The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Bama Chick 28,596]

There are plenty of reason to not like Justin Amash and throw him under the bus for not doing exactly what you want but now is not the time.  

lol Nancy Pelosi wants you to suck her dick.

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

49 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How political warfare works:

What is the objective?  What do you need to happen to achieve that objective?  Does Justin Amash’s rhetoric bring you closer or further away from that objective?  

If closer, then encourage.  If further away, then attack.  

Because this is warfare, if he is trying to persuade your opposition to your side, it doesn’t make a shit of difference what Justin Amash’s motivations are.  Discrediting him only serves your enemy because you are diminishing the influence he can wield.  

Rhetoric means jack and shit if it's not backed up by action. His actions speak much louder than his words, just like Flake.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

lol Nancy Pelosi wants you to suck her dick.

 

Yeah, again I'm in the political warfare paradigm with my criticisms of her.   My perspective views our current members of congress belonging to two factions.  You're either for holding Trump accountable through impeachment and doing your constitutional duty or you're not.  If you're not then you're part of the problem and only an enabler of Trump's malfeasance.  Trying to justify it for political gain doesn't hold water in the face of tyranny. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Rhetoric means jack and shit if it's not backed up by action. His actions speak much louder than his words, just like Flake.

How do you start a political movement?  How do you prevent wars?  How do you start wars?  Where would Hitler be without rhetoric? Would we know Martin Luther King Jr's name if not for his rhetoric?  How about the teachings of Jesus Christ?  Rhetoric has value.  Has Justin Amash voted against impeachment yet or is he arguing for the opportunity to be given the chance?

[David Dennison 19,442]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, again I'm in the political warfare paradigm with my criticisms of her.   My perspective views our current members of congress belonging to two factions.  You're either for holding Trump accountable through impeachment and doing your constitutional duty or you're not.  If you're not then you're part of the problem and only an enabler of Trump's malfeasance.  Trying to justify it for political gain doesn't hold water in the face of tyranny. 

From the point of view of the speaker, impeachment does not hold him accountable. It's weak.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

From the point of view of the speaker, impeachment does not hold him accountable. It's weak.

From the point of view of the people, it's the only tool left to protect the country from a dangerous criminal president before the next election. 

ETA:  Well, other than the violent tools. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 19,442]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

From the point of view of the people, it's the only tool left to protect the country from a dangerous criminal president before the next election. 

The problem with that is twofold:

1) A large majority of Americans oppose impeachment, and 

2) Impeachment will do nothing to protect the country from Donald Trump because he will still be president until at least January 2021.

[jimmyjazz 46,990]

Just now, David Dennison said:

The problem with that is twofold:

1) A large majority of Americans oppose impeachment, and 

Wait, what?  I don't think so.

[David Dennison 19,442]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  I don't think so.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/442028-poll-two-thirds-of-voters-oppose-impeachment-proceedings

 

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

On 6/10/2019 at 2:29 PM, Captainant said:

The economy is more than just the fucking stock market. Savings are down, industries have been laying people off due to the tariffs (and the threat of them), pay is flat, and the last few months of RECORD JOB GROWTH have all been corrected down by 70,000 jobs. 

By what metric do you consider the economy to be sound and healthy? Because it more resembles a meth addict midway through a bender who's about to crash. If it wasn't for the stock buybacks last year from the tax cuts for the wealthy, the stock market wouldn't be doing well. 

 

Trump is a total asshat, and the market can drop tomorrow but we have more open jobs than we have unemployed. 

Point out all of the obvious ways Trump is the biggest moron and not fit to be president but JOBS is probably not the hill to die on. In fact you should use it to argue Trump should have a more open border policy to get those jobs filled. 

 

 

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  I don't think so.

Here's what is holding Pelosi up-

 

 

EDIT- As I have said (and many others smarter than I) Dems and those that are waiting by their keyboards to celebrate impeachment of Trump are going to be waiting a really long time as it ain't happening. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by JimmyHoffa

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

You don't really believe that do you?

[David Dennison 19,442]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You don't really believe that do you?

There's no reason not to.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There's no reason not to.

Lulz, none of that shit is getting passed or even voted on in the Senate before the next election.  They aren’t even promoting the bills in the media.  Nothing is stopping them from checking Trump and passing those bills simultaneously.

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You don't really believe that do you?

 

I do. Each day that passes the likelihood of Impeachment actually taking place becomes less and less likely. Trump is a moron and his actions deserve to be put under a microscope but politics seem to always get in the way regardless of which side you cheer for. 

Anymore I think there are fewer and fewer honest people in DC. Sure when they were elected they might have been but seemingly as soon as they spend any amount of time in DC they get infected with the disease called politics. It becomes more about poll numbers and doing what will get one reelected than actually doing what is RIGHT and BEST for everyone even if the poll numbers don't support it. 

I am not saying Trump is going to sail off into the sunset once he is out of office I just don't see actual impeachment happening. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

Here's a more recent poll. Probably has a lot to do with wording of the question but there is growing support after Mueller spoke that Democrats should at minimum continue their investigation. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730697885/poll-support-for-impeachment-hearings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

[David Dennison 19,442]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lulz, none of that shit is getting passed or even voted on in the Senate before the next election.  They aren’t even promoting the bills in the media.  Nothing is stopping them from checking Trump and passing those bills simultaneously.

Which is precisely what they are doing.

Here's a list of all of the bills passed by the House this year.

Edited June 12, 2019 by David Dennison

[jimmyjazz 46,990]

19 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Here's a more recent poll. Probably has a lot to do with wording of the question but there is growing support after Mueller spoke that Democrats should at minimum continue their investigation. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730697885/poll-support-for-impeachment-hearings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

That's in line with what I've heard.  To be fair, "39% opposed" doesn't mean "61% in favor", so I'll temper my initial point.  I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans think Trump has committed acts worthy of impeachment, and it certainly isn't "a large majority" in the other direction.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

26 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Here's a more recent poll. Probably has a lot to do with wording of the question but there is growing support after Mueller spoke that Democrats should at minimum continue their investigation. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730697885/poll-support-for-impeachment-hearings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

You also have to take into account Pelosi’s efforts to neutralize the public’s demands for impeachment.   Most Americans want some congressional check DESPITE Pelosi’s best efforts to throw cold water on the idea.  

Since January, it was obvious Pelosi never had any interest in impeachment, facts and evidence be damned.  You might think she’s a shrewd political calculator, and that could prove to be true in the end but her bullshit reasoning for not impeaching significantly damages her credibility with independents and her base.   She might as well go with the Mitch McConnell approach of “We aren’t going to do our constitutional duty to protect the country from this monster because it would be messy and the outcome is uncertain, we will let the American people decide in an election that may or may not be more fraudulent than the 2016 fuckening.”

Great leadership Nancy.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 19,442]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You also have to take into account Pelosi’s efforts to neutralize the public’s demands for impeachment.   Most Americans want impeachment DESPITE Pelosi’s best efforts to throw cold water on the idea.  

Since January, it was obvious Pelosi never had any interest in impeachment, facts and evidence be damned.  You might think she’s a shrewd political calculator, and that could prove to be true in the end but her bullshit reasoning for not impeaching significantly damages her credibility with independents and her base.   She might as well go with the Mitch McConnell approach of “We aren’t going to do our constitutional duty to protect the country from this monster because it would be messy and the outcome is uncertain, we will let the American people decide in an election that may or may not be more fraudulent than the 2016 fuckening.”

Great leadership Nancy.

She believes that impeaching the president and having him remain in office is incredibly weak. 

She's the decider.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She believes that impeaching the president and having him remain in office is incredibly weak. 

She's the decider.

No shit, that doesn’t mean she’s beyond reproach.  She’s clearly playing it safe when, in my view, the Democrats will never get a better opportunity to stomp on the disease that is Trumpism to suppress it for the long term in the election.  

Nancy is playing defense to hold onto the little power she has instead of swinging for the fences and really winning because she’s afraid of losing.  That’s how tyrants succeed, by keeping their opponents afraid of losing what little they have so they don’t fight.  

When people convince themselves that fighting is futile and the challenges can’t be overcome, hope is lost, no one will follow you, and democracy dies.  

When people summon the courage to stand up for what they believe in, lead a righteous effort for ideas like truth and justice, people get inspired, they will support and follow you, even at great risk to themselves.  Nancy is CHOOSING to do the opposite of that because reasons. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[David Dennison 19,442]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No shit, that doesn’t mean she’s beyond reproach.  She’s clearly playing it safe when, in my view, the Democrats will never get a better opportunity to stomp on the disease that is Trumpism to suppress it for the long term in the election.  

Nancy is playing defense to hold onto the little power she has instead of swinging for the fences and really winning because she’s afraid of losing.  That’s how tyrants succeed, by keeping their opponents afraid of losing what little they have so they don’t fight.  

When people convince themselves that fighting is futile and the challenges can’t be overcome, hope is lost, no one will follow you, and democracy dies.  

When people summon the courage to stand up for what they believe in, lead a righteous effort for ideas like truth and justice, people get inspired, they will support and follow you, even at great risk to themselves.  Nancy is CHOOSING to do the opposite of that because reasons. 

And when they impeach the president and literally nothing happens, it looks incredibly weak. Mitch McConnell won't even take it up.

I hope they do it anyway. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by David Dennison

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

between Hugo and DD, I won't be surprised if we use up all our internet.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

And when they impeach the president and literally nothing happens, it looks incredibly weak. Mitch McConnell won't even take it up.

I hope they do it anyway. 

Worst case scenario is Trump will be running as an impeached (but not convicted) president.  

How that isn’t an advantageous messaging opportunity for democrats is a really hard sell.  

The democrats fought their asses off with Kavanaugh, lost, and still managed to produce the biggest congressional blue wave since Watergate.   People respect fighters, that’s the appeal of Trump.  It doesn’t even matter what he’s fighting for or if he loses, his base is still with him because he fights and that is what they love.  

You cannot overcome an opponent like that by backing down and hoping everything will just work itself out.  You have to relentlessly fight harder, better, and for the right reasons to succeed. 

[David Dennison 19,442]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Worst case scenario is Trump will be running as an impeached (but not convicted) president.  

How that isn’t an advantageous messaging opportunity for democrats is a really hard sell.  

The democrats fought their asses off with Kavanaugh, lost, and still managed to produce the biggest congressional blue wave since Watergate.   People respect fighters, that’s the appeal of Trump.  It doesn’t even matter what he’s fighting for or if he loses, his base is still with him because he fights and that is what they love.  

You cannot overcome an opponent like that by backing down and hoping everything will just work itself out.  You have to relentlessly fight harder, better, and for the right reasons to succeed. 

Or he wins re-election as an impeached president and that weapon is gone in his second term.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

If he wins re-election as an unimpeached president, that will be the end of the Democratic Party and rightfully so.

[David Dennison 19,442]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If he wins re-election as an unimpeached president, that will be the end of the Democratic Party and rightfully so.

LOL. No it won't. Good grief.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

LOL. No it won't. Good grief.

It will be as we know it.  There will be a Democratic Party, but it will either become radicalized or irrelevant, possibly both. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Here's a more recent poll. Probably has a lot to do with wording of the question but there is growing support after Mueller spoke that Democrats should at minimum continue their investigation. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730697885/poll-support-for-impeachment-hearings-grows-but-americans-split-on-way-forward

And the 39% who think no action should be taken is in line with trump's approval rating.  That's the 39% of the country that the dems will never get votes from, even if trump shot someone on 5th Avenue.  If you take the deplorables out of the mix, there's plenty of support for impeachment, or at the very least hearings/investigations.

[David Dennison 19,442]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It will be as we know it.  There will be a Democratic Party, but it will either become radicalized or irrelevant, possibly both. 

Still wrong.

[Zavala 1,384]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It will be as we know it.  There will be a Democratic Party, but it will either become radicalized or irrelevant, possibly both. 

 

[Chooky 13,338]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It will be as we know it.  There will be a Democratic Party, but it will either become radicalized or irrelevant, possibly both. 

Put some Carmex on your labia and calm down. 

[jimmyjazz 46,990]

What would be really cool is if a few posters could re-litigate the pros and cons of impeachment, along with projected consequences, every few days or so for the next 17 months.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I have a plan for that. 

[JimmyHoffa 1,188]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If he wins re-election as an unimpeached president, that will be the end of the Democratic Party and rightfully so.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Gatorubet 30,637]

If he wins re-election as an unimpeached president, that will be the end of the Democratic Party and rightfully so.

Um, no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Reporter:  “Hey minority leader Pelosi, as we head into Trump’s second term, are there any regrets about not impeaching Trump when you had the chance?”

Pelosi:  “Well, we all knew he was guilty as fuck and the evidence was overwhelming but we didn’t want to put the country through a painful impeachment process. What we need to do now is focus on is the people’s business and working on an infrastructure plan with the President.  It doesn’t do any good to dwell on the past.”

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Flynn doing Flynn things.

[lemonlime 5,503]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Flynn doing Flynn things.

Angling for a pardon.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Angling for a pardon.

I don’t get this.  He’s not going to spend much time in prison if any.  He took the sweetest deal. Trump gains nothing by pardoning Flynn and Flynn doesn’t lose much without a pardon. 

[texastough 1,142]

Not to relitigate the argument for impeachment, but I don't see how anyone can say its weak to impeach when he won't get convicted by the senate. Its weak not to impeach. If impeached by the house and not convicted in the senate, it will make the majority of Americans more outraged at the shitty GOP senators.

Even those who do not pay too close attention know the Dems control the house and the GOP controls the senate, in other words the people will know exactly why he didn't get convicted and the voters that matter will be pissed about it. Get the senators on record so they all have a target on their backs, give the Dem candidates a major talking point, etc.

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t get this.  He’s not going to spend much time in prison if any.  He took the sweetest deal. Trump gains nothing by pardoning Flynn and Flynn doesn’t lose much without a pardon. 

You're applying logic to this.  Flynn hired some right wing hack as his lawyer.  The right wing hack is now presenting trump's greatest hits of the 14, or 16 angry democrats, or the lovebirds, or whatever inanity, to the court.  He's playing to trump's ego.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Seems like Flynn is angling for full blown Papadopolus grifter existence post sentencing. 

[Chooky 13,338]

This could be really great for Flynn's new lawyer. Might be really bad for Flynn, but this lawyer has a chance to score some rage against the deep state points with jackoffs in the InfoWars state of mental illness. 

Pardoning Flynn wouldn't surprise me when I consider that crimes and the law don't really mean shit anymore. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Well this is about as terrifying as it gets when it comes to national security. 

Worst case scenario:  someone discovered Trump and his entire family are spies for multiple foreign governments and the investigation was squashed the moment Comey was fired.  

Even if the above has any truth to it, there’s no way Trump’s people could get the appropriate security clearances to compromise our entire intelligence services. 

Best case scenario:  I don’t know but it’s still really bad. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If he wins re-election as an unimpeached president, that will be the end of the Democratic Party and rightfully so.

What if he is impeached and removed, but is still reelected?  You think he is going to stop running for 2020 if he is removed?  He could be in prison and he will still get his 30 or 40%.  

[henrygandorf 29,223]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

What if he is impeached and removed, but is still reelected?  You think he is going to stop running for 2020 if he is removed?  He could be in prison and he will still get his 30 or 40%.  

41 is the number you're looking for.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

What if he is impeached and removed, but is still reelected?  You think he is going to stop running for 2020 if he is removed?  He could be in prison and he will still get his 30 or 40%.  

The Senate would cut a deal if they wanted Trump removed, part of that deal would be he couldn’t run again.  

There’s a reason the Senate has never convicted a sitting president.  Theoretically it should never happen because the Senate can force resignation with term and concessions instead of actually voting to convict. 

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Senate would cut a deal if they wanted Trump removed, part of that deal would be he couldn’t run again.  

There’s a reason the Senate has never convicted a sitting president.  Theoretically it should never happen because the Senate can force resignation with term and concessions instead of actually voting to convict. 

There is absolutely no way that Trump ever takes a resignation deal.  He will fight it all the way to the end.  Hell, he may not even leave voluntarily if he loses 2020.

[wildcat09 29,568]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Senate would cut a deal if they wanted Trump removed, part of that deal would be he couldn’t run again.  

There’s a reason the Senate has never convicted a sitting president.  Theoretically it should never happen because the Senate can force resignation with term and concessions instead of actually voting to convict. 

Look at Hugo thinking trump would honor any deal.