• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi won't even do censure.

Condor060 said:
I will tell you my take on this.

Do you know why the polls in 2016 were so far off? Because Democratic and Independent Trump voters wouldn't admit they were going to vote for Trump. Thats why it was such a shocker when he won. Trump was nothing but a chance with no political experience or history. So what has changed for this election.

He is the incumbent which is a huge advantage.
He has a historical economy, historical unemployment, and historical stock market numbers. That alone will define the election
His rallies are 100,000 plus and he can do 3-4 a day. The guy is a machine
CNN, his greatest adversary in 2016 is now the lowest rated cable news network. People are tuning out to the fake media. They don't believe them anymore. And other Liberal media is learning from CNNs viewership tanking. They are losing advertisers and are now changing their format away from the hate Trump theme. Even the NYT has refused to allow their reporters to be interviewed on CNN.
The DNC is 6 million in the hole mostly from unpaid debts from 2016 while the RNC has 33 million in cash and growing rapidly
The old Russian agent claims are over. The AG and the DOJ have cleared Trump and over 70% of the country is tired of the story
Democrats are running a guy who is older now than Reagan was when he left office. He is already stumbling through some important flip flops and now that the Russia story has flopped, everyone is very sensitive to Foreign entanglements. Hunter Bidens past with China and Ukraine are a big problem especially since Biden has stated China isn't a threat as well as Bidens interference in Ukraine to stop Hunters investigation.

Given the despicable treatment portraying Kavanaugh as a high school alcoholic rape train conductor, followed up with Liberals beating on the doors of the SCOTUS during his swearing in, more and more people are embarrassed to claim they are Democrats. They don't want to be associated with that kind of behavior.

Even the NAACP is reporting numbers of black support for Trump moving from 8% from the original voting numbers of 2016 to high 20s and even some at mid 30s. I am 60 years old and have never seen the hundreds of videos of Blacks supporting a conservative until the last 2 years.

If Trump accomplishes his trade war with China (which I think he will) this is over

The largest crowed Biden has drawn thus far is about 6000 supporters.

Honestly, if Trump loses this election, it will be a larger upset than Hillarys defeat.

Thats the way I see it.
Click to expand...

The polls in 2016 predicted the popular vote quite accurately, contrary to your assertion.

Trump may continue to ride on the coattails of the Obama economy. Of course, the skyrocketing budget deficit will eventually catch him, but he won’t care if he’s re elected. Trump can not point to a single economic policy other than a WAll Street designed tax cut for Wall Street.

Your obsession with CNN would be odd, were it not for the fact that you’re just obsessing over it because Trump bellows about it. No one else cares.

The Russia/Trump scandal is far from over. Trumpsters are whistling past the graveyard if they cling to that. But then again, because Trump bellows it, it’s fact in the Fox/talk radio bubble, regardless of the real story or documented evidence.

Biden is the same age as Trump.

Trump has never done four rallies in a day.

Kavanaugh is the guy he was portrayed as being, He made that clear with his petulant, self serving and disrespectful appearance before the Judiciary Committee in which he behaved just like the entitled punk he was portrayed as being.

Of course, the real highlight of the hearing was when Kamila Harris nailed him to the wall regarding his contacts with Trump’s attorneys (and saved him from purjuring himself, as he was clearly about to do).

Purjury is now the response of the Attorney General.

This Trumpster fantasy about the black vote is really ridiculous.

Trump will not succeeed with China. They won’t even talk to him.

But you’re back to your Trumpian insistence on crowd size as yardstick.

Trump is a night club act pretending to be a political leaders. His audiences come to be entertained and have their prejudices validated by a guy who sounds just like Archie Bunker. That’s it.
 
MovingPictures said:
Time to face facts: Pelosi and her leadership are afraid of the Republicans and don't have the stones for impeachment. It's not that there isn't enough evidence, because there is. Pelosi is still the same leader that caved to Bush on his wars and dropped the public option.

Trump and the WH are schooling Pelosi and making her look so weak that it's pathetic. Even as dumb as Trump is he understands to play the heaviest hand you've got in politics, or else you're doomed to lose the battle. Yet, after years and years of getting the snot beat of them, the Democratic party has learned ZERO about how to battle Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...4e6b2b46f6a_story.html?utm_term=.0784dae7b977
Click to expand...

I think it is rather funny that instead of the left seeing how smart and astute Pelosi was, they go all TDS on her. The left have a very unhealthy anti-Trump obsession. Trump is president now because of that stupid TDS obsession of the politically correct SJW's and Nancy seems to be the only one smart enough to know that if you want Trump gone you have to do it at the polls because it ain't happinin any other way. After three years the far left still haven't figured this out. Revenge is clouding their judgment.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
You imply politicians you would vote for must be saints. You have a lot to learn if that is what you think. Let the politician without sin cast the first stone at his opponent.
Click to expand...

You're implying that as long as a politician doesn't grab women by their genitals that makes them a saint? Pretty low bar you have set for yourself. Listen, how about this.... how about voting for a candidate based on how logical their platform that they're running on, really is, not on promises but a platform that could actually be passed in Congress.

Trump promised 'new and better healthcare'. Okay....that's a promise -- but did he ever, even once say what that was going to be like? Did he say where the money for that would come from or how that would affect people that have private insurance through their jobs that they like and want to keep? Did he every say that he has the full support of his party behind him on one amazing health care plan and they would caucus and work together with democrats on something that will work for both sides? No, he 'promised' you, that's all he did.

How about immigration? Trump said he would build a wall, and his supporters had a magnificent image of a great big tall cement wall that only a rocket ship could get over. But, did he ever, even once, talk to you and to all those people at his rallies how he would pay for the wall or how he was going to fix our broken immigration system, not only promising that he would build a physical barrier, but how he would work with Mexico and the Central American foreign leaders to formulate a plan. Cooperate with them and understand what the needs are, what would it take for them to make the lives of their citizens better so they won't want to come here. Ask them how they intend to help their own people get back on their feet and be productive citizens of their own country. All anyone heard was "immigrants are dirty vermin and we're going to build a wall to keep them out."

In other words I don't want to hear what someone promises they're going to do. I want to hear who, what, where, why and how much of every promise or it's just nothing more than political campaign bull****.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Trump was a New York liberal when he did all of that. And the rest of you liberals never gave a ****.
Click to expand...

Trump was a NY liberal when I was a NY liberal. My ideology hasn't flip-flopped back and forth as Trump's has. He changed parties to suit himself in order to get the most votes and not because of any ideology because he has no ideology. Trump never had any sort of economic or political theory or policy. He's a populist and ran on the platform that was popular with people like you. He may not be a racist (he is) but he knew he had to appeal to racists to win, so that's what he did. Trump's agenda was completely self-serving. A true leader dedicates himself to serve whether it's in the military, in business or as president of the US. Leaders are dedicated to serving others, not themselves.

And yes, we liberals really did give a **** that he was a racketeer, scoundrel, womanizer and mob boss. That's precisely why the majority of voters in NY despise the guy, always have, and didn't vote for him.
 
marke said:
It does not speak well of Hillary for democrats to claim she got her butt handed to her in 2016 by a dummass.
Click to expand...

You're right there.

Nor only dumbass, but a totally amoral man pretending to be a conservative Republican, a conman and fraud.

She will never live down a defeat by such a man.
 
HumblePi said:
Not going to happen. He's going to lose the election, but he's going to cry 'rigged' and you're all going to join the chorus. 'the election was rigged!' So he'll refuse to vacate the White House and there's going to be a big mess and the Marshalls or Marine's will have to physically remove his fat ass from that leather chair in the Oval Office and take him out in cuffs.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone had a nightmare last night
 
marke said:
I have challenged posters before to prove he wasn't, but nobody has taken up the challenge so far. I have also challenged posters to prove Seth Rich did not steal the DNC emails right under their noses, but nobody has proven that either.

It might have been someone else who gave the emails to Assange, like possibly Eric Braverman, but Eric has disappeared and is not answering questions. He has also not been seen publicly since the day Podesta told a comrade he suspected Braverman may have been the source of insider leaks from the DNC.
Click to expand...
clearly, all Democrats are idiots. They can't even prove a negative.
 
Fletch said:
Trump was a New York liberal when he did all of that. And the rest of you liberals never gave a ****.
Click to expand...

Trump is still a New York liberal.

He has never been a conservative. He just played one on TV.
 
TomFitz said:
The polls in 2016 predicted the popular vote quite accurately, contrary to your assertion.

Trump may continue to ride on the coattails of the Obama economy. Of course, the skyrocketing budget deficit will eventually catch him, but he won’t care if he’s re elected. Trump can not point to a single economic policy other than a WAll Street designed tax cut for Wall Street.

Your obsession with CNN would be odd, were it not for the fact that you’re just obsessing over it because Trump bellows about it. No one else cares.

The Russia/Trump scandal is far from over. Trumpsters are whistling past the graveyard if they cling to that. But then again, because Trump bellows it, it’s fact in the Fox/talk radio bubble, regardless of the real story or documented evidence.

Biden is the same age as Trump.

Trump has never done four rallies in a day.

Kavanaugh is the guy he was portrayed as being, He made that clear with his petulant, self serving and disrespectful appearance before the Judiciary Committee in which he behaved just like the entitled punk he was portrayed as being.

Of course, the real highlight of the hearing was when Kamila Harris nailed him to the wall regarding his contacts with Trump’s attorneys (and saved him from purjuring himself, as he was clearly about to do).

Purjury is now the response of the Attorney General.

This Trumpster fantasy about the black vote is really ridiculous.

Trump will not succeeed with China. They won’t even talk to him.

But you’re back to your Trumpian insistence on crowd size as yardstick.

Trump is a night club act pretending to be a political leaders. His audiences come to be entertained and have their prejudices validated by a guy who sounds just like Archie Bunker. That’s it.
Click to expand...

The biggest difference between our post is I gave you verifiable facts. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

What you provided is opinion. Example;
Trumpster fantasy about the black vote? Nope, NAACP claims
Trump will not succeed with China? You have no idea if it succeeds or not
Perjury is now the response of the Attorney General. Is there a charge out there I am not aware of
Kavanaugh is the guy he was portrayed as being, yet you know witnesses recanted and he was confirmed
My obsession with CNN? You don't like what happened to them so its now my obsession
The Russia/Trump scandal is far from over. When the author of the report refuses to testify, its over.
Trump may continue to ride on the coattails of the Obama economy? Really, can you name one thing Obama did that had a historical number flux. I can. he doubled the national debt from 43 previous presidents.
Trumpian insistence on crowd size as yardstick? I can only speak from experience.
Trump is a night club act pretending to be a political leaders. How many night club acts have 63 million supporters?
 
@condor When the crowd size differs 100-1 it does matter. Filling a coffee shop is very different from filling a sports arena. For Biden's announcement vs Trump's announcement it was closer to 1000-1.

Dittohead not! said:
Trump is still a New York liberal. He has never been a conservative. He just played one on TV.
Click to expand...
He plays a very convincing one in the oval office.

bullseyelqcs said:
You seem to be conflating what he was brought in to do with his personal feelings about the matter.
He was most certainly brought in to destroy Clinton. For the record, I never said that Starr didn't do a commendable job.
Click to expand...
No conflation necessary. He was not brought in to destroy anyone. Starr was picked because he was a straight arrow.

He was brought in to examine the evidence trail. In the report he lays out the grounds and evidence for eleven felony acts--tampering with evidence, suborning perjury, witness intimidation, lying to investigators, lying under oath, obstruction, etc. It's the basic Mafia Don list and support by voluminous evidence. Compare the Mueller report--180 pages to exonerate him on the principal charge and 270 pages to cover every ticky, tacky complaint.

The thing about the Mueller investigation is that there was the Clinton Mafia Don list again--defying subpoenas, destroying evidence, bribery, taking bribes, corrupt investigators--and the team ignored it. It was as much to distract from Clinton as it was to attack Trump. Clinton seems out of reach but the corrupt investigators are still available.
 
Last edited:
Condor060 said:
You met Ken Starr? Now that is really cool. Bet that is a great memory. I do have a bit of a bone to pick here though. He may have been an unbiased investigator doing his job as warranted and I have no reason to believe otherwise, but I don't really believe he didn't have a sore spot for Clinton.

Just like Mueller, there was a lot of usless information in both reports that was unnecessary and only there to embarrass both presidents. Kavanaugh was also part of that team as well and even commented during his confirmation that the ridiculous claims made against him was revenge from Clinton.

Starr included in his report the incident of Clinton putting his cigar in Monica's vagina and then putting it in his mouth while commenting how good it taste. It was only included to embarrass Clinton and had no investigative value. Starr may have been an exceptional investigator but I don't think I would go as far as he didn't have a grudge. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The incident with the cigar was presented in dry clinical detail and necessary to support the charge of witness tampering. Clinton tried to convince her to lie about having any sexual contact. The NYT had the whole story and refused to run it. It never came out until a tabloid scooped everyone with the stained dress.

I could forgive and forget Monica, because she was willing. Paula Jones was not. There is considerably more in the report about Clinton's attempts to silence her and his lying in open court about the event. Clinton is a sexual predator and Starr's report shows it in detail. Yet we only remember Monica and the dress.
 
Jay59 said:
The incident with the cigar was presented in dry clinical detail and necessary to support the charge of witness tampering. Clinton tried to convince her to lie about having any sexual contact. The NYT had the whole story and refused to run it. It never came out until a tabloid scooped everyone with the stained dress.

I could forgive and forget Monica, because she was willing. Paula Jones was not. There is considerably more in the report about Clinton's attempts to silence her and his lying in open court about the event. Clinton is a sexual predator and Starr's report shows it in detail. Yet we only remember Monica and the dress.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, some discussion of the sexual nature of the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was needed to establish that Clinton had lied in his deposition in the Paula Jones case and in his subsequent grand jury testimony. To expose these lies, Starr could have simply listed sexual encounters by date and place, including a brief description of the sexual content.

The Starr Report, however, went far beyond establishing that the President lied when he denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky, and included sexual details of various encounters that suggest the Report also had as its purpose to embarrass Clinton and thus limit his effectiveness as President. The cigar incident would inspire countless jokes by late-night comics and greatly weakened the ability of the President to ever again be seen as "presidential."

As Judge Richard Posner observed in An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton, the details are a distraction to anyone who wants to understand and evaluate Clinton's Presidency or the role and function of the President in American government and society. Posner also noted that details such as the cigar story were no doubt difficult on Clinton's family and close friends because they made it more difficult for them to avert their eyes from the relationship with Lewinsky.

Judge Posner also stated, We expect better from our prosecutors, they are not to hate their quarry.

I am 60 years old and was pretty interested in this situation as I never voted for or liked Clinton. But I do think Starr took his report to a level not needed to make any point other than to embarrass Clinton. This certainly doesn't mean I don't think Starr was an admirable prosecutor, I just don't think he used good judgement bringing out such facts.

Then again, after such an investigation with so many sick revelations, how could you not be tainted. I know I would have been.
 
Jay59 said:
@condor When the crowd size differs 100-1 it does matter. Filling a coffee shop is very different from filling a sports arena. For Biden's announcement vs Trump's announcement it was closer to 1000-1.


He plays a very convincing one in the oval office.


No conflation necessary. He was not brought in to destroy anyone. Starr was picked because he was a straight arrow.

He was brought in to examine the evidence trail. In the report he lays out the grounds and evidence for eleven felony acts--tampering with evidence, suborning perjury, witness intimidation, lying to investigators, lying under oath, obstruction, etc. It's the basic Mafia Don list and support by voluminous evidence. Compare the Mueller report--180 pages to exonerate him on the principal charge and 270 pages to cover every ticky, tacky complaint.

The thing about the Mueller investigation is that there was the Clinton Mafia Don list again--defying subpoenas, destroying evidence, bribery, taking bribes, corrupt investigators--and the team ignored it. It was as much to distract from Clinton as it was to attack Trump. Clinton seems out of reach but the corrupt investigators are still available.
Click to expand...


He does, as long as someone else is writing his lines for him. He doesn't do so well ad libbing.
 
marke said:
One damaging result of California's open borders policies and socialist spending excesses has been massive widespread homelessness and poverty. Democrats do not know how to fix that problem other than to kick out the poor Americans and welcome homeless illegals thick with federal welfare money in their place.
Click to expand...

Got credible evidence to prove your claims? Let’s start with proving that Obama’s policies have cause “massive widespread homelessness and poverty.” That would imply that they either didn’t exist before Obama ((which no reasonable person would claim) or that it shot up to the “massive” level after Jan. 2009.
 
Thingfish said:
and now you choose to believe him. :lamo
Click to expand...

He has made stupid threats in the past that he has actually followed through with like shutting down the government. So yes, when he threatens to take over as dictator, I take him very seriously as a matter of caution.
 
HumblePi said:
You're implying that as long as a politician doesn't grab women by their genitals that makes them a saint? Pretty low bar you have set for yourself. Listen, how about this.... how about voting for a candidate based on how logical their platform that they're running on, really is, not on promises but a platform that could actually be passed in Congress.
Click to expand...

Are democrats even trying to come up with legislation that will pass Congress?

Trump promised 'new and better healthcare'. Okay....that's a promise -- but did he ever, even once say what that was going to be like? Did he say where the money for that would come from or how that would affect people that have private insurance through their jobs that they like and want to keep? Did he every say that he has the full support of his party behind him on one amazing health care plan and they would caucus and work together with democrats on something that will work for both sides? No, he 'promised' you, that's all he did.
Click to expand...

Trump does not legislate, Congress does. I'm also curious to see if Congress can come up with healthcare legislation that will pass muster with most Americans.

How about immigration? Trump said he would build a wall, and his supporters had a magnificent image of a great big tall cement wall that only a rocket ship could get over. But, did he ever, even once, talk to you and to all those people at his rallies how he would pay for the wall or how he was going to fix our broken immigration system, not only promising that he would build a physical barrier, but how he would work with Mexico and the Central American foreign leaders to formulate a plan. Cooperate with them and understand what the needs are, what would it take for them to make the lives of their citizens better so they won't want to come here. Ask them how they intend to help their own people get back on their feet and be productive citizens of their own country. All anyone heard was "immigrants are dirty vermin and we're going to build a wall to keep them out."
Click to expand...

Democrats apparently still do not get the fact that Trump's support for a wall played a huge role in Hillary's 2016 loss.

In other words I don't want to hear what someone promises they're going to do. I want to hear who, what, where, why and how much of every promise or it's just nothing more than political campaign bull****.
Click to expand...


I get it. You never liked Trump. Don't vote for him next time if you feel that way.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You're right there.

Nor only dumbass, but a totally amoral man pretending to be a conservative Republican, a conman and fraud.

She will never live down a defeat by such a man.
Click to expand...
She could always pray to Jesus to comfort her in her loss, if she believes in that sort of thing.
 
Dittohead not! said:
clearly, all Democrats are idiots. They can't even prove a negative.
Click to expand...
Rebels are fools to comfort themselves in their rebellion against God if they imagine the inability to disprove God proves there is no God.
 
marke said:
Hillary likely did not pull the trigger. But even democrats blame bartenders for auto deaths caused by a drunken patron and plenty of democrats have also said Hillary drove Foster to suicide, even if she did not pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Another unproven allegation.

And while people do commit suicide because they’re overwhelmed with the stresses of their lives, ultimately it’s up to them and nobody else to make the decision, either to survive through it, or end it all. It’s tragic that Foster chose the latter, but ultimately it was his decision.
 
marke said:
I don't know about that. However, I take all reports from liberals as well as conservatives, as worth examining for truth or error. Those who simply dismiss reports with no examination whatsoever are hardly in a position to provide worthwhile refutation of those details they claim are false.
Click to expand...

That’s not a reasonable position to take. None of us has unlimited amounts of time to seriously examine the disreputable sources that some posters Gish gallop us with, so it’s necessary, in the interests of not wasting our time on such sources, to insist that others provide only credible sources.
 
HumblePi said:
Not going to happen. He's going to lose the election, but he's going to cry 'rigged' and you're all going to join the chorus. 'the election was rigged!' So he'll refuse to vacate the White House and there's going to be a big mess and the Marshalls or Marine's will have to physically remove his fat ass from that leather chair in the Oval Office and take him out in cuffs.
Click to expand...

Sad to say, but I could see that scenario unfold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom