Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Donald Trump

1175317541756175817591815

Comments

  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 27,918
    7 days & 2 hours.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,632
    de Blasio was calling Trump a "criminal" on the news this morning.  I agree with that but it seemed odd for the Mayor of NYC to be stating that so boldly in a live interview.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    I'm not generally a fan of cancel culture, but this is delicious. 
    Agreed.. this is not a "mistake" like wearing black face in the 80s.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 23,667
    Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason
    Yes!!! Greatest analogy ever!
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,300
    de Blasio was calling Trump a "criminal" on the news this morning.  I agree with that but it seemed odd for the Mayor of NYC to be stating that so boldly in a live interview.
    he's not wrong. and its not just last Wednesday that says so....

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,632
    mickeyrat said:
    de Blasio was calling Trump a "criminal" on the news this morning.  I agree with that but it seemed odd for the Mayor of NYC to be stating that so boldly in a live interview.
    he's not wrong. and its not just last Wednesday that says so....

    But on live TV by a Mayor it seemed irresponsible.  I think tRump is a fucking criminal but it sure seems like the mayor might be setting himself up for a defamation suit if tRump is never convicted as a "criminal"
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    And a quorum is 51 senators. The more cowardly ones can just stay at home.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,449
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,449
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys
    it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

    FUCK EM. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys
    it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

    FUCK EM. 
    So the majority leader can refuse to seat any senator he wishes, for any reason?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 21,300
    edited January 13
    Senate was sworn in on the 3rd with the  house members for the 117th congress. so what are you talking about?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,449
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys
    it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

    FUCK EM. 
    So the majority leader can refuse to seat any senator he wishes, for any reason?
    sorry, no, that was incorrect. it's newly elected members only. but now I looked it up and the supreme court found any duly elected member cannot be refused to be seated unless they don't fit the specific requirements of age, citizenship or residency. 

    previously, article 1 section 5 of the constitution was interpreted as the house and senate could basically "self govern" as to the qualifications of their own members, and refuse to seat them for any reason. 

    i really wish these articles I read would get their shit straight. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,GreecePosts: 15,541
    DewieCox said:
    23scidoo said:
    mickeyrat said:
    you expect sone kind of answers from a 9 second video with no context?
    I wasn't talking about the video but general about what happend..
    We know what happened. It was live-streamed for Pete’s sake.
    Are you sure you know??
    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015.
    Prague Krakow Berlin 2018.
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 25,097
    Stay classy Trump:

    Trump was enraged that Pence was refusing to try to overturn the election. In a series of meetings, the president had pressed relentlessly, alternately cajoling and browbeating him. Finally, just before Pence headed to the Capitol to oversee the electoral vote count last Wednesday, Trump called the vice president’s residence to push one last time.

    “You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

    https://news.yahoo.com/pence-reached-limit-trump-wasnt-130817179.html

    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys
    it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

    FUCK EM. 
    So the majority leader can refuse to seat any senator he wishes, for any reason?
    sorry, no, that was incorrect. it's newly elected members only. but now I looked it up and the supreme court found any duly elected member cannot be refused to be seated unless they don't fit the specific requirements of age, citizenship or residency. 

    previously, article 1 section 5 of the constitution was interpreted as the house and senate could basically "self govern" as to the qualifications of their own members, and refuse to seat them for any reason. 

    i really wish these articles I read would get their shit straight. 
    Good clarification. 

    I still think that it can get done by some of the more 'vulnerable' senators sitting it out.   
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,549
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

    Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,449
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

    Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.
    i had to stop watching. it's all the same bluster and hoping for sound bites to be published by fox news. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 3,726
    edited January 13
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

    Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.
    i had to stop watching. it's all the same bluster and hoping for sound bites to be published by fox news. 
    I turned it off when they passed it on to the "Gentleman" from Florida Mr. Gaetz.  I just couldn't.

    Someone brought up Kathy Griffin's severed head joke. OK, we'll just give a pass to an insurrection.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 8,030
    (R) Newhouse from WA votes yes.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,693
    mrussel1 said:
    Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason
    Yes!!! Greatest analogy ever!
    yeah that was a travesty. love the slasher flicks. i bought the friday the 13th box set when it came out a few months ago. have been too busy to open it and watch any of them though...
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 26,449
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators
    correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 
    Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

    Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.
    i had to stop watching. it's all the same bluster and hoping for sound bites to be published by fox news. 
    I turned it off when they passed it on to the "Gentleman" from Florida Mr. Gaetz.  I just couldn't.

    Someone brought up Kathy Griffin's severed head joke. OK, we'll just give a pass to an insurrection.
    exactly. they are SO the same. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,549
    Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,632
    Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.
    Either Mitch is being a dick and led the Dems to think he would get behind conviction or he's doing them a favor and telling them he doesn't have enough votes to convict.
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 25,097
    Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.
    Either Mitch is being a dick and led the Dems to think he would get behind conviction or he's doing them a favor and telling them he doesn't have enough votes to convict.
    Or he's hoping more evidence will come out and it will become a slam dunk case.  
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.
    I think so too. He won't be removed from office but it's sort of like Mitch is punting. He was eager to start the last trial because he knew acquittal was assured. 
  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South PhillyPosts: 13,549
    mrussel1 said:
    Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.
    I think so too. He won't be removed from office but it's sort of like Mitch is punting. He was eager to start the last trial because he knew acquittal was assured. 
    Correct - wiping his hands clean, but this may also give the Republican Party the opportunity to take that route of no longer being the Party of Trump. Probably lets Inauguration Day speak for itself, too. If it turns into a Shit Show they can also point to that as an example of never letting him run for office again.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 21,514
    mrussel1 said:
    Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.
    I think so too. He won't be removed from office but it's sort of like Mitch is punting. He was eager to start the last trial because he knew acquittal was assured. 
    Correct - wiping his hands clean, but this may also give the Republican Party the opportunity to take that route of no longer being the Party of Trump. Probably lets Inauguration Day speak for itself, too. If it turns into a Shit Show they can also point to that as an example of never letting him run for office again.
    Yeah.  Let them come and unleash the guard. 
Sign In or Register to comment.