And off the cliff they go!

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday that Democrats will proceed with articles of impeachment against President Trump, declaring that the president's conduct "leaves us no choice but to act."
She doesn't get specific as to what those articles will contain, just "Orange man bad".

I don't know about you, but I'm long past ready for this crap to be over with and move on. We already know that Trump won't be convicted, let alone removed from office, so I'm not sure what the point of all this was. But it will be fun to see whose heads roll in 2020.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I too am over this crap but since the dems decided to go down the path I now look forward to it going to the senate. I want the slimeball never Trumpers exposed for the scummy swamp creatures they are. I hope when the exposures start that the DOJ will pursue all charges to the fullest.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I too am over this crap but since the dems decided to go down the path I now look forward to it going to the senate. I want the slimeball never Trumpers exposed for the scummy swamp creatures they are. I hope when the exposures start that the DOJ will pursue all charges to the fullest.

Don't hold your breath. And when - if - it gets to the Senate and is rejected, we'll have to listen for eons to Democrats screaming about the horrible Republicans who wouldn't let them railroad our President and overthrow our election. Republicans accept the results of elections and trials; Democrats do not - they bitch and wail and throw themselves on the floor screaming "No fair!!!"

By all rights they should be voted out of office but that won't happen either because the their districts have been flooded with people who aren't even Americans. How else does someone like Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar get elected to our government?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Are you suggesting that they should release information in direct violation of the 4th amendment?
Is this a response to some bot that I have on ignore who is cheering on the illegal search and seizure by the House leadership?

Because why not? King Barry illegally spied on the Trump campaign and nobody said a word about it.

What's interesting is that the same bots who wail and keen about surveillance of any kind are peeing their Superman Underoos with glee over their masters conducting surveillance on political enemies. This is why we laugh in their ridiculous faces when they declare themselves to be "freedom-loving Libertarians".
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Pelosi's comments to reporter Jim Rosen about her being Catholic and therefore he was wrong to ask a question about her hating Trump will backfire down the road (as will her comments about prayerfully considering impeachment).

Wrt Rosen, one could (in this environment of reflexive victimhood) claim Pelosi was being anti-Semitic (Rosen being Jewish). But more importantly, how does Pelosi get away with claiming religious things that her side of the aisle has been so energized in trying to get rid of in "public life"? All she did was undercut her side - in general.

Specifically, though, this will come back to bite the Dems if/when Amy Barrett comes up for a spot on SCOTUS. Remember Feinstein's comment that Barrett's Catholic dogma ran deep and as such disqualified her from being confirmed for the position she now holds? Aside from the fact that there is a specific prohibition against this line of questioning Pelosi's "Catholic" remarks (other than being factually false - she is no Catholic in anything other than appellation) undercuts any objection the Dems might want to play wrt Barrett's supposed Catholic, pro-life outlook on her judicial work.

Can't have it both ways, Nan/Dems. Your rules.

As far as impeachment goes, buy stock in popcorn. This should be interesting.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Is this a response to some bot that I have on ignore who is cheering on the illegal search and seizure by the House leadership?

Because why not? King Barry illegally spied on the Trump campaign and nobody said a word about it.

What's interesting is that the same bots who wail and keen about surveillance of any kind are peeing their Superman Underoos with glee over their masters conducting surveillance on political enemies. This is why we laugh in their ridiculous faces when they declare themselves to be "freedom-loving Libertarians".
  1. Not and illegal search and seizure. You're making up things again.
  2. Speaking of making up things, Obama didn't spy on Trump. And even if he had, it wouldn't have been illegal because Trump has continually renewed the provisions of a law that would have allowed that to happen. The same provisions "freedom loving Libertarians" have contested and "freedom loving Republicans" seemingly love.
  3. What's interesting is that there's only one Libertarian on your ignore list but you post as if you didn't click "show ignored content" before posting.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Sadly, they do get it both ways. And their voters don't care as long as they gain or hold power over their fellow citizens.
If you're familiar with Kurt Schlichter's use of "your rules" maybe you come up with a different conclusion. Schlichter's point was that until Repubs started playing by "your rules" the status quo you mentioned would continue. But the symbiotic relationship between voter and Trump has mobilized the Right to fight instead of acquiesce (the historical default over the past several decades).

The Right fighting has been noticed by groups previously held by the Dems. Now that the contrast is starker, these groups (Blacks, latinos, Jews) are starting to see how they've been grifted by the Dems (as we've seen that we've been grifted by the RINO Repubs).

I'm not fully hopeful (yet). But I am more hopeful than I was before. So bring it on, Nan!

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Reactions: BOP

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Can't have it both ways, Nan/Dems. Your rules.
Ah, but she can. Same as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker could preach humility and humbleness while wallowing in wealth and rubbing it in the faces of their faithful followers. Democrats are consistently sexist, racist, and homophobic....while preaching tolerance and diversity. They say everything is "for the children"... while raping and sexually exploiting kids, not to mention advocating for killing them if they happen to be inconvenient. They insist that they are the party of women.....while systematically destroying women's sports by pushing men to compete against them.

Their followers are so brainwashed that the Democrat elite can have it any way they want.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
  1. (a) Not and illegal search and seizure. You're making up things again.
  2. (b) Speaking of making up things, Obama didn't spy on Trump. And even if he had, it wouldn't have been illegal because Trump has continually renewed the provisions of a law that would have allowed that to happen. The same provisions "freedom loving Libertarians" have contested and "freedom loving Republicans" seemingly love.
  3. What's interesting is that there's only one Libertarian on your ignore list but you post as if you didn't click "show ignored content" before posting.
(a) True in fact. But what Schiff did was "beyond the pale." I wish you had expanded on this rather than simply whacking Vrai.
(b) Look again at what you just wrote. You're justifying Obama's spying (if it occurred) before Trump was elected because Trump didn't (or, hasn't yet) gotten rid of the program Obama used to do what he did (may have done) after he was elected? That's really weak.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top