Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
23 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

What was Bill Clinton's approval rating after he got impeached?

His approval rating before he got impeached was 15 points higher than Trump’s.

Keep thinking these cases are exactly alike.....

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

His approval rating before he got impeached was 15 points higher than Trump’s.

Keep thinking these cases are exactly alike.....

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.

But I am sure you will dazzle the public with talk of emoluments and phone calls.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.

Is trump being impeached for lying about a blow job? Were you the one who gave it to him?

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.

you're presupposing that trump is capable of getting out of the 39-42% range he's been stuck in since...forever.

apples and monkeys dude.  but sure, keep hope alive.

lulz.

Posted
So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.
But I am sure you will dazzle the public with talk of emoluments and phone calls.
I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume you totally failed the SAT analogy section of the test.
  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, henrygandorf said:

you're presupposing that trump is capable of getting out of the 39-42% range he's been stuck in since...forever.

apples and monkeys dude.  but sure, keep hope alive.

lulz.

You have 221 votes in favor now. But I'm starting to get worried they won't do it. The Pelosi thing was kind of a farce, a stalling tactic, but it created lots of momentum. The problem is, cooler heads are likely to prevail if they don't act on the moment. There's nothing blocking articles of impeachment tomorrow. Lots of Democrats, especially the older more experienced ones, have serious reservations. And rightly so.

Regardles, I have been on record supporting this for a long time. I could be wrong. We'll see. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

You have 221 votes in favor now. But I'm starting to get worried they won't do it. The Pelosi thing was kind of a farce, a stalling tactic, but it created lots of momentum. The problem is, cooler heads are likely to prevail if they don't act on the moment. There's nothing blocking articles of impeachment tomorrow. Lots of Democrats, especially the older more experienced ones, have serious reservations. And rightly so.

Regardles, I have been on record supporting this for a long time. I could be wrong. We'll see. 

there's no reason to rush.  you could also track the public support over the past few weeks and months and see what that tells you.  funny that you're counting votes though, good stuff.  pelosi didn't create the momentum.  the most recent act of corruption created the momentum.

this isn't about removal.  this is about reminding any undecideds/dems what an incompetent failure of a president and human he is.

he's stuck permanently at 40.  he done.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

this isn't about removal.  this is about reminding any undecideds/dems what an incompetent failure of a president and human he is.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, they could do their jobs. Pass laws and budgets and such. You know, legislate? But what do I know, I'm just dumb as a bag of hammers.

You've said it twice yourself. At best it's irrelevant.

Here's a letter threatening the leader of Ukraine unless he assists us with an investigation. Weird, it's not from Trump and also wasn't a crime.

dem-letter-ukraine-1.jpg

Edited by Thetexashammer
Posted
22 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.

But I am sure you will dazzle the public with talk of emoluments and phone calls.

Nice (false) qualifier there. Lulz

Posted
8 minutes ago, po elvis said:

i think this is all going to end up with Trump being lucky that the dems decided to go with this instead of something with more substance.

More substance than using the tools of the US govt to extort a foreign government to influence the election? What’s more substantial than that? Lol

Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

there's no reason to rush.  you could also track the public support over the past few weeks and months and see what that tells you.  

Actually, to get techical, I made a prediction. The prediction is pretty much what happens to the approval rating. Let's compare the before and after approval rating according to RCP on the date of impeachment to the date of acquittal. That is the test.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, they could do their jobs. Pass laws and budgets and such. You know, legislate? But what do I know, I'm just dumb as a bag of hammers.

Here's a letter threatening the leader of Ukraine unless he assists us with an investigation. Weird, it's not from Trump and also wasn't a crime.

dem-letter-ukraine-1.jpg

Was withholding the WB complaint a crime? What about threatening death for the whistleblower? What about asking a foreign government to interfere with the 2020 election?

 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So if Trump is around 42% now, then Clinton was at 57% and ended at 73%. So let's assign a preliminary value of a shitty impeachment of +16%.

But I am sure you will dazzle the public with talk of emoluments and phone calls.

With Clinton, the Republicans impeached a fairly popular president.  With Trump, he's wildly unpopular.

Also, the Republicans paid no political price for impeaching Clinton.  They won the presidency, the Senate, and the House a year and a half later. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, they could do their jobs. Pass laws and budgets and such. You know, legislate? But what do I know, I'm just dumb as a bag of hammers.
You've said it twice yourself. At best it's irrelevant.
Here's a letter threatening the leader of Ukraine unless he assists us with an investigation. Weird, it's not from Trump and also wasn't a crime.
dem-letter-ukraine-1.jpg
Hold on, are you comparing what Trump has done on his own, against a political opponent, to a sanctioned investigation authorized by the DOJ?
Posted

And, not for nothing, the Democratic controlled House of Representatives HAVE been doing their fucking jobs.

They’ve passed a shitton of legislation.

You know who hasn’t been doing their fucking jobs??

Moscow Mitch and the Republican controlled Senate.

So fuck off with your gaslighting bullshittery you hack.

  • Like 6
Posted
Biden used his office for personal benefit. Of course it is under investigation. You aren't exempt from the law because you're a politician. 
You should probably let Bill Barr know, cause this would be news to him? Or are you referring to the Ukrainian President's promise to Trump to reopen an investigation?
Posted

Still waiting here. Tell me why you think impeachment guarantees a Trump win...in your own words and without links or Clinton/Obama ‘what abouts’...

My only conclusion is that y’all are talking out of your ass, out of Fox News desperation, without any brain cells to rub together.  I already knew that, but I like how you keep proving it while accusing us of having no critical thinking skills.  Jesus. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Biden used his office for personal benefit. Of course it is under investigation. You aren't exempt from the law because you're a politician. 

This has been debunked as a matter of state policy.  There was no investigation.  

Posted
26 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

this isn't about removal.  this is about reminding any undecideds/dems what an incompetent failure of a president and human he is.

I agree with this.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Homercles said:

This has been debunked as a matter of state policy.  There was no investigation.  

When Trump tells Barr to look into the Hunter Biden/Ukraine thing, what is that called? Is it called, as Loretta Lynch once stipulated, a mere "matter"? No, it's proper term is an investigation.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

Serious question. Was the hammer assigned trolling efforts tonight or did the same troll, working overtime, simply choose the hammer handle to troll with tonight?

These are the questions that will keep me up at night. Long after trump is gone. 

Posted

I love how the side that ran on locking up the opposing candidate in prison is now arguing that the Dems opening an impeachment inquiry is too much for voters to stomach. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

When Trump tells Barr to look into the Hunter Biden/Ukraine thing, what is that called? Is it called, as Loretta Lynch once stipulated, a mere "matter"? No, it's proper term is an investigation.

But Loretta Lynch!!

  • Like 1
Posted
When Trump tells Barr to look into the Hunter Biden/Ukraine thing, what is that called? Is it called, as Loretta Lynch once stipulated, a mere "matter"? No, it's proper term is an investigation.

Keep fucking that chicken.
Posted
Just now, JimmyJames said:

Very weak trolling effort. I award you zero internet points.

Be better.

I admit my assumption was that you were trying to insult me by saying I was gay. What that intended as a compliment? How did you intend it?

 

Posted
Just now, Thetexashammer said:

I admit my assumption was that you were trying to insult me by saying I was gay. What that intended as a compliment? How did you intend it?

 

I was merely saying you should take ball and go home. 

Posted
When Trump tells Barr to look into the Hunter Biden/Ukraine thing, what is that called? Is it called, as Loretta Lynch once stipulated, a mere "matter"? No, it's proper term is an investigation.
Barr is on record saying that he has not been asked to investigate the Biden's.

So either Barr is lying or you're pulling shit out of thin air.
Posted
Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I love how the side that ran on locking up the opposing candidate in prison is now arguing that the Dems opening an impeachment inquiry is too much for voters to stomach. 

A whole lot of people on your side have been repeatedly arguing that Dems are overplaying their hand. I will state again, many Democrats agree with me.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/who-won-the-debate.html

Posted

Oh. Noes. The trumpkins are getting mad again and are going to vote for trump again while holding their trumpy bears. Whatever shall we do?

Better not impeach him then! That’s worth at least three hundred more trumpy bears sold. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Barr is on record saying that he has not been asked to investigate the Biden's.

So either Barr is lying or you're pulling shit out of thin air.

Here's the quote from Trump:

Quote

“There is a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that,” Trump told Zelensky, according to the White House document. “So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great."

Trump didn't follow up on it. Seems like it wasn't that important.

Posted
A whole lot of people on your side have been repeatedly arguing that Dems are overplaying their hand. I will state again, many Democrats agree with me.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/who-won-the-debate.html
Hold on "many" Democrats? President Trump? Are you gracing our presence on the internet?

Sir, I gotta say we've been so unfair to you on this site. You are by far "the bestest" President we've ever had. Can we get you to donate to our South End zone project?
Posted
Just now, Irwin F Fletcher said:
3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:
Trump didn't follow up on it. Seems like it wasn't that important.

That's your smoking gun? Oh man, that is rich. I needed a good laugh and that delivered.

Look, we agree. He should be impeached. We just have different reasoning.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

By saying I was gay. Because gay is bad.

I didn’t call you gay, comrade. I called you a trump cocksucker, which you are. Not sure a bottom bitch like you is actually gay or not. You tell us.

I realize it’s the morning your time but it’s late here in the good old USA and I need to get some sleep. So good night. And good luck. 

Posted
Just now, JimmyJames said:

I didn’t call you gay, comrade. I called you a trump cocksucker, which you are. Not sure a bottom bitch like you is actually gay or not. You tell us.

I realize it’s the morning your time but it’s late here in the good old USA and I need to get some sleep. So good night. And good luck. 

You remain a charming, lovely, and kind person as always. Good evening sir.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Biden used his office for personal benefit. Of course it is under investigation. You aren't exempt from the law because you're a politician. 

Who is investigating Joe Biden?

Posted
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, they could do their jobs. Pass laws and budgets and such. You know, legislate?

you're right.  they should put together some gun control legislation then send it to the senate.

Posted

Here's Karen Tumulty's WaPo opinion piece. 

Spoiler

For the fourth time in American history, the House has embarked on the road to impeachment. Not in more than 150 years have the proceedings unfolded in the middle of a presidential election.

No one knows how this will play out, or what its collateral effects will be. Recent precedent offers no guide. Impeachment inquiries were launched against Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton during their second terms, when both were all-but-lame ducks. In 2020, we will see our democratic processes and traditions stretched close to the breaking point.Maybe all of this was preordained anyway, given the recklessness of the current occupant of the White House. As Joe Lockhart, who was Clinton’s White House press secretary, said to me: “If Donald Trump is president, impeach him or not, he’s going to be the news every day. He has blotted out the sun.”

It is easy to forget that Democrats won back the majority in the House last year by pressing their case on issues that shape the everyday lives of families. With impeachment proceedings underway, there will be little oxygen left for any discussion of health care or infrastructure or college costs or anything beyond the question of Trump’s fitness for office. And if the investigation turns up anything short of a slam-dunk case to remove him, swing voters might punish a party they see as determined to overturn the result of the last presidential election.

All of this helps explain why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was so reluctant to set the formal process into motion, and why she would like to see it come to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible. Senior Democratic lawmakers and top leadership aides have told The Post that a House vote on articles charging President Trump with “high crimes and misdemeanors” could happen within weeks.

But that seems unrealistic. Rushing the process would only give credence to Trump’s near-hourly declarations that all of this is a “witch hunt.” And his White House is certain to resist congressional demands for documents and witnesses upon which the House could build its case, which means battles in the courts that could take months.

Meanwhile, Trump will galvanize his ever-loyal base, and his fundraising will skyrocket. The near-certainty that he would be acquitted by the Republican-held Senate will be spun as an exoneration.

An impeachment investigation will also shape the Democrats’ choice of a nominee, potentially foreshortening the race and freezing the current standings in place. Those who are struggling to break from the rear of a 19-person field will find it even harder — and maybe impossible — to make their voices heard in the din. “Candidates who have advantages now may see those advantages multiplied,” says David Axelrod, who was Barack Obama’s chief strategist.

One of the biggest unknowns is how all of this will affect the prospects of poll-leading Joe Biden. Trump’s brazen and improper play to enlist a foreign government to scuff up Biden assures that baseless allegations about him will be in the water. But even if Trump’s pressure on Ukraine failed, he continues to insist that Biden should be investigated and to spread evidence-free allegations about him. How Biden deals with it will likely be his greatest test as a candidate.

Trump has also created a paradox for himself. As longtime Democratic operative Joe Trippi notes of the president: “The question may not be whether Biden can take him down. It may be his fear of Biden that takes him down.”

The possible effects on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are also double-edged. Her campaign, after a rocky start, has been executed more skilfully than any other to date, and she is the only one who has shown consistently upward momentum.

It may or may not help her to have Biden at center stage now. She was the first 2020 candidate to call for Trump’s impeachment, and the relentless focus on that this fall and beyond could dampen scrutiny surrounding the details and cost of some of her more far-reaching policy proposals.

But the most consequential unanswerables are the ones that transcend how the impeachment inquiry will affect the outcome of a single presidential election.

When the country comes out on the other side of whatever terrifying, uncharted territory we are about to cross, what kind of nation will we be? One that is even more deeply and irreconcilably divided than we are now? Or maybe — just maybe — one that is finally ready to demand something better than the ghastliness that has gotten us to this.

 

Posted
36 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Who is investigating Joe Biden?

Duh. Giuliani, the Ukrainian President, and a disgraced Ukrainian prosecutor. Didn't you read the transcript?  



×
×
  • Create New...