As Republicans set Trump aside, Democrats can't let him go
By: MSN
Why indeed.........................
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As Republicans set Trump aside, Democrats can't let him go
There is a Chinese fable about an older and a younger monk. They encounter a woman who implores them to carry her across a stream. Having vowed no contact with women, the monks face a dilemma. Nonetheless, the older monk immediately puts her on his back and transports her across.
As the hours pass, the younger monk's indignation builds until he can no longer contain himself, and he confronts his companion. The older monk simply replies: "I set the woman down hours ago, brother. Why are you still carrying her?"
The fable is a Zen tale about letting go. It is also a contemporary illustration about Donald Trump's hold on the nation's political poles. The older monk is the Right, the younger is the Left.
The Left's insistence that Trump be stampeded through a rushed impeachment reveals a political movement unable to let go. It also reveals that Trump may have a greater hold on liberals than they have on him.
Democrats still had the numbers for a second impeachment, despite their poor 2020 election performance. The horrific Capitol riots gave them leverage. On the other hand, their credibility was lacking, given that they had been calling for Trump's impeachment since before he even took office. Then, even before Trump was acquitted last year, the Left was already calling for a second impeachment. Now, with Trump out of power, it is still intent on trying him in the Senate.
What is their goal in impeaching Trump again? To remove from office a man who is no longer in office. For constitutional theorists, this is intriguing, but for the rest of America, it likely will not be.
There are less than 22 months between now and November 2022 — precious time that will determine the success or failure of Biden's administration ahead of a midterm election in which history says his party will lose. Yet it plans to squander part or all of his first 100 days trying Trump.
There is also little chance Trump will be convicted in the Senate and disqualified from future office with the two-thirds vote that is probably required. Yet there is some controversy over this question, and given the minuscule number of House Republicans willing to impeach, this controversy would likely be litigated further even after the impeachment trial is over. Such an exercise, the longer it goes on, increases its likelihood of alienating the Republicans upon whom Biden will depend to break filibusters in the Senate, thus imperiling his agenda in the long run.
The last and largest of the Left's dangers from its stampede to impeachment is that it will alienate the rest of the nation in the process. The longer the trial continues, the less interest there will be and the greater danger of a backlash. For a country approaching a year of pandemic and lockdowns, this smacks of misplaced priorities.
In contrast to the Left's political problems with impeachment, the Right has no problems at all. Republicans are eager to set Trump aside. The best possible outcome for many ambitious Republicans is that somehow Trump is disqualified from future office, the blame laid at the Left's feet and not theirs.
All the while, the clock is running on the Left's very limited opportunity to capitalize on the Biden presidency. It would do much better to set Trump down and move on.
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
Aaahhh the environment of a near and dear discussion forum
sorry, but after 400K dead, a trashed economy and a failed insurrection, the majority of americans are seeking closure, with either a cell door or a casket lid.
Yeah I know. Your casket lid (recent pattern) bullshit shit aside. That virus was all Trump's fault. He is the one that decided to shut states and businesses down and screw up the economy. He alone loaded up vials of the virus into AF1 and in the dark of night, had it fly over the country an disperse it somewhat inequitably across the land. And then he had the audacity to shut off research funding and tell the FDA to delay the hell out of the vaccine approval
/s
I understand it was also him that made Cuomo put all those people back into nursing homes so they could die and made the appointment for Nancy to get her hair done while she was telling people to lock down. All that and he still had time to tweet!
I get the relevance of the Chinese fable. I actually think I have something closer to the attitude of those obsessed with Donald Trump. I used to have a client (my last business) who would frequently discuss politics & world events with me. He was older than I. He was German and grew up as a boy in Germany during WWII. As I recall, our last conversation concerned the general condition of the younger generation and the fact that I had the same views on the culture that I always had. As my old friend was leaving, the last thing he said to me was "The world tempers us all - Germany has changed, I have changed, some day maybe even you will change." And so it is for the Trump haters. We can only hope that with time, they will lose some of that emotion over the man who once frightened them so.
As to the pending impeachment, there are rumblings that some moderate democrat Senators are concerned that it may backfire. I think we may see a push by democrats for the new president to call the whole thing off.
AND yet today and Yesterday certain members were still bringing up HRC as if she were relative..
and how badly Bush was treated before Obama took office and implemented socialism.
Sorry Vic. You people are not going to change anytime soon,
so I see no obligation for anyone else to stop their obsessions either.
Deal with it or change the topic.
Gee, if I say that I get a ticket.
so I see no obligation for anyone else to stop their obsessions
Then the blood is on their hands.
Nice to see that you haven't changed a bit
Nor have you.
Right wing commentary, professional and amateur, will ruin what is left of "unity" in this country.
We have a president that lied to his own people literally thousands of times, while he was in office, tried to bribe the president of another country to produce dirt on the U.S. president's election rival, and called for his supporters to pressure his vice president to do something that the vice president was not constitutionally allowed to do, then told a mob of his supporters who caused a riot at the national seat of government to "Remember this day forever", and after all that and much much more , Trump's supporters have the fricking gall to tell everyone that people have unfairly "hated " Trump.
This is an attempt at gaslighting and bamboozling at a stratospheric level. Never have so many so openly disregarded the truth and tried to create their own reality.
Is that supposed to be a justification for the denial of free speech?
We have a president
The key word is had. He is no longer in office. It won't be long John that even the people who didn't like him will eventually reason that he put more money in their pockets and protected their safety. For many there will be that collective sigh of "he actually did us some good." As for everything happening now history will record this was the time when the radical left tried to end the Republic as the world knew it. The Founders warned us that America would only fall from within.
There isn't a chance in hell that Trump will be favorably remembered by history.
The tragic hero now joining the ranks William Tecumseh Sherman and George S Patton.
How about George Washington?
The Whiskey rebellion was very close to what happened 01/06
about the same amount killed too.
I mean if you are going to make insane comparisons, go big.
Thanks for the silliness.
Trump will be "let go" once he is punished. If you want him to be "let go" sooner rather than later, suggest that the impeachment begin immediately.
If you think the impeachment fiasco is going to "punish" him, you may be sadly mistaken...............
"For the most part there is a real strong consensus among our members that this is after the fact. He's out of office and impeachment is a remedy to remove somebody from office so there's the constitutional question," the second GOP senator said.
"That's my sense of where most of our members are going to come down," the source added."
Almost all of the Republicans in Congress are weasels. This is not a secret to anyone.
He lost re-election. You think that is not, in part, due to the 1st impeachment?
Nope. A lot of people knew that was just bullshit. They started with collusion, which was not conclusive and ran it all the way through the gauntlet to finally some Ukraine phone call bullshit. Dems had the majority to get that done in the House but there wasn't, it seems, compelling enough arguments for any of the string of attempts to get him out. Even into the beginnings of the Corona virus, the emphasis in the Capitol was all focused on impeachment and that is all we heard coming from DC.
Trump absolutely positively should have been removed from office for trying to extort or bribe the government of Ukraine to investigate Trump's election opponent. The case against him WAS conclusive. The Republicans shamed themselves by voting to acquit Trump.
That is one of the great disasters caused by that faux impeachment. Imagine what could of been done if the administration wasn't occupied with that Bullshit?
A charge that Trump was trying to bribe/blackmail a foreign government into interfering with our election? A charge that Trump's defense attorneys NEVER DENIED?
Which was confirmed by the Mueller report and later by a Republican lead Senate investigation.
Because the Republican held Senate was so eager to prove his innocence, they chose to not call any witnesses, leaving the only witness statements (including 1st hand knowledge) and evidence for them to see, proved his guilt?
Why should they worry about only 15 people, since the virus was under control, and would be gone by March or April?
The same thing that was done after the conclusion of the impeachment.
The same thing that Congress did while impeachment was going on. Jack shit of nothing. Complete waste of time by a bunch of dumb fuck Democrats that couldn't even get their fabricated facts straight; and expected the Senate to do their investigating for them.
If Trump is not tried in the senate, he will soon begin going on tv and other interviews saying he didnt do anything wrong.
The truth is there was not a day after Nov 3rd when he didnt do anything wrong. (and not very many before that).
On Jan 6th all 50 states had already certified their electoral votes. There was no authority for anyone to change the votes on Jan 6th. Trump had been told that, ( MIke Pence himself told Trump that on the morning of the 6th) but he showed up and gave a speech instructing tens of thousands of deluded people to go to the Capitol and pressure Mike Pence to change the vote.
There was no justifiable basis for ANY of this.
Now Republicans are beginning to lie about the whole thing.
The Democrats have to be strong and get every Republican who votes for acquittal on their permanent record that they voted not to punish a president who tried to overthrow the government. On their record, to show to the voters in 2022.
And the only thing missing is the actual words where Trump told the crowd to riot.
From the speech that day:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"
Problem number 2 is legality: Lack of jurisdiction
The Constitution is clear: “The president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment . . . and conviction”—not by the expiration of his term before the impeachment process is complete. It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification.
Keep beating that drum.
Vic, there were people in the Capitol building, the mob, who told the police that they were there because Trump told them to.
The entire day was unjustified, and I assume the Democrat impeachment managers will point that out . Yes, the mob had a right to congregate outside the Capitol. They had a right, but they did not have a justifiable reason for being there. Donald Trump KNEW that Congress was not going to change the electoral votes because they had no authority to. Same with Pence. Pence had told Trump himself that he could not change the vote.
This is not even a difficult thing to decide.
And I'm sure they believed he did. There are people who burned minority businesses to the ground believing they were serving the social justice.
The entire day was unjustified
With the exception of MLK's Civil Rights led protests, I have felt that way about every protest since Vietnam. It's your opinion.
They had a right, but they did not have a justifiable reason for being there.
Who gets to question a cause? Will that be the next thing the ruling class left will decide?
Donald Trump KNEW that Congress was not going to change the electoral votes because they had no authority to.
He also KNEW that the movement he created expected him to fight the DC establishment all the way. Let's face it, he did complain about changes to election rules way back in the early summer when Marc Elias was filing all those law suits. Republican state legislatures & Governors failed to head the warning. Putting the claims of fraud aside, the rules in battleground states were changed to favor Joe Biden, whether the election itself was legitimate or not.
This is not even a difficult thing to decide.
Not to those with firm beliefs. Like you said in your first sentence - people believed it!
The facts question the cause. There was no pathway for anyone in Congress to change the electoral votes. Trump knew that and sent the mob anyway. It is not remotely the same as a civil rights or anti-war protest.
As I have said before - questioning the legitimacy of an election in which rules were changed in key states is no different than questioning the fairness of police departments and calling for their defunding.
We both may see things as unreasonable, but to those involved it is important. It works both ways, John.
Damn John. You of all people with your constant scrutiny of everything Trump from his first tweet of the day to the last shit he took before going to bed at night, should have triggered you knowing that Trump throws things out that to most seem ridiculous............to see if maybe, just maybe there is a way that something will come up and possibly go in his favor. Many times in his term he did this.........and at least 50% of the time was right going forward and caused people to think outside the status quo box.
So what? He was wrong, he caused a riot at the US Congress and he has to pay the price.
.....he caused a riot at the US Congress and he has to pay the price.
He didn't, and he won't
Right after the Democratic Mayors and Governors pay for allowing their BLM and Antifa Brown Shirts to destroy federal property; commit acts of assault; murder; looting; and arson.
See how that works?
Of course those self same traitors were damn quick to threaten to call out the National Guard and prosecute those very same far left Brown Shirts protesting/rioting in Portland and Seattle after Biden was sworn in. Guess they only tolerated them if they could blame their rioting Brown Shirts on Trump. No Trump; and their Kumbaya stops.
This impeachment fiasco will turn out to be another embarrassing moment for the vindictive democrats. It is not Constitutional because the vote to convict only calls for the removal of the president...and Trump is already gone. Also, there is no way in hell that 17 Republicans will vote to convict. So what the voters will see once again that the dopey Dims haven't learned anything and seem to be only interested in blaming and punishing instead of governing. And in these troubled times of a world wide pandemic and millions out of work and hope they come up with some silly shit like in the article below.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/biden-is-already-trying-to-protect-trans-rights-%e2%80%94-and-he-woke-up-all-the-twitter-terfs/ar-BB1cYl6S?ocid=AARDHP&li=BBnbfcL
It wasnt constitutional for Trump to tell Mike Pence to overturn the election.
The left wingers tried to overturn a free and fair election for four fucking years.
Wasn't that unconstitutional and amount to sedition?
No, they didn't. Had Trump been convicted and removed, Mike Pence would have succeeded him as President. Not a Democrat.
False equivalence.
Free and fair elections don't involve Russian interference.
Really, then there is no problem with impeaching Biden for being a senile demented Establishment tool that is unfit for office?
Since Harris would take over.
Nor do they involve Chinese or Iranian interference; but Democrats don't have any problems with that- since both countries were backing Biden and Democrats with their interference.
Of course Democrats have selective hearing and vision. Once they see or hear Russia they completely shut off China and Iran.
Have Republicans set him aside? I can name at least one right here who will support him in a 2024 run, and I could name multiple Republicans among my family and friends who would do the same. Inexplicably, they think he's a good guy.
Good guy? Is that how we elect presidents? I select leaders based on what is needed to get the job done.
I doubt Americans living in the south (or anywhere else) thought General Sherman was a "good guy." He believed in total war and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. However, the Union needed him to win the war.
Why are you asking me about their motivations, Vic? I said their opinions were inexplicable. I'm just saying that I'm not sure Republicans have set Trump aside. Some of them stormed the United States Capitol to try to keep him in the White House. Two idiotic women got themselves killed (one shot and one trampled) trying to keep him in the White House by way of sedition. Some of them bludgeoned a police officer to death to keep him in the White House. Some wanted to lynch Mike Pence for not illegally trying to keep him in the White House.
They seem pretty devoted to him, in my book.
There is a solid Trump following. The only question is will he return in 4 years. My guess and hope is NO.
Some of them stormed the United States Capitol
Those were not "Republicans" or even your average Trump supporters. Those were extremists. How would you like it if I called the people who tried to burn down the Philadelphia Police Station, (WITH PEOPLE IN IT) Biden supporters or democrats?
They seem pretty devoted to him, in my book.
Extremists are devoted. Some might just be 14 year Air Force Veterans.
Then there appear to be a large number of extremists among the people I know. They call themselves Republicans. No true Scotsman, eh?
Those should know better than to be extremists.
I have always believed in the police/military having the right to shoot rioters. This past summer we saw some of the most vicious rioting we have seen in decades. Those entrusted with protecting life and property were not given that right. It was only 2 weeks ago that the nod was given to protect the ruling class/"our democracy" via any measure. It wasn't a vicious looter or thug who took the first bullet. It was an unarmed female veteran.
We should not encourage extremists. That bullet has done more damage than you know.
I watched the video of the woman being shot and killed very carefully. A male protester had wrapped something, probably a tee shirt around his fist for protection and was punching the door and window leading to Nancy Pelosi's speakers lobby which is directly connected to the House chamber. If the mob accessed the Speakers lobby they could walk unimpeded onto the floor of the House.
The officer showed his gun for a span of multiple seconds before shooting. Members of the crowd shouted "gun" gun" and "he's got a gun" The mob had succeeded in punching out one of the two windows on the door. The gun was visible on the other side of the door. Nonetheless the woman chose to try and climb through the broken door window and gain access to the House of Representatives. A guard shot her.
Is it your opinion that the guard should have let the mob enter the floor of the House of Representatives ?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. She was a rioter. You said police or the military have the right to shoot her. They did, because she was rioting, as well as breaking and entering. I'd have shot her if she was coming through the window into my house, too. Don't care whether she's armed or not. She forfeited the right for anybody to care whether she was an armed or unarmed vet or nonvet when she engaged in breaking and entering to further sedition.
I believe a few of them did?
Is it your opinion that the guard should have let the mob enter the floor of the House of Representatives ?
No, but I do think that a warning shot should have been fired toward the ceiling. I have seen too many riots where thugs knew nothing was going to happen to them and in this case deadly force was used all to easily. The shoe was finally on the other foot, you see.
Serious question: When did this change of heart come about?
Really?
She was a rioter.
We can agree on that. Unarmed.
You said police or the military have the right to shoot her.
I have always believed in that. Do you?
I'd have shot her if she was coming through the window into my house, too.
Interesting!
It's funny how the perception changes and the rules change:
Remember?
What were you saying about contradiction?
Until now. You seem to object to the shooting of this particular rioter.
False equivalence with the Missouri couple, Vic. Nobody was coming into their house. And TBH, they both need a gun safety course. Dude swept his wife a few times with his finger on the trigger, and she's looking to get her wrist broken.
Immediately after things got out of hand on January 6th. In case you hadn't noticed, I've been saying it since then. It's like when a sail turns into an anchor. We need to find a better sail.
Did you see my question?
Yes, Vic, I have always believed it was permissible to use force against rioters. I don't even care whether the rioters' veteran status is ascertained before shooting them.
I've never seen a responsible gun owner hold a gun the way she is. I'm waiting for a flame to come out of the barrel, whereupon she asks, "Does anyone need a light?"
I'm glad that we agree on that.
We don't seem to agree. You seem upset that they shot a veteran (because they're supposed to somehow be able to tell that she's a veteran) who was unarmed, even though she was rioting.
I am troubled by it. The first time I heard of it was as it was described by Tucker Carlson - We watched as her eyes widened. The eyes told you that she knew she was going to die. She didn't look like those angry nihilist protestors we watched all summer. She looked like us.
As I read the statements from her family members I realized that apart from her participation in this event she was just an average American. Then I discovered that on that same day a security officer who was on break assaulted a protestor. Everyone was restrained and she was arrested. I found her far more dangerous than our Veteran, yet she wasn't shot. I think other people are troubled by it too.
False equivalence
They were on private property, which they broke into and they were threatening that couple. The difference was that radicals held public office and instead of going after thugs they went after people trying to defend themselves.
I think police policy and training prohibits warning shots, maybe that should be reexamined
Once we have finally arrived at the point where police and or military have the option of using live ammunition against rioters, warning shots should be allowed.
Of course, it seems we have only allowed the option in the case of January 6th. In 50-60 years of protests and riots I don't recall the use of such deadly force really being an option until then.
Kent State.
I knew you would go there when I wrote 6.1.19. That was 1970 (51 years ago) and there was no intent to use deadly force.
The Guard was surrounded:
"General Canterbury ordered his men to lock and load their weapons, and to fire tear gas into the crowd. The Guardsmen then marched across the Commons, forcing protesters to move up a nearby hill called Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill toward a football practice field.
As the football field was enclosed with fencing, the Guardsmen were caught amongst the angry mob , and were the targets of shouting and thrown rocks yet again.
The Guardsmen soon retreated back up Blanket Hill. When they reached the top of the hill, witnesses say 28 of them suddenly turned and fired their M-1 rifles, some into the air, some directly into the crowd of protesters.
Over just a 13-second period, nearly 70 shots were fired in total. In all, four Kent State students—Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Schroeder and Sandra Scheuer—were killed, and nine others were injured. Schroeder was shot in the back, as were two of the injured, Robert Stamps and Dean Kahler.
Numerous investigatory commissions and court trials followed, during which members of the Ohio National Guard testified that they felt the need to discharge their weapons because they feared for their lives.
(In a civil suit filed by the injured Kent State students and their families, a settlement was reached in 1979 in which the Ohio National Guard agreed to pay those injured in the events of May 4, 1970 a total of $675,000.)
I would have to say every avenue was taken to avoid the use of deadly force at Kent State. The incident which was memorialized by the left.
I strongly disagree, any "warning shot " can not be predicted where it will end up , even if fired into the ground. couple that as it could likely also escalate and not de escalate a situation , that is throwing an unknown into the situation and actually make things worse.
I equate that along with those that say that shots should be to disable , like shoot the perp in the arm or leg , smaller targets for those already in a high stress situation where accuracy will always be questionable , where as shooting center of mass , as trained has a greater likelihood of hitting a target ( its a larger target) even if it has a greater chance of death.
I "went there" because it happened, Vic. You said you couldn't recall it being an option. It obviously was, considering how Guardsmen at Kent State were armed.
I was hoping for a megadose of Kent State karma.
And you did say you believe in the deadly force option, right?
Deflecting because you painted yourself into a corner?
Yet a trained agent shot a woman in the neck when she was exposing her legs and center mass and like the others was wearing some sort of vest. Shooting people in the kevlar isn't a winning solution either.
just saying, all of the choices were bad.
I knew I had you in post 6.1.13 as soon as you said:
Yes, Vic, I have always believed it was permissible to use force against rioters.
There is no way you believed it was permissible to use force against the rioters at Kent State or the hundreds of violent leftist riots since then. No, Sandy, the only time you believed in it was on January 6th.
Don't tell me what I believe, Vic. It's dishonest. YOU are the one who objects to the use of force on January 6th, and said it had never been an option before. It was, at Kent State.
Tell us now. Did you approve of the use of force at Kent State?
Ah, so they DID use force at Kent State? Thanks for acknowledging your error.
Yes they did and? Don't be afraid......Were you for it?
The veteran was attempting to enter the Speakers lobby of the United States Congress, and doing so in a violent way (climbing through a just broken door window. Had the mob entered that door they would have unimpeded been able to enter the House floor itself and in fact would have done so in seconds. There were people in that mob that had suggested certain House members should be killed.
I'm sorry the woman was killed but the officer that shot her did what he had to do.
If the mob had been black lives matter or antifa and they wanted to enter the House to kill Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz I have the funny feeling you wouldnt be so critical of stopping them with a bullet.
And I would say that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Your biases are showing. You weren't there. When was the last time the NG fixed bayonets meaning no harm?
petty bs.
You might be right, she was a toddler at best back then, you were a teenager probably just as unaware.
another deflection?
Taunting? Please do not assume to tell people what they believe or not.
If she leaves that question unanswered, she will have confirmed everything I said.
It's her call.
I thought they should have been shot & killed for any of the violent riots they've been involved in - when democrat mayors had their police stand down.
Very simple, John.
Almost everything you say here has turned into a complaint about how bad your sort are being treated in America.
Never have people who have so little to complain about complained so much.
Well, I think that is cyclical JR.
Every 4 or 8 years, the table is turned.
Disingenuous at best. She may not even have been alive then so what you think is clever is just plain ridiculous.
Tell that to the people who were working on the Keystone XL Pipeline or the people who owned or worked in restaurants or coal mines or the manufacturing sector. There are wide swaths of this country, like the people from Fresno to Bakersfield, who have taken note of your cavalier attitude towards the reality/future they face.
She brought it up as her example. I think she can answer that question.
Thank you for the "both sides" commentary.
your welcome John.
Are you talking about the dozen lawyers who sued the Trump Administration and stopped all work on the pipeline days after Trump signed an EO overturning Obama's?
Or the imaginary 12,000 or 11,000 or 3,900 who might have been employed eventually for a summer or two?
Or the 35 permanent Canadian positions that might have been created?
I'm talking about Mark McManus, president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters :
"On his first day in office, Joe Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline. This controversial move was condemned by the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA).
And you said they didn't. That it hadn't been an option until 1-6-21.
To prove you were wrong in your whining over " In 50-60 years of protests and riots I don't recall the use of such deadly force really being an option until then."
Yes, Kent State was before I was born. I believe you were alive, yes?
For the record, I believe force was justified at Kent State, although not to the extent to which it was used. That whole "turned suddenly and fired into the crowd" thing doesn't sit well. Neither does the distance from which they shot - the nearest student killed was 270 feet away from the Guard.
Not nearly the same as for those guarding the Capitol building, in much closer proximity and with no egress.
One opinion, congratulations.
Instead of making pipes they will be working on making more tank cars...
Funny how with a terrible safety record since 2010, pipe-fitters favor pipelines
While Railroad people favor more tank cars and the flexibility of rail.
Stunning.
It amazes me the union endorsed biden. What blue collar man or woman in their right mind would vote for his policies, dementia aside?
It's either one or the other.
So you didn't believe in deadly force at Kent State. Now we know.
The opinion of a man who endorsed Biden. Evidently he didn't know what was behind him.
Within a few days the Biden administration turned out to be more radical than even Obama's. Obama played the middle between the union and the evironmentalists for 8 years - he had the projected studied for years!
The union might have endorsed him - I doubt the rank and file members were fooled. They were warned of what would happen by Donald Trump during the campaign.
No, Vic, YOU didn't believe in the use of deadly force at Kent State. You said it wasn't an option until January 6th, 2021.
Actually I DID! I was 18 years old when that happened. I thought those involved were way over the top that entire week. They had the small town of Kent living in fear and on that day they had the guard surrounded.
You said it wasn't an option until January 6th, 2021.
That's right. Nobody intended to fire a shot at Kent State.
How about the Rodney King Riots? I'll bet you were against the use of deadly force there too!
OK
Then he wasn't paying attention to Biden in May of 2020
Spare us the melodrama
Played the middle? He cancelled it in 2012. When the House flipped and tried to force the issue with the Senate
Obama vetoed the Senate Bill and cancelled Keystone AGAIN in 2015.
When Trump grandstanded his EO in January of 2017, it was on the condition that only American steel and pipe be used.
By March 04 2017 the WH made some excuse about the language of the EO that allowed the current pipes from China to be used. Keystone XL pipeline will not use U.S. steel despite Trump's vow (usatoday.com)
That's real union support.
Then you should have remembered it happening with no need for me to mention it.
“Instead of making pipes they will be working on making more tank cars...”
totally stupid, cold, moronic statement. How do you know they can just mosey over to the “tank car” factory and get a job? How do you know there is a “tank car” factory near where they live? You know none of these things but that doesn’t stop you from making such a cold, asinine statement.
Ahh, more whataboutism?
Why not go back to the Whiskey Rebellion and blame George Washington for those deaths ?
Sandy says she is in favor of deadly force in putting down riots - as I am.
After 60 years of violent left wing riots I am trying to find out where she believes that. She mentioned Kent State, but she couldn't say she believed the shootings were justified. So now I'm asking about the Rodney King Riots where a truck driver was beaten for being white, more than 50 people killed, more than 2,000 injured and $1 Billion in damage.
Simple question: Should those rioters have been shot on sight?
Vic, you're going down a rabbit hole of deflection here. All because you got caught out in an error regarding the use of deadly force. Anybody with two functioning brain cells can see what's going on here. You made a mistake. Deal with it.
You are the one who said that you agreed with me on the deadly use of force being an option. I'm just tying to find out where, other than the January 6th riot, in the past 60 years of a multitude of leftist rioting you would apply deadly force. Evidently, January 6th that was the only occasion where you thought rioters should be shot.
You can walk away now. [DELETED]
You just don't like that you were wrong when you said:
It is true.
The Guard didn't intend to fire on those animals who surrounded them.
But you won't admit that you really don't want leftist protestors shot at.
Those signs should be posted whenever & wherever a permit to protest is granted.
Trump had no kind of filter between his brain and his mouth....and fingers. He never listened to his advisors. Thus the stupid statements and incessant tweeting. He seemed to never realize that elections can't be won if he kept alienating people. Biden didn't so much win the election as Trump lost it...Covid was the final straw. His idiotic actions after the election cost the Georgia Senate race to be lost. I am glad he is gone, but the patriotic populism party he created will go on without him.
If the Democrats don't rise about their vindictive beating of the proverbial deceased equine, they will quickly lose the temporary advantage the voters gave them. Trump was very bad news, but in my opinion, the Dems are worse, and apparently irredeemable and unable to learn and grow.
Bravo Greg, wish I could vote that up a dozen times.
But you consistently disappoint with silly caveats, thanks fer nuttin honey.
Hold the trial and hopefully convict him, undo just about every damn thing he did in office, and then move on from that asshole.
If he continues to try and play a large role within the GOP then just bludgeon GOP candidates with him every election cycle. Otherwise let him disappear.
It seems the strategy now is to continue to demonize the man and link all Republicans to him in hopes this will have an impact on the 2022 midterms.
Pretty despicable considering the man no longer has the ability to defend himself. I can't wait to see if he can find a publisher for any book he wants to do.
A good example of this piling on was the Fauci briefing yesterday. I am glad he is back and listened to some of his talk. Then it seems the press was more interested in his working with Trump verses Biden than anything he said about the virus. Then I checked around local, national and cable news and they were focused on the same thing. Really? We have a pandemic folks, we have what some people believe is the most prominent infectious disease expert talking in a briefing for the first time in months and this is what you focus on? Also noted that both CNN and MSNBC are no longer tracking deaths and covid numbers on the right side of the screen since Biden was officially named as president elect. So it seems this is no longer important now that Joe is here.
MSM should no longer view themselves as journalists, anyone with any sense sees them for what they are, left wing propaganda.
Please. There are plenty of RW media outlets who would interview him right now, if he wanted.
How about the same outlets that are doing the trashing?
You said he can't defend himself. He can. What you said was untrue.
Unless you mean he lacks the intellectual ability. I might agree about that.
I believe you are being obtuse on purpose, this exchange is over.
Because I won't accept your whining as reflective of reality? Ok.
Reality is subjective
What is not subjective is truth. donald can go on any number of outlets and spew whatever he wants.
To say he is silenced or cannot defend himself is a lie.
and Regnery Publishing has proven that no conservative author is too craven to publish
so I am sure we can sooner or later be treated by Trump's memoirs.
The impeachment forces Joe Biden to become an executive order President. And, in a backhanded way, impeachment establishes a standard for shifting blame onto Biden when violence erupts on the streets once again. Biden won't have the luxury of simply condemning violence and delivering thoughts and prayers; Biden must respond in protecting communities as the country responded to protect his inauguration. That's the new standard.
A symbolic thoughts and prayers event on the national mall for victims of COVID may make powerful television but no longer earns political credibility. Trump was a showman. And Joe Biden ain't Trump. The country obviously is not in the mood for more Presidential pomp and showmanship. Biden cannot make the Presidency about himself or he becomes another Trump.
Congressional Democrats recognize that they can't accomplish anything substantial without dividing their party. Chuck Schumer must compromise with Republicans as a political necessity which will brand Schumer a traitor among the more liberal Democratic factions. Believe it or not the Democrats' response to the Trump agenda will make it more difficult to pursue their own agenda.
Democrats have transformed Trump into a yardstick to measure how they govern. And there is growing concern that Democrats won't measure up.
We will let him go the moment an arresting officer takes possession of him.
Did not read through all comments so might have been already said: first GOP will not let Trump go away, they need him to rally the base, second GOP never let Hillary go, heck they are still whining about her, in fact they are still whining about Bill Clinton, GOP never let Obama go, they are still whining about him.
Hannity from 2 hours ago...