You are not logged in. Please register or login.

misterID
 Rep: 456 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

Fox: So where's the Russia collusion here?

MSNBC:  OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD!!!!!!

Trump will likely pardon everyone, this still won't lead into impeachment. And why would anyone want root for a Pence presidency?

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 327 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

Trump is not going down for this. I just don’t see it.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 112 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

Trump is not going down for this. I just don’t see it.


I think you’re right. I don’t think most people will think paying off a whore who wants to talk about a consensual relationship is a high crime and misdemeanor.

And quite frankly this is it. The conspiracy nuts still think Russia, but they’re becoming less and less common. Mueller was tasked with investigating Russia’s influence on the election, and all they’ve got is financial fraud unrelated to the election from Manafort, and now Cohen’s plea to reduce charges to his own questionable financial behavior separate from the campaign.

I definitely understand why Trump won’t talk to Mueller. I personally find this farcical, in that Clinton’s team was granted immunity to admit they intentionally mishandled classified information, but we're supposed to pretend Trump paying off whores looking for fame because they spread their legs is the worst crime of the century.

A year in and this is what Mueller has?  Nothing related to Russia and the election?  If you were against Clinton being impeached for perjury, you have to be opposed to Trump - if you’re claiming not to be a partisan hack.

But the Democrats have to impeach. Pelosi will have to take the charge if she hopes to get the speakership in January. I fully expect this to be identical to Clinton. A partisan house brings articles of impeachment, and a partisan senate tells them to fuck off.

I don’t think a platform of “Trump paid a woman off not to talk about fucking him” is a winning argument for democrats.

bigbri
 Rep: 329 

Re: US Politics Thread

bigbri wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Trump is not going down for this. I just don’t see it.



A year in and this is what Mueller has?  Nothing related to Russia and the election?  If you were against Clinton being impeached for perjury, you have to be opposed to Trump - if you’re claiming not to be a partisan hack.

I'll wait for the investigation to be complete to decide, but probably not based on what we've seen so far. I think his egregious flouting of the emoluments clauses is much more troubling.

misterID
 Rep: 456 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:
bigbri wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Trump is not going down for this. I just don’t see it.



A year in and this is what Mueller has?  Nothing related to Russia and the election?  If you were against Clinton being impeached for perjury, you have to be opposed to Trump - if you’re claiming not to be a partisan hack.

I'll wait for the investigation to be complete to decide, but probably not based on what we've seen so far. I think his egregious flouting of the emoluments clauses is much more troubling.

Agree with this. It's ridiculous.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 327 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

If the economy was sucking and trump dragged us in a War, sure, but right now, things are going too good. Why fvck it up??

misterID
 Rep: 456 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

You could argue the economy would be better without him because anyone who follows him will end the tariffs.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 112 

Re: US Politics Thread

bigbri wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
Smoking Guns wrote:

Trump is not going down for this. I just don’t see it.



A year in and this is what Mueller has?  Nothing related to Russia and the election?  If you were against Clinton being impeached for perjury, you have to be opposed to Trump - if you’re claiming not to be a partisan hack.

I'll wait for the investigation to be complete to decide, but probably not based on what we've seen so far. I think his egregious flouting of the emoluments clauses is much more troubling.


Are you saying you think he’s receiving money from foreign governments or domestically? 

I’ve never understood this argument. He’s not managing the Trump corporation, and did Obama refuse to accept money from his books while in office?  I’m just trying to understand the actual crime here.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 112 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

You could argue the economy would be better without him because anyone who follows him will end the tariffs.

What happens when NAFTA and tarrifs with EU are redone?  What happens if his gambit with China pays off?

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 327 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:
misterID wrote:

You could argue the economy would be better without him because anyone who follows him will end the tariffs.

Yes but if the deregulation and tax cuts never happen we are not here to begin with. Also I do agree with him on the Fed. The Fed needs to calm down. They will slow us down faster than the tariffs.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB