ikiT said:

https://instagram.com/p/B4XP4_lgETZ/embed/

mrussel1 said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

Hopefully the Dems get the messaging out.  I have a feeling that the open hearings will shift opinion enough to matter.

Trending in the right direction. If everything is “perfect,” why so much non-cooperation? The House needs the Chinese call transcripts as well as Team Trump Treason’s tax returns. What are they hiding?

https://apple.news/APrgBClXNTmmdWWzkeY4qLg

Definitely a good poll. However this is what the overall trend looks like:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I expressed concern about this when it first started to shift a week or so ago. I'm sure the dems saw the same thing and..... Voila--a vote and open hearings to follow soon. 

Perhaps they follow The Juggler on this forum for advice. 

They would be wise to do so, although I prefer when the Juggler is "to my left".  I'm no expert in this but I think they got a good bump from the start, and now it's starting to level so yes, it makes sense to make this public.  Testimony highlights on the nightly news and the Today show will have a strong effect on the numbers, I believe.  That is if the testimony is as compelling and damning as the reports out of committees have indicated thus far. 

Halifax2TheMax said:

pearljammr78 said:

Maybe Trump should get a note from the proctologist’s office because there is definitely something wrong with that asshole. 

Post of the week.

brianlux said:

pearljammr78 said:

Maybe Trump should get a note from the proctologist’s office because there is definitely something wrong with that asshole. 

LOL

Or as they say, "Assholes serve a very useful purpose.  He's a hemorrhoid." 

If you thought it was crazy before, the White House just had a month unlike anything we've ever seen

ikiT said:

Remember the Parkland "listening session" held at the White House from that same month? 

When he was done "listening", this is what Don Trump had to say.  No surprise, he RAN HIS MOUTH.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, too. And I will say, again, background checks are going to be very strong. We need that. And then after we do that, when we see there’s trouble, we have to nab them.

You know, years ago, we had mental hospitals -- mental institutions. We had a lot of them, and a lot of them have closed. They’ve closed. Some people thought it was a stigma. Some people thought, frankly, it was a -- the legislators thought it was too expensive.

Today, if you catch somebody, they don’t know what to do with them. He hasn’t committed the crime, but he may, very well. And there’s no mental institution, there’s no place to bring them. And we have that a lot. Even if they caught this person -- I’m being nice when I use the word “person” -- they probably wouldn’t have known what to do. They’re not going to put them in jail. And yet -- so there’s none of that middle ground of having that institution, where you had trained people that could handle it and do something about it and find out how sick he really is. Because he is a sick guy. And he should have been nabbed a number of times, frankly.

Your concept and your idea about -- it’s called concealed carry -- and it only works where you have people very adept at using firearms, of which you have many, and it would be teachers and coaches. If the coach had a firearm in his locker when he ran at this guy -- that coach was very brave. Saved a lot of lives, I suspect. But if he had a firearm, he wouldn’t have had to run; he would have shot and that would have been the end of it.

And this would only be, obviously, for people that are very adept at handling a gun. And it would be -- it’s called concealed carry, where a teacher would have a concealed gun on them. They’d go for special training. And they would be there, and you would no longer have a gun-free zone. A gun-free zone to a maniac -- because they’re all cowards -- a gun-free zone is, let’s go in and let’s attack, because bullets aren’t coming back at us.

And if you do this -- and a lot of people are talking about it, and it’s certainly a point that we’ll discuss -- but concealed carry for teachers and for people of talent -- of that type of talent. So let’s say you had 20 percent of your teaching force, because that’s pretty much the number -- and you said it -- an attack has lasted, on average, about three minutes. It takes five to eight minutes for responders, for the police, to come in. So the attack is over. If you had a teacher with -- who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly.

And the good thing about a suggestion like that -- and we’re going to be looking at it very strongly, and I think a lot of people are going to be opposed to it; I think a lot of people are going to like it -- but the good thing is that you’ll have a lot of people with that. You know, you can’t have a hundred security guards in Stoneman Douglas. That’s a big school. That’s a massive school with a lot of acreage to cover, a lot of floor area.

And so that would be, certainly, a situation that is being discussed a lot by a lot of people. You’d have a lot people that’d be armed. They’d be ready. They’re professionals. They may be Marines that left the Marines, left the Army, left the Air Force. And they’re very adept at doing that. You’d have a lot of them, and they’d be spread evenly throughout the school.

So the other thing -- I really believe that if these cowards knew that the school was well-guarded, from the standpoint of having, pretty much, professionals with great training, I think they wouldn’t go into the school to start off with. I think it could very well solve your problem.

So we’ll be doing the background checks. We’ll be doing a lot of different things. But we’ll certainly be looking at ideas like that.

You know, a lot of people don’t understand that airline pilots now, a lot of them carry guns. And I have to say that things have changed a lot. People aren’t attacking the way they would routinely attack. And maybe you have the same situation in schools.

So does anybody like that idea here? Does anybody like it? Right? Yes. For Meadow -- your beautiful Meadow. We talked about that.

And do people feel strongly against it? Anybody? Anybody? Strongly against it?

All right. I mean, I could -- look, we can understand both sides. And certainly, it’s controversial. But we’ll study that along with many other ideas.

Anybody else something to say? Yes, go ahead.

A never ending relentless fucking embarrassment, that apparently many people are numb to.  #ITMFA