Dr. Effing Oz

[SSdoc33]

---

Members do not see this ad.

All politicians are liars and scammers. I'm surprised you didn't know that, by now.
But, this most recent 'snake oil salesman' did lower my taxes. That's much better than the last 8 years, during which that lying snake oil salesman raised my taxes, a lot, and f***ed up my family's health insurance. Who said, "You can keep your doctor and your plan. Your health insurance will be $2,000 cheaper and cover more, for cheaper!" Or have you forgotten those snake oil salesman lies, from the last guy? Plus, I'm pretty sure this new 'snake oil salesman' has put ISIS and Al Qaeda on life support, because I haven't heard jack squat from them, in forever. White, black, and hispanic unemployment lower than ever before in history. Peace brewing on the Korean peninsula with a lunatic who promised to nuke us 6 months ago.

But hey, some people like to have their bank accounts bled empty by tax increases and in return have their family's health care insurance totally ****ed up. So, pick your poison.

im not paying less in taxes. you sure you are?

your family's health insurance costs a butt-ton because of numerous factors -- its not obama and we both know that. if anything, trump just made it worse

you sure about korea? seems to me we gave Kim what he wants with nothing in return (legitimacy and an end to military drills). but im willing to see. trump has no credibility, and refuses to do any real leg-work, so i dont see this going anywhere.

economy IS doing well. trump lucked into it and the dow takes a dive every time he opens his mouth. lets hope he doesnt kill the boom with his tariffs and other crappy policies.

 

[emd123]

im not paying less in taxes. you sure you are?

Yes

your family's health insurance costs a butt-ton because of numerous factors -- its not obama and we both know that. if anything, trump just made it worse

Obamacare sucks, and you know it.

you sure about korea?

No, I'm not "sure" about N Korea. They're liars. But I'd rather have them on a footing of trying to appease us, than openly be threatening to nuke us.

economy IS doing well.

Good to know.

 

[hyperalgesia]

you sure about korea? seems to me we gave Kim what he wants with nothing in return (legitimacy and an end to military drills). but im willing to see. trump has no credibility, and refuses to do any real leg-work, so i dont see this going anywhere

I doubt NK will ever give up their nukes but I credit Trump for his unique approach to an intractable problem. Even if it was just to watch Rachel Maddow hyperventilate over "fire and fury".

 

[SSdoc33]

I doubt NK will ever give up their nukes but I credit Trump for his unique approach to an intractable problem. Even if it was just to watch Rachel Maddow hyperventilate over "fire and fury".

of course, you do.

i dont mind engaging with NK. i think it is good, but lets be honest about what we are getting out of the deal. something tells me kim is not going to denuclearize b/c trump shook his hand. he may be the world's worst negotiator.

 

[hyperalgesia]

There is a political bent to much of these crimes. Also, technically, do we need to be impartial to terrorist activities against the US?

A persons political views should be his own. He could recuse himself if he feels he cannot be impartial enough, and Strosz should have considered doing so. However, he is not the judge in this matter, and that in itself puts a layer between him and his target.

Technically, by your argument, sheriffs/police should never be allowed to investigate a crime in the town they live in because they have a vested and a personal interest (safety) in the capture of the perpetrator...

Absolutely we need impartiality.

In a terrorism investigation, an example of bias might be an investigator who has a history of anti-Muslim hate crimes. It's an extreme example but when looking at "impartiality", you have to look in the context of the crime being investigated. Political party is not relevant to terrorism so it has no bearing on impartiality.

Political opinions are fine and personal but in Peter's case, it is an EXTREME view in a purely POLITICAL case with documented intent to use public position to execute a PERSONAL agenda.

 

[lonelobo]

some might not agree with her, but at least she is educated and knowledge about subjects unlike many right wing pundits...Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones

She earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[20] At graduation, she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[21] She was the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. She had also been awarded a Marshall Scholarship the same year but turned it down in favour of the Rhodes.[22] This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at the University of Oxford.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons, and her supervisor was Lucia Zedner.[25]

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

some might not agree with her, but at least she is educated and knowledge about subjects unlike many right wing pundits...Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones

She earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[20] At graduation, she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[21] She was the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. She had also been awarded a Marshall Scholarship the same year but turned it down in favour of the Rhodes.[22] This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at the University of Oxford.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons, and her supervisor was Lucia Zedner.[25]

I can't decide if that's not worse. She's obviously very bright and has decided to be a partisan hack instead of doing something useful with her smarts. At least with Hannity you can say that he's an idiot college drop out who likely couldn't do anything else.

 

[hyperalgesia]

some might not agree with her, but at least she is educated and knowledge about subjects unlike many right wing pundits...Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones

She earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[20] At graduation, she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[21] She was the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. She had also been awarded a Marshall Scholarship the same year but turned it down in favour of the Rhodes.[22] This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at the University of Oxford.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons, and her supervisor was Lucia Zedner.[25]

Humanities? Meh. Sounds like she's always been an elitist/activist, pontificating about plebeian strife.

I was thoroughly impressed with Angela Merkel's background though:

Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990. After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry in 1986,[34] she worked as a researcher and published several papers

 

[Doctodd]

of course, you do.

i dont mind engaging with NK. i think it is good, but lets be honest about what we are getting out of the deal. something tells me kim is not going to denuclearize b/c trump shook his hand. he may be the world's worst negotiator.

we had a few prisoners and the remains of others returned from NK....im sure those families dont appreciate your statement. And we didnt even have to send them $150 billion in a secret late night flight, and no apologies or bows were given like the previous community organizer in chief.

 

[hyperalgesia]

of course, you do.

i dont mind engaging with NK. i think it is good, but lets be honest about what we are getting out of the deal. something tells me kim is not going to denuclearize b/c trump shook his hand. he may be the world's worst negotiator.

What could Obama/Hillary/anyone have gotten better than Trump? NK is not giving up nukes.

It seems to me that Trump put a LOT more pressure on China than the political class was ever prepared to do. I can picture them in a room going around in circles and ending up with a "strongly worded statement" to the delight of the NYTimes.

IMO, Trump's style is probably better in some situations - this being one of them.

 

[Ducttape]

Emd, your taxes went down, as did the taxes of most people who do not need them lowered.

My taxes will go up by roughly $10,000 next year. As will many middle class people by the end of his tax cut.

And I must admit, occasionally I see Conway and think she is pretty... ingraham is (but then again I like how Burnett looks the most)

 

[emd123]

Emd, your taxes went down, as did the taxes of most people who do not need them lowered.

My taxes will go up by roughly $10,000 next year. As will many middle class people by the end of his tax cut.

And I must admit, occasionally I see Conway and think she is pretty... ingraham is (but then again I like how Burnett looks the most)

Lol

 

[Ducttape]

how can you be paying less in taxes when the tax law that trump passed doesnt take in to effect until next years taxes?

OR

its those eyes.........

 

[emd123]

how can you be paying less in taxes when the tax law that trump passed doesnt take in to effect until next years taxes?

OR

its those eyes.........

Both.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Both these ladies stress me out.

I think I like Shannon Bream. One time Bill O'Reilly told her she was kind of annoying because she was always and bubbly, then he quickly back pedaled and said she was genuine. Just seems like she has a good attitude to match her good looks.

 

[Doctodd]

how can you be paying less in taxes when the tax law that trump passed doesnt take in to effect until next years taxes?

OR

its those eyes.........

i like the MSNBC chick better.....especially when she was on CNBC and wasnt so hateful. The very next day on MSNBC her tone completely changed against Trump....funny how that works with a different producer. Even Van Jones was caught on camera saying it was a big show on CNN against Trump.....and you liberals eat the stuff up that they feed you like it's gospel. Tell me again how the special counsel started?... over collusion which was brought up in a dossier paid for by a political opponent without any facts or substance. And collusion is not a crime btw.

 

[emd123]

i like the MSNBC chick better.....especially when she was on CNBC and wasnt so hateful. The very next day on MSNBC her tone completely changed against Trump....funny how that works with a different producer. Even Van Jones was caught on camera saying it was a big show on CNN against Trump.....and you liberals eat the stuff up that they feed you like it's gospel. Tell me again how the special counsel started?... over collusion which was brought up in a dossier paid for by a political opponent without any facts or substance. And collusion is not a crime btw.

It was funny when Alan Dershowtiz, a hardcore liberal, cycled through the various cable news channels breaking the news, that there is literally no Federal law on the books against the "collusion" which was the basis for appointing the special counsel. I admit, I was kind of surprised myself.

Then they moved on to "obstruction of justice" over the Comey firing. It's hard to make a persuasive case for obstruction of justice for firing a guy who had to be fired and for stopping an investigation the firing didn't and wouldn't have, stopped. The DOJ inspector general blew the doors off an hopes of an obstruction charge, when he documented a laundry list of violations by Comey.

Their best hope at this point is to pray that Trump sits down with them, bamboozle him with thousands of questions, then find just one he answered in a way they didn't like, and claim he committed "perjury." That's what they did to Clinton, to get their wrist-slap impeachment.

In either case, it's not enough to get 67 votes in the Senate to expel a President. At this point, Mueller's investigation is a mere high-power, opposition research organization, hoping to use subpoena power to uncover dirt on Trump & crew, that they can use against them in '18 and '20, in hopes of winning at the ballot box. I think if there was a smoking gun, they'd have had Trump impeached 6 months into his presidency, already. It will certainly be interesting to watch, though.

 

[SSdoc33]

It was funny when Alan Dershowtiz, a hardcore liberal, cycled through the various cable news channels breaking the news, that there is literally no Federal law on the books against the "collusion" which was the basis for appointing the special counsel. I admit, I was kind of surprised myself.

Then they moved on to "obstruction of justice" over the Comey firing. It's hard to make a persuasive case for obstruction of justice for firing a guy who had to be fired and for stopping an investigation the firing didn't and wouldn't have, stopped. The DOJ inspector general blew the doors off an hopes of an obstruction charge, when he documented a laundry list of violations by Comey.

Their best hope at this point is to pray that Trump sits down with them, bamboozle him with thousands of questions, then find just one he answered in a way they didn't like, and claim he committed "perjury." That's what they did to Clinton, to get their wrist-slap impeachment.

In either case, it's not enough to get 67 votes in the Senate to expel a President. At this point, Mueller's investigation is a mere high-power, opposition research organization, hoping to use subpoena power to uncover dirt on Trump & crew, that they can use against them in '18 and '20, in hopes of winning at the ballot box. I think if there was a smoking gun, they'd have had Trump impeached 6 months into his presidency, already. It will certainly be interesting to watch, though.

emd, pump the brakes. i feel like you are at least somewhat salvageable here, unlike a lot of the goons on this forum.

collusion is not a crime, and it wasnt the "basis" for appointing the special counsel.

Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) - Wikipedia

however, conspiracy against the united states IS. and so is treason, BTW. and campaign finance violations. NRA using russian money IS. obstruction of justice is a crime. tax evasion is a crime. money laundering is a crime. perjury is a crime. and thats just off the top of my head.

do you honestly... HONESTLY believe that trump did not break a law? and please dont hide behind some false equivalency about "all politicians lie" or "hillary broke the law".

i dont think he will get thrown out of office either, but dont drink too much of the trump kool aid b/c you think you might get a tiny tax break.

 

[SSdoc33]

emd, pump the brakes. i feel like you are at least somewhat salvageable here, unlike a lot of the goons on this forum.

collusion is not a crime. but conspiracy against the united states IS. and so is treason, BTW. and campaign finance violations. NRA using russian money IS. obstruction of justice is a crime. tax evasion is a crime. money laundering is a crime. perjury is a crime. and thats just off the top of my head.

do you honestly... HONESTLY believe that trump did not break a law? and please dont hide behind some false equivalency about "all politicians lie" or "hillary broke the law".

i dont think he will get thrown out of office either, but dont drink too much of the trump kool aid b/c you think you might get a tiny tax break.

oh, and btw, DOW is down 425 points so far today. yay trump!

 

[emd123]

do you honestly... HONESTLY believe that trump did not break a law? and please dont hide behind some false equivalency about "all politicians lie" or "hillary broke the law".

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But it's honestly not worth spending too much time determining that, because presidents essentially have immunity from prosecution while president, and beyond that the only way to convict a President of "breaking the law" is to get 67 Senators to say so. I sat and watched angry Republicans spend the '90s wishing, hoping, pleading to see Clinton impeached. That special counsel found he obstructed justice and committed perjury. But ultimately it didn't matter, because the senate didn't, and never was going to be, willing to impeach him. And that was a Senate run by an opposing party (1999 Senate was Republican). Currently, with Trump having a Senate of his same party, the chances are even lower. Ultimately these special counsel investigations against Presidents aren't designed to convict President's of crimes. Their goal is to find information that's damaging, so they can't get reelected.

So, back to your question. Did Trump break a law?
Maybe. But I'm not sure it's relevant to anything other than giving his opponents something where they can point to and say, "Look he broke a law! Don't elect him or people in his party!" And Trump is working night and day to convince the only people who matter in this, the voters, that the investigation is biased. So, ultimately, one of those two sides will prevail. Either the Dems will convince the voters Trump and his party is corrupt and broke bad enough laws they shouldn't vote for them, or Trump will convince the voters that either he didn't break the law or that the investigation claiming so, was corrupt.

That's what makes politics interesting. It's never black or white. It's all about who can win the persuasion game, by any means necessary. Another way I've heard it described, is that politics isn't about "reality," it's about the perception or reality. So, don't expect a black and white, either or result, from this Mueller thing. It's all about who wins the persuasion game.

If the bad press from the investigation pushes his approval ratings into the 20's like Nixon, the Democrats will win, and the Senate will find it easy to expel him from office. If Trump keeps his approvals respectable, or can increase them, like Clinton did, then Trump will win, and the Senate will find it easy to leave the decision up to the voters.

 

[hyperalgesia]

however, conspiracy against the united states IS. and so is treason, BTW. and campaign finance violations. NRA using russian money IS. obstruction of justice is a crime. tax evasion is a crime. money laundering is a crime. perjury is a crime. and thats just off the top of my head.

Isn't this like throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks?

 

[SSdoc33]

Isn't this like throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks?

not if he commited ALL of those crimes, which it does appear he did. im not just listing off types of crimes. there is legitimate reason to believe he is guilty of these things.

this is nothing like clinton. clinton got a BJ from an intern. trump may have literally conspired with our enemy. dont you see anything wrong with that?

 

[SSdoc33]

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But it's honestly not worth spending too much time determining that, because presidents essentially have immunity from prosecution while president, and beyond that the only way to convict a President of "breaking the law" is to get 67 Senators to say so. I sat and watched angry Republicans spend the '90s wishing, hoping, pleading to see Clinton impeached. That special counsel found he obstructed justice and committed perjury. But ultimately it didn't matter, because the senate didn't, and never was going to be, willing to impeach him. And that was a Senate run by an opposing party (1999 Senate was Republican). Currently, with Trump having a Senate of his same party, the chances are even lower. Ultimately these special counsel investigations against Presidents aren't designed to convict President's of crimes. Their goal is to find information that's damaging, so they can't get reelected.

So, back to your question. Did Trump break a law?
Maybe. But I'm not sure it's relevant to anything other than giving his opponents something where they can point to and say, "Look he broke a law! Don't elect him or people in his party!" And Trump is working night and day to convince the only people who matter in this, the voters, that the investigation is biased. So, ultimately, one of those two sides will prevail. Either the Dems will convince the voters Trump and his party is corrupt and broke bad enough laws they shouldn't vote for them, or Trump will convince the voters that either he didn't break the law or that the investigation claiming so, was corrupt.

That's what makes politics interesting. It's never black or white. It's all about who can win the persuasion game, by any means necessary. Another way I've heard it described, is that politics isn't about "reality," it's about the perception or reality. So, don't expect a black and white, either or result, from this Mueller thing. It's all about who wins the persuasion game.

If the bad press from the investigation pushes his approval ratings into the 20's like Nixon, the Democrats will win, and the Senate will find it easy to expel him from office. If Trump keeps his approvals respectable, or can increase them, like Clinton did, then Trump will win, and the Senate will find it easy to leave the decision up to the voters.

how does that fence feel on your ass?

if you are willing to admit that you are ok with a criminal in the white house because you agree with his politics, then the above response is exactly what i'd expect.

there is good in you.... i can feel it.

 

[Doctodd]

ss.....except he didnt do any of those things. I had some free time and decided to read the IG report instead of believe the bs the press is feeding me. I'm up to about pg 150. Pretty interesting. The FBI interviewed 80+ witnesses, not one under oath or recorded. They never got access to a couple of Clinton's servers or 13 of her blackberry type devices and chose to never exercise a search warrant to look for them. Decided to just take them at their words that they had been destroyed. They did have one server that had been bleach bitted weeks AFTER a written request was sent to preserve the data. Clinton gave them 30k+ messages saying that was all her work related emails. Course she swore none had classified information. They found an additional 17k+ work related emails not given, both those and the 30k had classified info on them. Even after all the deception, they claimed they didn't use subpoenas or search warrants because Clinton was being cooperative and there was so much political sensitivity at the time. They had 6 computers from the people who scrubbed Clinton's servers (lawyers) and weren't given permission to look into them, due to attorney client privilege. They also had Huma's devices but didn't look into them either for the same reason even though Clinton/Abedine classified info was found on her husband Weiner's computer. Those emails were actually labeled (c) for confidential but Clinton said she thought that was a reference to a paragraph or citation. The interviewers found that answer highly unbelievable, but by this point Comey had already drafted the exoneration letter. The list literally goes on and on and on regarding the favorable "judgement calls" during the investigation (I mean "matter" since they are the Federal Bureau of Matter now).

All the while they're also investigating the other candidate for President and now sitting President. They had at least one undercover agent. FISA warrant to tap communications of various people. Interviews under oath and recorded. Search warrant to obtain documents from an attorney of a sitting President. Trying to flip potential witnesses by threatening and exercising jail time for unrelated offenses. Special counsel. This sounds like an aggressive investigation vs. the former - the complete opposite. Given the overt bias of FIVE people working in both investigations found in text messages, we're supposed to believe that bias wasn't exercised in the manner they conducted these starkly different cases?!?!?! So how's that fence? Going to be a long 6 years for you.

 

[Doctodd]

Isn't this like throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks?

no it's called stacking the deck, and Clinton is an expert at it(just ask Bernie Sanders)....lawyers do it all the time, such as when they pay for a phone conference with you about their w/c patient before the actual deposition.

not if he commited ALL of those crimes, which it does appear he did. im not just listing off types of crimes. there is legitimate reason to believe he is guilty of these things.

this is nothing like clinton. clinton got a BJ from an intern. trump may have literally conspired with our enemy. dont you see anything wrong with that?

too bad "appears" is not evidence....is "appears" based on your media darlings what you hang your hat on? It "appears" there was an immigrant kid separated from his parents based on all the pics last week, but in truth the picture was fabricated by your media to piss you off against Trump. It "appears" to work in some people.

 

[SSdoc33]

ss.....except he didnt do any of those things. I had some free time and decided to read the IG report instead of believe the bs the press is feeding me. I'm up to about pg 150. Pretty interesting. The FBI interviewed 80+ witnesses, not one under oath or recorded. They never got access to a couple of Clinton's servers or 13 of her blackberry type devices and chose to never exercise a search warrant to look for them. Decided to just take them at their words that they had been destroyed. They did have one server that had been bleach bitted weeks AFTER a written request was sent to preserve the data. Clinton gave them 30k+ messages saying that was all her work related emails. Course she swore none had classified information. They found an additional 17k+ work related emails not given, both those and the 30k had classified info on them. Even after all the deception, they claimed they didn't use subpoenas or search warrants because Clinton was being cooperative and there was so much political sensitivity at the time. They had 6 computers from the people who scrubbed Clinton's servers (lawyers) and weren't given permission to look into them, due to attorney client privilege. They also had Huma's devices but didn't look into them either for the same reason even though Clinton/Abedine classified info was found on her husband Weiner's computer. Those emails were actually labeled (c) for confidential but Clinton said she thought that was a reference to a paragraph or citation. The interviewers found that answer highly unbelievable, but by this point Comey had already drafted the exoneration letter. The list literally goes on and on and on regarding the favorable "judgement calls" during the investigation (I mean "matter" since they are the Federal Bureau of Matter now).

All the while they're also investigating the other candidate for President and now sitting President. They had at least one undercover agent. FISA warrant to tap communications of various people. Interviews under oath and recorded. Search warrant to obtain documents from an attorney of a sitting President. Trying to flip potential witnesses by threatening and exercising jail time for unrelated offenses. Special counsel. This sounds like an aggressive investigation vs. the former - the complete opposite. Given the overt bias of FIVE people working in both investigations found in text messages, we're supposed to believe that bias wasn't exercised in the manner they conducted these starkly different cases?!?!?! So how's that fence? Going to be a long 6 years for you.

it may be a long 6 years. but wait: why are we talking about hillary clinton? hillary lost. throw her in jail for all i care. irrelevant.

the hillary case and trump case are completely different. they SHOULD be handled differently. if you have committed a crime, then lie about it, then get others to lie about it, this is the natural progression. you get caught. trump somehow flew under the radar for 30 years, but not any more. he may serve out his term. but, he will die penniless in jail. a zebra doesnt change his stripes

 

[hyperalgesia]

not if he commited ALL of those crimes, which it does appear he did. im not just listing off types of crimes. there is legitimate reason to believe he is guilty of these things.

this is nothing like clinton. clinton got a BJ from an intern. trump may have literally conspired with our enemy. dont you see anything wrong with that?

If I were a gambling man, I think you could probably find things that Trump has done in the past that are illegal, but no more so than the average politician. Or the average person for that matter. Like speeding, minor tax issues, etc. These are things that would result in fines if discovered. Nothing more. I guarantee if you looked at Obama and family close enough, you will find at least some minor economic aberrancies. No one is a saint and that's just the reality.

But I have never thought ANY politician or civil servant was "treasonous". They are all flawed and all selfish. The actual traitors among them will be the quiet ones you DON'T expect. Trump has had many years of IRS audits, even if the results are not public. This is YOUR IRS by the way, that has had access to and scrutinized his tax records for decades.

If Democrats had a practical vision for the country and the candidate was a normal, rational person and not a partisan hack, I would seriously consider voting for them. I am not a party loyalist by any means. It's a fool's errand trying to get rid of Trump by character assassination.

Also, just want to point out that in my family, the higher earners all got higher taxes as a result of the tax bill and the lower earners all got a serious break. A lot is just circumstances - the lower earners live in tax-free states - but I can totally live with it. My only possible benefit from the plan is potentially in the future, if I have a business that takes off.

 

[Ducttape]

Whatever happened to Clinton is irrelevant - she lost and she was not trying to commit treason against the US by willingly meeting with our primary enemy these days (hint not little rocket man).

Pls explain the love affair that trump has with Putin. In that context, pls explain why his staff had at least 3 meetings with the Russians that were conveniently forgotten about. Pls explain why trump routinely denigrates our friends in Merkel and Day and Macron and Trudeau yet has had essentially no critical remarks about Putin.

Trump is attracted to overwhelming power. That isn’t seen in a democracy. It is seen in NK and Russia....

I am more worried about having to say Das Vandanya and
Zdravstvuyte than tax cheating or grabbing pu^^}&s, but it is part of a pattern...

 

[SSdoc33]

If I were a gambling man, I think you could probably find things that Trump has done in the past that are illegal, but no more so than the average politician. Or the average person for that matter. Like speeding, minor tax issues, etc. These are things that would result in fines if discovered. Nothing more. I guarantee if you looked at Obama and family close enough, you will find at least some minor economic aberrancies. No one is a saint and that's just the reality.

But I have never thought ANY politician or civil servant was "treasonous". They are all flawed and all selfish. The actual traitors among them will be the quiet ones you DON'T expect. Trump has had many years of IRS audits, even if the results are not public. This is YOUR IRS by the way, that has had access to and scrutinized his tax records for decades.

If Democrats had a practical vision for the country and the candidate was a normal, rational person and not a partisan hack, I would seriously consider voting for them. I am not a party loyalist by any means. It's a fool's errand trying to get rid of Trump by character assassination.

Also, just want to point out that in my family, the higher earners all got higher taxes as a result of the tax bill and the lower earners all got a serious break. A lot is just circumstances - the lower earners live in tax-free states - but I can totally live with it. My only possible benefit from the plan is potentially in the future, if I have a business that takes off.

"and please dont hide behind some false equivalency about "all politicians lie" or "hillary broke the law".

i think this goes a little beyond speeding tickets....

 

[hyperalgesia]

"and please dont hide behind some false equivalency about "all politicians lie" or "hillary broke the law".

i think this goes a little beyond speeding tickets....

It will be interesting to see what Mueller reports when this wraps up...

 

[hyperalgesia]

Pls explain the love affair that trump has with Putin. In that context, pls explain why his staff had at least 3 meetings with the Russians that were conveniently forgotten about. Pls explain why trump routinely denigrates our friends in Merkel and Day and Macron and Trudeau yet has had essentially no critical remarks about Putin.

He wants to make a deal with Putin? Nothing wrong or nefarious about that, before, during, or after the campaign. He and his agents are free to talk (and eat) with whomever they want.

 

[Doctodd]

i guess u guys missed it.....tldr or something like that?.....Hillary is irrelevant, but the FBI agents who loved her and donated to her and didnt investigate her WERE BIASED against Trump in part based on the dossier Hillary paid for. The investigations are separate, but the investigators were the same. They thought she was going to be president so they let her off....remember all the polls saying she was 99% going to win? None of them wanted to piss her off because we know what happens to people who piss her off?......suicide by 2 shots to the head.

Trudeau changed the narrative after Trump boarded Air Force 1 to go to visit NK;s president, so Trump said as much.

 

[Doctodd]

Seems like you are ok with these biased FBI agents working on both investigations, initiated the Trump investigation, and they even met with McCabe in his office on August 18th....just before the election.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Seems like you are ok with these biased FBI agents working on both investigations, initiated the Trump investigation, and they even met with McCabe in his office on August 18th....just before the election.

I mean it really looks like a conspiracy to bring down the president for personal reasons. And using a bogus special counsel to do it.

Trump is really quite a character. I don't like having even one person angry at me. This guy thrives on multitudes of people who want to see him in a casket. Like his enemies are a source of energy. He trolls them and they provide...

 

[Doctodd]

"and please dont hide behind some false equivalency about "all politicians lie" or "hillary broke the law".

i think this goes a little beyond speeding tickets....

have u connected the dots yet? U keep going around in circles without acknowledging the obvious.

 

[SSdoc33]

I admit that it is sometimes difficult to sort our the truth from the lies.

If you start with the notion that everything the president says is untrue, than you get a better sense of the real right and wrong.

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

Also, Trey Gowdy is the definition of a partisan hack, and he is running for his life right now to stay out of jail himself. This is why he isnt running for re-election.

In House Russia Probe, Trey Gowdy Is the Perfect Trump Stooge

 

[SSdoc33]

i guess u guys missed it.....tldr or something like that?.....Hillary is irrelevant, but the FBI agents who loved her and donated to her and didnt investigate her WERE BIASED against Trump in part based on the dossier Hillary paid for. The investigations are separate, but the investigators were the same. They thought she was going to be president so they let her off....remember all the polls saying she was 99% going to win? None of them wanted to piss her off because we know what happens to people who piss her off?......suicide by 2 shots to the head.

Trudeau changed the narrative after Trump boarded Air Force 1 to go to visit NK;s president, so Trump said as much.

what are you talking about? suicide? are you talking about that awful debunked fox news story regarding Seth Rich?

 

[emd123]

As someone that spent most of the '90s watching right wing pundits promise Clinton's special counsel (Ken Starr) would lead to him being ousted from office, and ending up very disappointed, I see the same fate coming to those watching the left wing pundits promising Trump will be ousted from office. I just think you're very likely to be disappointed, as the anti-Clinton people were in the '90s. Statistically, it's just that hard to oust a President in the Senate. So far it's happened to 0 out of 45 Presidents. That's a 0% impeachment & removal rate. I'm just saying, if removal by impeachment is the goal, it's very, very, very likely to end in disappointment. Beating a Presidential incumbent has much greater odds. You've at least got 20% chance* of doing that. That's where I'd focus my attention, if "getting rid of Trump" was the goal.

Edit: *(Incumbent President reelection rate = 20% historically. 20 have run for reelection, 15 won and only 5 have lost).

 

[SSdoc33]

As someone that spent most of the '90s watching right wing pundits promise Clinton's special counsel (Ken Starr) would lead to him being ousted from office, and ending up very disappointed, I see the same fate coming to those watching the left wing pundits promising Trump will be ousted from office. I just think you're very likely to be disappointed, as the anti-Clinton people were in the '90s. Statistically, it's just that hard to oust a President in the Senate. So far it's happened to 0 out of 45 Presidents. That's a 0% impeachment & removal rate. I'm just saying, if removal by impeachment is the goal, it's very, very, very likely to end in disappointment. Beating a Presidential incumbent has much greater odds. You've at least got roughly a 50% chance at doing that. That's where I'd focus my attention, if "getting rid of Trump" was the goal.

again, i dont think he is going to get tossed, but this situation is SO different that clinton's.

a better analogy is watergate. that did manage to oust the president, even if it wasnt directly due to the impeachment.

 

[emd123]

what are you talking about? suicide? are you talking about that awful debunked fox news story regarding Seth Rich?

Dude. Seth Rich? This is not about some guy named "Seth Rich." Don't you realize what this is all about?

We are partisans. You are a partisan. People like you and I do not decide who becomes President. Our minds are not changeable. How we are going to vote is predetermined. It's the wishy washy, undecided independent moderates in the middle who decide. 1/3 R's vote R. 1/3 D's vote D. It's the 1/3 in the middle whose minds you need to change. It's those 10 "swing" states that can't decide of they're Republican or Democrat who decide, not us.

We're so deep in the weeds right now, talking about stuff that those people don't ever care about, know about or pay much attention to. They're just going to decide based on the state of things 1 week before any election and forget all of this messy stuff in the middle. Voters aren't going to vote based on who killed or didn't kill Seth Rich, or based on 99% of the stuff you and I pay attention to on a daily basis, that they're not paying, and won't pay, attention to.

 

[emd123]

again, i dont think he is going to get tossed, but this situation is SO different that clinton's.

a better analogy is watergate. that did manage to oust the president, even if it wasnt directly due to the impeachment.

Nixon decided not to fight impeachment, and quit. The two that fought it (and I'm sure as hell Trump would fight an impeachment rap like a pitbull on crack) beat the charge easily (Clinton and Johnson) and remained in office. That's a 100% success rate in beating an impeachment charge. It's still a 67% success rate, if you include Nixon who let his approval rating drop into the 20s. Trump's are twice that, and steadily rising for the past 6 months.

 

[SSdoc33]

Nixon decided not to fight impeachment, and quit. The two that fought it, and I'm sure as hell Trump would fight it like a pitbull on crack, beat the rap easily (Clinton and Johnson).

nixon didnt fight it b/c he was guilty AF, and he probably wouldnt have survived the full impeachment process

 

[SSdoc33]

Dude. Seth Rich? This is not about some guy named "Seth Rich." Don't you realize what this is all about?

We are partisans. You are a partisan. People like you and I do not decide who becomes President. Our minds are not changeable. How we are going to vote is predetermined. It's the wishy washy, undecided independent moderates in the middle who decide. 1/3 R's vote R. 1/3 D's vote D. It's the 1/3 in the middle whose minds you need to change. It's those 10 "swing" states that can't decide of they're Republican or Democrat who decide, not us.

We're so deep in the weeds right now, talking about stuff that those people don't ever care about, know about or pay much attention to. They're just going to decide based on the state of things 1 week before any election and forget all of this messy stuff in the middle. Voters aren't going to vote based on who killed or didn't kill Seth Rich, or based on 99% of the stuff you and I pay attention to on a daily basis, that they're not paying, and won't pay, attention to.

Suicide of Vince Foster - Wikipedia

 

[emd123]

Suicide of Vince Foster - Wikipedia

Yeah, I know about Vince Foster. And it didn't matter a hill of beans as to whether Clinton stayed in power or not, because like I said before, the voters who decide elections don't care about, and often don't care enough to even know about, these types of things to base their votes on them.

I'm actually not sure what we're arguing about at this point, honestly. Anyways, gotta go an injection...

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I admit that it is sometimes difficult to sort our the truth from the lies.

If you start with the notion that everything the president says is untrue, than you get a better sense of the real right and wrong.

All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

Also, Trey Gowdy is the definition of a partisan hack, and he is running for his life right now to stay out of jail himself. This is why he isnt running for re-election.

In House Russia Probe, Trey Gowdy Is the Perfect Trump Stooge

You're veering into crazy territory again. Gowdy is not worried about going to jail at all. There is literally nothing and no one even hinting at that in the slightest.

Also Gowdy isn't a Trump stooge by any means. Trey Gowdy Hates His Job Even More Than You Do

 

[SSdoc33]

You're veering into crazy territory again. Gowdy is not worried about going to jail at all. There is literally nothing and no one even hinting at that in the slightest.

Also Gowdy isn't a Trump stooge by any means. Trey Gowdy Hates His Job Even More Than You Do

incorrect

No wonder Trey Gowdy quit

also, btw, if you want to see the true left-wing alternative to foxnews, its not NBC. it's this site: palmerreport.com

he's even a little too much of a moonbeam for me

 

[lonelobo]

Nixon decided not to fight impeachment, and quit. The two that fought it (and I'm sure as hell Trump would fight an impeachment rap like a pitbull on crack) beat the charge easily (Clinton and Johnson) and remained in office. That's a 100% success rate in beating an impeachment charge. It's still a 67% success rate, if you include Nixon who let his approval rating drop into the 20s. Trump's are twice that, and steadily rising for the past 6 months.

How Popular Is Donald Trump?

 

[emd123]

How Popular Is Donald Trump?

538. Nate Silver. Hmm...That's cute.

Same crew that said Trump had a 98% chance of losing nomination. Even after that, he even admitted how badly he royally --cked up during the nomination process and went ahead and did it it all over on election day giving Hillary 3:1 odds of winning! Lol. I mean, the amount of crucial swing states that guy called wrong was mind boggling. In fact, I used to follow that guy's 538 blog for years including throughout the 2016 campaign (even though he's a left, I like to see what both sides are saying) and the amount of times he posted the same type of "It's historic how unpopular Donald Trump is!" stuff all through out the campaign, sticks in my mind. So, I don't pay attention to anything that guy says anymore. I don't know what happened, but the wheels totally fell off of his political prognosticating and analysis. He still quotes the same sh** polling companies that were all wrong in 2016.

 

[Ducttape]

Seems like you are ok with these biased FBI agents working on both investigations, initiated the Trump investigation, and they even met with McCabe in his office on August 18th....just before the election.

[]

If the FBI agents are seeking the truth, then that is their job.

If Clinton’s narrative be was the truth based on what they found, then it is entirely appropriate.

You don’t get it, do you. The truth is not through a partisan road colored glasses. Trump is deluding you to think that.

Nixon decided not to fight impeachment, and quit. The two that fought it (and I'm sure as hell Trump would fight an impeachment rap like a pitbull on crack) beat the charge easily (Clinton and Johnson) and remained in office. That's a 100% success rate in beating an impeachment charge. It's still a 67% success rate, if you include Nixon who let his approval rating drop into the 20s. Trump's are twice that, and steadily rising for the past 6 months.

actually, trumps approval rating by all but the most biased study shows it has remained within 5 points one way or another since he became president. It is stagnant.

An N of 2 is really nothing to hang your hat on but I agree that impeachment is unlikely, even tho his agents that he directs and commands have had numerous meetings with the one country we know is actively trying to influence our elections, our civil discourse, the core of our country.

What we need to get back to is balance. With a conservative court, a conservative WH, and a conservative Congress, we have no ideological balance. That leads to disaster.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

incorrect

No wonder Trey Gowdy quit

also, btw, if you want to see the true left-wing alternative to foxnews, its not NBC. it's this site: palmerreport.com

he's even a little too much of a moonbeam for me

Ha, OK so the left's equivalent to Breitbart says Gowdy is dirty but I've heard it from no one else.

I mean, I live in his district and have met him before. My mother taught his kids middle school math. He was a very good prosecutor back in the day here. If there was an inkling of reliable trouble with him, I'd have heard about it.