since you have such a problem with what Trump is doing, maybe your side should have won.
maybe now you're seeing how the "other side" felt for 8 long goddamn years.
And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
- Status
maybe now you're seeing how the "other side" felt for 8 long goddamn years.
Yeah, I thought he'd be better at shmoozing Congressmen, taking them golfing on Trump Force One, that kind of thing. Of course Bammy never did either but then half the Congress was on board with Him even though they knew He detested them.
So you're saying Sessions, Lynch, Holder should have pursued indictments of Hillary long ago?
PS...many "establishment" folks endorsed Trump for dozens of odd reasons.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,123
- Reaction score
- 6,014
- Points
- 113
They were going to until Trump said not to, shortly after the election. Did anyone say "WTF Trump!?!?" then?
I guess the secret signal that Sessions should pursue Clinton was a bizarre speech to the Boy Scouts?
Or maybe their reasons had nothing to do with "the establishment".
as has been said previously -- when you ***** non-*******-stop about anything and everything that someone is doing, eventually your audience will tune you out. the entire ******* world knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the left wishes Trump to be impeached - or die, if they're being honest - but he's been in office since January 20, 2017. In 186 days in office, the left has incessantly and unendingly screeched for his impeachment every. single. day.
without fail.
every. single. day.
it's old. you're tuned out.
as the Moose would say, "Move on!"
Trump wants him to start an investigation against the Clinton crime syndicate, and he won't. And the reason he won't probably has to do with opening up Pandora's Box of widespread corruption on both sides of the aisle, which would reveal the epic clusterfuck that is Washington politics.
Or he knows he'll be a victim of Arkancide.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,015
- Reaction score
- 18,590
- Points
- 113
My problem is the timing. I mean, you would almost think he was bitching about the Clintons in order to distract from something else. What that is, I can't be sure.
My take, and this is pure conjecture(I don't have Spike's insider access), is that he wants to fight fire with fire. He just wants to give the Dems a little bit of their own medicine, and Sessions doesn't want to play. We'll see where it goes from here.
Actually I have a clearance that I couldn't have if I was on a list. Gorka can kiss my ***.
I was there before him and I'll be there after he isn't even a memory.
Session was disloyal to King Snowflake in Chief. That's all that matters to K.S.I.C., nothing else.
Sessions being a lifelong racist and overall scummy piece of crap.....no problem...no problem at all.
Disloyalty to narcissist Trump.....oh no! NO! because with Trump it's all about Trump...all the time....all the time, even at boy scout jamborees.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,032
- Reaction score
- 7,081
- Points
- 113
Yep its racist to for minorities to prove their identity to vote.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 12,667
- Reaction score
- 16,941
- Points
- 113
Trump is not mad at Sessions for being disloyal. He's mad because his biggest promise is to take on the career bureaucrats, the deep state, drain the swamp. He wants fighters who are tough enough to take flak from both sides. He's mad because at the very first test, Sessions caved in and recused himself from the Russia probe just because the opposition said so.
This is a shot across the bow to let Sessions know that the next time he backs down will be his last.
This is a shot across the bow to let Sessions know that the next time he backs down will be his last.
Why can't you? The republicans did exactly that to Slick Willy. They tried to impeach him because he lied ..... about a blow job. A guy got a blowjob, tried to keep it on the down-low so his wife doesn't find out about it, and you guys acted like he was in cohootz with the communists or something. Now we have a president that actually is in bed with an ex- KGB communist piece of **** thug and you all are perfectly fine with it.
Of course it's childish... he has the mentality of a 12 year old. Every time he speaks to a crowd, all he does is run down anyone that ever opposed him. And then, after he's through with that, he starts rehashing the election again... talking about how many votes he got in this state or that one.... he did that the other day giving a speech to a bunch of kids for Christ's sake.
I like your little picture there of the buffoon pointing a gun and calling people a *****. You do know that when actually had a chance to really point a gun at someone... the NVA and the Vietcong.... he couldn't have been a bigger *****. I know I know..... he wanted to but those bone spurs were just too painful and those combat boots just aggravated the **** out of them.... especially when the boots got wet trudging through rice paddies and stuff. What a ******* joke....
And it was lefties like you that spit on young vets returning from Vietnam, calling them baby killers, and worse. Now, you call them nazis and facists. Same despicable behavior. .
Reminds me of an old story. Our crafty politicians employ a team of imaginative writers to put a spin on stories that don't fall within their narrative. Here is a good example of one I heard awhile back.
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889 Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory: On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
NOW THAT's how it's done, No reason to wonder how Dingy Harry stayed in office for centuries.
SO THERE !
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889 Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory: On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
NOW THAT's how it's done, No reason to wonder how Dingy Harry stayed in office for centuries.
SO THERE !
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,015
- Reaction score
- 18,590
- Points
- 113
Stop. Just stop. I am no fan of Trump. Bill Clinton lied under oath. Doesn't matter what he lied about. For a party that is suddenly interested in something they have no familiarity with (the truth), you seem ok with Billy lying under oath, because it was just a little lie about a blow job. If Trump lied about the same thing, you'd be calling for his head. Hell, you guys want to hang him over an accusation with no proof. You aren't interested in the truth. You are just mad you lost.
Bill Clinton LIED UNDER OATH. And he WAS impeached, just not removed from office. Those are two separate things.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,123
- Reaction score
- 6,014
- Points
- 113
So had Hillary won and found herself under investigation, and her AG refused to recuse himself/herself from that investigation, you would be applauding them for taking a stand?
I am highly doubting your integrity.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I didn't like Trump's speech to the boy scouts. That doesn't sit well with me.
I also don't like the **** that is going down with Sessions. From my understanding the law states he HAD to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. As I've stated time and again in my defense of Trump I am going to side with the Constitution and the law. Period. Now I understand that even having recused himself, Sessions should have discussed with his assistant Attorney General before instituting the special investigator. And I've said many times I'm not in favor of that decision. I think it is clearly going to open up a can of **** on everything Donald Trump, Inc. going back decades and will end up not having anything to do with Russian interference into our election (whatever the **** that means).
As far as all the complaints now from liberals about "dealing with Russian Oligarchs", let's get one thing clear about what Russia is today. It is ALL Oligarchs and Mobsters. There is nothing else. Since the fall of Communism and the breakup of the USSR, that's all that is there. You can't even talk to ANYONE with influence in Russia that isn't an Oligarch and isn't running his business like old-school mobsters including kickbacks and quid-pro-quo agreements under the table going all the way up to Putin himself as the head mafioso.
So I have a hard time listening to complaints from liberals about this issue because what they are implying is (I guess) Trump, Inc. which is involved in world wide property, endorsement, investment and branding deals should have just IGNORED the 10th largest economy in the world. Even though (I guess) he was allowed to have dealing with China or Indonesia or Pakistan or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the world. Is that correct because anyone here that is complaining about it needs to explain to me what the problem is.
We elected a billionaire businessman. Of course there will be complicated financial ties to who knows what financial groups and other billionaires from around the globe. Can't we argue that his voters (and the American public in general) AGREED that in this case, for this candidate, this was acceptable.
I mean, when you look at it, what the Washington inside-elite are trying to push on the American people with their anti-Trump propaganda machine is that no one OTHER THAN a professional politician is suitable to SERVE our country as President or Congressman. That the restrictions now include business dealings with any foreign businessman (or woman) in more scrupulous countries. Is that now the barometer and litmus test we want to apply? Because that's what I am seeing from our media/propaganda machine. That we should have just trusted the insiders to continue to run the show. Look how corrupt and incompetent an outsider is. He is unqualified. And instead of helping him with party unity, support to get laws passed (for him to sign) and space to grow/educated himself on the job, they have incessantly attacked him and torn him down to where all of government is getting nothing done (in an off-election year by the way).
That's what I see.
Trumps not doing the best job but I still am going to support him vs. the Washington elite right now that is/has been running the **** show for the last quarter century.
I also don't like the **** that is going down with Sessions. From my understanding the law states he HAD to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. As I've stated time and again in my defense of Trump I am going to side with the Constitution and the law. Period. Now I understand that even having recused himself, Sessions should have discussed with his assistant Attorney General before instituting the special investigator. And I've said many times I'm not in favor of that decision. I think it is clearly going to open up a can of **** on everything Donald Trump, Inc. going back decades and will end up not having anything to do with Russian interference into our election (whatever the **** that means).
As far as all the complaints now from liberals about "dealing with Russian Oligarchs", let's get one thing clear about what Russia is today. It is ALL Oligarchs and Mobsters. There is nothing else. Since the fall of Communism and the breakup of the USSR, that's all that is there. You can't even talk to ANYONE with influence in Russia that isn't an Oligarch and isn't running his business like old-school mobsters including kickbacks and quid-pro-quo agreements under the table going all the way up to Putin himself as the head mafioso.
So I have a hard time listening to complaints from liberals about this issue because what they are implying is (I guess) Trump, Inc. which is involved in world wide property, endorsement, investment and branding deals should have just IGNORED the 10th largest economy in the world. Even though (I guess) he was allowed to have dealing with China or Indonesia or Pakistan or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the world. Is that correct because anyone here that is complaining about it needs to explain to me what the problem is.
We elected a billionaire businessman. Of course there will be complicated financial ties to who knows what financial groups and other billionaires from around the globe. Can't we argue that his voters (and the American public in general) AGREED that in this case, for this candidate, this was acceptable.
I mean, when you look at it, what the Washington inside-elite are trying to push on the American people with their anti-Trump propaganda machine is that no one OTHER THAN a professional politician is suitable to SERVE our country as President or Congressman. That the restrictions now include business dealings with any foreign businessman (or woman) in more scrupulous countries. Is that now the barometer and litmus test we want to apply? Because that's what I am seeing from our media/propaganda machine. That we should have just trusted the insiders to continue to run the show. Look how corrupt and incompetent an outsider is. He is unqualified. And instead of helping him with party unity, support to get laws passed (for him to sign) and space to grow/educated himself on the job, they have incessantly attacked him and torn him down to where all of government is getting nothing done (in an off-election year by the way).
That's what I see.
Trumps not doing the best job but I still am going to support him vs. the Washington elite right now that is/has been running the **** show for the last quarter century.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
- Reaction score
- 7,872
- Points
- 113
This...Sessions is his employee for God's sake. He chose him. Either talk to him privately and get him in line or get rid of him if you don't like him. He acts more like a 13 year old girl every day.
In any case Sessions did the right thing because if he headed up the investigation and Trump was cleared this would never die. It has to be someone independent. If Trump hasn't done anything wrong he shouldn't need "loyalty" in terms of an investigation. Every day he makes himself look more and more guilty, despite the fact that there is no evidence against him. I feel like he is trying to piss people off on purpose and get himself forced out. Or he really is just nuts.
wish we could like posts more than once.
- Status