It's not Neil Gorsuch's fault, but we can't support his ascension to a stolen Supreme Court seat

I will admit the democrats have pulled dirty tricks, but it is politics. Don't you dare think the Republicans are any better... they are just as bad, just way more sneaky, and good at brain washing.

 

Fake scandals champ. Bush and Cheney got tens of thousands of US Servicemen killed and maimed in order for their cronies to clean up on crooked no bid war contracts. They also sat and picked their noses while 3000 of our civilians were killed and maimed on the streets of New York and DC....compared to that Clinton's scandals look trivial...Count the bodies...

 

Tres bien mon ami.

 

Oh, you mean like Lyndon Baines Johnson is responsible for the deaths of 58,000 American lives. While Bubba Clinton closed his eyes in Lewinsky passion while al Qaeda terrorists learned to fly 757's into the WTC towers for 3 years in Florida before Bush was elected. Your ambitious lies fail to make the cut.

 

I agree that Johnson and Nixon were a couple of scumbags that are responsible for many deaths in Vietnam. Nixon, scumbag that he was ran on having a secret plan to end the war in '68. He dragged it out for another 6 years getting 35000 more guys killed including my older brother...

 

How far back can they reach to impeach a president?
I enjoy your dancing by the way. Keeps it entertaining.

To help you talk to me. I studied law for a year in college. I also studied real estate law for one more year. I have also studied impeachment.

I have to go back to look at the constitution again. As to impeaching, one gets the idea from the document they intend to mean acts during office. Not acts of any sort prior.

But I see your side too. Suppose a president commits treason yet not fully documented and he then gets elected. And over time the entire story comes out so they can prove treason. I can see some sort of case to be made that to keep his treason from harming the nation, he gets tried and convicted by the house and senate.

If you mean something like, that is an interesting debate. I don't think so far it has happened.

But for the hell of it, what if Andrew Jackson got impeached over his failure to follow the law as described by the Supreme Court?

What if Abe the outlaw Lincoln was impeached for totally ignoring the supreme court ruling?

Can you see Abe being impeached? And that malfeasance was during him being president and so was Jackson's crime.

 

Truman got my uncle killed in Korea. Shall I call Truman a scumbag?

Nixon made few friends by prolonging the Vietnam war.

I did not vote for Nixon of course since then i was a very loyal Democrat. I was in the Army serving Kennedy and knew we had special forces in Vietnam. More like trainers than fighters. But they could fight if attacked. For some odd reason, one guy came into the orderly room and wanted me to help him get to Vietnam. We were then in Germany and I was HQ/HQ company clerk. He thought I would have him chat with our commanding officer. I brushed him off and informed him he was not in special forces and I saw no way to transfer him.

I get back to CA early February 64 and learn a few protesters were massing due to the war. It was not then very well known. Most Americans had no clue we were in that mess.

I being a loyal Democrat, and Johnson then being president, commenced my defense of Johnson. I felt I owed my allegiance to the Army I served with. I knew our men should not be shunned. It angered me when America shunned those very vets. Some of guys i served with later got sent to Vietnam. They did not have a say and got sent even if they did not want to go.

But,,, I had a good idea of command. i had a good idea of tactics. At HQ level you learn more than you do in some rifle company. We were where orders got issued. I handled paperwork that came from Generals.

I saw that Johnson was deep over his head. As a Senator then president, one assumes they learned so much they can become president. Kennedy and Johnson lacked the fundamental understanding of a simple rifleman based on things they did.

They put troops into harms way with no particular goal of winning. We did not defeat Germany by not invading them. We tried to beat Vietnam in the north but not invading them. They were bombed, but even today with bombs, you can see how well that works. Obama bombed and so is Trump. I see no way to win with bombs. Clinton tried it and failed.

Trump to win must actually go there and do it hand to hand.

But with Johnson, I spent a good deal of time praying he would figure it out. He never did. Nixon did not invade. Nixon also had no clue. But Nixon did not go down over the war. Johnson sure did though.

 

Yet another lib/prog bandwidth sucker.

 

Truman got my uncle killed in Korea. Shall I call Truman a scumbag?

Nixon made few friends by prolonging the Vietnam war.

I did not vote for Nixon of course since then i was a very loyal Democrat. I was in the Army serving Kennedy and knew we had special forces in Vietnam. More like trainers than fighters. But they could fight if attacked. For some odd reason, one guy came into the orderly room and wanted me to help him get to Vietnam. We were then in Germany and I was HQ/HQ company clerk. He thought I would have him chat with our commanding officer. I brushed him off and informed him he was not in special forces and I saw no way to transfer him.

I get back to CA early February 64 and learn a few protesters were massing due to the war. It was not then very well known. Most Americans had no clue we were in that mess.

I being a loyal Democrat, and Johnson then being president, commenced my defense of Johnson. I felt I owed my allegiance to the Army I served with. I knew our men should not be shunned. It angered me when America shunned those very vets. Some of guys i served with later got sent to Vietnam. They did not have a say and got sent even if they did not want to go.

But,,, I had a good idea of command. i had a good idea of tactics. At HQ level you learn more than you do in some rifle company. We were where orders got issued. I handled paperwork that came from Generals.

I saw that Johnson was deep over his head. As a Senator then president, one assumes they learned so much they can become president. Kennedy and Johnson lacked the fundamental understanding of a simple rifleman based on things they did.

They put troops into harms way with no particular goal of winning. We did not defeat Germany by not invading them. We tried to beat Vietnam in the north but not invading them. They were bombed, but even today with bombs, you can see how well that works. Obama bombed and so is Trump. I see no way to win with bombs. Clinton tried it and failed.

Trump to win must actually go there and do it hand to hand.

But with Johnson, I spent a good deal of time praying he would figure it out. He never did. Nixon did not invade. Nixon also had no clue. But Nixon did not go down over the war. Johnson sure did though.

 

I find it amazing that on one hand, no one disagrees that Donald. J. Trump has a difficult learning curve ahead of him in the presidency, but at the same time, on the ever flimsy grounds of the 'Russian Investigation' to impede all progress and to have left Congress at a standstill.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29,32,33&sort=-current_status_date

We've had 10 bills in THREE months(90 days). Remember, this same minority party complained about the 2011-2012 Congress. So if we go 10 per 3 months, are we only going to have 40 bills in the year of 2017? Maybe 10 per three is an optimistic number! It's called sitting your ass and doing nothing, with 'Russian Conspiracy' as a cop out.

 

Blame it all on a phony Gulf of Tonkin attack. Why blame it on Nixon when it all started with LBJ and his micro-managing the war from 1964 to 1969.

 

Your message and Schumer's message is a lie. President Trump is not under investigation.

The primary tactic of the Democratic Party continues to be lying.

No, Trump Isn’t Under Criminal Investigation by the FBI
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...nvestigation-counterintelligence-not-criminal

 

That's an absurd claim - unless you are claiming all members of the Supreme Court should be impeached for corruption.

 

merci.

 

Strictly following the law often leaves little room for emotional gray area which most progressives want to use to exercise selective enforcement. More often than not, a small percentage of people will get screwed by what is otherwise a great law.

 

Johnson started it and Nixon dragged it on. I blame both of them.

 

LOL - people thinking Bill and Hillary were involved in "fake scandals" is why we have a dumbing down of America. People would rather cover up crimes and "pay to play" than expose them and keep our leaders accountable.

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

 

I think the Republicans are a little better but they have their own issues. While both play dirty politics (paying to get dirt on political opponents) I have yet to see a Republican pull anything near what Hillary Clinton did or the DNC. The DNC specifically has slid into an arena that is way out of bounds. I think once they saw that they have the MSM and that Oversight Committee is helpless to enforce it's rules and laws, they just decided to go all out.

I am not even sure how mainstream moderates can support the DNC anymore. They are turning radical far left.

DC needs a reset. That is why I am in favor of draining the swamp. We need people in the government working for the people, not for a political party.

 

I give you Spiro Agnew. Former Vice President and Former Governor of Maryland.

In an attempt to forego the coming criminal charges Agnew requested impeachment hearings on the allegations of the crimes to which he eventually plead guilty. Speaker Albert declined his request because of the criminal proceedings.

Albert could have granted the request and held hearings on crimes alleged before Agnew became VP.

http://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/37030

And Alcee Hastings a federal judge convicted in impeachment proceedings DESPITE being found not guilty in a criminal court.

Impeachment does not require guilt of any legally defined crime nor is impeachment limited only to activities while in office.

 

And lets not forget the Supreme court has approved of an above average percentage of the cases he has tried. In fact he has a better approval rating than the entire 9th circuit.

 

S Ct justices are supposed to apply the law to the facts before them. Not their humanity

 

The DNC was in the wrong and the party ousted and replaced the chair to fix it. I think we all are in favor of draining the swamp, but that is done by electing people who favor term limits for the House and Senate, and want to regulate the amount of money corporations can give to campaigns. There is nothing about your parties presidential nominee that said drain the swamp. Sure he isn't your "typical" politician, but I would say he is worse. The problem with typical polititions is they need money to be elected. So they turn to big corporations and superpacs to help them. In exchange for the money, the congresspeople pass legislation to benefit their big donors, and sway public opinion on issues. I know this sounds conspiracy theory-ish, but ads on television are designed to make you feel certain ways, and want certain things. Don't believe me? Google how much time goes into cereal advertising to make kids want a certain cereal so their parents will buy it.

Turning back to Trump, he put into his administration those very big business people who try and influence every election because it's good for business. Hell, it is good for Trump's own family and his business to be in office, which is against the law. So draining the swamp with Trump - no. All we did as America was put into office the puppet-masters behind the swamp. If we want to drain the swamp lets start electing small business owners, doctors, teachers. Lets do like Canada did with it's cabinet positions and put people who are trained for the job as head of the jobs. For example, teachers should head the department of education - not a billionaire who thinks she knows what is best for education because she has lobbied for private schools. Native Americans should head the EPA because they actually care about the American land way more than anyone else. Nuclear Scientist should be in charge of the Department of Defense as they actually know a thing or two about how bombs are made instead of not even knowing the DoD controlled the nuclear weapons.

I agree with you that draining the swamp is vital for our government to make it another 250 years. Unfortunately, most Americans get caught up in petty political issues like abortion, gay rights, gun rights, and legalization of marijuana, and vote for a candidate solely on those issues. A moderate candidate cannot be elected until people stand up and realize that politicians and their special interest groups bring up "hot topic" issues to influence votes left or right. Most congresses won't even look at any of the issues people feel are super important during the election season, so why should we be influenced by those issues when we vote?

 

First, great post. I highlighted and numbered the points in your post above to respond to:

(1) A lot of his "draining the swamp" talk encompasses a DC unwilling to get things done. He is learning that the Freedom Caucasus falls into this category. Drain the swamp of career politicians that only support their own party and not the people. That goes for Democrats and for Republicans. IMO, Schumer, Schiff and Pelosi need to go and the entire DC government needs to push back on MSM and start getting them to help look into real issues instead of constantly ripping the parties apart. Although, Obama was treated better than any President I have seen in 30 years. But, DC corruption has to go. It's time to get rid of obstructionism and do nothing career politicians. We also have to stay centered and not veer to far left/right. Bernie Sanders will lead America down the toilet if he ever gets control. Pelosi came close.

(2) Well, billionaires are billionaires for a reason. Sometimes putting really smart people into positions where they can make smart, informed positions is better than someone who has spent their life as a teacher. Reminds me of Engineers I used to hire. I went for the guys/gals that were smart and had a knack for figuring things out with a work ethic over people who were "career" engineers. I valued personal qualities over experience. I worked out very well.

(3) Blame the MSM and the others who put so much focus on such small topics. "Touchy, feely" media wants to highlight these topics instead of more important things. They are poisoning society and warping the view of people. Girl gets raped by 2 illegal immigrants barely gets any coverage. Fake story from Rolling Stone of a college campus rape by white guys on a black student gets blasted all over the media. They pick and choose and IMO, are distorting what should be important. If you repeat a lie long enough, you will get people to believe it. It's happening now and it's not good for America. It's very bad for business and it opens the door for foreign entities to pollute our society and rip it apart. MSM will grab any story or any tidbit they can on Russian collusion but will ignore most everything on Obama and the surveillance of the Trump transition team. I want the truth, NOT the MSM spin or what the MSM wants me to think.

 

I am replying to each of your replies.

1. I agree with you that those democratic leaders need to go. However, along with them we also need McConnell, McCain, Hatch. It works on both side of the isle. I don't think you disagree with me on this point. Obama being treated well, that is, excuse the language, bull ****. Obama has been assaulted by the right at every turn. Just look at Trump, he started the whole birther scandal about Obama. They have also called Michelle a man. I see the danger of Bernie, however, I don't necessarily believe all of his ideas are bad for a modern economy. For example, the United States is way behind in education. This starts at the high school level which I will talk about in a minute, but looking at his plan for free college tuition, I support it. Not because I want a free education, but because I want the same opportunity to come out of college debt free as the people I am competing against who's parents were business owners and could help with their child's education. It is not fair to punish a child who's parents have made bad financial decisions, by forcing them to work 40 hours a week to pay for their education and the whole time hoping their grades don't suffer so that they can get into law school, or medical school. Trust me you can do it, I did, and I know that is the rebuttal to the argument, but is it really fair? I don't want to just throw money at education, however, as I support a system that pays for school on the condition that you complete a degree in an in demand field, sorry art majors. If you do not complete the degree you are on the hook for the money. If you want to pursue a liberal arts degree, again you pay for it. If you want to strengthen the USA in the areas of STEM and the future economy, then yes lets help these potentially brilliant minds make America better.

2. Devos. I understand your point and once again I agree with you that hiring the people with great ideas and work ethic is a solid plan for a person owning an engineering company. Given that these people actually know a thing or two about engineering. Devos on the other hand, knows plenty about private schools, but her public school knowledge isn't there. I wouldn't hire someone to design a wood-chopping robot, who has spent their whole life designing pharmaceuticals. Instead, I hire the engineer who has the qualities you mentioned, who knows something about chopping wood. My point - just because you are smart and have ideas doesn't mean you are qualified. In addition, just because your a billionaire doesn't mean you know education. Instead, it means you are savvy with money. Personally, I would hire the teacher who desires to change public education, who is a go getter, has great ideas, and knows where the public system is failing. I wouldn't just assume a billionaire knows better. I agree with you, however, that the person who has been in education 20+ years is probably not the right choice, as they are too ingrained in the status quo.

3. You are very negative on the MSM, and you probably have the right to be. News media changed a while ago from the truth, to what ever gets viewers. If I remember correctly the quote is, "If it bleeds, it leads." However, and this is the part you will probably disagree with me on, there is an equally dangerous faction on the right led by Breightbart, The Blaze, and Fox news. Although, I disagree with much of what is spoken on these outlets I still watch them. I feel it is the only way to try and extract my personal beliefs from the truth. For example, my website is very negative towards Trump, and his Russian connections. Hell the name is http://www.donaldtrumplovesrussia.com. I truly believe Trump, given his desire to win all the time, would have colluded with the Russian's in return for favors, if he could have. I don't know if he did, I will leave that up to the DOJ, but I think it should be independently investigated. However, even though I strongly believe there is this possibility, I am not basing my opinion on what MSNBC says or CNN or Fox. Instead, I watched the Comey interview. I have also watched Trump during debates, including the Republican debates, even though I am a democrat. These are where I fashion my beliefs. So many on the right, however, only watch Fox, and Breightbart. Which will find the two or three cases of an illegal immigrant raping a girl and cry all immigrants who are illegal are bad people. When you look at the numbers though, per capita, most violent crimes are committed by U.S. citizens, black white tan or other, and not illegals. The gap between the two is actually surprisingly high. Now the right takes the smaller number of illegal immigrants and convinces its viewer-ship that illegals are all bad, and we need to deport them all. The left takes a crime and picks the one that makes it look like blacks are being discriminated against. I don't disagree with you that news is biased. It has been for a long time. The trap is, news is not "fake." News happens and the stories that feed the base lead. The truth is somewhere in between fox and msnbc. Don't assume that fox is any better. A couple of years ago the CEO of Fox admitted to doing what I am talking about here. Finally, with respect to news. Do not let the President and Sean Spicer be your main source of news. Taking the news from the president, even if you want it to be true, is a very dangerous precedent. Anything you here from them should be extremely vetted, because if it gets to the point where people only listen to him, he can say anything and people believe it. That is how dictators rise to power.

If you believe that Obama spied on Trump, then I am afraid you are doing the things I warned you about in the above paragraph already. Not only did FBI director Comey, who although appointed by Obama, doesn't serve Obama, has said the wiretaps allegations are fake. Members of the republican party who sit on the senate intelligence committee have all come out saying the allegations are fake. These are words of the President that are not vetted, and are not based on fact. They are instead words create to deflect attention from other trump policies.

 

The more that anti-Trumpers whine the better I feel about the path we're on...

As Obama once said "elections have consequences" and if HE hadn't lost the Senate he would have had his Justice confirmed.