RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:He’s just setting the narrative for the election. The chances of getting impeached are practically zero so the victimhood agenda is all for his core vote.

For the live of sanity, let’s hope that the Democrats can field a candidate this year with some genuine appeal and some policies.

Tbh, I don't think it would make a difference if Jesus Christ was running for the Dems. Look at what has just happened here. We have overwhelmingly elected a known racist, misogynist, proven liar who can barely string coherent sentences together with a manifesto along the lines of make Britain great again! With no subtle hiding of racist rhetoric.

I can see Trump getting reelected. It's only long term when jobs, environment and the economy start to backfire that people will see that it had nothing to do with a wall or Muslims. By then Trump will be long gone.

Same for us. The NHS is going to continue to be sold off. Austerity will continue, many will be forced into poverty and/or homelessness whilst the divide continues to grow. Then when many new Tory voters realise things aren't that much better, they'll probably demand another referendum [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

gransoporro wrote:A couple of technicalities:
Trump is now impeached;
The Senate will decide if he will be removed from office.

The chances of the latter are currently slim to none. Things may change since the republican majority is 53-47, with Romney, Murkowski and Collins being probable swing votes when it comes to decide to call witnesses or not. But as it stands now, they are not breaking party lines.

Even if those 3 vote against Trump, it's still nowhere near a 2/3 majority. It will take an extremely unlikely epiphany of a biblical nature for enough republicans to develop a conscience. It just isn't going to happen.

The only hope is there is some pee pee tapes out there but even then, I'm sure many would still back Trump.

The only crumb of comfort is that some 'safe' GOP senators could lose their seat down the line, but that is unlikely to occur before Trump leaves.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:He’s just setting the narrative for the election. The chances of getting impeached are practically zero so the victimhood agenda is all for his core vote.

For the live of sanity, let’s hope that the Democrats can field a candidate this year with some genuine appeal and some policies.

Tbh, I don't think it would make a difference if Jesus Christ was running for the Dems. Look at what has just happened here. We have overwhelmingly elected a known racist, misogynist, proven liar who can barely string coherent sentences together with a manifesto along the lines of make Britain great again! With no subtle hiding of racist rhetoric.

I can see Trump getting reelected. It's only long term when jobs, environment and the economy start to backfire that people will see that it had nothing to do with a wall or Muslims. By then Trump will be long gone.

Same for us. The NHS is going to continue to be sold off. Austerity will continue, many will be forced into poverty and/or homelessness whilst the divide continues to grow. Then when many new Tory voters realise things aren't that much better, they'll probably demand another referendum [emoji16]

Any problems caused by Brexit will be blamed on the EU. Ditto problems caused by the US trade deal. The NHS will strain under significantly increased drug costs and the current model will be considered "not fit for purpose". A 21st Century model for the NHS will be unveiled and privatisation will accelerate. A two-tier system will begin to emerge with the best treatments only available via subscription.

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:

Is it me or is Melania's signature eerily similar to the Don's? [emoji848]

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Donnel takes cair if all ze bis-iness ting.


Word is that Donald is extremely prod of his big boy letter.

WaspInWales wrote:

gransoporro wrote:A couple of technicalities:
Trump is now impeached;
The Senate will decide if he will be removed from office.

The chances of the latter are currently slim to none. Things may change since the republican majority is 53-47, with Romney, Murkowski and Collins being probable swing votes when it comes to decide to call witnesses or not. But as it stands now, they are not breaking party lines.

Even if those 3 vote against Trump, it's still nowhere near a 2/3 majority. It will take an extremely unlikely epiphany of a biblical nature for enough republicans to develop a conscience. It just isn't going to happen.

The only hope is there is some pee pee tapes out there but even then, I'm sure many would still back Trump.

The only crumb of comfort is that some 'safe' GOP senators could lose their seat down the line, but that is unlikely to occur before Trump leaves.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

If they can call witnesses, we should hear from Perry, Pompeo, Mulvaney. And that may (MAY) break the dam.

morepork wrote:Word is that Donald is extremely prod of his big boy letter.

With his attention span, there's no way he wrote that.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:Word is that Donald is extremely prod of his big boy letter.

With his attention span, there's no way he wrote that.

Adolf Eichmann, sorry, Stephen Miller probably cleaned it up while Jared stood nearby staring out of a window wearing a shirt and jacket but in his underpants.

gransoporro wrote:If they can call witnesses, we should hear from Perry, Pompeo, Mulvaney. And that may (MAY) break the dam.

I'm sure they can call witnesses, but can they be blocked from appearing? Either by a senate vote or the WH?


Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Nothing can go further if Pelosi etc keeps stalling sending the impeachment "paperwork" to the senate. She is not supposed to be holding on to it so we will see how it finally pans out. I hope it goes to trial, but would like to see Durhams report as well. Crazy shit slinging to come Id imagine.

cashead wrote:Just so we're clear, you know this impeachment trial will probably not result in Trump's removal from office, right? The Republicans have outright said they'll do their best to interfere with the process.

I think the Dems are well aware anyway, but yeah, let's not get too excited.

Also, lol Graham, you hypocritical shitcunt.

Almost certainly not, but inaction would a depresssing statement of the failure of oft referenced checks and balances. It’s a shit show but one that must be documented.

Coco wrote:Nothing can go further if Pelosi etc keeps stalling sending the impeachment "paperwork" to the senate. She is not supposed to be holding on to it so we will see how it finally pans out. I hope it goes to trial, but would like to see Durhams report as well. Crazy shit slinging to come Id imagine.

Why is the orange man so reluctant to stand his ground in a public forum?

Coco wrote:Nothing can go further if Pelosi etc keeps stalling sending the impeachment "paperwork" to the senate. She is not supposed to be holding on to it so we will see how it finally pans out. I hope it goes to trial, but would like to see Durhams report as well. Crazy shit slinging to come Id imagine.

According to Barr it will have to wait a few more months.

Since my expectations of Barr went so low after his appointment, I can speculate 2 possibilities:
- Durham needs more time to find something that can be used for spin because there is nothing much there
- Durham found something, but they are waiting for a time when the presidential campaign is in full swing for maximum effect

gransoporro wrote:

Coco wrote:Nothing can go further if Pelosi etc keeps stalling sending the impeachment "paperwork" to the senate. She is not supposed to be holding on to it so we will see how it finally pans out. I hope it goes to trial, but would like to see Durhams report as well. Crazy shit slinging to come Id imagine.

According to Barr it will have to wait a few more months.

Since my expectations of Barr went so low after his appointment, I can speculate 2 possibilities:
- Durham needs more time to find something that can be used for spin because there is nothing much there
- Durham found something, but they are waiting for a time when the presidential campaign is in full swing for maximum effect

I have a feeling Durham found something because Barr has insinuated a few things but who knows... nothing is surprising me. I think they are holding off until closer to the election as you said.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:Nothing can go further if Pelosi etc keeps stalling sending the impeachment "paperwork" to the senate. She is not supposed to be holding on to it so we will see how it finally pans out. I hope it goes to trial, but would like to see Durhams report as well. Crazy shit slinging to come Id imagine.

Why is the orange man so reluctant to stand his ground in a public forum?

My guess would be that his handlers have advised him not to.

So here’s another cool new entry in the fake news/social media war.

Taking people out of context is certainly nothing new, but there’s something particularly jarring about this example. Knowing that many, many people will see this and have it further cement their opinions is just a bit sad. And the “hypocrisy” is all reinforced by black people generally being a bit uppity about lynchings for some reason.

Coco wrote:

gransoporro wrote:

Coco wrote:Nothing can go further if Pelosi etc keeps stalling sending the impeachment "paperwork" to the senate. She is not supposed to be holding on to it so we will see how it finally pans out. I hope it goes to trial, but would like to see Durhams report as well. Crazy shit slinging to come Id imagine.

According to Barr it will have to wait a few more months.

Since my expectations of Barr went so low after his appointment, I can speculate 2 possibilities:
- Durham needs more time to find something that can be used for spin because there is nothing much there
- Durham found something, but they are waiting for a time when the presidential campaign is in full swing for maximum effect

I have a feeling Durham found something because Barr has insinuated a few things but who knows... nothing is surprising me. I think they are holding off until closer to the election as you said.

If they've found something do you think they've not told Trump given Trump essentially vomits weird theories or newly learned facts he thinks make him look good? The Solipsistic Presidency and all that

All seems rather weird to me given the FBI were for various reasons looking at both candidates or people connected to them and actually released commentary on Clinton that damaged her campaign, and yet here we are with the winning candidate crying (whining) foul, and doing so when he and others have clearly broken the law.

Sounds like Mulvaney is gone as Chief of Staff, whether he's leaving OMB too I've not heard anything about, but I assume you wouldn't hang around after such a demotion. Whether it's Pat Cipollone coming in isn't known, at least not to the wider comment, but as the WH Counsel he's been working hard to oust Mulvaney so he can take the spot, there are though rumours about Mark Meadows, Meadows has been avidly pro Trump whilst in Congress, and in unconnected news has just announced he will be standing down from Congress

“Take your religion and take your guns”.

The fucked up side of ‘murruca in a nutshell courtesy of the dumbest cunt in all of Christendom.

Digby wrote:

Coco wrote:

gransoporro wrote:
According to Barr it will have to wait a few more months.

Since my expectations of Barr went so low after his appointment, I can speculate 2 possibilities:
- Durham needs more time to find something that can be used for spin because there is nothing much there
- Durham found something, but they are waiting for a time when the presidential campaign is in full swing for maximum effect

I have a feeling Durham found something because Barr has insinuated a few things but who knows... nothing is surprising me. I think they are holding off until closer to the election as you said.

If they've found something do you think they've not told Trump given Trump essentially vomits weird theories or newly learned facts he thinks make him look good? The Solipsistic Presidency and all that

All seems rather weird to me given the FBI were for various reasons looking at both candidates or people connected to them and actually released commentary on Clinton that damaged her campaign, and yet here we are with the winning candidate crying (whining) foul, and doing so when he and others have clearly broken the law.

Wait for it... I suspect more to come.

Coco wrote:

Digby wrote:

Coco wrote:
I have a feeling Durham found something because Barr has insinuated a few things but who knows... nothing is surprising me. I think they are holding off until closer to the election as you said.

If they've found something do you think they've not told Trump given Trump essentially vomits weird theories or newly learned facts he thinks make him look good? The Solipsistic Presidency and all that

All seems rather weird to me given the FBI were for various reasons looking at both candidates or people connected to them and actually released commentary on Clinton that damaged her campaign, and yet here we are with the winning candidate crying (whining) foul, and doing so when he and others have clearly broken the law.

Wait for it... I suspect more to come.

An actual thing, or more gibberish conspiracy theories, lies, and kindergarten level lack of comprehension?

Digby wrote:

Coco wrote:

Digby wrote:
If they've found something do you think they've not told Trump given Trump essentially vomits weird theories or newly learned facts he thinks make him look good? The Solipsistic Presidency and all that

All seems rather weird to me given the FBI were for various reasons looking at both candidates or people connected to them and actually released commentary on Clinton that damaged her campaign, and yet here we are with the winning candidate crying (whining) foul, and doing so when he and others have clearly broken the law.

Wait for it... I suspect more to come.

An actual thing, or more gibberish conspiracy theories, lies, and kindergarten level lack of comprehension?

I bet on the latter. Something yes, not much. But lots of spin.

So a man walks into an auditorium, stands in front of a crowd and says :

"We'll have an economy based on wind, I never understood wind yet I know windmills very well much, I've studied it better than anybody. It's very expensive. They're made In China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none. But they're manufactured, tremendous, if you're into this, tremendous fumes, gases, are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world right? So the world is tiny, compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything, you talk, you talk about the carbon footprint! Fumes are spewing into the air right, spewing!"

I've had to rather guess at the punctuation, though that might be the lesser problem if what he's saying is coal is better than wind when it comes to energy

Digby wrote:So a man walks into an auditorium, stands in front of a crowd and says :

"We'll have an economy based on wind, I never understood wind yet I know windmills very well much, I've studied it better than anybody. It's very expensive. They're made In China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none. But they're manufactured, tremendous, if you're into this, tremendous fumes, gases, are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world right? So the world is tiny, compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything, you talk, you talk about the carbon footprint! Fumes are spewing into the air right, spewing!"

I've had to rather guess at the punctuation, though that might be the lesser problem if what he's saying is coal is better than wind when it comes to energy

Thank you for taking the time to transcribe that; I hated every word of it.

I think his argument may be that, because the universe is very big, CO2 emissions are negligible in the grand scheme of the universe. Which is... true, I guess, as long as we're got a foothold across the whole universe.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:So a man walks into an auditorium, stands in front of a crowd and says :

"We'll have an economy based on wind, I never understood wind yet I know windmills very well much, I've studied it better than anybody. It's very expensive. They're made In China and Germany mostly, very few made here, almost none. But they're manufactured, tremendous, if you're into this, tremendous fumes, gases, are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world right? So the world is tiny, compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything, you talk, you talk about the carbon footprint! Fumes are spewing into the air right, spewing!"

I've had to rather guess at the punctuation, though that might be the lesser problem if what he's saying is coal is better than wind when it comes to energy

Thank you for taking the time to transcribe that; I hated every word of it.

I think his argument may be that, because the universe is very big, CO2 emissions are negligible in the grand scheme of the universe. Which is... true, I guess, as long as we're got a foothold across the whole universe.

Puja

So you're saying the problem is he has no idea what the atmosphere is, and thus nothing to even start to base an understanding of climate on? It's sadly all too possible.