.

4) What is happening is what happens when an elected leader tries to become a dictator, like Erdogan in Turkey or Putin in Russia.

The Trumped keep reminding me of a child with cake smeared across their face trying to deny they had any.

It's not simply absurd, it's farcical.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040692
late wrote:1) Academics have a saying, "publish or perish".

Academics self-publish too, usually to force students to buy their grossly overpriced textbooks to line their own pockets.

late wrote:2) Delay, distract, deny, Moscow rules. That is the Distract portion. Gas and oil have been corrupt since the formation of the Texas Oil Cartel, over a hundred years ago. Trump is trying to do the same thing, but that's not why people are mad...

Trump has the bedrock support of his base and official Washington does not understand why. I already laid it out for you. People would put up with a modicum of corruption if the roads were smooth as a baby's bum, if bridges weren't collapsing, if jobs were plentiful, if the Supreme Court wasn't writing homosexual marriage into a constitution that was written by people who would hang homosexuals by their necks, if the deep state didn't launch pointless wars and call people unpatriotic for not supporting them, if the government used its surveillance powers against foreign enemies instead of the domestic population. I could go on an on.

This: The Ukraine Hoax is About Protecting the Side Hustle is what the American people are thinking about Biden, et. al. It doesn't just start with him. It's painfully obvious now after the Clinton Foundation. This is a political sea change, and the establishment has lost the confidence of the American people. They aren't going to get it back by trashing Trump. They do not seem to understand that.

late wrote:3) Biden was part of an effort to reduce the level of corruption. He was a part of a team that included the IMF, the EU, and the United States. What you are doing is trying to cover up Trump's attempt to undermine democracy.

That was his official cover. Pulling $1.5B from China into an investment fund translates into $30M+ in fees per year. There is more going on than you are willing to admit. However, there is no way to increase the disinformation and FUD. We're at maximum bullshit. You may believe the lies you are being told. The average American looks at it like this: The Ukraine Hoax is About Protecting the Side Hustle.

late wrote:4) What is happening is what happens when an elected leader tries to become a dictator, like Erdogan in Turkey or Putin in Russia.

Rubbish. Trump is termed out. What is happening is that the deep state failed in their coup and Barr and Durham are taking it upon themselves to get to the bottom of it. Durham is expanding his investigation, which in Washington speak means that he has found criminality. John Brennan himself admitted to being concerned. James Clapper suggested he was just following Obama's orders. Barr and Durham have talked with several foreign governments since the FBI outsourced it's criminality. That's getting tracked down now.

What you should be doing is reading alternate futures. Like "What if Nixon didn't resign and beat impeachment?"

We don't trust the CIA. So we're not going to trust CIA whistleblowers. What are they doing eavesdropping on the president anyway?
By late
#15040696
blackjack21 wrote:
Academics self-publish too, usually to force students to buy their grossly overpriced textbooks to line their own pockets.


Trump has the bedrock support of his base and official Washington does not understand why. I already laid it out for you. People would put up with a modicum of corruption if the roads were smooth as a baby's bum, if bridges weren't collapsing, if jobs were plentiful, if the Supreme Court wasn't writing homosexual marriage into a constitution that was written by people who would hang homosexuals by their necks, if the deep state didn't launch pointless wars and call people unpatriotic for not supporting them, if the government used its surveillance powers against foreign enemies instead of the domestic population. I could go on an on.

This: The Ukraine Hoax is About Protecting the Side Hustle is what the American people are thinking about Biden, et. al. It doesn't just start with him. It's painfully obvious now after the Clinton Foundation. This is a political sea change, and the establishment has lost the confidence of the American people. They aren't going to get it back by trashing Trump. They do not seem to understand that.


That was his official cover. Pulling $1.5B from China into an investment fund translates into $30M+ in fees per year. There is more going on than you are willing to admit. However, there is no way to increase the disinformation and FUD. We're at maximum bullshit. You may believe the lies you are being told. The average American looks at it like this: The Ukraine Hoax is About Protecting the Side Hustle.


Rubbish. Trump is termed out. What is happening is that the deep state failed in their coup and Barr and Durham are taking it upon themselves to get to the bottom of it. Durham is expanding his investigation, which in Washington speak means that he has found criminality. John Brennan himself admitted to being concerned. James Clapper suggested he was just following Obama's orders. Barr and Durham have talked with several foreign governments since the FBI outsourced it's criminality. That's getting tracked down now.

What you should be doing is reading alternate futures. Like "What if Nixon didn't resign and beat impeachment?"

We don't trust the CIA. So we're not going to trust CIA whistleblowers. What are they doing eavesdropping on the president anyway?



I started a point by point rebut.

But you are basically repeating the same crap, no sources, nothing substantive.

You need better lies.

One of the best experts on Constitutional Law was on Last Word last nite. That was back in the real world, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc2cba4klQI
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040767
late wrote:One of the best experts on Constitutional Law was on Last Word last nite.

Yes. I'm sure if he's any good at math, he can tell you how many Republican senators there are.
By late
#15040781
blackjack21 wrote:
Yes. I'm sure if he's any good at math, he can tell you how many Republican senators there are.



Not hard to tell you didn't live through Watergate. In my state, Sue Collins kept getting re-elected because she kept a low profile. That has changed, and she knows it.
Just like Watergate, if it gets bad enough, she'll jump ship.
By Hindsite
#15040850
late wrote:Not hard to tell you didn't live through Watergate. In my state, Sue Collins kept getting re-elected because she kept a low profile. That has changed, and she knows it.
Just like Watergate, if it gets bad enough, she'll jump ship.

I can somewhat agree with you on Susan Collins. I have always felt that she often acted like a RINO.
By late
#15040951
Hindsite wrote:
I can somewhat agree with you on Susan Collins. I have always felt that she often acted like a RINO.



Nope, she talks like a moderate and votes Republican (over 90% of the time), even on issues her constituents don't support, like Kavanaugh. This district is quite moderate.

One of the realities of Maine politics is that women vote preferentially for women. We're an aging state, and that's a relic of Boomer 70s feminism. That also means, thanks to Trump chaos, they are very, very pissed.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15041029
Yes. I'm sure if he's any good at math, he can tell you how many Republican senators there are.


I am beginning to think that there is an outside chance of impeaching Trump. It will depend on three things.

How close to the election the impeachment happens. My guess is that the dems want this to play out over a longish time so the republicans do not have time to develop a good candidate to replace Trump. Pence can't win. And that is assuming that he comes out of this unscathed in the first place.

The second is the polls. Not national polls but polls in local senatorial districts. Using Arizona as an example, McSally is behind in a red state. She does not have the moral courage to but a candidate with her kinds of problems might vote for impeachment to save their ass. McConnell included.

The third, of course, it the strength of the evidence and other charges. For example. If NY indites Trump that could really change the dynamic for republicans. At some point they will simply conclude that they might see their president go from the steps of the congress to the dock.

Trump is still holding up with his base but there are a bunch of senators who are not in states overwhelmed by his base. It is not hard to imagine them voting to impeach simply not to have to run as an ally and face likely defeat at the hands of moderate republicans not showing up and independents jumping ship.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15041033
Hindsite wrote:Your distortion of what he said gives you away as just another Trump hater.


That is one of your distortions. He actually said, "US election system is very much fair in international standards."


Another distortion. FOX News is the only major news media that even attempts to give President Trump fair coverage.


There are a lot of reasons to support Trump.


Thousands is a big exaggeration by the fake news. Fake news is claiming President Trump lied when he told the truth, but which the Democrats and the left-wing media disagree or may have misunderstood.


The big problem is not so much immigration, but the illegal crossing of our southern border by nefarious migrants. The majority of the people are against that, but the Democrats want the issue to run on and will not agree to help President Trump secure the border, because they are afraid that will give him another win. Therefore, they lump all migrants under immigration, regardless if they are legal or illegal and call for open borders.


The Democrats continue to obstruct and are not willpng to compromise and work with the Republicans and President Trump because of their unreasonable hate. How can there be any cooperation on important matters when the Democrats are constantly attempting to frame and impeach President Trump.


Maybe so, but it is not good for the nation to attempt to frame the President and impeach him for false crimes he did not commit.


You have a short memory. Democrat Senator Harry Reid ended bipartisan efforts when he was leader of the Senate during the Obama administration. His action left a sour taste in the mouth of Mitch McConnell. Also passing Obamacare with out a single vote from the Republicans is not what I call bipartisan.


President Trump is taking the heat and is fighting back against the Democrat's fake media and the Deep State. That is what bullies don't like.


fake news :|
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 46

"More than 500 legal scholars have signed on […]

Trump and Russiagate

1) They do prosecute members of Congress, which[…]

"the most puzzling development in politic[…]

Trump’s tweet said, "The concept of global […]