Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Aside from Joe Manchin I don't think there's a member of the entire Democrat party worth voting for if there was an election tomorrow.

Schumer is a serial liar who voted against impeachment for Clinton and yet he can't get enough of the whole Trump impeachment thing. He also has the biggest slimeball aura of any politician on earth. He's a slightly better-looking version of Mr. Burns.

Chris Coons is an extremely smart, well-spoken individual so it's impossible for him to not know what a liar he is. The US would be screwed if that guy ever became President. Maybe the only choice that's worse than Hillary.

OAC is a nutjob socialist with a 9th grade level of general knowledge.

Warren is the only Democrat to distance herself from the minority vote, and Dems have spent a lot of time trying to convince Americans that they're the only party that cares about people who are darker than a paper bag. They won't put her through. Resistance to Warren will get nuttier than squirrel shit.

Maxine Waters is the only American dumber than Trudeau. People put up with her kind of crazy because she's good at rallying the haters, but she would never be broadly accepted.

Nancy Pelosi is like a scarecrow that talks (barely). Almost as dumb as Maxine.People say "don't underestimate her because she is still their leader after all this time" lol. She's up against a really sad lot.

The Clintons will have Gillibrand beheaded publicly before they let her get a step further.

Joe Biden is loathed by 50% of Americans. Has a shot at the Dem leadership but he's a bad choice to run for President.

Oprah (barf). Fake. Fakity fake fake fake. Not just a little bit racist or sexist either. I had an ex-girlfriend who used to watch that show and my wife watched it too. I probably heard 40 hours of that crap in the background in my lifetime. I was so glad when she went off the air. Best day in the history of TV.

 

John Delaney and Richard Ojeda already declared that they're running. I don't know jack about either of them

Here's a list from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries of people who "expressed interest"

Booker and Beto are probably the strongest candidates there. Booker tends to be a hotheaded idiot though, and his big, loud, hater persona will work on the antifa-type Democrats but hopefully not the mainstream. 

If Beto just looks classy and does some Trudeau-style virtue signalling I think he will pull it off.

De La Hoya and Angeline Jolie lol. If Angeline Jolie ever becomes President I will move to Iran and convert to radical islam. There's nothing I hate more than shameless self-promotion disguised as charity (hello Oprah). She's THE fakest person in the history of the planet.

Why is this list of Dems so appalling to me? Every one of these people is so damn fake. Bill Clinton was the only Democrat I liked and it turns out he was one of the slimiest. What a sad group. 

Edited by Charles Anthony
corrected inflammatory type in title; former title: "The democRATS"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Booker was mayor, he was actually pretty good and a reasonable and sensible politician.  Once he became senator he lost all of it.  And now is completely obedient to the far left wing fringe, it’s really a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for Dwane Johnson, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, Snoop the Dawg, and Cher.

Lots to choose from!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of Trump fan calling people fake is hilarious. 

Trump's lawyers won't let him testify under oath because he's incapable of telling the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Boges said:

The irony of Trump fan calling people fake is hilarious. 

Trump's lawyers won't let him testify under oath because he's incapable of telling the truth. 

Any good lawyer knows that if a client is guilty, they don't let them testify.  If a client is innocent, they absolutely do not let them testify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Any good lawyer knows that if a client is guilty, they don't let them testify.  If a client is innocent, they absolutely do not let them testify.

Yep. Complaining about him not testifying under oath to a bunch of lawyers is like saying "Why isn't he more stupid?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just stating the reason that was given is that he's incapable of telling the truth. 

Which is demonstrably provable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yep. Complaining about him not testifying under oath to a bunch of lawyers is like saying "Why isn't he more stupid?"

And yet Hillary could testify for hours and hours under oath and they couldn't get a thing on her. And yet you're still convinced she's guilty because why else would they have questioned her under oath? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

And yet Hillary could testify for hours and hours under oath and they couldn't get a thing on her. And yet you're still convinced she's guilty because why else would they have questioned her under oath? :lol:

Dude, they are all guilty. Only a moron would put their trust in the these people.

Wouldn't be surprised if they gave Hillary the answers before asking the questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Dude, they are all guilty. Only a moron would put their trust in the these people.

Yes but what sort of special moron does it take to criticize people for being mistrustful of, lets say...Trump for example?  Hannity comes to mind for one and just look at how many people trust him.

Let not your heart befuddled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes but what sort of special moron does it take to criticize people for being mistrustful of, lets say...Trump for example?  Hannity comes to mind for one and just look at how many people trust him.

In politics, you are free to trust whomever you want. But you do so at your own peril.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 7:19 PM, bcsapper said:

I like Kamala Harris.  Probably because snowflakes don't.

https://spectator.us/kamala-harris-woke-enough/

Of course, I just heard of her today.

The article is evidence of the odd fact that I n Dem circles it’s frowned upon to have a connection to law and order. 

 

There are are videos of her interviewing Kavanaugh and the appointee to the head of the ICE agency. I tried to paste the links then I lost my whole post and had to start over. 

She’s a smug little troll imo.

She was trying to get Kavanaugh to answer a question with a direct yes or no when it’s quite possible that he didn’t know the answer.

”Did you ever have a conversation with anyone at the law firm of (I don’t remember the name) regarding Mueller’s collusion investigation?”

He says that he wants to know who all works there, she keeps refusing to answer and asking her question again, looking for a “yes or no”. Then she complete leaves the topic, so one is supposed to be left wondering if he was hiding something. 

She asked the prospective head of ICE if he was aware of why there would be perceptions that ICE agents are like the Nazis or some such. She’s just a smug, slimy person imo. If my son brought someone like her home I’d be extremely disappointed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

There are are videos of her interviewing Kavanaugh and the appointee to the head of the ICE agency. I tried to paste the links then I lost my whole post and had to start over.

Did you try Control - Z?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 7:37 AM, BubberMiley said:

And yet Hillary could testify for hours and hours under oath and they couldn't get a thing on her. And yet you're still convinced she's guilty because why else would they have questioned her under oath? :lol:

They couldn’t get anything on her because she said that she couldn’t remember, over and over. She claimed to have fallen back on the stairs and hit her head. 

Dont be alarmed though, it only affected her ability to answer questions about her crimes. Her ability to answer questions at the presidential debates at that rime was unaffected. It’s an extremely rare medical condition known as “selective amnesia”. Lots of criminals have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 11:42 AM, eyeball said:

Yes but what sort of special moron does it take to criticize people for being mistrustful of, lets say...Trump for example?  Hannity comes to mind for one and just look at how many people trust him.

Let not your heart befuddled.

It’s perfectly normal to be mistrustful of Trump or anyone else that you haven’t personally known for a while. No one has a problem with that. And FYI Hannity is criticizing people for lying and being hypocritical, that’s not the same thing as being mistrustful. Get a dictionary if you don’t believe me.

Eg, people say they want a border wall when they run for election, then when they’re elected they say border walls are racist, as if that’s even possible. Or they say Trump is a misogynist but ignore the glaring fact that Hillary was even worse in that regard, covering up for her husband’s sexual assaults and calling his victims names? Or they act as if the Mueller investigation is solid and ignore the fact that several of the key members of the investigation are being caught on serious charges of malfeasance, and that not even a single shred of evidence has been brought to light yet.

Edited by WestCanMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

They couldn’t get anything on her because she said that she couldn’t remember, over and over. She claimed to have fallen back on the stairs and hit her head. 

Dont be alarmed though, it only affected her ability to answer questions about her crimes. Her ability to answer questions at the presidential debates at that rime was unaffected. It’s an extremely rare medical condition known as “selective amnesia”. Lots of criminals have it.

You mean how there was no meeting at Trump Tower, and then it was a meeting about immigration, and then it was a meeting about collusion but just some aides, and then it included Donald Jr. but daddy didn't know about it, and then daddy knew but it was perfectly legal, and then...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

e. Or they say Trump is a misogynist but ignore the glaring fact that Hillary was even worse in that regard, covering up for her husband’s sexual assaults and calling his victims names?

That's worse than Trump covering up his own sexual assaults and calling his victims names?

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Or they act as if the Mueller investigation is solid and ignore the fact that several of the key members of the investigation are being caught on serious charges of malfeasance, and that not even a single shred of evidence has been brought to light yet.

None of the Mueller team has been caught in any improper act whatsoever. Unlike multiple members of the Trump team who are either convicted or on charges of violating various federal laws including lying to the FBI. As for evidence, why would you think criminal evidence would be 'brought to light' against those who had not yet been charged? The criminal evidence against Donald Trump will be brought to light during his trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Argus said:

None of the Mueller team has been caught in any improper act whatsoever. Unlike multiple members of the Trump team who are either convicted or on charges of violating various federal laws including lying to the FBI. As for evidence, why would you think criminal evidence would be 'brought to light' against those who had not yet been charged? The criminal evidence against Donald Trump will be brought to light during his trial.

That's just not true.  Two agents on his team were dismissed for improper conduct.  He's also had judges reprimand their conduct.

The FBI has fired agent Peter Strzok, who helped lead the bureau’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election until officials discovered that he had been sending anti-Trump texts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f51355da4289

 

The judge also strongly suggested that Mueller exceeded the scope of his special counsel office's authorization by charging Manafort with crimes that have nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election or possible Trump campaign collusion with Russians

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/judge-in-paul-manafort-case-criticizes-robert-mueller-probe.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

That's just not true.  Two agents on his team were dismissed for improper conduct.  He's also had judges reprimand their conduct.

They were fired for exercising their democratic right to call a candidate a scumbag by the candidate's lackeys once he won the election. A taste of things to come should Trump get the kind of control he yearns for. Clearly if he had his way all public servants would have to swear allegiance to Trump, not to the US constitution (which he has never read and will never read).

Quote

The judge also strongly suggested that Mueller exceeded the scope of his special counsel office's authorization by charging Manafort with crimes that have nothing to do with

That's really not up to the judge, now is it. And Manafort has been convicted and is likely to face further charges, especially now that it's been revealed by his own lawyers that he was colluding with Russian agents during the election.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Argus said:

They were fired for exercising their democratic right to call a candidate a scumbag by the candidate's lackeys once he won the election. A taste of things to come should Trump get the kind of control he yearns for. Clearly if he had his way all public servants would have to swear allegiance to Trump, not to the US constitution (which he has never read and will never read).

That's really not up to the judge, now is it. And Manafort has been convicted and is likely to face further charges, especially now that it's been revealed by his own lawyers that he was colluding with Russian agents during the election.

Yep, it's a democratic right, so what?  It's still improper conduct for what is suppose to be a non-partisan objective investigation.  And it could be up to a judge considering congress has given Mueller authority to conduct his investigation.  If he goes beyond his mandate,  judges can act accordingly.  Regardless, I'm not saying that all of this is super important.  But you stated something that was factually incorrect, that none of the Mueller team has been caught in any improper act.  Not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

Yep, it's a democratic right, so what?  It's still improper conduct for what is suppose to be a non-partisan objective investigation.

It was private communication, and they weren't involved in an investigation at the time.

2 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

 And it could be up to a judge considering congress has given Mueller authority to conduct his investigation.  If he goes beyond his mandate,  judges can act accordingly. 

He's supposed to ignore crimes when he comes across them?

2 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

Regardless, I'm not saying that all of this is super important.  But you stated something that was factually incorrect, that none of the Mueller team has been caught in any improper act.  Not true. 

What you, in fact, said, was ' serious charges of malfeasance ', and having been a public servant myself I can state that public servants say bad things about the political leadership all the time, just not in public. Like non-public servants, they are citizens too, and are entitled to their opinions in a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 7:54 AM, BubberMiley said:

You mean how there was no meeting at Trump Tower, and then it was a meeting about immigration, and then it was a meeting about collusion but just some aides, and then it included Donald Jr. but daddy didn't know about it, and then daddy knew but it was perfectly legal, and then...?

Never any of that. Don Jr was invited to come to a meeting to listen to evidence of a crime by Hillary and he came.

When they got there the woman just wanted to talk about some other topic, iirc it had to do with women and foreign visas or something. That story is a year old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 9:54 AM, Argus said:

That's worse than Trump covering up his own sexual assaults and calling his victims names?

Trump didn't rape anyone like like B Clinton raped Juanita Broderick. Trump's dalliances were also consensual and with financially independent women, not employees or unpaid interns. You're comparing apples and oranges. 

Quote

None of the Mueller team has been caught in any improper act whatsoever. Unlike multiple members of the Trump team who are either convicted or on charges of violating various federal laws including lying to the FBI. As for evidence, why would you think criminal evidence would be 'brought to light' against those who had not yet been charged? The criminal evidence against Donald Trump will be brought to light during his trial.

I don't blame you for being sucked in if that's your level of understanding Argus.

McCabe has been fired for altering witness statements. Strzok was demoted for the insane level of bias in his text messages to another member of the team, and thousands of his messages were deleted. Bruce Orr was keeping Steele in the loop, and bringing info to and from the investigation from Steele long after he was fired for his improprieties. All of those guys  committed malfeasance by signing off on FISA warrants fraudulently.

So it's a collection of people who were actual criminals, and people who committed crimes on this investigation, and people who are known to be grossly incompetent for this level of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×