Funny how Obama will back some foreign leader, but not back up his own VP...

It isn't funny how you seem utterly clueless that if Biden were running for reelection of Canada, that endorsement would have been for him. How fucking stupid does that make you?

Joe Biden's actions are looking more and more selfish and self serving..

Only to the triggered rubes and gullible morons like yourself.

So, because it created an appearance of being wrong, it was the wrong thing to do..

OK.. Great.. We got that cleared up..

As I said.. You have NO FACTS to support your claim.

You are simply lying and everyone here knows it...

As usual, you are lying..

Nope, that’s what I remember your answer being! Feel free to repost your answer to my question to prove I am lying.

THAT'S how I know that you don't have any LEO experience beyond what you see on TV..

Funny, that was how I knew you had never been a LEO. You had NO idea how investigation’s into officer involved shootings worked and then claimed that the military did it differently when you shot that woman.

If Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, why is it necessary to swear that they will never do it again??

because it created the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. while technically not wrong, it damages public confidence.

Exactly!

because it created the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. while technically not wrong, it damages public confidence.

If Hunter Biden did nothing wrong and Joe Biden did nothing wrong, WHY did Joe Biden have to swear that, if Joe Biden is elected POTUS, Hunter Biden won't do it again??

If nothing wrong was done, then why swear off of it??

"WHY THE TWO ORDERS, COLONEL!!??? If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched and your orders are always followed, why would Santiago be in any danger?? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base??"
-Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

If Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, why is it necessary to swear that they will never do it again??

"LT Kendrick ordered the code red because THAT'S what you told LT Kendrick to do!!! And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!! You had Markensen sign the phony transfer request!! You coerced the doctor!!! COLONEL JESSUP!!! DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!!"
-Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

Whew!! I am pumped up!!! :D

Apparently, Democrats don't like hearing the facts...

SHOCKING.... :eyeroll:

You have absolutely NO FACTS to support that claim..

As usual, you are lying..

“Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

Pelosi wants all the COURT benefits of an impeachment without all the heavy lifting and work that a REAL impeachment requires..

The courts will stop that utter silliness when it starts ruling in Trump's favor on every question..

If Democrats don't have a REAL impeachment, then Executive Privilege will rule the day...

It's really that simple..

If Democrats want to prevail in court..

Hold an impeachment vote..

What are Democrats afraid of???

Losing???

That IS a realistic fear...

“Okay, one minute he’s talking about his son, then it’s George Washington then something about the 17?" Noah asked, wondering why Biden's response was so frenetic. "Joe Biden is the only candidate who remixes his speech while he’s giving it,” Noah said before imitating sounds of a record scratching.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-tears-into-joe-biden

These are DEMOCRATS who are saying Joe is going senile..

Great! So you did admit to me that you have never actually served as a LEO for a police department, but claimed you were an MP in the service.

Thanks for clarifying this for everyone! I am sure it feels good to get the truth out there, finally. Now when you post about recently fallen officers it will feel respectful, and not seem like a desperate attempt to make up for the stolen honor you were guilty of taking!

Obama endorses Justin Trudeau for reelection in Canada
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr-pres-obama-endorses-justin-trudeau-for-reelection

Poor Joe.. Always the bridesmaid...

He jumped to the defense of Trudeau for Truedeau's election and he jumped in the Israeli elections to support Netanyahu's opponent..

So, the **ONLY** logical reason NOT to jump in the US election and claim that Joe Biden did NOT go rogue is because that is EXACTLY what Biden did.. Go rogue..

I am guessing that Obama warned Biden not to extort the Ukrainians at the time because it would look bad, seeing that Biden's son just got a lucrative "job" that Hunter Biden had absolutely NO experience in and was paid $50K a month for access to VP Biden..

So, Obama is NOT going to help out Biden because Biden did EXACTLY what Obama told Biden **NOT** to do..

That's the only logical explanation that fits the facts..

Joe went rogue.. Obama is not going to bail Joe out..

End of conversation..

Don't blame me for that.. It's CW's words, not mine..

And yet, Obama refuses to step up and state this..

Why is that??

Because, obviously Joe Biden was serving himself and his son..

Don't take MY word for it..

The first is the absence of Barack Obama. He needs to get off the sidelines, plain and simple. Joe Biden didn't go rogue and pressure the Ukrainians on his own initiative, from all accounts, it was not only an official White House policy but it was in fact the same goal that most of Western Europe was had with the Ukrainian government. So Obama needs to state this now, in explicit terms. A simple tweet would be enough, at this point: "Vice President Biden did exactly what I told him to do in the Ukraine, and it had absolutely nothing to do with his son, period." This would be the strongest possible defense for Biden, which is why Obama really needs to jump into the fray, here. It is not showing favoritism in the primary race to defend what his own vice president did, after all.
-CW
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/27/ftp544/

Since Obama is NOT doing this, obviously Obama **CAN"T** say that Biden was serving policy..

So, you are 1000% factually NOT accurate in your claim...

Funny how Obama will back some foreign leader, but not back up his own VP...

Joe Biden's actions are looking more and more selfish and self serving..

And Biden's was WORSE, because he thru in a large helping of EXTORTION..

How is Trump’s refusal to keep the government running unless the Democrats gave him the funding he demanded for his wall any different than what Biden did? Every contract negotiation that has ever taken place has used quid pro quo at some time. Let’s face it, “quid pro quo” is typically referred to as “negotiating” except when done for illegal reasons.

What made Trump’s quid pro quo illegal is that he was using the power of his position to withhold government money until the Ukraine president agreed to do him a personal favor!

You refuse to admit that Biden was authorized to demand Ukraine get rid of their prosecutor that refused to fight the corruption plaguing that country before the US would provide them with the aid we had promised. Biden did not benefit personally from this...and if Hunter Biden’s business was doing something illegal, demanding a prosecutor that was tough on corruption was not doing Hunter any favors!

It is clear why you have to keep using this dishonest line of thinking...You know that Trump is a corrupt and compromised idiot who needs to be in jail.

Yea???

Do tell.. Let's see the quotes.. :D

OK.. So NOW the story is you can use foreign sources to dig up dirt on political opponents, as long as you are not part of the government when you do it.

Is THAT the current claim??

I have already answered this 3 or more times..

You have NO FACTS to back up anything you say...

Klobuchar has always come off to me as the most insincere candidate on the stage.

Could it be that you are not used to how certain midwesterners sound when they talk? The movie Fargo is a great reference, but it honestly just barely scratches the surface of how distinctive and pronounced their accents can be.

As someone who has lived all over this country (except the SW), we may all claim to be speaking English, but we aren’t speaking it in the same dialects. I have a pretty strong Southern drawl, and the kids on the Crow Reservation were always asking me what country I was from.

I find that most midwesterners sound insincere when they talk...and you wouldn’t believe how similar them speaking sincerely sounds to when they are openly mocking someone! More than once, the shocked look on my face made it clear that my friends had to assure me that they were not being serious with the outrageous things they had said. In time, the more you hear them speak, the easier it is to pick up the cues you need to decode their way of talking.

So I will ask you again....Didn’t you admit to me that you had never served as a LEO for any police department, but you claimed to have been a MP when you were in the service? Am I lying or am I stating the truth? Which is it!?!?

Will he ignore this, deflect, or just toss insults to avoid answering?

Or will he attempt to avoid this on a technicality? Since I am gay, my question is not technically “straight”, but that doesn’t prevent him from still replying with a “straight” answer.

Wrong again, with a generous helping of you should know better. Donald stated his motives explicitly, many times. Exerting pressure on a foreign nation is fine, but not for that purpose.

But you just said above that "hardball" foreign diplomacy is how things work..

"horse-trading in diplomacy has been par for the course since well before Obama was even born."

Your problem is you approve of it when the guy with the -D after his name does it but you don't like when the guy with the -R after his name does it..

So you assign nefarious motives to the guy with the -R and virtuous motives to the guy with the -D..

But if you take away the motives, what's left???

The ACT itself..

And the ACT is the same...

The ACT of quid pro quo is the same..

And Biden's was WORSE, because he thru in a large helping of EXTORTION..

I don't expect you to see it, let alone acknowledge it..

But the facts are still the facts..

And the fact is, both Biden & Trump engaged in "hard ball foreign" diplomacy...

Trump was simply more polite about it and left Zelensky with a smile...

Biden's was out and out extortion..

But, since we're wallowing in reality and facts here, it's a FACT that the "favor" that President Trump asked President Zelensky for was assistance on the 2016 Election investigation.. Something the Democrats care about at one time...

The ask to check up on Biden came at the end of the conversation as an after thought..

Now it's still a selfish "favor" as any info Zelensky would have would implicate Democrats, but it's undeniable that the 2016 investigation was the "favor" asked..

Irregardless of all those facts, the fact remains...

The ACT the both President Trump and VP Biden committed, the quid pro quo act was identical..

And, without any info from Obama, Biden's act looks as selfish... MORE selfish than Trump's act..

That's because Mayor Pete is listening. He knows that most folks favor an incremental approach. Particularly the 'never Trumpers' have a huge problem with huge program ideas. Incremental ideas take longer, but also last longer.

You brought back some smarts and doses of reality from yer class reunion... :D

Kewl...

I saw that... Won't help... It's either going to be Warren or Hillary as the Dem nominee.. :D

Maybe.. Maybe not.. The fact that Obama won't step up calls that into question.

But the point is irrelevant..

The ACTIONS are the same... The reasons why are not relevant to that point..

Now you can disapprove of WHY the actions were committed when Trump did it and not when Biden did it..

Fine.. That's a judgement call and one's ideological position figures into that judgement.

But you cannot deny that the actions themselves are identical..

Donald did what he felt like, for the interest of himself. what's abhorrent about it is not the methods he used, it's the ends he pursued and the absence of any evidence-based rationale for doing so.

That's spin but as I said.. It doesn't matter..

The ACTS are the same, vis a vis quid pro quo..

The reasons why may (or may not) be different but that's not relevant to the condemnation of the act..

horse-trading in diplomacy has been par for the course since well before Obama was even born.

Yes it has.. And that's all Biden and Trump each did... Horse trading..

Now you claim Biden's motives were pure.. If so, then Obama would step up and make that case.. Obama won't... For some reason..

Until Obama steps up and sets the record straight, Biden's motives appear to be as selfish as Trump's..

Of course you will disagree.. But that is reality..

Mayor Pete is simultaneously yelling that nothing has gotten done yet is supporting the "incremental approach"?

Which is it?

ALSO: the "incrementalists" have the exact same problem as the boldies - NOTHING get's done unless the GOP is defanged and disempowered.

Finally: Liz Warren is absolutely right that the 1% (wealthiest ppl and corps) have, little by little, through a million modifications to laws, tax codes, departments, etc., gained "control" of government. What is the incrementalist response to that?

Mayor Pete....falls back on classic centrist "let's not go too far".

That's because Mayor Pete is listening. He knows that most folks favor an incremental approach. Particularly the 'never Trumpers' have a huge problem with huge program ideas. Incremental ideas take longer, but also last longer.

JL

Far less effective, to me, were a couple of his responses which boiled down: "you all (especially EW) have a bunch of plans but I've been hearing plans my whole life and nothing get's fixed". Aspects of that are true, but the REASONS for that were left out, the implication being that HE, unlike all the others on the stage, would get stuff done. (He doesn't specify how.) He also said several times that plans candidates were presenting weren't good enough because stuff had to be done NOW!

To the first point - nothing get's done - my response is to lay 75% of responsibility on the Abusive Republican Party which has been hugely effective at making everything worse for the 99%; with 25% aimed at Dems who spent way too many years enabling GOP abuse, which included treating nonsensical "conservative" notions about the economy as having merit when they've been proven over and over to be fantasy.

Mayor Pete rightly points out how little positive progress has been made on many fronts, but not why/how. Liz Warren, meanwhile, identifies the mechanisms that have been used to create the conditions we're in and offers plans to tackle them. Mayor Pete, in response, falls back on classic centrist "let's not go too far".

His second point seemed totally garbled to me. The candidates were there to present/defend their plans and approaches to being potus. He was saying all their plans are useless coz the problems need addressing NOW - but then he offered nothing himself. Just what does he think candidates who aren't yet potus can/should do to handle problems now? What is HE doing to handle problems now?

IOW, he's big on blame but vague on solutions.

Mayor Pete is very verbally adept when he knows what he's trying to say, but he's not particularly good at framing the benefits of "centrism" - which is the lane he's trying to knock JB out of. No candidate frames "centrism" well because centrism isn't a position, it's a reaction to other positions.

Not long after the debate was over a tweet starting circulating of 3rd quarter funding (cash on hand) for the candidates - Bernie lead with $33million+; Liz was second with $25million+; I think Buttigieg was third with $15million+ and I forget the next few but Joe Biden had only $9million+. That shocked me.

Also post-debate was the announcement that AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ihlan Omar were going to endorse Bernie. Reaction to that was mixed, ranging from the "that will kick his candidacy into the stratosphere!" to "best thing that could have happened to E. Warren - separating her from AOC who is a lightening rod..."
We'll see what impact it has.

Turns out, betraying allies isn't the free and easy thing in the world that it is in Queens.

Apparently, it was when Obama did it..

Why is that??

So, there is hope, then?

And, by hope, I mean for the world, America, and, most importantly, America's global leadership role.

Yes, there is hope.. I have been known to be wrong.. On occasion.. :D

I've noticed that president Trump is always complaining about how America's allies and the rest of the world don't do their fair share to be part of the solution and always expect that America should do it all and foot the bill for it, too!

There is actually a point or two there in his constant whining.

The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what to do, much less how to do it, beyond the whining
and actually loosen the load that America carries. I know this because he is still whining.

The Democratic candidates for president will have to demonstrate how they will restore American leadership and address the existential challenges facing America in a complex and ever-changing world.

Getting all troops out of the Middle East is a non-serious proposition and evidence of a simplistic worldview that will not propel America to its rightful global leadership role.

Real American leadership is about sharing the burden and promoting democracy and democratic ideals to get the job done with everyone taking on their responsibilities, to themselves and to partners throughout the free world.

Good, because Trump's gotten Lindsay Graham's panties in a knot over this Syria thing.

Turns out, betraying allies isn't the free and easy thing in the world that it is in Queens.

So, there is hope, then?

And, by hope, I mean for the world, America, and, most importantly, America's global leadership role.

That's all right. The centrist-progressive wings will fight this out next march.

So, Democrats have to do as much damage to President Trump as possible before public opinion FORCES them to concede that they don't have anything impeachable.

Tactically sound... Ethically and morally repugnant, but tactically sound...

third, the president did what he did out in public, and even the white house is not denying the factual basis for the inquiry. to some extent it's a congress critter's responsibility to push back against an executive who blatantly ignores their rules and laws.

Of which THIS executive simply followed the rules and precedent that the previous executive established..

What President Trump did is so mild to be milquetoast compared to the blatant extortion and quid pro quo that Joe Biden CONFESSED to doing..

Now, I'll grant you that what Trump and Biden did is simply how diplomacy works.. How the sausage is made..

But one can't hold onto one's integrity if one simultaneously condemns President Trump and gives Joe Biden a pass...

If you want to condemn President Trump for his actions, fine.. Sausage making is ugly and you are on solid rational and logical ground..

If you want to give Joe Biden a pass... again.. Fine... It's simply how the world of diplomacy works.. Ugly, but it is what it is...

But to do both is the epitome, the textbook definition of hypocrisy...

I am not tired of being a realist..

We have the system we have, not the system we wish we had..

Barring a cataclysmic event such as First Contact or a giant asteroid impact..

It's not going to change...

It DID stop US forces from being involved in the war..

Something the Left *claims* they support..

At least they do when it's a Democrat who is pulling forces out of the relevant TOP..

That's my point..

The outrage at Trump's order -- bipartisan outrage, by the way -- is not a position for or against the war.

It is a position FOR US troops being involved in the war...

A position that the Left is all supportive of.. Except when it can be used as a new shiny to beat President Trump over the head with..

That's all that this is..

Democrats would be all supportive of pulling US troops out of a warzone..

If it wasn't President Trump who is doing it..

many reasons. firstly, and i agree with you on this point, this impeachment probably isn't intended to remove the president, just to damage his prospects of re-election. anyone who says they already know whether or not it will work to that end is selling something.

second, there's a much greater danger of retaliation against witnesses. not that i think "slut-shaming" is something that ought to be supported, but it's a touch lower in terms of danger to the witness than accusations of treason and spying. there's just too great a chance that someone who wants to "help" the president and believes in his framing of the issue will leak information that results in physical harm to a witness.

third, the president did what he did out in public, and even the white house is not denying the factual basis for the inquiry. to some extent it's a congress critter's responsibility to push back against an executive who blatantly ignores their rules and laws.

The war has been going on for about eight years. The outrage at Trump's order -- bipartisan outrage, by the way -- is not a position for or against the war.

Those troops represented a commitment, made it a real fact instead of empty words. As long as we had troops there, our sort-of-ally couldn't go in and massacre our other sort-of-ally. Pulling the troops out didn't stop a war. It started the Turkish invasion of Kurdish-held territory.

There are many on the anti-war left who favor withdrawing troops in various situations even when it's problematic. There's presumably some hypocrisy in their case. For most people who have objected to Trump's de-facto authorization of the Turkish invasion, no.

Fair enough.. My apologies for my error...

so if anything my statement is more optimistic than my actual opinion.

Which would be???....

I guess it's a moot question so I'll withdraw it..

It's clear that Democrats have forsaken all legislative efforts to concentrate solely and completely on their faux impeachment coup...

It's not in accordance with precedent or tradition..

Much like ya'all claimed McConnell's actions wasn't legit during the Garland issue..

:D

And, since it's not the main event, Democrats don't get impeachment privileges in the courts that they normally would have in a "real" impeachment..

Executive privilege trumps Democrat fishing expedition... :D

I'll ask again.. Why don't Democrats afford President Trump the same courtesies the the GOP afforded to Clinton??

Why are they hiding all the facts from the American people???

What are they afraid of???

I didn't acknowledge any such thing. I don't know whether it's possible now or not. But "last time" is commonly contrasted with "this time", so if anything my statement is more optimistic than my actual opinion.

Democrats won't have to worry about governing for the next 5 years at least..

After their faux impeachment coup debacle and them getting wiped off the map in 2020.. Democrats are going to have a LOT of time to get their act together.. :D

Mandatory buy back

Why don't you call it what it is??

Gun confiscation...

And, can you define what an "assault weapon" is??? Because when you look at the ACTUAL common sense definition it's any weapon you can use to assault someone..

So, a broom stick handle is an "assault weapon"..

NO ONE here can define the parameters of what weapons would be banned...

And you know why??

Because Democrats don't HAVE any parameters.. Democrats just want to pass WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that have NOTHING to do with stopping crowd based mass shootings..

The pounding on her was especially acute over her repeated refusal to say whether her Medicare-for-all plan would result in middle-class tax hikes. Asked directly by a moderator, Warren said, “Let me be clear,” then proceeded to obfuscate, duck and dodge until her time was up.

What IS it about Democrats that they can't give a straight answer to a straight question..???

The exchange was one of several that revealed what the polls have been showing: Biden is slowly sagging and likely faces more trouble over his son’s profiteering from Joe’s days as vice president.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/16/goodwin-democratic-rivals-make-it-clear-who-the-front-runner-is-at-latest-debate/

Unless Obama steps up, Joe B is toast...

For the record, an Open Dwelling call is treated as a home invasion.. Stealth approach to asses the situation. When the officer approached a window and saw a subject pointing a gun at him...

What SHOULD he have done??

Take a bullet because it MIGHT be a case of mistaken identity??

Like I said.. Your ignorance of LEO operations is only matched by your stupidity in thinking you actually have a clue..

And the cop, facing a threat to his OWN life **ALSO** did nothing wrong by firing first..

If what you claim is true, it was all a tragic mistake...

But the officer acted completely properly and according to procedure...

He is just unlucky that the subject happened to be black..

If she were white, none of you Dumbocrats would have said BOO about it.

So, whose the racist!??

Obviously ya'all... :eyeroll:

To show yerself how utterly ignorant you are, read Russ's excellent comment.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/10/14/what-to-look-for-in-the-fourth-democratic-debate/#comment-147218

Because you are so damned IGNORANT of LEO operations and procedures..

THAT'S how I know that you don't have any LEO experience beyond what you see on TV..

Not if the lighting was dim..

A threat? What happened to the 2nd amendment??? Your "right" to bear arms???

Do you think the 2nd Amendment protects you from brandishing charges???

According to reports, she drew her gun from her purse and aimed it at the perceived "threat" to her coming from her window.

If that's true, you just exonerated the officer..

Since even according to the body cam, the police never identified themselves as police.

Of course not.. They had an Open Dwelling call.. Which is much different than a Check The Welfare call..

If you have ANY experience in LEO operations beyond TV you would know that..

Futher discussion is pointless, as you just exonerated the officer.

He rationally felt in fear of his life so the shoot was a good shoot..

My own perceptions.....

Bernie came ou of the gate strong....maybe we should all get stents?

I thought Biden had a rather poor start, but he found his footing and had a good night overall.

Warren received the most barbs and handled them well.

The rest of the pack is stll the rest of the pack.

Too long! Way too long!

"You don't even have any experience, training or expertise in the field..."

How do you know what I have or don't have???

Hay! Maybe you can get on a board and get $50K a month like Hunter Biden did..

Oh wait.. Yer dad aint VP..

Or maybe you can do the same Michale, like Ivanka, Eric, Donald Jr. and Jared.

Oh wait, your dad or father in law ain't president.

Guess you are even more screwed. :-D

Poor Michale keeps getting his ass whipped!

"Hay JM...

Here's a question you can answer when you grow a pair and come back..

Liz, in his absence, if you want to take a swing at it..

Anyone else, feel free to chime in..

OK??? Good?? Here goes..

In YOUR world, can a white cop shoot a black person and it be justified??

What would such an incident look like to you??"

Yes of course, it happens all the time. Just like the opposite also happens all the time, when it is not justified.

I'm perfectly willing to answer in more detail when you finally grow a pair Michale, and tell me what circumstances would look like where you can admit that a white police officer killed a black suspect because of racism. What, exactly in your world view would that look like?

"JM screams RACISM!!! when there is not a single shred of evidence that the cop knew the race of the person.."

You would think you could tell that simply by looking at someone through their window, correct?

"The video doesn't make it clear... So it's entirely likely that the cop didn't know the race.. All he saw was a threat...

We DO know that there was a gun in the residence that ended up on the floor.. Was the subject holding it??"

A threat? What happened to the 2nd amendment??? Your "right" to bear arms???

According to reports, she drew her gun from her purse and aimed it at the perceived "threat" to her coming from her window. Since even according to the body cam, the police never identified themselves as police.

Even the police chief of Ft. Worth said it was her "right" to draw her gun inside her own home and that she did nothing wrong by doing so.

"But JM et al don't WANT the facts.. They just want to yell RACIST!!!! and lynch the cop..

And that pisses me off to no end.."

Michale is the one who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge anything, including facts.

His obstinate stubbornness and self righteous arrogance when he has been proven to be patently wrong pisses me off to no end.

By the way, the officer involved has not only now resigned but he has been charged with murder as well.

Good shoot my eye! You don't charge someone with murder for a good shoot, no matter how much you want to make the specious argument of political correctness run amok.

Yep.. A BIG mistake..

HUGE, in fact...

Was it? Do we have any reason to think that Trump Towers Istanbul won't be laundering payola from Erdo?an? It's not as though Trump cares about US interests.

I just think it's HILARIOUS that Weigantia has turned into the War Monger blog.. :D

The fought tooth and nail against Bush and his Iraq war..

Now the fight tooth and nail against President Trump FOR a Syria war..

Notice the common denominator?? :D

To me, that seems to emphasize the fact that he's so old as to have been in office the last time it was politically possible to ban assault weapons, about thirty years ago.

Oh SNAP... :D

Nice to see you acknowledge that, in the here and now, there can be no "assault" weapon ban.. :D

As if he doesn't have enough problems already, what with his At Death's Door campaign..

An endorsement from the Squad is the kiss of death..

She's always been more likely to actually be nominated. He's been seen as being in the race to push his policies.

On Syria, Biden called Trump's blunder ...

Was it? Do we have any reason to think that Trump Towers Istanbul won't be laundering payola from Erdo?an? It's not as though Trump cares about US interests.

Klobuchar launched broadside after broadside (and no, that's not some sort of pun) at Warren

Yes it is. It presents an image conflating a broadside (definition 3a, "all the guns on one side of a ship" or their simultaneous discharge) with a broadside (definition 1, "a sizable sheet of paper printed on one side" or the material printed thereon). Nothing further need be said about any other interpretation.

in the midst of one of these full-frontal attacks

That hyphen seems unfortunate.

Joe Biden ("I'm the only one who took on the N.R.A. and won

To me, that seems to emphasize the fact that he's so old as to have been in office the last time it was politically possible to ban assault weapons, about thirty years ago.

"Harris was doing OK with her answer on Syria, pointing out Trump had just given "10,000 ISIS fighters a get-out-of-jail-free card," but then she bizarrely stated to Trump: "Doo gotta go." Perhaps I heard this wrong? Maybe it was "you" gotta go? Or something? Did anyone else notice this, or was it just me?"

It sounded like: "Dude gotta go." to me.

Fine.. Then just get Barack Obama to come out and support your claim..

Because, absent of that, the facts clearly indicate you went rogue and helped your son earn an undeserved $50K a month...

Not so???

Where's Obama to say it's not so??

Threaten, cajole, wink, and nod—but do nothing of substance is the strategy. It may seem a silly trajectory, but what are the alternatives in a 3.5 percent unemployment economy—and possible “bombshells” coming from prosecutors William Barr, John Durham, or Michael Horowitz?

That's the key.. The floodgates are going to open and all this negative press about Demcorats is going to come out of hiding and be exposed to the light of public disclosure..

THAT is what is driving Pelosi and House Democrats..

The thought that all the Democrat malfeasance, corruption and outright incompetence is going to come out...

Would Democrats prefer to introduce in the House legislation to enact the Green New Deal? The wealth tax? Reparations? Health care for illegal aliens? Open borders? Abolish $1.6 trillion in student debt? Or sit back and see whether Andrew McCabe, James Comey, or James Clapper might get indicted in a month or so?

The aim, again, is not to offer an alternative agenda to Trump’s issues that for the most part poll far higher than what we have seen on the Democratic candidate debate stage. Trump, the man, is the only issue and thus all that is needed after the Mueller implosion is the proper excuse to smear and slander him again. Impeachment is just a construct to amplify the daily invective.

As I have said (and NO ONE has refuted) the Democrats have given up on ANY legislative agenda.. All their efforts are going to this faux impeachment coup..

Climate change?? Put it on the back burner..

Immigration reform?? Nope, no can do..

Health Care?? Can it..

Infrastructure?? Don't wanna hear it..

Democrats have TOTALLY discarded their entire legislative agenda for the next 5 years in their single-minded hatred of President Trump..

Democrats are destroying ANY possibility of gaining the Senate or holding onto the House..

The fact that President Trump will win re-election in a landslide is a foregone conclusion...

The total LOCK that Democrats had on all facets of government in 2009??

That's what it's gonna be for the GOP in 2021.... :D

After failing with the voting machine gambit, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, the emoluments clause, the McCabe-Rosenstein faux-coup, the Comey memos farce, the “resistance” efforts outlined by the New York Times anonymous op-ed writer, the campaign finance violations accusations, Stormy, tax returns, whistleblowers, leakers, the Mueller 22 months charade, and now impeachment 2.0, what exactly is the point of impeaching Trump just 13 months before the election?
https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/13/the-strategies-of-targeting-trump/

WOW.. Look at ALL those failures..

Voting machine gambit

Logan Act

25th Amendment

Wmoluments clause

McCabe-Rosenstein faux-coup

Comey memos farce

“Resistance” by New York Times anonymous op-ed writer

Campaign finance violations accusations

Stormy

Tax returns

Whistleblowers

Leakers

Mueller 22 months charade

All those failures..

No wonder Democrats are SOOOOO desperate to try a faux impeachment coup...

I mean, Democrats are ON RECORD as explicitly STATING that they have to impeach President Trump or else he will win re-election..

The funny thing is, the more Democrats hide behind closed doors, they more they try to prosecute this faux impeachment coup in secret, the stronger President Trump gets.. :D

According to National Review, the alleged error was uncovered by social media users who compared the supposed combat footage to a YouTube video of a Kentucky military show — and it appears to be identical. (National Review credited Gizmodo with first reporting on the alleged error and publishing the videos side by side for comparison.)
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/465726-false-combat-video-raises-many-questions-cautions-for-media

Funny how everyone here in Weigantia is afraid to address this Leftist MSM boo-boo.. :D

I mean, com'on people.. This is a media outlet that YA'ALL want every American to take at face value when it comes to attacking and denigrating President Trump..

Shirley, you see how completely un-trustworthy your propaganda media outlets are... :D

On the other hand, the general consensus around the 2016 election news-waves was that Donald Trump did not stand a hope in hell of being President.....

So...... :D

The refusals from top administration officials were unsurprising after the White House counsel's office sent a letter to top Democrats last week making clear that the administration would refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465973-white-house-pentagon-giuliani-reject-impeachment-subpoenas

So, let's take stock..

The Pentagon, the White House, Giuliani and VP Pence have all told Democrats to go pound sand.. To go frak themselves.. :D

Since this is a faux impeachment, executive privilege wins the day.. :D

Hold the vote, Nancy... That is the ONLY way you are going to see ANY documents and interview ANY relevant witnesses... :D

Democrats are seeing their Nov 2020 hopes being flushed down the toilet... :D

the impeachment inquiry happens prior to the drafting of articles of impeachment, much less representatives voting on them. but just like a criminal investigation is part of the process of prosecuting a crime, an impeachment inquiry is part of impeaching a president. technically donald isn't being impeached yet,

OK, so when I say this is a "faux impeachment", I am being factually accurate..

Kewl.. :D

but the process has begun, and is constitutionally mandated.

And at this point in the Clinton impeachment, the process by the GOP was open and transparent and the GOP afforded President Clinton every courtesy of having his representatives present each and every step of the way..

Funny how Democrats are afraid to afford that same courtesy to President Trump..

Why are Democrats so afraid??

i agree with the article you cited that donald's removal by conviction in the senate is most definitely not nancy pelosi's endgame.

Yep.. Pelosi is simply trying to stack the deck for the 2020 election. Dems have already conceded that they can't win in a straight campaign...

So, Pelosi is trying to cheat...

Typical Democrats....

It's clear that, overall, President Trump was the debate's winner.. :D

It's funny how, when Democrats get together (whether it be for a debate or a faux impeachment) President Trump always wins.. :D

But one prediction is pretty much confirmed.. Elizabeth Warren is going to be the nominee..

Which means President Trump wins re-election by a landslide... :D

The only person that President Trump could beat MORE than EW is Chairman Mao... :D

Elizabeth is looking pretty good at the moment.

Once I started typing, I just couldn't stop. As Kurt Vonnegut would say: "So it goes."

-CW