AGHouston11 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

---

Nope. Pretty sure they're after you.

---

Keep thinking that!

The democrats never accepted the presidency and many even refused to go to the inauguration.

It's on now.

---

Correct. It is why all the pretenses at gravity and solemnity are futile. They planned this from inauguration. And that poster is completely correct about swampers. The UK just threw out their own equivalents of such leaders.

Rapier108 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

---

Nope. Pretty sure they're after you.

---

We all know what your side thinks of conservatives and what they would do with absolute power.

---

You do? Then please tell us.

Trump is going to end the Dems with this. I'm reminded of a quote (I think from the Right stuff). How do you screw a pooch that can't be screwed?

He's playing 4D chess and Pelosi is playing chutes and ladders

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

"Cocaine" Mitch "War Turtle" McConnell is ready to lay down the hammer tomorrow morning.

---

Mitch better start worrying about finding a secure bolt-hole.

---

You're worried. Good. Good.

4stringAg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

---

Interesting. I'm wondering if she actually has that choice. Isn't the schedule for trial entirely up to the Senate?

---

She has to appoint the House managers who will present the case to the Senate. She hasn't named them and can take her time.

Politically the country is tired of this **** so she's taking a risk to string this out and Trump and Republicans will be howling that this is the equivalent of being indicted and not allowed to defend yourself in court.

---

She's hosed either way

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

The unbiased press.... example #85,603.

NSIAP

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

---

It's a great political strategy.

I'm not saying it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, but it's an effective message to continue to solidify his base.


Also, spare me the ridiculous notion that he's "inciting hate". Dems have lied and incited hate against Trump for 3 years.

Who really gives a **** at this point. This is nasty politics at this point. It doesn't matter who started it. It only matters who wins.

Very solemnity. So much somber.

Patentmike said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

---

Interesting. I'm wondering if she actually has that choice. Isn't the schedule for trial entirely up to the Senate?

---

She has to appoint the House managers who will present the case to the Senate. She hasn't named them and can take her time.

Politically the country is tired of this **** so she's taking a risk to string this out and Trump and Republicans will be howling that this is the equivalent of being indicted and not allowed to defend yourself in court.

---

Umm, not constitutionally she doesn't. If the Senate says "trial starts on X date", it may well be that's the date whether Pelosi is ready or not.

---

Watching Fox News now and one of their experts is basically saying the ball is in Pelosi's court to send the articles, appoint the House Managers, etc. saying that she can withhold the articles as long as she wants. That McConnell can't do anything other than work on possible rules and procedures in the Senate until he gets the articles. Essentially saying Pelosi still has the power here until the articles leave the House and can use the media to portray a non-impartial Senate as the reason for holding them up.

So, guess it remains to be seen what happens. This is largely uncharted water in our times. Sad and pathetic really.

So much for solemn

tsuag10 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

---

It's a great political strategy.

I'm not saying it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, but it's an effective message to continue to solidify his base.


Also, spare me the ridiculous notion that he's "inciting hate". Dems have lied and incited hate against Trump for 3 years.

Who really gives a **** at this point. This is nasty politics at this point. It doesn't matter who started it. It only matters who wins.

---

That's kind of where it stands now. Maybe Trump's tenure can take out the radicals political and press alike and after that is all cleaned out, then his work will be done. Then more centrist elected in their stead and can have some return to bipartisanship. Same for press forced to reform by total negation. Yellow journalism of the 1890's did end for a good long while -- so there is hope

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

---

Not very bright are you? Inciting hate? Really, from a supporter of the biggest hate group in the US? Pot meet kettle...

ETA: the WaPO reporter who posted the picture of them celebrating impeachment seems to have deleted the tweet.

4stringAg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

---

Interesting. I'm wondering if she actually has that choice. Isn't the schedule for trial entirely up to the Senate?

---

She has to appoint the House managers who will present the case to the Senate. She hasn't named them and can take her time.

Politically the country is tired of this **** so she's taking a risk to string this out and Trump and Republicans will be howling that this is the equivalent of being indicted and not allowed to defend yourself in court.

---

Umm, not constitutionally she doesn't. If the Senate says "trial starts on X date", it may well be that's the date whether Pelosi is ready or not.

---

Watching Fox News now and one of their experts is basically saying the ball is in Pelosi's court to send the articles, appoint the House Managers, etc. saying that she can withhold the articles as long as she wants. That McConnell can't do anything other than work on possible rules and procedures in the Senate until he gets the articles. Essentially saying Pelosi still has the power here until the articles leave the House and can use the media to portray a non-impartial Senate as the reason for holding them up.

So, guess it remains to be seen what happens. This is largely uncharted water in our times. Sad and pathetic really.

---

So is the contention that the House IS impartial?

captkirk said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Patentmike said:

---

TacosaurusRex said:

---

---

Interesting. I'm wondering if she actually has that choice. Isn't the schedule for trial entirely up to the Senate?

---

She has to appoint the House managers who will present the case to the Senate. She hasn't named them and can take her time.

Politically the country is tired of this **** so she's taking a risk to string this out and Trump and Republicans will be howling that this is the equivalent of being indicted and not allowed to defend yourself in court.

---

Umm, not constitutionally she doesn't. If the Senate says "trial starts on X date", it may well be that's the date whether Pelosi is ready or not.

---

Watching Fox News now and one of their experts is basically saying the ball is in Pelosi's court to send the articles, appoint the House Managers, etc. saying that she can withhold the articles as long as she wants. That McConnell can't do anything other than work on possible rules and procedures in the Senate until he gets the articles. Essentially saying Pelosi still has the power here until the articles leave the House and can use the media to portray a non-impartial Senate as the reason for holding them up.

So, guess it remains to be seen what happens. This is largely uncharted water in our times. Sad and pathetic really.

---

So is the contention that the House IS impartial?

---

Lol. Pelosi and Schiff think they are. It's a complete joke. The minute the Senate started being discussed, you already had the media, Schumer, and House Dems crying "biased!!"

MetoliusAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

agsfan said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

---

Nope. Pretty sure they're after you.

---

We all know what your side thinks of conservatives and what they would do with absolute power.

---

You do? Then please tell us.

---

You already have, endlessly!

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

"Cocaine" Mitch "War Turtle" McConnell is ready to lay down the hammer tomorrow morning.

---

Mitch better start worrying about finding a secure bolt-hole.

---

Threatening the Senate Majority leader?Go troll on some other forum. I think you might fit in better with the General Board.

tsuag10 said:

---

---

Which will prove what we all know that this impeachment wasn't over serious Republic threatening matters but all a campaign tool.

Stlkofta said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

---

One would think a true libertarian such as yourself would tire of authoritarian employment of evidence tampering and fraudulent intelligence-gathering against American citizens in pursuit of a duly-elected POTUS.

But as you routinely apologize for the abuses of power detailed in the Horowitz Report, regularly defend the veracity of the Steele Dossier, and even claim Joe Biden was completely justified in using American tax dollars to buy his son and his employer out of legal trouble, the term "statist" would better apply both to your mindset and the totalitarian paradigm of those you truly support.

---

There's a board upside Gary's head but I don't think he has enough brains to be concussed.

aTm2004 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

"Cocaine" Mitch "War Turtle" McConnell is ready to lay down the hammer tomorrow morning.

---

Mitch better start worrying about finding a secure bolt-hole.

---

You're worried. Good. Good.

---

Yes. Soooo worried.

This terrorist **** better watch out. She can go to hell. Vote this ***** out.

MetoliusAg said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

"Cocaine" Mitch "War Turtle" McConnell is ready to lay down the hammer tomorrow morning.

---

Mitch better start worrying about finding a secure bolt-hole.

---

You're worried. Good. Good.

---

Yes. Soooo worried.

---

He's your president till 2024 dude you're gonna have a tough five years.

aggieforester05 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Good political strategy here. He did it tonight at the rally when he kept saying "They want to get rid of 'US'."

---

Him lying and inciting hate is "good political strategy" ? Don't think so.

---

Not very bright are you? Inciting hate? Really, from a supporter of the biggest hate group in the US? Pot meet kettle...

---

^
|
A Deep State Truther.

Quote:

---

abusing public office for corrupt personal gain

---

Zero evidence this occurred

Gary Johnson said:

---

Been reading Hayek and Mises.

Still can't find the chapter where they advocate abusing public office for corrupt personal gain.

This is not an ideological question Rs, D's, or Ls disagree on, everybody agrees it would be wrong. It's a matter of fact and partisanship coloring beliefs about if it happened or not.

---

They don't.

But in defending Comey, Brennan, Biden, and their leftist associates, you most certainly are advocating Orwellian bureaucracy, Stalinist surveillance, and Boss Tweed-style abuse of office for corrupt gain.

Do you believe Rothbard would be as impressed as you are with the behavior of the DoJ/FBI towards an opposition political party and their candidate for office?

Do you really think Hayek would pine, as you do, for the use of a phony dossier to overturn a legal election result?

Do you actually think the likes of Friedman and Van Der Rohe would endorse the use of taxpayer dollars to spring the corrupt son of a corrupt official from the consequences of his association with an utterly-corrupt corporation?