Its how you know what worries them. And how you know you are dealing with profession PR shops/

 

Pretty sure even rear admiral butt nugget can go to the safe space if he wants.

 

Maybe we should amend the constitution to say that Republicans are forbidden to hold any elected office. How else can we stop the madness?

 

Sir you are going to be surprised to see who gets the most votes next presidential election . I expect a landslide Trump this time tulsi gabert is the only smart person Running on the Democrat side and the left hates her

 

@Sanity_is_Relative
All kidding aside I think there should be a short election cycle like maybe six weeks and there should be a limit on election spending. I also think the president should be chosen from the nation’s present or former governors as they held and are used to being in an executive position and dealing with a congress. I further think that they should have served in some capacity in the military as they are commander in chief of the military.

This will never happen as it violates god knows how many constitutional precepts but more importantly both major parties like the way things are done now.

This basically 2 year presidential election campaign should be grueling enough to get the best presidents but the last three presidential elections have demonstrated that is not the case.

 

Impeachment what a laugh . For what name one thing this guy has done wrong . .......
Go ahead knock this Battery off my shoulder, ahead I dare ya

 

@Sanity_is_Relative

I was talking about my kidding about abolishing the Republican Party via constitutional amendment.

I also seriously think that Election Day is the only day you can vote unless you are voting absentee.

 

Democracy dies in the NY Times. (And at RawSewage.com. And in just about all libturd news media as well.)


New York Times corrects story detailing misconduct claim against Brett Kavanaugh


9/16/19

The New York Times added a correction to a story that accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct to reveal a woman allegedly involved in the incident at a college dorm party doesn’t recall it.

The newspaper published the story online and in the Sunday Review section that claimed a Yale classmate, Max Stier, had seen Kavanaugh pull his pants down and friends pushed his penis into the hands of a female student.

In the story, the Times said Stier alerted the FBI and senators about the incident around the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, but the FBI didn’t investigate.

The article, adapted from a book on Kavanaugh by two Times reporters, went on to state that while Stier “declined to discuss it publicly,” the newspaper corroborated the story with two other officials who communicated with Stier.

In the correction, the newspaper said: “The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”

President Trump attacked the “LameStream Media” and the Democrats for the report and suggested the newspaper be sued.

“‘The New York Times walks back report on Kavanaugh assault claim.’@foxandfriends,” Trump said in the first of two tweets about the correction. “The one who is actually being assaulted is Justice Kavanaugh – Assaulted by lies and Fake News! This is all about the LameStream Media working with their partner, the Dems.”

In the other, Trump also referenced “Fox & Friends,” writing: “DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE WILL DO OR SAY. They are looking to destroy, and influence his opinions – but played the game badly. They should be sued!”

The Times article identified Stier as someone who “runs a nonprofit organization in Washington.”

But it did not mention that Stier worked on President Bill Clinton’s defense team during the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s that was run by independent counsel Ken Starr.

Kavanaugh worked for Starr at the time.

 

As much as I dislike Trump and disapprove of most of his policies I do not there should be efforts to impeach him unless he is convicted of a felony.

 

Actually, Shooter thinks despicables are waiting to see if Trump gets reelected.
If he doesn't, no need to impeach.
If he is, then watch; they'll come out guns a blazin to impeach Trump.

But, they won't have anything more to impeach him with in 2021 than they do right now.
Unless they manufacture something.
And given how low they've been willing to go to get Trump so far, Yeah, Shooter can see they would manufacture something.

 

Now look what they are trying now whith Cavanagh again.

 

Yes, and they should just let that sleazy chapter of despicable political dirty tricks just go quietly away.

Everytime they bring it up again we're reminded just how sleazy pelosi and her gang were.

 

'Feel free to leak this': Inside the Pelosi-Nadler impeachment schism


9/18/19

The longtime allies are increasingly in conflict over the push to oust President Donald Trump.

In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned lawmakers and aides with a swipe at Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi criticized the panel’s handling of impeachment in harsh terms, complaining committee aides have advanced the push for ousting President Donald Trump far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands. Democrats simply don’t have the votes on the floor to impeach Trump, Pelosi said.

“And you can feel free to leak this,” Pelosi added, according to multiple people in the room. Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the meeting.

It was the latest sign of the widening schism between Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies who are increasingly in conflict over where to guide the party at one of its most critical moments.

Both Pelosi and Nadler, who have served in the House together for more than 25 years, insist their relationship remains strong. But their rift over impeachment is getting harder and harder to paper over amid Democrats’ flailing messaging on the topic and a growing divide in the caucus.

Whether the two veteran lawmakers can get on the same page will determine whether the party avoids a rupture that threatens its chances of holding on to the House majority and beating Trump in 2020.

“I think the speaker wants to be careful of all the different members of the caucus,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a vocal impeachment advocate. “She doesn’t always want to use the word ‘impeachment’ but believe me, she signed off on every piece of what has been put forward.”

Yet the gap between Pelosi and Nadler has been on full display lately.

The Judiciary Committee held what it billed as its first “impeachment hearing” on Tuesday with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, whose outright refusal to answer questions only bolstered Democrats’ impeachment investigation, Nadler said.

But at the very same moment, Pelosi was stressing in a private meeting with moderate Democrats that the caucus would be cautious as it approaches whether to move forward on impeachment, according to multiple attendees.

“Nadler is talking about law, Pelosi is talking about politics,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, when asked about the divide between the two senior Democrats. “Nadler is looking at high crimes and misdemeanors, and we are inundated with them in the Judiciary Committee. But Pelosi is looking at the political side of it.”

Raskin, though, insisted the Pelosi-Nadler split isn’t hurting Democrats.

“I think it is fully, comprehensively representing the divergent opinion in the country what we need to do, and it’s too early to tell,” Raskin said. “Everyone wants to jump to the end, to say, ‘What’s the end of the story?' But we’re just in the middle of it.”

Nadler, one of the most aggressive impeachment backers among senior Democrats, has been careful not to clash directly with Pelosi since the start of his committee’s probe.

Yet the New York Democrat has ramped up his rhetoric over the summer, declaring that the House is in “formal impeachment proceedings” even as Pelosi has maintained her own careful message that the House is only weighing the possibility. At a news conference last week, she refused to even utter the “I-word.”

Nadler has made clear where he stands: Trump should be impeached. Now.

“Personally, I think the president ought to be impeached,” Nadler told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer on Monday in his strongest comments to date backing impeachment. But Nadler also acknowledged Democrats “cannot impeach the president against the will of the American people,” reiterating the point Pelosi has hammered again and again since she returned to the speakership in January.

A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday shows 37 percent of voters support beginning impeachment proceedings, while 50 percent oppose doing so; 12 percent are undecided.

Pelosi has also expressed skepticism with the notion of impeaching Trump in the House only for him to be acquitted in a Senate trial — and then surely claim exoneration on the campaign trail.

Several Democrats have speculated that Nadler’s hard line on impeachment is partly driven by concerns with his political standing on the left in his New York City district as he faces his toughest primary challenge in decades. Nadler has also come under intense pressure from Trump’s fiercest critics on the Judiciary Committee who have actively lobbied for impeachment for months.

Meanwhile, Nadler’s allies blame Pelosi for the messaging stumbles, pointing to a hard-to-read strategy that has irked liberals by refusing to definitively say if the House is in an impeachment inquiry.

--------------------------------

Translation: Nadless Nadler is afraid O-Co Loco (AOC) is gonna put him out of a job if he doesn't do her bidding.

 

@shootetsa
Actually I do support the electoral college but as an abstract where there are numbers and not votes that can be at the discretion of electors who can be willful. For example California will still have the most electoral college numbers and Wyoming the least. That seems fair given the state’s respective populations. But I think the popular vote across the entire country may lead to increased regionalism as the big cities will control more and more elections.
But of course what I want would require a constitutional amendment.

 

If Hilary had lost the popular vote and won by the electoral college system would there be all this outrage at the “undemocratic” electoral system? Or would those who now despise it then say well that’s our system to Trump supporters?

 

Well, ever notice whatever the outcome of the elections, the left bitches?

 

Actually, Hillary did lose the popular voteS. Everyone uses the term "the popular vote" as if we have "a" presidential election, which we don't. Every four years, 50 separate elections occur in the process of choosing a president. Trump won the popular vote in 30 of those 50. Hence "The United States" of America (a la "the tenth amendment". A perfect example of this is, while most states have a "winner take all" policy for awarding electors (the popular vote in the state), Maine and Nebraska.

Now THAT is "keeping it local". And they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

 

Where has maxine waters been ?