House expected to Impeach Trump ??..announcement at 3pm CST

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,029
9,017
1,743
Earth
You will acknowledge that Sanders IS an Independent running as a Democrat. Not a Democrat!
But he was sidelined by the D party brass...that's the point. You think Trumps a traditional R? he's also an Independent. Traditional R's (i.e. the establishment) don't like him one bit...YET when he won they "let him" win.
 
Dec 9, 2013
558
187
593
49
I just admitted that I see it under this Administration...can you admit that these types of things also occurred under the last one? Because they did...it's about to come out in spades. Best thing that could happen is if we could ouster all of them...both sides and start over fresh with term limits and new people across the board...that's why we have elections and one is in exactly one year.
I’m actually ok w no term limits but we have to eliminate pacs and make any donations limited to individuals only from their districts/states w both a contribution cap and a spending cap.

Have a national voter id law that is fair to everyone and have independent bipartisan committees in every state draw congressional districts every 10 years.
 

Pokey

Banned
Banned
Sep 13, 2013
5,754
1,223
743
Left field
I just admitted that I see it under this Administration...can you admit that these types of things also occurred under the last one? Because they did...it's about to come out in spades. Best thing that could happen is if we could ouster all of them...both sides and start over fresh with term limits and new people across the board...that's why we have elections and one is in exactly one year.
No I can’t. The Republicans had two full years of total control to investigate Biden, Obama, did they? No, they spent their time only with Benghazi. It’s their own damned fault if they didn’t investigate when they had the power. By the way ALL investigations into Hillary have stopped and they found NOTHING. If they’re looking now it’s just for another three or four word calling cry for they’re uneducated voters. Lock em up. Build the wall, Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi, Mexico will pay for it, MAGA, ......
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,276
24,241
1,743
Tulsa, OK
The guy doesn’t care about immigration! He saw it as a tool. He hires illegal immigrants for eff’s sake.

He promised a big beautiful wall that Mexico would pay for and knew people would eat that up.

Again. He hires illegal immigrants. He had both houses of Congress for 2 years. How many feet of new border barrier got built? How many comprehensive immigration bills were passed?
The question was how he won the primary. Whether he was lying or not, that's still a big reason why. The fact that he had a Rep Congress for two years and still nothing got done only furthered highlights the fact that the Reps won't do anything.

I've never thought the wall was that important.....but the perception that we are being tough on illegal immigration could stop some people from making the attempt. Anything that might slow the current record flow is good. Certainly better than electing presidents who promise amnesty, health care and dreams ..that only encourages more illegal crossings.
 
Last edited:

Pokey

Banned
Banned
Sep 13, 2013
5,754
1,223
743
Left field
But he was sidelined by the D party brass...that's the point. You think Trumps a traditional R? he's also an Independent. Traditional R's (i.e. the establishment) don't like him one bit...YET when he won they "let him" win.
Oh boy, you all are so damned wonderful and fair, absolutely paragons of virtue (sarcasm).
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
8,517
3,891
743
49
It's pretty simple, and I've explained it multiple times. The choice is between Trump, who at least feigns support for evangelicals and is willing to pander to them, even if his life doesn't exactly match up with the values, or an entire population that is openly anti-evangelical and wants to remove all traces of them from public life and blames them for most/all the ills in the world.
View attachment 75245

View attachment 75246

So, which are we, fascists or terrorist?

The left: Both!
What's the excuse for the primaries? He was up against several good, Christian, family men.
Many of our choices that would have been better were taken away from us by the time we got to vote that's how. A lot of it was due to open primary systems where you had people who could easily change their affiliation with ease crossover and cause problems in the primaries for the Republicans and then sit there and change their affiliation back after the primaries.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
20,029
9,017
1,743
Earth
No I can’t. The Republicans had two full years of total control to investigate Biden, Obama, did they? No, they spent their time only with Benghazi. It’s their own damned fault if they didn’t investigate when they had the power. By the way ALL investigations into Hillary have stopped and they found NOTHING. If they’re looking now it’s just for another three or four word calling cry for they’re uneducated voters. Lock em up. Build the wall, Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi, Mexico will pay for it, MAGA, ......
Bottom line you are a blind partisan and can't see anything beyond TDS. Just admit it, it is what it is...and it's ok, but you are a partisan, don't fane that you aren't.... However most R's can admit that they don't like Trumps tweets, and his arrogance and meddling....but we do love that he gives the other side TDS, because it blinds them into acting more clearly and stops them from hiding behind their bi-partisan BS rhetoric.
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,615
3,144
1,743
I’ll ask again. Is it okay to ask a foreign govt to be involved in our elections and to use us policy as a bargaining chip? Yes or no?
What do you mean by okay? From a legal standpoint it's fuzzy.

It isn't illegal for a foreign entity to campaign for a candidate. If Vladimir Putin wanted to openly campaign for Trump, it wouldn't be in violation of any laws.

As noted in the Mueller report, the courts have never considered information to be a "thing of value" in connection to federal campaign law. So it may not necessarily be illegal to accept dirt or different forms of information from a foreign entity.

The term quid pro quo is Latin for "something for something", and it isn't necessarily an illegal act. During the Mueller investigation, Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine threatening to withhold aid if they didn't cooperate. They did exactly what Trump is being accused of. No charges were brought against them, and no one sought to remove them from office.

Most of this falls into gray area that's open to interpretation.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,041
8,470
1,743
What do you mean by okay? From a legal standpoint it's fuzzy.

It isn't illegal for a foreign entity to campaign for a candidate. If Vladimir Putin wanted to openly campaign for Trump, it wouldn't be in violation of any laws.

As noted in the Mueller report, the courts have never considered information to be a "thing of value" in connection to federal campaign law. So it may not necessarily be illegal to accept dirt or different forms of information from a foreign entity.

The term quid pro quo is Latin for "something for something", and it isn't necessarily an illegal act. During the Mueller investigation, Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine threatening to withhold aid if they didn't cooperate. They did exactly what Trump is being accused of. No charges were brought against them, and no one sought to remove them from office.

Most of this falls into gray area that's open to interpretation.
EXACTLY! And it's happened with past Presidents/political candidates (of both parties) and it will continue to happen with future Presidents/political candidates (of both parties).

This impeachment inquiry will change nothing.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,557
50,736
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
It's pretty simple, and I've explained it multiple times. The choice is between Trump, who at least feigns support for evangelicals and is willing to pander to them, even if his life doesn't exactly match up with the values, or an entire population that is openly anti-evangelical and wants to remove all traces of them from public life and blames them for most/all the ills in the world.
View attachment 75245

View attachment 75246

So, which are we, fascists or terrorist?

The left: Both!
What's the excuse for the primaries? He was up against several good, Christian, family men.
And I didn't vote for him in the primaries.

If you look at who won which primaries, Cruz won closed primaries where only Republicans could vote while Trump's victory was based on open primaries where Democrats could vote for him.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,557
50,736
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Yes, that is the mindset of the left. They campaign on it.

It is still not a choice, because even if the House somehow impeaches him, there ain't a chance in hell that the Senate is going to convict and remove him... because the House case for impeachment is a sham in the first place. He's despicable, but that doesn't rise to "crimes and misdemeanors".
By this reasoning the right campaigns on calling anyone who doesn't support them Human Scum. Not just a active religious subgroup. The entire opposition.
Are Nazis "human scum"? Racists? Sexists?

Both sides demonize their opponents. Don't be blind.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,233
5,416
1,743
Edmond
And I didn't vote for him in the primaries.

If you look at who won which primaries, Cruz won closed primaries where only Republicans could vote while Trump's victory was based on open primaries where Democrats could vote for him.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Well this just isn’t true.
 
Dec 9, 2013
558
187
593
49
The national debt is over $20 trillion. Most of it is continually being refinanced and none of it is ever paid for, unless we happen to run a budget surplus.
That’s what I figured you were using but wasn’t sure.

So are you suggesting that when interest rates were 0 or near 0 we weren’t paying interest?
 
Last edited:

Pokey

Banned
Banned
Sep 13, 2013
5,754
1,223
743
Left field
Bottom line you are a blind partisan and can't see anything beyond TDS. Just admit it, it is what it is...and it's ok, but you are a partisan, don't fane that you aren't.... However most R's can admit that they don't like Trumps tweets, and his arrogance and meddling....but we do love that he gives the other side TDS, because it blinds them into acting more clearly and stops them from hiding behind their bi-partisan BS rhetoric.
Blind partisans would never vote for a person in the opposite party. I’ve voted for numerous.Blind partisans apparently ignore crimes committed by their side yet would go full bore for prosecution in a second if it was the opposition. Based on what I’ve witnessed in this forum and on television, if Trump literally shot and killed any Democrat, by acclamation you all would in unison declare justifiable homicide, hand him more ammunition, and give him four more years. TDS applies both ways, but for Republicans the D stands for delusional. But I cannot laugh at your delusions because they are contrary to the Constitution and oaths of office. I am indeed partisan, but you more fully encompass BLIND partisan. IMHO
 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
558
187
593
49
What do you mean by okay? From a legal standpoint it's fuzzy.

It isn't illegal for a foreign entity to campaign for a candidate. If Vladimir Putin wanted to openly campaign for Trump, it wouldn't be in violation of any laws.

As noted in the Mueller report, the courts have never considered information to be a "thing of value" in connection to federal campaign law. So it may not necessarily be illegal to accept dirt or different forms of information from a foreign entity.

The term quid pro quo is Latin for "something for something", and it isn't necessarily an illegal act. During the Mueller investigation, Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine threatening to withhold aid if they didn't cooperate. They did exactly what Trump is being accused of. No charges were brought against them, and no one sought to remove them from office.

Most of this falls into gray area that's open to interpretation.
1st QpQ is exactly why Trump framed it that way and the Ds fell for it. Hell they were doing it again yesterday. It’s bribery in an attempt to extort a foreign govt to interfere in our elections.

And no the Ds did not do the exact same thing. They were asking a foreign government to cooperate in an investigation being under taken by a Republican DoJ. There is a huge difference.