He built a big beautiful wall, paid for by Mexico - wait, no he didn't
He repealed and replaced Obamacare - wait, no he didn't
He canceled all funding to sanctuary cities - wait, no he didn't
He established a commission on radical Islam - wait, no he didn't
He ensured that criminal aliens convicted of illegal re-entry receive strong mandatory minimum sentences - wait, no he didn't
He ended birthright citizenship - wait, no he didn't
He got a constitutional amendment enacting term limits for Congress - wait, no he didn't
He imposed the death penalty for cop killers - wait, no he didn't
He appointed a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton - wait, no he didn't
He eliminated Common Core - wait, no he didn't
He froze hiring of federal employees - wait, no he didn't
These all seem like pretty big unmet promises. And he still has support from the folks who elected him? Why?
How much more could he let you down and you think he's doing his job well?
The same old song.
Back then it was about impeachment. Now it's about "are you sure you want this failure back in office?"
Bad Timing for the Pubs to remain chained to a bottle of nitroglycerine. Missing a beauty op to amputate the cancer:
1. Those arrested and facing years of jail time are watching as his legal team throws them under the bus 2. Feeling justifiably betrayed, many groups on the right are fracturing, including the proud boys. 3. Trump faces MORE trials and the Trumpistas have just signed their political death warrants as more will be revealed in 2021. 4. Covid won't let us forget as easily as before. A political coup against an election, while endangering the lives of other branches of government âis a blistering event that won't be easily forgotten.
You look at other countries and their obviously corrupt way of doing things and think, "Certainly glad I'm not in THAT sort of place."
And then this happens, with so many elected officials intentionally ignoring something that's painfully obvious and you realize, "We're there. American politics isn't the greatest in the world. It's corrupt, self-serving, dishonest, and absolutely not on the side of anyone but the wealthy."
And now comes the next chapter.
Yup....... Even then, I bet dollars to doughnuts, that most wealthy folks in the USA find Donald J. Trump to be disgusting, despicable and a serious long-run threat to their wealth and everybody else's wealth for that matter.
Frankly, I thought Trump's attempts to mobilize the president of the Ukraine in Trump's partisan conflicts was worthy of at least a few years jail time. Perhaps regular American courts will have more success sentencing this monster.
In the meantime, I am thinking of all the Americans with whom in the past I have shared activist and movement goals, campaigns and stages. Many must be feeling deeply frustrated, some have been moved to tears.
looks like the Republicans just shot themselves in the foot.
Trump revels in acquittal: Our movement 'has only just begun'
Donald Trump has released a statement celebrating the Senate vote to acquit him of incitement of insurrection.
“I want to first thank my team of dedicated lawyers and others for their tireless work upholding justice and defending truth,” the former president said.
“My deepest thanks as well to all of the United States Senators and Members of Congress who stood proudly for the Constitution we all revere and for the sacred legal principles at the heart of our country.”
Trump condemned the impeachment trial as “another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country,” even though seven Republican senators voted to convict him.
The former president also nodded at his political future now that he is free to run for the White House in 2024.
“Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun. In the months ahead I have much to share with you, and I look forward to continuing our incredible journey together to achieve American greatness for all of our people. There has never been anything like it,” Trump said.
The statement comes after impeachment managers spent days warning that Trump would threaten the safety of American democracy if he was allowed to run for public office again.
You look at other countries and their obviously corrupt way of doing things and think, "Certainly glad I'm not in THAT sort of place."
And then this happens, with so many elected officials intentionally ignoring something that's painfully obvious and you realize, "We're there. American politics isn't the greatest in the world. It's corrupt, self-serving, dishonest, and absolutely not on the side of anyone but the wealthy."
Below is my column in USA Today on the lack of a strategy by the House to secure conviction in the trial of former President Donald Trump. As I have previously noted, the House managers did an excellent job in their presentations and many of the videotapes rekindled the anger that most of us felt over the riot. They also reinforced the view of many (including myself) that former president Donald Trump bears responsibility in the tragedy that unfolded due to his reckless rhetoric. Yet, there was a glaring omission in the substance of the House arguments. The managers did not lay out what the standard should be in convicting a former president for incitement of an insurrection and only briefly touched on proving any âstate of mindâ needed for such a conviction. That is why I have referred to their case as more emotive than probative. It lacked direct evidence to support the claim that Trump wanted to incite an actual insurrection or rebellion against the United States, as alleged in the article of impeachment. I do not believe that an acquittal was inevitable in this case, but it was all but assured by critical decisions made by the House in this impeachment. The unforced errors discussed below raise the question of whether the Democrats âtankedâ the trial.
Here is the column:
The second trial of former President Donald Trump is shaping up to be a curious exercise designed more to enrage than convict. While legal eagles will be analyzing every move, what citizens really need is an Philadelphia Eagles fan to understand what is unfolding. In the NFL, it is called âtanking.â This year, there was a raging debate whether Eagles coach Doug Pederson was actually trying to win or just losing convincingly to secure a better draft pick. The House trial strategy has every indication of a tanked trial, but few are noting the glaring lack of a credible offense.
When it comes to football, tanking allegations arise when the inexplicable speeds along the inevitable. That point was reached this season when Pederson decided not to tie the game against Washington in the third quarter with a field goal and instead put Nate Sudfeld in the game over Jalen Hurts. The House may have reached that point when the managers seemed to be trying harder to make a better case for losing than winning. That was driven home by the selection of such managers as Rep. Eric Swalwell in the wake of his scandal with Chinese spy. Swalwellâs comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared âBoo hoo hoo. Youâre a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim canât sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? Sheâs on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.â Pelosi picked not only a member who has viciously attacked Republicans but one of the Republicans most needed by the House in this trial. Sending in Swalwell made the Sudfeld substitution look like sheer genius.
If this was an NFL board of inquiry, three signs of tanking would standout.
OK, but where is the upside for the democrats to play to lose? they don't get a draft pick.
Turley is a clown. He'll say anything to be on Fox News, and can spin a simple idea into a chaotic coup meant to support the idiot viewers. He is a walking conspiracy theory.
He's basically setting himself up to be correct regardless of the outcome.
What is Ted Cruz gonna do if Donnie runs again in 2024? Trump can't win the general election, so his being involved will only help Democrats. Romney has a better chance of being President in 4 years than Cruz...but Ted can't imagine not listening to the short-term noise to find a signal.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 12, 2021 - 9:13am
cc_rider wrote:
What I want to know is, what if the mob had gotten to a legislator? Pence? In the heat of the moment, that person very well could have been killed. Video shows how close the terrorists actually were. What if they had dragged Pence out and hung him - exactly what they said they would do? The Vice President lynched on the Capitol grounds? Then what? Would the Trumpists still support him?
What if they'd gotten hold of Pelosi? And put a bullet in her brain - exactly what they said they would do? What then?
Five people died as a direct result of the attack. But they were not legislators, just regular schmucks either caught up in the moment, or officers trying to do their jobs. One woman was trampled to death. Scores of injuries, some permanent. This attack was unprecedented, horrendous. Yet there are people who still think it was the right thing to do. Really? People died. Hundreds are now facing serious prison time. For what? What? c.
There are those who argue that Trump did not intend for his supporters to do what they did on January 6, and that the impeachment trial presented by the House managers relies on circumstantial evidence of his intent that day and in the days, weeks, months leading to that infamous day.
I would ask: What did he intend?
What did Trump expect his rally crowd would do when he directed them to go to the Capitol? There is no dispute that he did direct them to go to the Capitol at the conclusion of the rally on the Ellipse. Why ? Why was it necessary for the âprotestâ rally to move to the Capitol?
Remember, at the conclusion of the rally, Congress already was convening for its session to approve the certified election results. They already were inside. The building was not open to the public. And there were temporary barriers preventing persons from accessing the Capitol grounds. If the intent was for that rally crowd just to chant from outside, that would not even have been heard by the representatives inside. It certainly would not have disrupted the session. So how would they have âstopped the steal?â
Below is my column in USA Today on the lack of a strategy by the House to secure conviction in the trial of former President Donald Trump. As I have previously noted, the House managers did an excellent job in their presentations and many of the videotapes rekindled the anger that most of us felt over the riot. They also reinforced the view of many (including myself) that former president Donald Trump bears responsibility in the tragedy that unfolded due to his reckless rhetoric. Yet, there was a glaring omission in the substance of the House arguments. The managers did not lay out what the standard should be in convicting a former president for incitement of an insurrection and only briefly touched on proving any âstate of mindâ needed for such a conviction. That is why I have referred to their case as more emotive than probative. It lacked direct evidence to support the claim that Trump wanted to incite an actual insurrection or rebellion against the United States, as alleged in the article of impeachment. I do not believe that an acquittal was inevitable in this case, but it was all but assured by critical decisions made by the House in this impeachment. The unforced errors discussed below raise the question of whether the Democrats âtankedâ the trial.
Here is the column:
The second trial of former President Donald Trump is shaping up to be a curious exercise designed more to enrage than convict. While legal eagles will be analyzing every move, what citizens really need is an Philadelphia Eagles fan to understand what is unfolding. In the NFL, it is called âtanking.â This year, there was a raging debate whether Eagles coach Doug Pederson was actually trying to win or just losing convincingly to secure a better draft pick. The House trial strategy has every indication of a tanked trial, but few are noting the glaring lack of a credible offense.
When it comes to football, tanking allegations arise when the inexplicable speeds along the inevitable. That point was reached this season when Pederson decided not to tie the game against Washington in the third quarter with a field goal and instead put Nate Sudfeld in the game over Jalen Hurts. The House may have reached that point when the managers seemed to be trying harder to make a better case for losing than winning. That was driven home by the selection of such managers as Rep. Eric Swalwell in the wake of his scandal with Chinese spy. Swalwellâs comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared âBoo hoo hoo. Youâre a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim canât sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? Sheâs on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.â Pelosi picked not only a member who has viciously attacked Republicans but one of the Republicans most needed by the House in this trial. Sending in Swalwell made the Sudfeld substitution look like sheer genius.
If this was an NFL board of inquiry, three signs of tanking would standout.
What I want to know is, what if the mob had gotten to a legislator? Pence? In the heat of the moment, that person very well could have been killed. Video shows how close the terrorists actually were. What if they had dragged Pence out and hung him - exactly what they said they would do? The Vice President lynched on the Capitol grounds? Then what? Would the Trumpists still support him?
What if they'd gotten hold of Pelosi? And put a bullet in her brain - exactly what they said they would do? What then?
Five people died as a direct result of the attack. But they were not legislators, just regular schmucks either caught up in the moment, or officers trying to do their jobs. One woman was trampled to death. Scores of injuries, some permanent. This attack was unprecedented, horrendous. Yet there are people who still think it was the right thing to do. Really? People died. Hundreds are now facing serious prison time. For what? What? c.
If they had killed anyone in the chain of command, Trump would have declared martial law.
Thank you Mike...but you now provide me more opportunities dead. Good luck in the Capital!
Sadly, I believe you're correct. Classic false flag tactic - although I'm not sure DJT is smart enough to actually plan it. c.
Those who continue to ardently â and blindly â support Trump after all we now know happened inside the Capitol on January 6 should be deeply ashamed.
What we are now seeing is that it could have been much, much worse. It almost is beyond comprehension. Grossly disturbing. Seeing it again, in great detail, traumatizes anew.
Trump said his speech and behavior at his January 6 rally was âtotally appropriate.â That tells us all we need to know about him.
Agreed. And yet there are idiots still supporting him.
I understand why the GOP is still supporting him... fear. But I can't figure out what the average Joe's motivation is... too stupid to fathom what he really did? Understand but just don't care? Is their own personal identity too wrapped up in his "cult of personality" to ever see the forest because they are too close to the trees? Have they so deeply bought into a martyr complex that somehow Trump has been this misunderstood, downtrodden figure that has been forced into making mistakes and is not responsible for any/all of his transgressions? Too embarrassed to acknowledge that they have been played by someone who despises them?
I do understand what their motivations were for originally voting him in... but it's all the stuff that has happened during his presidency that I can't turn a blind eye to.
Heck even the horned guy that stormed the Capitol came to his senses.
I think they get confused into defending him, because of the argument of how the media/left relentlessly, and at times unfairly, attacked him. but that's not so different as to how fox/right relentlessly attacked obama. and still doesn't come close to excuse trump's horrible behavior, divisiveness, and lack of leadership.
What I want to know is, what if the mob had gotten to a legislator? Pence? In the heat of the moment, that person very well could have been killed. Video shows how close the terrorists actually were. What if they had dragged Pence out and hung him - exactly what they said they would do? The Vice President lynched on the Capitol grounds? Then what? Would the Trumpists still support him?
What if they'd gotten hold of Pelosi? And put a bullet in her brain - exactly what they said they would do? What then?
Five people died as a direct result of the attack. But they were not legislators, just regular schmucks either caught up in the moment, or officers trying to do their jobs. One woman was trampled to death. Scores of injuries, some permanent. This attack was unprecedented, horrendous. Yet there are people who still think it was the right thing to do. Really? People died. Hundreds are now facing serious prison time. For what? What? c.
If they had killed anyone in the chain of command, Trump would have declared martial law.
Thank you Mike...but you now provide me more opportunities dead. Good luck in the Capital!
