The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

There are already attempts to jigger the election. But they are intended to benefit liberals and Democrats, not Republicans.

fascism: when those in power accuse those not in power of what only those in power can do

more proof Government will rig the election

[Annoyed]

And in the hypocrisy department....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...re-a-democrat/

“No one is above the law,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said when announcing the start of the impeachment process against President Trump.

She should have tempered it with: “unless you’re a Democrat.”

For starters, literally hundreds of Democrat-controlled jurisdictions operate as “sanctuary cities,” flouting the law by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Nothing ever happens to the Democratic politicians, just the crime victims at the hands of criminal aliens who are released instead of being turned over to immigration enforcement officers.

In Democrat-heavy Montgomery County, Maryland, eight illegal aliens have been charged with rape or other sexual crimes since County Executive Marc Elrich signed a “sanctuary” order in July barring police from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

Flagrant Democratic lawlessness is also common at the national level. The Clintons made a fortune by openly bribing foreigners to contribute to either their own pockets or their $2 billion Clinton Foundation, leveraging Bill’s celebrity status and Hillary’s stint as secretary of State. Uranium One gave the Clinton Foundation more than $145 million in donations just before the State Department, under Hillary, approved giving Russia control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

For years, the Kennedy clan has operated by its own rules, even making sure that court records were sealed in the case dealing with Ted’s leaving the scene while Mary Jo Kopechne drowned in his car off Chappaquiddick Island in July 1969.

Ted, by the way, committed treason in 1983 by advising Soviet Union leaders on how to undermine President Reagan’s missile defense strategy, according to a KGB memo. Talk about actionable foreign collusion.

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, American missile and computer technology was transferred to the Chinese Communists in return for massive contributions to the Democratic Party, a far more serious scandal than the Monica Lewinsky affair and for which the media showed zero interest.

While running for re-election in 2012, President Obama was caught on a live mic asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to give him more time, “particularly with missile defense,” until after the election, when he would “have more flexibility.” This is a direct request to a foreign power to assist in his re-election by framing an issue the way he wanted. “I understand your message about space,” Mr. Medvedev said.

Several Obama administration officials, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, were caught lying repeatedly on TV about the 2012 deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder was caught committing perjury while testifying before Congress in 2012 about his department’s disastrous gun-running scandal at the Mexican border. He got censured, and then went about business as usual. He openly undermined election integrity, calling voter ID laws “racist.” In 2011, he betrayed his oath of office, refusing to defend a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

More recently, Democrats in the nation’s intelligence agencies who violated their oaths, concocted the phony Russian collusion scandal and spied on the 2016 Trump campaign, have not faced serious consequences. Russiagate should be about them, not Mr. Trump.

Fast forward to today. As Adam Schiff’s Pot o’ Impeachment Circus fixates on hearsay regarding a telephone call between Mr. Trump and Ukraine’s current president, no one is being allowed to bring up far more disturbing evidence of Joe Biden’s and son Hunter’s corrupt dealings with that country.

On Oct. 9, Ukrainian Member of Parliament Andriy Derkach held a press conference at which he displayed documents purporting to show that Hunter Biden’s lobbying firm was paid $900,000 from Burisma Holdings. That’s the energy company on whose board Hunter was inexplicably serving at a salary of $50,000 a month. No conflict there, cough, cough, but it gets worse. Rudy Giuliani, who contends that the vice president got the money, pointed out in the Nov. 13 Wall Street Journal that the invoice “said the money was for lobbying Joe Biden.”

This is more than a bombshell. It’s a neutron bomb. And yet, Mr. Derkach’s claims are being ignored by major media and by Adam Schiff’s legal charade.

Speaking of bombs, former Vice President Biden, who was tasked to oversee U.S. dealings with Ukraine, threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine unless they fired Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor who was said to be investigating Burisma.

In a 2018 video filmed at a Council on Foreign Relations event, Mr. Biden boasted about it. The video is so damning that everyone who thinks Mr. Trump’s phone call is impeachable conduct should see it. Here’s the key excerpt:

Biden: “I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from [President Petro] Poroshenko and from [Prime Minister Arseniy] Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t … I said, you’re not getting the billion … I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired.”

And Mr. Trump is the one on trial for supposedly “bribing” a foreign government for his benefit?

No one is above the law — unless you’re a Democrat.

[SoulReaver]

And in the hypocrisy Fake News department....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...re-a-democrat/

fixed

(also President >>> Attorney General & high treason >>> perjury)

[Gatefan1976]

And in the hypocrisy department....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...re-a-democrat/

Define a "sanctuary city".

[Annoyed]

Define a "sanctuary city".

In today's parlance, it is is a city or other govt. entity that has decided to not enforce federal immigration policy, law, or to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

[SoulReaver]

In today's parlance, it is is a city or other govt. entity that has decided to not enforce federal immigration policy, law, or to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

what happened to states' rights? make up ur mind

[Gatefan1976]

In today's parlance, it is is a city or other govt. entity that has decided to not enforce federal immigration policy, law, or to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

So, criminals still get charged, it's not "lawless".
Sorta torpedo's the entire notion of sanctuary cities as the opinion writer, and their fellow thinkers like to flog, doesn't it.

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ndland-ukraine

[Annoyed]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ndland-ukraine

We'll see what the Republicans think about this mess when it hits the Senate, won't we?

[Gatefan1976]

We'll see what the Republicans think about this mess when it hits the Senate, won't we?

In other words, Cover your arse.
The senate vote will have nothing to do with weather the charges or valid or not, it will just be pure partisan hackery.
You look forward to that?

And to think of who you consider one of the best presidents of your time, how insulting to the office, and the man you admire.
How low you have sunk, as a nation, and as a party.

[Annoyed]

In other words, Cover your arse.
The senate vote will have nothing to do with weather the charges or valid or not, it will just be pure partisan hackery.
You look forward to that?

You mean like the house impeachment attempt is anything but a partisan attempt to undo the results of a legitimate election because they can't accept that they lost?

And to think of who you consider one of the best presidents of your time, how insulting to the office, and the man you admire.
How low you have sunk, as a nation, and as a party.

You must be talking about JFK, one of our best presidents ever. Good illustration of how far the Democrats have sunk.

[SoulReaver]

Good illustration of how far the Democrats United States have sunk.

your king's turned it into a **** hole

[jelgate]

You mean like the house impeachment attempt is anything but a partisan attempt to undo the results of a legitimate election because they can't accept that they lost?


You must be talking about JFK, one of our best presidents ever. Good illustration of how far the Democrats have sunk.

That's not what happening.

[aretood2]

Thing is, the Democrats started this impeachment crap with "the phone call", which their whistleblower wasn't even on.

Yet it has been going on with witnesses that were privy to said phone call. Frankly, the whistleblowers is not needed and is irrelevant along with his testimony thus why he/she hasn't been called. Their testimony simply sounded the alarm and pointed investigators in the right direction where they can find evidence. That is how whistleblowing works...it's how it has always worked. That's why it's called "whistleblowing".

Hearsay evidence at best

But he hasn't testified, "eye" witnesses have. People who were in fact involved in the matter have and are testifying. The reason why he/she is not testifying is because they didn't see it themselves...I really can't follow your logic here (or lack thereof). You do realize that the existence of hearsay evidence does not preclude the inclusion of evidence that is not hearsay, right? It only means that said hearsay cannot be included. However there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule, I haven't looked into it to see if the whistleblower's testimony (which hasn't been taken) meets any of those exceptions. But this is the thing, you don't really know what you are talking about. You seem to be ignorant of the law.

Speaking of testimony, the impeachment isn't the trail...the trial is what happens in the senate so I don't really see what any this has to do with an investigation. Do you think cops won't investigate you if I said that GF told me that he saw you kill Jelgate (who is greatly missed since he was murdered last night)? Of course the cops would investigate!!! It doesn't matter if my criminal complaint is hearsay, they just can't use my complaint in court...but they can use GF's testimony. The most they could do is refer to me as to how they first suspected you of commiting murder, but they can't use me as a witness. That's what is happening here.

The transcript of that call was unexpectedly released, and and just like the Mueller witch hunt, it was a giant nothingburger. So, now they are just throwing anything they can find against the wall, hoping something sticks. After all, they know they can't beat him, so they have to impeach him. As I recall, they even tried to use a "witness" who was fired several months before the call.

Did you read either the report or the transcript? Because I don't think you have. Not to mention that several people (even those close to Trump) have already been convicted of crimes as a result of Mueller's report which, by the way, did not exonerate Trump.

Oh, and this is dead upon arrival at the Senate anyway, so what is the real point? A taxpayer funded "campaign"?

Party over country. Yes, we all know this to be true.

And Trump doesn't have the same rights as others? What about Butt-head's promise to tell gun owners and 2nd amendment advocates to go take a flying leap?

I don't see how that equate to witness intimidation

Why? Because I disagree with you? I understand, you don't like the direction that SCOTUS and the judiciary are moving.
But many people do approve of Trump's appointments. And the judiciary was a prominent issue in the 2016 elections, you can't possibly claim it was "off the radar", so to speak. And you will notice who won that.

Many, a majority, does not make.

Unless the economy tanks big time next year, Trump is a virtual lock to win in 2020.
Never mind the other aspects, such as judicial appointments, immigration policy, social aspects and so forth, by far the most important factor in people's voting decisions is their pocketbook.

The U.S. economy is chugging along at a pace that hasn't been seen in DECADES. Unemployment is at record level lows, wages for workers are rising as employers compete for workers.

That alone is enough to virtually guarantee any incumbent's re-election. Combine that with the absolute train wreck status of the Democratic field, and Trump can probably nap his way to victory. Why do you think it's DEMOCRAT politicians who say they have to impeach because they can't beat him?

And this whole impeachment fiasco is going to hurt them in several ways. First off, it's pretty clear that the whole thing is just a highly partisan attempt to undo 2016, because the left still can't accept that they lost. And that's going to generate a lot of anger & motivate Trump supporters to go to the polls.

2nd, the attempt is doomed to fail before it even got started, because the next stop in the impeachment train is the Senate, where it is certain to die a swift death. The Dems just don't have the votes there. So that is going to to negatively affect Democrat support for their people.

Trump winning will more to do with the undeniable trend of incumbents winning reelection. There's a reason why term limits are severely needed in Congress, because it's not very often when an incumbent is beaten. In the past 100 years only 4 presidents lost a reelection, and a total of 8 (Grover Cleveland doesn't count). Those 8 done messed up real bad. Those some who did get reelected also had their issues yet still managed a reelection. So the odds are stacked up in Trump's favor by mere historical trends alone.

And in the hypocrisy department....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...re-a-democrat/

It's not the job of local government to enforce immigration law. If this is illegal, then why hasn't the DOJ sued these governments? Filed federal charges? Arrested noncooperative police officers for interference? I'll save you the hassle of the research by answering those questions. Because it's not illegal. Learn the law before you speak.

You mean like the house impeachment attempt is anything but a partisan attempt to undo the results of a legitimate election because they can't accept that they lost?

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you talking about Bill Clinton's impeachment or Donald Trumps? Because that's what Bill Clinton's impeachment was the whole time since the investigations started. GF mentioned it before and I'll repeat it. The democrats are behaving like republicans...you made your bed and now you have to sleep in it.

You must be talking about JFK, one of our best presidents ever. Good illustration of how far the Democrats have sunk.

FDR?Bill Clinton wasn't that bad...Obama saved the US from the Recession beginning the trend we are experiencing of dropping unemployment.

[Annoyed]

But he hasn't testified, "eye" witnesses have. People who were in fact involved in the matter have and are testifying. The reason why he/she is not testifying is because they didn't see it themselves...I really can't follow your logic here (or lack thereof). You do realize that the existence of hearsay evidence does not preclude the inclusion of evidence that is not hearsay, right? It only means that said hearsay cannot be included. However there are several exceptions to the hearsay rule, I haven't looked into it to see if the whistleblower's testimony (which hasn't been taken) meets any of those exceptions. But this is the thing, you don't really know what you are talking about. You seem to be ignorant of the law.

Funny thing is, up until about a month before the Democrats raised the "whistleblower", the whistleblower statutes required the blower to have direct, firsthand knowledge of events. Funny how that was changed by some bureaucrat, wasn't it?

In poker, that's called a tell.

Trump winning will more to do with the undeniable trend of incumbents winning reelection. There's a reason why term limits are severely needed in Congress, because it's not very often when an incumbent is beaten. In the past 100 years only 4 presidents lost a reelection, and a total of 8 (Grover Cleveland doesn't count). Those 8 done messed up real bad. Those some who did get reelected also had their issues yet still managed a reelection. So the odds are stacked up in Trump's favor by mere historical trends alone.

I know that. And the other things I mentioned only serve to further insure his 2nd term.

Oh, and were you advocating term limits when Obama was in the white house for 2 terms?