The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

njnancy said:

josevolution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeu72fWuYk

Say what you will about Hillary, at least she can speak in complete sentences, has a firm grasp of law and policy and can speak of and to it intelligently and possesses intellectual curiosity as well as a sense of humor.

Yes she does , “China if your watching please release Donald Trumps taxes “ that’s the only time I’ll address him by his name to me he will always be an Orange Baffoon! 

I have always felt that, if she were a man and possessed the same qualities, she would have won in 2016 hands down. 

I vehemently disagree with this. I think her being a woman was one of the best things she had going for her. Made her different and unique to a degree. If you take away that, then she's just another Mitt Romney; someone with experience and a good resume...who is boring, robotic, and unlikeable. 

In my time of following Presidential elections, the "cooler" person has won every single time, experience and policy be damned:

1992: Clinton cooler than Bush Sr.
1996: Clinton cooler than Dole.
2000: Bush Jr. cooler than Gore
2004: Bush Jr. cooler than Kerry
2008: Obama cooler than McCain
2012: Obama cooler than Romney
2016: Trump cooler than Clinton

Right? McCain was a war hero and decades-long senator. That used to be what it took to be the president. But Obama was cooler. He plays basketball and hangs with Jay Z. Who cares if he was a one-term senator? Same with Trump. No experience, totally evil. But to some, his antics were entertaining enough to like him. And for some reason, people are passionate about voting for Trump. Concerning Hillary, I think a lot of her voters held the same view I did: "Well I guess I have to vote for her." Hardly someone many people were passionate about. 

In the end, Hillary, unlike her husband, just isn't a good politician. And remember there's a difference between "politician" and "civil servant." To politic is simply to persuade people, and in an election, it's to persuade people to like you. That's not in her wheelhouse. As a civil servant, she was fine as a senator and secretary of state. But a lot of times that doesn't win elections. That's why Trump, despite everything that's wrong with him, was successful. He's been selling himself for decades. 

excellent point. so sloppy joe doesn't stand a chance then. 

Joe's much cooler than Trump...

depends on the definition of cool. in this context, I would say Trump is entertaining at the very least, while joe puts me to sleep. 

He puts you  to sleep? Are you saying that because of Trump's dumb name or you really find him boring?

I've always found Biden to be a cool, calm and collected politician who's pretty funny and also not afraid to go toe to toe with a guy like Trump. SNL impersonations are always pretty spot on with these things and Sudiekis' Biden was nowhere near "sleepy." Kind of opposite, actually. 

I find "Sleepy Joe" to be pretty weak and inaccurate compared to "Corrupt Hillary" which, unfortunately was relatively accurate (though, obviously pales in comparison to Trump's own corruptness). 

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

njnancy said:

josevolution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeu72fWuYk

Say what you will about Hillary, at least she can speak in complete sentences, has a firm grasp of law and policy and can speak of and to it intelligently and possesses intellectual curiosity as well as a sense of humor.

Yes she does , “China if your watching please release Donald Trumps taxes “ that’s the only time I’ll address him by his name to me he will always be an Orange Baffoon! 

I have always felt that, if she were a man and possessed the same qualities, she would have won in 2016 hands down. 

I vehemently disagree with this. I think her being a woman was one of the best things she had going for her. Made her different and unique to a degree. If you take away that, then she's just another Mitt Romney; someone with experience and a good resume...who is boring, robotic, and unlikeable. 

In my time of following Presidential elections, the "cooler" person has won every single time, experience and policy be damned:

1992: Clinton cooler than Bush Sr.
1996: Clinton cooler than Dole.
2000: Bush Jr. cooler than Gore
2004: Bush Jr. cooler than Kerry
2008: Obama cooler than McCain
2012: Obama cooler than Romney
2016: Trump cooler than Clinton

Right? McCain was a war hero and decades-long senator. That used to be what it took to be the president. But Obama was cooler. He plays basketball and hangs with Jay Z. Who cares if he was a one-term senator? Same with Trump. No experience, totally evil. But to some, his antics were entertaining enough to like him. And for some reason, people are passionate about voting for Trump. Concerning Hillary, I think a lot of her voters held the same view I did: "Well I guess I have to vote for her." Hardly someone many people were passionate about. 

In the end, Hillary, unlike her husband, just isn't a good politician. And remember there's a difference between "politician" and "civil servant." To politic is simply to persuade people, and in an election, it's to persuade people to like you. That's not in her wheelhouse. As a civil servant, she was fine as a senator and secretary of state. But a lot of times that doesn't win elections. That's why Trump, despite everything that's wrong with him, was successful. He's been selling himself for decades. 

excellent point. so sloppy joe doesn't stand a chance then. 

Joe's much cooler than Trump...

depends on the definition of cool. in this context, I would say Trump is entertaining at the very least, while joe puts me to sleep. 

He puts you  to sleep? Are you saying that because of Trump's dumb name or you really find him boring?

I've always found Biden to be a cool, calm and collected politician who's pretty funny and also not afraid to go toe to toe with a guy like Trump. SNL impersonations are always pretty spot on with these things and Sudiekis' Biden was nowhere near "sleepy." Kind of opposite, actually. 

I find "Sleepy Joe" to be pretty weak and inaccurate compared to "Corrupt Hillary" which, unfortunately was relatively accurate (though, obviously pales in comparison to Trump's own corruptness). 

Meltdown99 said:

josevolution said:

Meltdown99 said:

He is going willingly.  But in the unlikely scenario that he does not go, I suspect there will be no shortage of police or military personnel that would gladly volunteer and uphold the constitution and haul his orange ass out of the WH kicking and screaming...

Some of you Americans might have the weed that causes paranoia... 

I grow my own not paranoia at all it’s very soothing great to just relax , I’ll be the 1st to admit my mistakes if this goes the way you think it will I wonder if you would come here and do the same if my scenario plays out ? 

First off I was only joking about the weed...please take no offence.  Please explain the highlighted.

I just believe the military and police personnel would do what they are sworn to uphold, and that is the US Constitution.  I also believe Trump lawyers will tell him to muzzle it and go quietly or risk spending life in jail...

josevolution said:

I hope for all our sakes I’m dead wrong ! 

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

josevolution said:

I hope for all our sakes I’m dead wrong ! 

Don't worry...you're dead wrong. While he'd definitively put a up a fuss if he lost and would be a terror during the transition period (remember the Bush Sr. to Clinton transition? It'd be the complete opposite of that). But this notion of him refusing to leave and being worried about that ("for our sakes" as you said), is just in your head...and the heads of others perhaps. It's a delusion. 

How about some bloodshed on the streets?  We've never seen the cultlike devotion to anyone else that we're seeing all.  I don't see Trump losing, but if he does, the next is going to be ugly...particularly if Trump asks his followers to do anything.

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

josevolution said:

I hope for all our sakes I’m dead wrong ! 

Don't worry...you're dead wrong. While he'd definitively put a up a fuss if he lost and would be a terror during the transition period (remember the Bush Sr. to Clinton transition? It'd be the complete opposite of that). But this notion of him refusing to leave and being worried about that ("for our sakes" as you said), is just in your head...and the heads of others perhaps. It's a delusion. 

How about some bloodshed on the streets?  We've never seen the cultlike devotion to anyone else that we're seeing all.  I don't see Trump losing, but if he does, the next is going to be ugly...particularly if Trump asks his followers to do anything.

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

josevolution said:

I hope for all our sakes I’m dead wrong ! 

Don't worry...you're dead wrong. While he'd definitively put a up a fuss if he lost and would be a terror during the transition period (remember the Bush Sr. to Clinton transition? It'd be the complete opposite of that). But this notion of him refusing to leave and being worried about that ("for our sakes" as you said), is just in your head...and the heads of others perhaps. It's a delusion. 

How about some bloodshed on the streets?  We've never seen the cultlike devotion to anyone else that we're seeing all.  I don't see Trump losing, but if he does, the next is going to be ugly...particularly if Trump asks his followers to do anything.

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

Many Trump supporters are actually swearing violence if Trump doesn't win

I'm calling bullshit... have anything real to back that up?

The Juggler said:

Thread integrity: the president's a criminal and needs to be impeached and/or formally charged when he leaves office:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/06/former-doj-prosecutors-trump-obstruction-1305776

Ex-DOJ prosecutors: Trump would have been charged with obstruction if he weren't president

Nearly 400 federal prosecutors on Monday said they believe President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if not for a longstanding Justice Department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president.

In a letter posted online, 370 Justice alumni with up to four decades of service with the department wrote that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report — a redacted version of which was publicly released last month — formed a case for obstruction against the president for which there is “overwhelming” evidence.

Mueller concluded his report in March after a nearly two-year investigation, and though his team found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian agents to interfere in the 2016 election, Mueller did not make a determination on whether Trump obstructed justice in the investigation.

Instead, Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, a move that has outraged congressional Democrats who have argued that Mueller left the matter up to Congress.

The attorneys said Monday that “the Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.”

“We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report,” they said, referring to a policy issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Last, the attorneys cite Trump’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators, citing his public and private statements to his former personal attorney Michael Cohen and his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort throughout the investigation.

“All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions,” they wrote.

They also argued that not only was there sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction, but also that it would not have been a close call.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they said, though they noted that, if charged, Trump would be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that “there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here.”

“But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience,” they continued.

Trump and his allies have simultaneously assailed and praised Mueller’s findings, calling the 400-plus-page report at once an exoneration and a one-sided prosecutorial document that is riddled with inaccuracies.

Trump’s personal lawyer took issue not just with the letter’s content but also the political stripes of its signers.

“I didn’t see a person there who’d be described as a Trump supporter,” Rudy Giuliani told POLITICO.

“I’m pretty sure that Jeff is a Democrat,” Giuliani said of his former colleague Jeffrey Harris, who worked with him in the Ronald Reagan Justice Department.

Of William Weld, another signer, he noted that the former Massachusetts governor and Reagan-era assistant U.S. attorney isn’t just running against Trump in 2020. He also “ran against him three years ago as a vice presidential candidate” for the libertarians.

Giuliani also pushed back against the idea that Trump could be charged for obstruction when there was no proof of an underlying crime.

“Could we argue like law school professors about whether there’s some theoretical possible attempt? Yeah,” he said. “But then you have to credit all the witnesses on one side but not the witnesses on the other side.”

“If it didn’t get laughed out of court, I think a jury would acquit in a half hour,” Giuliani added.

In the aftermath of the report’s release, tensions between the White House and Democratic members of Congress have erupted into a legal battle to have an unredacted version of the report and its underlying evidence made public. And Barr’s initial handling of Mueller’s findings have placed the attorney general and special counsel, who are friends and former colleagues, at odds with each other.