That is not what these articles suggest. The first one talks about how republicans actually did such a thing so that is why they worry it might happen to them in return. But the dems do not control both houses of congress like the republicans did back then anyway. This is an opinion piece that in no way, shape, or form suggests that democrats are currently trying to slow the economy into a recession to make Trump look bad.
The second article is fucking Breitbart. Come on, man. You don't really read Breitbart do you? All that article does is parrot exactly what Trump said....a man who has lied over 12,000 times in the last two plus years. Breitbart is not a news source.
That is not what these articles suggest. The first one talks about how republicans actually did such a thing so that is why they worry it might happen to them in return. But the dems do not control both houses of congress like the republicans did back then anyway. This is an opinion piece that in no way, shape, or form suggests that democrats are currently trying to slow the economy into a recession to make Trump look bad.
The second article is fucking Breitbart. Come on, man. You don't really read Breitbart do you? All that article does is parrot exactly what Trump said....a man who has lied over 12,000 times in the last two plus years. Breitbart is not a news source.
Well if you had read what I said earlier that "I can't believe some of the shit I read sometimes" then you would understand the context for the Breitbart article and why it's there. This is the info that my right leaning friends run with.
There was another article that I can't find that discuses the dems taking down the economy, impeachment and how Pelosi is 3rd in command. Can't find that one now though...
I'm not sure how many of you have friends that lean one way or another politically but if you do then you get bombarded with some interesting facts/embellishes.
Doing criminal acts publicly doesn't make them legal. It'll save taxpayer money now that he's done it openly and it's 2 counts instead of 1 now for the article of impeachment.
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
Yeah, so much for all those glorious checks and balances that everyone thought would protect the country. They were always mentioned as though anyone thinking they wouldn't work out was being completely hysterical. (meanwhile, environmental protections continue to be absolutely decimated - no real checks and balances for the environment unfortunately. It's amazing to me how easy it is for a POTUS to walk them back by decades).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
Yeah, so much for all those glorious checks and balances that everyone thought would protect the country. They were always mentioned as though anyone thinking they wouldn't work out was being completely hysterical. (meanwhile, environmental protections continue to be absolutely decimated - no real checks and balances for the environment unfortunately. It's amazing to me how easy it is for a POTUS to walk them back by decades).
Not everyone.
I've never bought into it. And I mean, since learning about it in elementary school US government classes. I memorized the system enough to pass quizzes and whatnot, but it still never made any sense. The way I've always viewed it: Federal rules and doctrines were basically drafted to perpetuate a false narrative about the balance of power among not only the branches of US government but also between US citizens and their federal government. Mr. Guinan always grew weary when my hand shot up to question things like this, and eventually, he just ignored me. I mean, I understand why. He didn't have the answers. Dude was a teacher in Florida, No. 49 in education at the time, and had to deliver pizzas to supplement his salary.
Anyway, having said that, nothing about my country's doctrines (or most countries' doctrines that I've perused, for that matter) has ever made any sense to me.
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
Yeah, so much for all those glorious checks and balances that everyone thought would protect the country. They were always mentioned as though anyone thinking they wouldn't work out was being completely hysterical. (meanwhile, environmental protections continue to be absolutely decimated - no real checks and balances for the environment unfortunately. It's amazing to me how easy it is for a POTUS to walk them back by decades).
Not everyone.
I've never bought into it. And I mean, since learning about it in elementary school US government classes. I memorized the system enough to pass quizzes and whatnot, but it still never made any sense. The way I've always viewed it: Federal rules and doctrines were basically drafted to perpetuate a false narrative about the balance of power among not only the branches of US government but also between US citizens and their federal government. Mr. Guinan always grew weary when my hand shot up to question things like this, and eventually, he just ignored me. I mean, I understand why. He didn't have the answers. Dude was a teacher in Florida, No. 49 in education at the time, and had to deliver pizzas to supplement his salary.
Anyway, having said that, nothing about my country's doctrines (or most countries' doctrines that I've perused, for that matter) has ever made any sense to me.
You're right, not everyone. That was hyperbole. I didn't believe in them either, and some others here didn't, and obviously elsewhere. It was just a HUGE talking point in reaction to the extreme concern some of us were expressing when Trump was running, and then won, and then started getting worse and worse. SO many kept referring to these checks and balances in an attempt to diminish the deep concerns and fears that were being expressed. I guess that is one thing that is good with all this...... All of those who trusted in checks and balances will surely have learned a valuable lesson. Maybe even law makers will react to this lesson, and try to build some checks and balances that will actually work next time America elects an insane despotic moron.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,298
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
Yeah, so much for all those glorious checks and balances that everyone thought would protect the country. They were always mentioned as though anyone thinking they wouldn't work out was being completely hysterical. (meanwhile, environmental protections continue to be absolutely decimated - no real checks and balances for the environment unfortunately. It's amazing to me how easy it is for a POTUS to walk them back by decades).
Not everyone.
I've never bought into it. And I mean, since learning about it in elementary school US government classes. I memorized the system enough to pass quizzes and whatnot, but it still never made any sense. The way I've always viewed it: Federal rules and doctrines were basically drafted to perpetuate a false narrative about the balance of power among not only the branches of US government but also between US citizens and their federal government. Mr. Guinan always grew weary when my hand shot up to question things like this, and eventually, he just ignored me. I mean, I understand why. He didn't have the answers. Dude was a teacher in Florida, No. 49 in education at the time, and had to deliver pizzas to supplement his salary.
Anyway, having said that, nothing about my country's doctrines (or most countries' doctrines that I've perused, for that matter) has ever made any sense to me.
You're right, not everyone. That was hyperbole. I didn't believe in them either, and some others here didn't, and obviously elsewhere. It was just a HUGE talking point in reaction to the extreme concern some of us were expressing when Trump was running, and then won, and then started getting worse and worse. SO many kept referring to these checks and balances in an attempt to diminish the deep concerns and fears that were being expressed. I guess that is one thing that is good with all this...... All of those who trusted in checks and balances will surely have learned a valuable lesson. Maybe even law makers will react to this lesson, and try to build some checks and balances that will actually work next time America elects an insane despotic moron.
If they fail to abide by the subpoena then we’ll chalk that up as obstruction of justice when the articles are drafted.
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
Yep the whole system is corrupt..
jesus greets me looks just like me ....
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,298
2019
Goodness!
Trump's impeachment polling is historically unprecedented
(CNN)The poll numbers are in on impeachment, and it's not good news for President Donald Trump. A clear plurality of Americans approve of the House's impeachment inquiry into Trump, and they are split on whether they want to impeach and remove him from office.
Americans are more eager to impeach Trump now than they were at similar points in the impeachment sagas of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.
Impeachment actions usually start off as being unpopular with the American public. After the House voted to start an impeachment inquiry of Clinton in October 1998, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 45% approved and 53% disapproved.
When it comes to impeaching and removing Trump from office, the difference is even more dramatic. An average of polls taken since early last week shows that 46% support impeaching and removing Trump from office. That's about equal with the 45% who are against such an action.
Clinton vs. Trump
Back in October 1998, the vast majority of Americans were against impeaching and removing Clinton from office. In a CNN poll from then, only 31% favored impeaching and removing. The vast majority, 63%, were against it. This -32 point gap for impeaching and removing Clinton stands in contrast to the +1 gap for impeaching and removing Trump.
At no point during the impeachment proceedings against Clinton did anywhere close to a plurality of Americans want Clinton impeached and removed from office. Right now, you could argue that we're already at that point with Trump.
This, of course, is one of the key differences with the politics of impeachment now and 21 years ago. There is a belief that the impeachment inquiry hurt Republicans in the 1998 midterm elections. That may be true, but this polling suggests the situation with Clinton and Trump are very different. Impeaching Clinton was far less popular than impeaching Trump is today.
Nixon vs. Trump
More amazingly, more Americans are in favor of impeaching Trump now than they were at a similar time during the House's investigation of Nixon in 1973 and 1974.
The House Judiciary Committee voted to start an impeachment inquiry of Nixon in late October 1973. This was following the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, in which Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire an independent prosecutor looking into the Watergate scandal. A Gallup poll taken in the immediate aftermath found that just 38% felt that Nixon should be impeached and compelled to leave the presidency. The majority, 53%, said that he shouldn't.
Even after two dramatic events, the public was apprehensive about impeaching and removing Nixon.
Now, you could make the argument that the fairer comparison for Trump to Nixon is after the entire House formally voted to start the impeachment inquiry in February 1974. A Harris poll taken a few weeks later put support impeaching and removing Nixon at 43% and opposition at 41%. That gap is about equal to the gap we see today and only came months after the inquiry had really already began.
But even if you consider this later date, the 46% in favor of impeaching and removing Trump now is greater than the 43% who favored it during a similar point in the Nixon impeachment process. It wasn't until right before Nixon resigned that close to a majority wanted him out.
Some of the support for impeaching Trump and the impeachment inquiry against him may be because of polarization and dislike for the President. Trump's strongly disapprove rating has consistently been around 50%, and most of the people who disapprove of Trump are for some sort of impeachment action.
Polarization, however, is probably not the root cause of the polling we're seeing on a possible Trump impeachment. Politics were polarized during Barack Obama's administration, and not many wanted him impeached and removed. Only 33% of Americans wanted Obama impeached and removed in a July 2014 CNN poll. Most, 65%, didn't feel that way.
That split came even though Obama was about as a popular (42% approval rating) as Trump is today.
The bottom line: Americans think Trump did something wrong that, at a minimum, deserves to be looked into for possible impeachment. He is in historically unprecedented waters. The impeachment numbers he's facing now are really not good for him, given where we are in the process.
so if the WH doesn't comply with the house subpoenas, then it goes to the justice department to enforce. and we all know who runs that show. what a fucking joke this system is.
Yep the whole system is corrupt..
Let's not kid ourselves. Just like 2016, Trump is getting away with this.
Someone, Junior, Stone and/ or Manafort should have been indicted over the Russia thing.
Comments
The second article is fucking Breitbart. Come on, man. You don't really read Breitbart do you? All that article does is parrot exactly what Trump said....a man who has lied over 12,000 times in the last two plus years. Breitbart is not a news source.
www.headstonesband.com
Pence is up to his chest in it too.
There was another article that I can't find that discuses the dems taking down the economy, impeachment and how Pelosi is 3rd in command. Can't find that one now though...
I'm not sure how many of you have friends that lean one way or another politically but if you do then you get bombarded with some interesting facts/embellishes.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/ANWCkQQzQSFCP8EAX22e0vw
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/AXCI-z6K9Tv-rW4YgkEcYqg
Off into the dustbin of history you go. Don’t forget to leave your nuke at the door.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I've never bought into it. And I mean, since learning about it in elementary school US government classes. I memorized the system enough to pass quizzes and whatnot, but it still never made any sense. The way I've always viewed it: Federal rules and doctrines were basically drafted to perpetuate a false narrative about the balance of power among not only the branches of US government but also between US citizens and their federal government. Mr. Guinan always grew weary when my hand shot up to question things like this, and eventually, he just ignored me. I mean, I understand why. He didn't have the answers. Dude was a teacher in Florida, No. 49 in education at the time, and had to deliver pizzas to supplement his salary.
Anyway, having said that, nothing about my country's doctrines (or most countries' doctrines that I've perused, for that matter) has ever made any sense to me.
https://apple.news/ATH5Kbp3QTp65IIl8n2N28w
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Trump's impeachment polling is historically unprecedented
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics/trump-impeachment-polling/index.html(CNN)The poll numbers are in on impeachment, and it's not good news for President Donald Trump. A clear plurality of Americans approve of the House's impeachment inquiry into Trump, and they are split on whether they want to impeach and remove him from office.
Clinton vs. Trump
Nixon vs. Trump
Let's not kid ourselves. Just like 2016, Trump is getting away with this.
Someone, Junior, Stone and/ or Manafort should have been indicted over the Russia thing.
By doing nothing Mueller created a monster.
Thank you Mueller.
FU Mueller.