Can Trump Do Wrong?

Dans La Lune said:

Getting two, maybe three SCOTUS appointments is arguably more important than one-term president. Conservatives think so. But having dodged the question twice, we both know that you don't care about process or precedent. You care when it benefits you, don't care when it doesn't, and you wax and wane your caring depending on your particular agenda. Stop pretending that you care about process and procedure because no one is buying it. It's a weak sauce argument coming from someone who doesn't buy it to begin with.

It's about the agenda for you, and so far there haven't been any consequences to conservatives for their rancid, fetid, morally bankrupt hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

I haven't dodged anything. But that's a cheap debate tactic that many leftwingers without substance like to use. I don't have to have an opinion on what McConnell did. And your attempt to compare the two things is quite silly. One is politics, the other is about accepted process. Go look things up dude, that wasn't the first time someone wasn't allowed to nominate someone for the Supreme Court. And it wasn't like Obama never got anyone on the court either. Democrats are an entitled elitist group that throw tantrums, like after the 2016 election. Hillary stood right there in the debate asking Trump if he would accept election results. Little did she know the tables would turn, and we see how well the Democrats took it. Three years later, they're still acting like traitors to the Constitution.

Bullseye said:

A sentencing memo for Michael Cohen is the SDNY saying TRUMP committed a crime? Isn't that normal don't by an indictment of the individual in question. Of course if you have definitive proof within this document just go ahead and cite it.

Click to expand...

It's interesting. You refuse to respond in a substantive way when I point out how stupid your economic arguments are, but three days after I craft a post to someone who is not you, you respond to me with this nonsense.

And yes, in the sentencing memo for Michael Cohen, under the heading "Cohen's Illegal Campaign Contributions", it clearly says:

Document said:

Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States.

...

In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. (PSR ¶¶ 41, 45).

Click to expand...

The SDNY clearly states Individual-1, who successfully campaign for President, directed Michael Cohen to commit crimes, which would mean Trump has engaged in criminal behavior. You can find this on page 11 of the document (page 13 of the PDF).

Did you even bother to read the link or did you do the same as last time where you just pretend reality doesn't exist and you just made up a bunch of stupidity? And will you have the integrity to acknowledge this or will you just post lies to pretend it doesn't exist or just not even respond at all?

American said:

I haven't dodged anything.

Click to expand...

I find that difficult to believe.

But that's a cheap debate tactic that many leftwingers without substance like to use.

Click to expand...

LOL at you claiming this.

I don't have to have an opinion on what McConnell did. And your attempt to compare the two things is quite silly. One is politics, the other is about accepted process.

Click to expand...

Oh, which is which? Is impeachment, as is clearly laid out in the Constitution, the accepted process or is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices, as is clearly laid out in the Consitution, the accepted process?

Impeachment is in the Constitution. So is judicial nomination.

Go look things up dude

Click to expand...

LOL at you saying this.

that wasn't the first time someone wasn't allowed to nominate someone for the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

It was the first time since 1866 that a nomination was allowed to lapse without a later vote.

Again, tell us more about "cheap debate tactics". :roll:

And it wasn't like Obama never got anyone on the court either.

Click to expand...

That's true...but so? President Obama was a duly elected President whose nominee was not even given hearings. You talk about undermining elections, that's it.

If McConnell had granted hearings and then Garland had been voted down (whether on merit or simple politics), that would have been one thing. But Garland did not even receive anything.

Democrats are an entitled elitist group that throw tantrums, like after the 2016 election. Hillary stood right there in the debate asking Trump if he would accept election results. Little did she know the tables would turn, and we see how well the Democrats took it. Three years later, they're still acting like traitors to the Constitution.

Click to expand...

You think a Constitutionally established practice of impeachment is being a "traitor to the Constitution" and you claim others throw tantrums?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Try answering without dodging or engaging in cheap debate tactics.

Jetboogieman said:

Just a question to stoke my curiosity.

Simple question, do you think Trump can do anything wrong?

Is he rotten to the core, engaged in criminal behaviour last and present?

Even if you don’t think he’s engaged in anything, do you think he’s capable of criminal behaviour?

Or is he a paragon of virtue fighting a desperate one man struggle against the entire corrupt and evil deep state and he can do no wrong?

Click to expand...

Voted "Paragon", since he is the chosen one, he can do no wrong, he is the smartest man in any room, he is the greatest stable genius we have ever had, he has no need to repent his sins because he never sins, he never lies, he doesn't drink or smoke, or read much, since reading leads to enlightenment and enlightenment leads to self introspection and that leads to...well it just leads to all sorts of really bad things! Every call he makes is a "perfect call". Whether it is to the President of Ukraine demanding he dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden, or a call to the White House kitchen telling them to have some KFC delivered!

Do wrong?

Heaven forbid that just isn't possible!

All hail Donald Trump!

Our savior, our impeccable chosen one!

Our MAGA Man :ind:

Acadia said:

The real question to be asked of the "resistance", is, "Can Trump do anything right?".
Trump has blown Obama's first term out of the water on so many levels, yet he'll never get any credit from the haters.

Click to expand...

Had to give your post a LIKE cause I love getting a good belly laugh this early in the morning!!!

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

Slyfox696 said:

I find that difficult to believe.

LOL at you claiming this.
Oh, which is which? Is impeachment, as is clearly laid out in the Constitution, the accepted process or is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices, as is clearly laid out in the Consitution, the accepted process?

Impeachment is in the Constitution. So is judicial nomination.

LOL at you saying this.

It was the first time since 1866 that a nomination was allowed to lapse without a later vote.

Again, tell us more about "cheap debate tactics". :roll:

That's true...but so? President Obama was a duly elected President whose nominee was not even given hearings. You talk about undermining elections, that's it.

If McConnell had granted hearings and then Garland had been voted down (whether on merit or simple politics), that would have been one thing. But Garland did not even receive anything.

You think a Constitutionally established practice of impeachment is being a "traitor to the Constitution" and you claim others throw tantrums?

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Try answering without dodging or engaging in cheap debate tactics.

Click to expand...

You sure know how to use quote tags well. Good on you.

Judicial nomination is in the Constitution, but doesn't say if the Senate has to entertain them on a schedule.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-court-nominees-considered-in-election-years/

Try not posting hypocritical bull**** from now on. There have been other instances where Democrats have objected to looking at nominations. Where there is a rule or not, it's happened on both sides. Your windbag post is boring me with excuses. Impeachment indicates a Constitution crisis, and is far different than appointing justices.............by a long shot. You know it, and I know it. Stop the butthurt. You know Pelosi is wrong in what she's doing, and is afraid of 1) Republicans bringing witnesses and documents, and 2) Trump winning in 2020.

TheParser said:

5. He was elected by the Silent Majority

Click to expand...

Sorry I'm late to the party on this one, and if it's already been pointed out and you've responded I'm sorry for that too: but in no way, shape, or form was Trump elected by a majority, other than the majority of Electoral College votes.

American said:

You sure know how to use quote tags well. Good on you.

Click to expand...

It helps when picking out the BS and the lies. :shrug:

Judicial nomination is in the Constitution, but doesn't say if the Senate has to entertain them on a schedule.

Click to expand...

It quite literally says:

Constitution said:

...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,...Judges of the supreme Court

Click to expand...

It quite literally says the Senate shall advise the President's nominees. McConnell gave no Garland no hearings and flatly told the entire country the Senate would entertain NO Obama nominees.

You're not good at the word games and even worse with the Constitution.

Try not posting hypocritical bull**** from now on.

Click to expand...

Says the person who tried to claim something in the Constitution is being a traitor to the Constitution.

Typical deflection, American.

There have been other instances where Democrats have objected to looking at nominations.

Click to expand...

Which nominees since 1866 did not get a vote without being withdrawn?

Go ahead, list them all. It won't take long.

Where there is a rule or not, it's happened on both sides.

Click to expand...

Not since 1866. Impeachment, however, happened roughly 20 years ago. So if your argument is "it's happened before", then that's a pretty terrible argument to make against impeaching a President.

Your windbag post is boring me with excuses.

Click to expand...

There were no excuses in my post, only pointing out the hypocrisies and stupidities in your post. Cheap debate tactic AND typical deflection by you. I asked you not to do that.

Impeachment indicates a Constitution crisis

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You are posting a lie. Here's what it says:

Constitution said:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Click to expand...

It does not say anything about a "Constitution crisis", only about "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

You literally posted a lie to deflect. And your understanding of the Constitution appears to be quite limited.

and is far different than appointing justices.............by a long shot.

Click to expand...

Yes, impeachment is a different process than appointing judicial nominees. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

However, the Constitutional validity of them is NOT different, as you are falsely claiming, and that is the discussion being had here.

You know it, and I know it.

Click to expand...

The Constitutional validity of each is not different. You know it, and I know it, but only you are posting lies about it.

Stop the butthurt. You know Pelosi is wrong in what she's doing, and is afraid of 1) Republicans bringing witnesses and documents, and 2) Trump winning in 2020.

Click to expand...

You are literally making things up to deflect and are engaging in typical cheap debate tactics.

Impeachment is a Constitutionally defined concept. Calling people traitors for following the Constitution is the height of stupidity. Pelosi is following a legally established process of gathering information before formally bringing charges. The fact you have a problem with a legal process which will undoubtedly shine light on obvious crimes committed by the person you support politically says everything everyone needs to know about you.

Your post was nothing but deflections, lies and "cheap debate tactics...without substance". Congratulations.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

Slyfox696 said:

It helps when picking out the BS and the lies. :shrug:

It quite literally says:



It quite literally says the Senate shall advise the President's nominees. McConnell gave no Garland no hearings and flatly told the entire country the Senate would entertain NO Obama nominees.

You're not good at the word games and even worse with the Constitution.

Says the person who tried to claim something in the Constitution is being a traitor to the Constitution.

Typical deflection, American.

Which nominees since 1866 did not get a vote without being withdrawn?

Go ahead, list them all. It won't take long.

Not since 1866. Impeachment, however, happened roughly 20 years ago. So if your argument is "it's happened before", then that's a pretty terrible argument to make against impeaching a President.

There were no excuses in my post, only pointing out the hypocrisies and stupidities in your post. Cheap debate tactic AND typical deflection by you. I asked you not to do that.

No it doesn't. You are posting a lie. Here's what it says:



It does not say anything about a "Constitution crisis", only about "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

You literally posted a lie to deflect. And your understanding of the Constitution appears to be quite limited.

Yes, impeachment is a different process than appointing judicial nominees. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

However, the Constitutional validity of them is NOT different, as you are falsely claiming, and that is the discussion being had here.

The Constitutional validity of each is not different. You know it, and I know it, but only you are posting lies about it.

You are literally making things up to deflect and are engaging in typical cheap debate tactics.

Impeachment is a Constitutionally defined concept. Calling people traitors for following the Constitution is the height of stupidity. Pelosi is following a legally established process of gathering information before formally bringing charges. The fact you have a problem with a legal process which will undoubtedly shine light on obvious crimes committed by the person you support politically says everything everyone needs to know about you.

Your post was nothing but deflections, lies and "cheap debate tactics...without substance". Congratulations.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

Click to expand...

Democrats are chronic hypocrites who change the rules to suit their agenda continually. Sounds like your posts do the same.

American said:

Democrats are chronic hypocrites who change the rules to suit their agenda continually. Sounds like your posts do the same.

Click to expand...

This is FOX news propaganda BS and it is routine for Conservatives to try to flip the historical script:

- Christian Conservatives with moral compasses, who cherish their family values, are devoted to a serial adulterer who solicited sex from pornographers and was recorded for stating that he can grab ***** whenever he likes.

- Fiscal Conservatives who declare that debt is a problem and that government is too big routinely vote for increased spending and widening government (since Reagan).

- Conservative Veterans are devoted to a draft dodger who denigrated American POWs, tormented Gold Star families, callously dismissed a Veterans Day, and Tweeted on Memorial Day about how dead Vets would support him.


It is not the Democrats who have made an art form out of politically stacking courts, rigging elections, or breaking Constitutional norms to the point where one might as well torch the document. "It's not against the law" has become the Conservative tag line when seeking technicalities and loop holes to exonerate today's GOP behavior. All of this is and has always been to suit a Party agenda, because without this sort of behavior the GOP knows it can no longer win elections or push their long-expired and broken ideological crap upon the nation. This is what happens when a political Party serves its own interests and the interests of only the few, at the expense of a growing and progressing population.

The chronic hypocrites are and have always been Republican Conservatives, because it is they who present an ideological standard that they routinely fail to achieve. It is they who routinely betray their own belief systems whenever it suits their position of the moment. This is because at the heart of the Conservative mindset, behind the facade, is simple selfishness. Cutting taxes is about a personal bank account. The Second Amendment is about a personal armory. Anti-abortion is about pushing a personal religious belief. Pushing Christianity is about legitimizing a personal feeling. None of this, no matter how hard one waves or hugs the flag, is about the nation. And there is nothing patriotic about blindly following a draft dodger who would pervert his Office and use foreign governments to do harm to American citizens so that he can generate personal revenue and achieve personal temporary political goals.

American said:

Democrats are chronic hypocrites who change the rules to suit their agenda continually. Sounds like your posts do the same.

Click to expand...

Yet another deflection, engaging in cheap debate tactics when you have nothing of substance with which to rebut my post. I'd ask you where you think my posts have "change(d) the rules", but we both know you don't really believe that, it was just a deflection to disengage from a debate you are so clearly losing.

The fact of the matter is my posts haven't changed anything, they've exposed the stupidity of your posts. You claimed following the Constitution is being a traitor to the Constitution. You laughably claimed there's a difference in the validity of one Constitutional process when compared to a different Constitutional process. You posted numerous falsehoods regarding the text of the Constitution, as well as the frequency with which Constitutional processes have been carried out (or not carried out, as the case may be). And everything you've said has been 100% based in your insistence on blatant partisanship.

It's no wonder you resorted to "cheap debate tactics...without substance" and deflection. You have no facts to support the stupidity in your posts. You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it.

ttwtt78640 said:

No more illegal than the prostitute accepting that payoff. The legal question remains: was the payoff for consensual sex or keeping quiet about that matter?

Click to expand...

As much of a cheapskate as Trump is, what’s your opinion?

As to the poll, it is said that during sex, Trump is always on the bottom, because all he can do is **** up! :shrug:

American said:

It's only a proper investigation when it follows a process accepted by all the Congress. The People have a right to be part of the process through their representatives. When one party takes full control denies other representatives the right to participate we have don't have a republic. We have precedence for how investigations, inquiries and impeachments are to proceed.

Click to expand...

Tell me more about those who have been denied the right to be a part of the process. Are you telling us that Republicans are not on the committees? Are you saying they are not being permitted to question the witnesses? How are they being denied?

When Moscow Mitch refuses every bill passed by the House to even be discussed, let alone voted on, how is that being denied being a part of the process?

Stealers Wheel said:

Tell me more about those who have been denied the right to be a part of the process. Are you telling us that Republicans are not on the committees? Are you saying they are not being permitted to question the witnesses? How are they being denied?

When Moscow Mitch refuses every bill passed by the House to even be discussed, let alone voted on, how is that being denied being a part of the process?

Click to expand...

Being on a committee is a lot different than being able to participate as equals. Speaking of the Senate now, I'll be you were hiding in a closet when Harry Reid pronounce every Republican bill DOA in the day.

American said:

Being on a committee is a lot different than being able to participate as equals. Speaking of the Senate now, I'll be you were hiding in a closet when Harry Reid pronounce every Republican bill DOA in the day.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that Republicans on the committee are not being allowed to ask questions. They are not allowed to participate. Why, that's an outrage! Those Republicans should publicly state the questions they are not allowed to ask.

And strangely, they are not doing that. I wonder why? Why are the Republicans not giving specifics on how the process has silenced them?

Whatabout Harry? Good one! Hadn't heard that one before. Moscow Mitch would be proud of you.