https://www.chicagotribune.com/poli...0190930-seym2evu2jfwvj3drff4ahvdx4-story.html
GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger: "Civil War tweet 'Beyond Repugnant'"
GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger: "Civil War tweet 'Beyond Repugnant'"
Welcome to Crazytown
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
You have to understand that we are dealing with a 73yo president and his 75yo lawyer who thought it would be a good idea to get dirt on his 76yo opponent. Fortunately, the Dems will give you another option of a 78yo or a 70yo to vote for.
It does make one wonder about the rationale that one needs to be AT LEAST 35 years old to run for President but any crazy senile old fart can run and win as long as there are voters stupid enough to vote for him.
biden has looked like he didnt know where he was a times and his rambling is very odd. im not completely against age limits. maybe somewhere around 80.
NEWSFLASH: They all look like they don't know where they are at times. Trump, Giuliani, Sanders, Biden.
The American public knows how old they are when the election cycle comes up and they make it through the primaries. But if we’re going to cross that bridge, why stop at elected positions. We should age out SCOTUS and federal judiciary as well. Probably cabinet positions and ambassadorships too.
i agree with you on giuliani sanders and biden. trump has plenty of gaffes but i think its more of him just saying/typing alot of crap. i havent seen him have that glazed look in his eyes like the others.
Agree. If I could redesign term limits, the POTUS would get three-4 year terms, HOR, six-2 year terms, Senate two-6 year terms, and the SCOTUS one- 12 year term.
Today Trump said he is working to "identify the whistleblower" because he has a right to face his accuser. Yes, he really said that.
Of course this is the same Blowhard who last week said that 'once upon a time when we were smart, we knew how to handle spies like this whistleblower.' (i.e. kill the SOBs)
But let me guess, MAGA Hats: this kind of vulgar Presidential talk is "perfect" and totally in keeping with the Constitution, right?
Of course this is the same Blowhard who last week said that 'once upon a time when we were smart, we knew how to handle spies like this whistleblower.' (i.e. kill the SOBs)
But let me guess, MAGA Hats: this kind of vulgar Presidential talk is "perfect" and totally in keeping with the Constitution, right?
If this thing ever went to a court of law, then he would have that due process right. But it won’t, they all know it, and the accusation is damaging enough in this day and age where the court of public opinion is more punitive than the justice system.
My God, you act like our poor President got smeared. The partial transcript that the WHITE HOUSE ITSELF RELEASED made it crystal clear that Trump asked the Ukrainian President to do him a big favor and open an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.
What pray tell is the 'court of public opinion' supposed to make of what Trump did? And if that was it, why is the Trump Administration hiding the actual, word-for-word transcript of their discussion behind an electronic 'top secret' shield?
No, he just talks a little slower when he knows the left is listening. His cadence is pretty much the same as 30 years ago:
Your indignation would be much more credible if you hadn't cried wolf on Kavanaugh and the Russia conspiracy hoax for years. I think, given the recent events, that a little due process would be a good thing for everyone.
The only difference between Kavanaugh, the Russian conspiracy "hoax" and recent events is the clear-cut evidence.
But hang in there with your guy and then whine on this board about how he isn't getting his 'due process' when the sh*t hits the fan.
Oh come on. You railed at us about how clear cut the evidence was. The multiple accusers in Kavanaugh. All of the evidence that Mueller had. You're playing the same broken record.
LOL. That's like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'll happily stick with my 'broken record.' How about you?
I will always stick with due process and not quickly jumping to conclusions based upon incomplete evidence and erroneous reporting. Glad to see we're both in our sweet spots.
Let me ask you this, Mister 'Let's not jump to Conclusions', are the allegations regarding the President's conduct a serious matter to you?
Yes. Upon reading the whistleblower’s report, I said multiple times that let’s take that complaint to the next step in the process. Which is probably an official investigation.
Do you think the allegations regarding the former VPs conduct are a serious matter?
Of course not. No creditable source does.
It's nothing but a right-wing 'well, whadda 'bout?' conspiracy theory that has zippo to do with the allegations facing the President.
and this is why i will never take the partisan hack shookster seriously. investigate them both or dont at all.
the VP is on tap talking about how he threatened to withhold aid money from an ally unless they fired someone and low and behold he was fired. those are his own words man. you are delusional. investigate them both is not a hard concept. well it is if you only look at things in a partisan manor.LOL Yeah, that would be THE FAIR MINDED thing to do, right?
You people crack me up.
No, you are ill-informed about how our Constitution works.
People may disagree with it, but there is absolutely nothing inappropriate with our President using his Presidential Powers to sweet-talk, pressure, or even force with the military might of the U.S. to get a foreign country to follow a certain course-- IF the desired action is deemed to be in the best interests of the USA.
On the other hand, if he's using his office to pressure a country to personally help him in gain the upper hand in the upcoming 2020 elections, that's a whole different deal and about as inappropriate as it can get.
So it's not in the best interest of the country to determine whether or not the front runner for president has a history of corruption?
please apply that logic to the front runner of the dnc for the 2020 election.
Sorry, Crazy, but that pesky little Constitution we live under says determining the truth of it regarding a political rival is NOT within the boundaries of the Office of the President.
Holy. Crap.
4 years ago we had this exact same situation and it was a-ok for the executive branch to look into a presidential candidate, using the resources of the federal government. That led to an investigation that lasted 2 years because we needed to know the truth!
Which way do you want it, because you definitely can't have it both ways.
Huh? You've lost me. How did Biden's public actions in spearheading the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor apply?
Sure seems to me that given the relationship that the CEO of the company that Hunter Biden worked for had with the prosecutor, shouldn't Biden have been pushing to keep him in office if this was supposedly a double-standard?
i thought you didnt want a corrupt person as potus. biden is on tap bragging about how he used his ability to withold aid unless someone was fired, and by joe he was fired. last i checked biden was the front runner of the dnc. why shouldnt it be looked into?
is it (D)ifferent this time?
The exact same situation?
So the Biden campaign is engaged in secret meetings with agents of the Russian government and then lying about them to the public?
I could have sworn the Biden thing was about his role in pressuring a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to resign back in 2014.
It's been remarkable to observe the lengths Trump supports will go in their efforts to establish a moral equivalency for Trump's misdeeds.
Without a formal investigation into Biden how will we ever know?The exact same situation?
So the Biden campaign is engaged in secret meetings with agents of the Russian government and then lying about them to the public?
I could have sworn the Biden thing was about his role in pressuring a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to resign back in 2014.
It's been remarkable to observe the lengths Trump supports will go in their efforts to establish a moral equivalency for Trump's misdeeds.
i just want the truth. if biden did nothing wrong, he shouldnt be worried about a formal investigation.
I suppose the fact the Ukrainian investigation into the company that Hunter Biden began working for took place before Hunter came aboard as well as the fact that the Ukrainians have said publicly on multiple occasions that 'Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws' is...what? Irrelevant? We've simply GOT to pursue this red herring anyway, right?
Hope springs eternal. You never know if a fishing expedition might yield something...particularly if you put enough pressure on the fishermen, right boys?
Lol, irony springs eternalI suppose the fact the Ukrainian investigation into the company that Hunter Biden began working for took place before Hunter came aboard as well as the fact that the Ukrainians have said publicly on multiple occasions that 'Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws' is...what? Irrelevant? We've simply GOT to pursue this red herring anyway, right?
Hope springs eternal. You never know if a fishing expedition might yield something...particularly if you put enough pressure on the fishermen, right boys?
