POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

That's what I'm saying, taking people from places who don't value or represent those qualities you listed don't magically start valuing or representing those qualities because they now reside here. We don't have magic dirt that transforms people.

Nowhere is this more evident than California, which has been inundated with 3rd world Central Americans. Does California represent or exhibit those qualities you listed? Of course not. It really isn't an American State at this point.

 

what happened to you at Disneyland?

 

Trump says Stone and Flynn were treated very unfairly by dirty cops. Ya think? Both should be pardoned along with Manafort.

 

Right after Blevins takes over as AG.

 

But he is a Racist.

 

Everyone look out, Lindsey Grahamnesty is getting a war boner this morning. It's days like this he really misses his good buddy McCain.

 

What brought us to today's event at our Embassy in Iraq?

W Bush taking out Saddam with no coherent plan past that.

Obama handing Iraq to Iran and paying them pallets of cash to take it.

It's almost as if 2008 Ron Paul was right. Almost.

 

lol, "thanks obama" and it's going to be 2020 in less than 12 hours.

 

It is such a curse, to see the world so clearly.

 

It wasn't some great prediction, man. Everybody knew there was more out there. There's also more than this. It's actually endless, and no one ever tried to convince anyone it wasn't.

This is actually not anything special. If you commit a wrongful act, it does not in any way imply that you won't ever do anything wrong again. In fact, some would say the opposite.

 

If I get indicted by a grand jury, and then while I’m waiting for my trial, new info is discovered that implicates me further, am I to assume that the prosecution won’t enter it into evidence at my trial?

 

What a curse it is, to see the world so clearly.

This is boring me to tears.

 

If your dog Spot runs into some spot-remover, then he isn’t your dog no more.

Is your fridge running, Scrowcroft?

(Hint: Let the House impeach him, again, stupid).

 

I assume you are only referring to evidence pertaining to articles not under consideration. I can’t imagine why you’d need to impeach him again to bring new evidence related to articles under consideration.

 

The House has its Articles. Luckily, it was a thoroughly complete process.

If they now feel that there is add’l info that should also be considered, I guess take it up the failure with House leadership.

Ultimately, this is nothing but Dems doing the same shit they always do, moving goalposts, playing gotcha, throwing fits, making demands for the very things they’ve denied others, etc.

The Dems don’t own the Senate and won’t come close to the 67 votes needed to remove. Worse, they’re about to be exposed by the very same process they thought would save them.

They wanted to play politics, so now they’re going to get to play politics, where they’re not in control, at the big-boy table, and for blood.

I say let’s get on with it.

Period. Hard stop.

 

It was a simple yes or no answer. Though it’s not a surprise to me you’d answer with whatever this tripe is, because I’m not new here.

 

I’ve given both your answer and this entire impeachment more - much more - attention than it deserves.

I look forward to seeing the process continue in the United States Senate.

 

I think we’re all relieved to hear you won’t be posting about it anymore, it not being worth your attention and all.

 

As this and my replies to your other and many opinions will attest, I give attention to lots of unworthy things.

I struggle to ignore stupid shit.

 

I’m still confused by this take. The Senate is more than jurors to consider the case made by the House. It is the court.

Of course that can cut both ways and evidence that might make the Dems look bad might make its way there.