Could be the cry of someone who’s opposed to the America-hating fuckstick currently befouling the Oval Office, but has given up.
Since about 1994, it hasn’t even been sincere about conservatism. Because, by definition, conservatism cannot be radicalism. Which is how the soi-disant “conservatives” have been behaving since at least the “Contract [del]with[/del] on America.”
No she couldn’t.
She apologized when corrected.
Are you somehow under the impression that Putin’s endgame is NOT to resurrect the USSR, in form, if not in name?
On reflection, yeah, you probably are.
I think I have to disagree with you on this. The articles of impeachment against Clinton described behavior by Clinton that could be interpreted as a violation of obstruction of justice laws. The fact that he actually broke the law was not established in a court of law.
And I feel the equivalent articles could be written against Trump at this point. I can see your point that he hasn’t been convicted and that it would be possible that he might present a successful defense that his statement either wasn’t made or shouldn’t be viewed as a threat. But it’s also possible that a jury looking at the evidence we have now could decide that he made the statement and that it was a threat and therefore qualified as obstruction of justice. It’s become a matter of which witnesses do you find credible.
You may feel that “I hope you can let this go” does not qualify as a threat. But I feel that such a statement, delivered by the President in this context, is the equivalent of “nice place you got here; shame if anything happened to it”.
PROTIP:
“Demonstrate” and “suggest” are two different words for a reason; the reason being that they mean different things. When presented in the context of a question about legality, the difference becomes more stark than when being discussed at, say, a cocktail party.
ETA: aaaannnnd ninja’d by Bricker.
Two ways to parse that:
-
“better hope that there are no ‘tapes’” because they would easily refute his allegations.
-
“better hope that there are no ‘tapes’” because if he’s got anything to substantiate his allegations, his life is worth less than the probable fee charged by a GRU hitman.
M[ichig]ansplaining…
One thing that caught my attention is that Trump did not, in my opinion, hope that Comey concluded the investigation. " concluding" to me implies that it is carried to its logical end and finished. He apparently said he hoped Comey could " let it go," which to me implies drop it and not actually finish it.
It also suggests that when the America-hating fuckstick orders the room cleared, whoever’s left with him should ask that any requests, suggestions, and “hopes” expressed be given to him* in writing.
*or her. It could be a “her.”
The articles of impeachment are analogous to an indictment. They accuse the President of acts that, if proven, would warrant impeachment.
I am arguing that those accusations must, as a matter of political reality (but not legal requirement!) include an accusation of an act that if proven would be criminal, just like an indictment.
So it’s not meaningful to argue that President Clinton’s acts were never proved in a court of law. That’s not the prerequisite I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting that the articles passed against Clinton included allegations of acts that were criminal.
That’s not my point at all.
I’m arguing that these acts would not sustain a criminal indictment. They don’t rise to the level of probable cause.
And…? What of it?
Yes.
If I have to live under the idiocy of a Trump administration, I may as well line my pockets with the cash from people who substitute feelings for sober analysis.
When I play poker I win money under the same rubric: people who confuse the actual math with their fervent desires.
It sure as hell is more profitable than getting off your ass and fighting for your principles.
I mean, where’s the money in taking a stand?
Well, yeah and no.
I heartily agree that there is some hyperventilating over every tweet, sound bite, and news story. Many conservatives did this during the Obama years. Some liberals are taking on that appearance of pathetic desperation.
I disagree when you say “rampant conspiracy stuff.” While this also is a familiar throwback to Obama Derangement Syndrome, we’re in uncharted territory when the FBI director says he has receipts for the president’s obstruction, not to mention the other high-profile defections.
But, as Winston Churchill says, if you throw rocks at every barking dog you pass, you’ll never get anywhere. As someone else said, when you shoot at the elephant, you’d better not miss. This is the time to collect our wits for the kill shot.
I’m a little too old to jump the White House fence.
If Trump shall be impeached and removed by a process that does not meet Bricker’s exacting standards, I will be deeply ashamed. Bereft. Inconsolable. Whether I can go on bearing such a burden of guilt is a question I dare not consider. He is, after all, our guiding light, our lodestone, our moral compost. Without his approval, a life of bitter repentance awaits.
Thanks to idiots like you, though, here we are with the two party system that gives us Clinton or Trump. So, pretty much, a big fuck you to everyone without the balls to break the system.
Idiots who don’t know what Duverger’s Law is shouldn’t call other people idiots.
Idiot.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Think you need to blame the founding fathers on that one, they are the ones that set up the first past the post system along with the electoral system. The two party system will remain until there is an amendment to change the way that presidents are elected.
Until then, a vote for a third party presidential candidate is a completely wasted vote, and will basically consume your vote in such a way that you essentially cast a vote for the person most ideoligically opposed to you.