It goes to show a hypocrite knows no shame. They will use anyone and everyone regardless of their previous pronouncements or beliefs. As an example (and I've said this before), true Liberals (for the most part) are feminists, atheist/secular, green and "educated." Do you think that is the demographic of a male laborer from Mexico? No. Sorry but that's a fact. Yet, why the love affair? We know why. They are useful for the feudal patronage plantation. If the people from Mexico were white right-wing Christians then the wall would have been built by the Left LONG AGO.
Immigrants from Mexico are much more religious than the general US population and their attendance in evangelical churches is growing. They are reasonably open to what white, male, Christians like me are saying about God. The demographic predictions by those on the Left they use to justify open borders are not likely to come to pass.
I pooped without watching. I assume he said he was against pretty much everything the Dems are now doing. Is that close? I really can't stand listening to him.
Sen. Rand Paul: I know of no GOP Senators right now who will vote for impeachment; there is a good chance two Dems will vote against it
Obama appoints Biden point person for Ukraine Feb 2014. Hunter joins Board of Burisma April 2014. Nothing to see, right?
Obama appoints Biden point person for Ukraine Feb 2014. Hunter joins Board of Burisma April 2014. Nothing to see, right?
And let's remember that he was talking about an impeachment in which a jailable felony had been committed. Furthermore, it was a felony that had been investigated, and every statutory element of it was supported by overwhelming evidence. Say what you will about Kenneth Star. His case was thorough, and he did his job. It would have been sufficient to easily support a criminal conviction. What has really lost me on this impeachment (and I supported the inquiry) is the half-assed effort. Trump may have done something impeachable here. They were right to look into it. However, we can't know what actually happened unless the people with knowledge of the relevant facts are called to provide testimony, and nobody wants to call them. They certainly don't want them badly enough to show up to a friggin' hearing. Adam Schiff could have done it. Jerrold Nadler could have done it. Well, if you're not willing to do that, then I'm not going to go along with your impeachment. I'm not going to take it more seriously than the US House takes it. I've now read the impeachment articles. They're ********. First of all, there's no mention of bribery. What happened to that? Was it just smack talk? Second, Article I sounds really terrible, but it's based far too heavily on assumptions and second hand information. This is where testimony would help, but somebody would have to make an effort. The impeachers have the burden of proof, and you can't present a case that's sloppier than a Tijuana gas station men's room and expect it to be "good enough." Third, I read Article II. It is nonsense on its face. It's basically, "we're too lazy to walk a few blocks down to the federal courthouse, so he has to be impeached." Well, sorry guys. That's not a high crime or misdemeanor. If they had gotten court orders, and the evidence still wasn't turned over, then that would be a legitimate basis for impeachment. However, nobody gave a ****. They didn't even try. Impeachment is too important to take it so lightly.
I hope someone keeps an accounting of what new jobs and "other enticements" these 31 freshmen Dems got for their yes votes. Bernie Sanders got a new lakehouse for adopting the company line. Can these people do better than that? I am willing to bet one of them even said that, "Hey, my bro got a primo lakehouse for selling out ..."
Tulsi finally skipped leg day to address the I-word Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was pushing for an alternative to impeachment on the eve of a full member vote in the House of Representatives. The Hawaii Democrat remains undecided about the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, and introduced a resolution Tuesday calling for his censure instead, just ahead of a full House vote set for Wednesday .... Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduces censure resolution instead of impeachment
He would just say all hint of corruption has been debunked and that Trump knew it when he extorted the Ukraine President to announce an investigation solely for political purposes. And he wouldn't say it as nicely as I put it.
So what is this issue if Biden was clear as day? How can you impeach someone for believing in Santa Claus? Also ask what is the end to this effort? What is next after this fails?
If I'm following your question, then the issue would be clear to my cousin that Trump merely wanted an announcement that Biden was being investigated even though he "knew" Biden was innocent of wrong-doing.
Believe me, he doesn't care. He's just like my other friend who is convinced the timing of releasing the funds soon after Trump found out about the whistle-blower is evidence that he made a quid pro quo offer.
Here is what we are up against in terms of evidence: President Trump -- Maxine Waters Claims He Agreed to Lift Sanctions in Exchange for Putin's Election Help | National Review
Hahahaha, she admits she doesn’t have any facts then claims “there are too many facts”, what a dufuss. I still contend the whole affair is their attempt to damage enough they can win the election because they are so scared he will win. Heck they cannot pursue in court because of what all would be uncovered, crooks on both sides!
My cousin just posted that the Obama's were in Hawaii the same time he was. He said it felt good to be in the midst of such nice people who never have anything bad to say about anyone. Then the clincher: "That's why we're (Liberals) right and they are wrong (Evil monsters)." This is from a 69 year old man who wanted to slap the Catholic Covington teenager in the face. He's sick. That is why Maxine does not need evidence. Her constituency is so in need of emotional justification that they will believe anything that makes them feel good regardless of the evidence and attack the other side at will with the "that's been debunked" retort.
"Unfollow". Edit: I have a couple of liberal sisters-in-law who I unfollowed on Facebook. At occasional family get togethers they may ask if I saw X post on Facebook. "No, sorry, I guess I didn't see that." Yeah, because I don't follow those loons on there anymore.
It's so funny that liberals, I thought, are usually anti-establishment. However, they are allowing themselves to believe what the establishment media tells them about Trump, thus the hate and emotion reaction.
