Donald Trump

1175317541756175817591969

Comments

  • 7 days & 2 hours.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom's Posts: 17,936
    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, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,600
    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.
  • 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: 28,600
    Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason
    Yes!!! Greatest analogy ever!
  • mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,408
    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: 28,600
    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's Posts: 17,936
    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, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,600
    And a quorum is 51 senators. The more cowardly ones can just stay at home.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    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. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,600
    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 Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    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. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,600
    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 up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,408
    edited January 2021
    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 Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    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. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,Greece Posts: 18,412
    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. Berlin 2022
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.

    I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    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: 28,600
    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 Philly Posts: 16,757
    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 Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    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. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,812
    edited January 2021
    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     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 9,195
    (R) Newhouse from WA votes yes.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,129
    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 Winnipeg Posts: 35,808
    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. 
    Darwinspeed, all. 

    Cheers,

    HFD




  • Jearlpam0925Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 16,757
    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's Posts: 17,936
    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, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 27,739
    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: 28,600
    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 Philly Posts: 16,757
    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: 28,600
    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. 
This discussion has been closed.