The Road to Impeachment

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

nothing too classy about the guy coming in....draining his proclaimed swamp....how childish

The people voted to drain the swamp and to keep a check on the outgoing guy. You know, by increasing majorities in the house and senate. And to support Trump by giving him the House and Senate - in a year republicans were widely expected to lose the senate.

Buh bye, Barak.

Good guy, but we won't miss ye.
 
He's going to be sworn in
did you google this or is it just a false sense of speechifying again........duh...he's going to be sworn in......! That doesn't mean over half the country is happy about it.....people like me. He's the most unpopular President elect in my lifetime...no contest.
 
did you google this or is it just a false sense of speechifying again........duh...he's going to be sworn in......! That doesn't mean over half the country is happy about it.....people like me. He's the most unpopular President elect in my lifetime...no contest.
And after GW Bush, that's really saying something.....
 
did you google this or is it just a false sense of speechifying again........duh...he's going to be sworn in......! That doesn't mean over half the country is happy about it.....people like me. He's the most unpopular President elect in my lifetime...no contest.

With Obama's help, he decimated the Democratic Party. He ran against the Republican establishment and bashed every one of the candidates who ran against him.

Shocking that he's not liked.

But the people voted for him exactly for those reasons.

That and Crooked Hillary was worse.
 
did you google this or is it just a false sense of speechifying again........duh...he's going to be sworn in......! That doesn't mean over half the country is happy about it.....people like me. He's the most unpopular President elect in my lifetime...no contest.

That's pretty much because you all slurp the MSM kool-aid and are brainwashed into believing everything that comes out of CNN's broadcasts. "Hillary was going to save you all!" :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Edit:
One down, many more to go:

 
I have watched 13 presidents go now. This is the first to scatter stink bombs on the way out, that I can remember.
Trump got elected scattering stink bombs....he's still scattering them....Obama has every right to go out without kowtowing to the Orange huff and puff...buckle up......a very loose canon is about to take office....some damage control is probably called for about now
 
3k7wAP.jpg

LOL

rupert meyers is a funny guy apparently, who knew!
 
I have watched 13 presidents go now. This is the first to scatter stink bombs on the way out, that I can remember.
first president elect to come into office claiming America is a filthy swamp and that highly skilled professionals are losers and liars....hey....you voted for him..I've got plenty of crow in the freezer just waiting to serve....might need some more before all is said and done..
 
Trump got elected scattering stink bombs....he's still scattering them....Obama has every right to go out without kowtowing to the Orange huff and puff...buckle up......a very loose canon is about to take office....some damage control is probably called for about now
Stooping to his level is equally childish.

To my amusement.
 
If you pay and don't get the play, then what's the point?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/14/heads-are-finally-beginning-to-roll-at-the-clinton-foundation/

Heads Are Finally Beginning To Roll At The Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation announced it’s laying off 22 staffers on the Clinton Global Initiative, keeping with a plan to deal with the negative spotlight put on the organization during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The layoffs will take effect April 15, the Clinton Foundation said in a filing with the New York Department of Labor Thursday, citing the discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative. The move is part of a plan put in motion ahead of the presidential election in order to offset a storm of criticism regarding pay-to-play allegations during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
 
Like shooting fish in a barrel.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ni-president-trump-will-be-exempt-conflict-i/

Trump has said his children will manage his business dealings. Many presidents in the past have put their assets in a blind trust, which is when an independent trustee manages another person’s assets without the person’s input.

But Trump doesn’t actually have to do any of this because the financial conflict-of-interest laws don’t apply to him as president, said former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is reportedly on the short list for a seat on Trump’s cabinet.

"Well, first of all, you realize that those laws don't apply to the president, right?" Giuliani told CNN’s Jake Tapper Nov. 13. "So, the president doesn't have to have a blind trust. For some reason, when the law was written, the president was exempt."

Giuliani has the law pretty much right. Trump, as president, has no legal obligation to detach himself from his businesses and financial interests.

Hey @Denny Crane you can't be using PolitiFact when it's politically expedient for you. When someone else brings up a PolitiFact article you're quick to disparage it if it doesn't fit your narrative... You've done that to me and others before. You can't have it both ways.

Politifact lies more than Trump :)

New biased "fact check" article doesn't dismiss Trump's claim.

So is PolitiFact a good source or not in your opinion? Because you seem to be on both sides of the fence...
 
Last edited:
More of @Denny Crane's hypocrisy

http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2011/02/10/selection-bias-politifact-rate/

Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats

A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts.

In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged “false” or “pants on fire” over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent).


By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting – and the game is elephants.

You should go to work for politifact :) They don't think Democrats lie, either.

The bolded part is one of many reasons why ObamaCare isn't RomneyCare.

The Nazis were National Socialists, not Democratic Socialists.

They were socialists, regardless of what politifact says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

View attachment 6287

View attachment 6288

Along with a lot of nationalistic stuff I omitted, you have:

1) breaking up big corporations, if not outright nationalization of them
2) union type profit sharing
3) Social Security
4) Public eduction for free, including higher education
5) President's Physical Fitness Program

Some of that is what Sanders is selling.

Hilarious how you disparage Politifact (while using Wikipedia as a source) then you use it as a source...

Politifact conveniently ignores the actual socialist qualities of the Nazis. Not swayed.

And don't try to use the "I post it because it's left-leaning" excuse... it's either a good source of info or it's not.
 
Hey @Denny Crane you can't be using PolitiFact when it's politically expedient for you. When someone else brings up a PolitiFact article you're quick to disparage it if it doesn't fit your narrative... You've done that to me and others before. You can't have it both ways.





So is PolitiFact a good source or not in your opinion? Because you seem to be on both sides of the fence...

I use politifact when it's inconvenient for you.

The whole point of my citations and sources is to use your sources against you.

If I cited Fox News, you'd attack the source.
 
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co..._about_more_dems_bashing#.WHt7qDDpfZQ.twitter

Adriana Cohen: Not much legitimate about more Dems bashing Trump

Since Donald Trump’s unexpected victory, Democrats have been trying to delegitimize his historic upset.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who sent shock waves through the media echo chamber this weekend when he said in an NBC interview, “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” Former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon went on CNN Friday to chime in as well.

Talk about a snow job.

Clinton didn’t lose the election due to alleged Russian hacking. She lost because she was a flawed candidate who ran a bad campaign. But facts always get in the way when you’re an out-of-touch liberal trying to play the blame game.

Since Clinton’s crushing defeat, Democrats have refused to take personal responsibility. The Election Deniers keep looking for scapegoats. They’ve blamed WikiLeaks, FBI Director James Comey, and even sexism ... Clinton campaign operatives whined she was “overly” scrutinized for being a woman. Laughable, given that Donald Trump’s every move and tweet was scrutinized going back decades.

But the finger-pointing didn’t stop there. Dems continued to blame anything and everything for Clinton’s loss: Bernie Sanders, the alt-right, the Electoral College … the list goes on.

I’ll tell you real reasons Clinton lost. In addition to failing to campaign in key battleground states, she lacked an inspiring message. Hillary thought she could win by (A) riding Obama’s coattails and (B) attacking Trump.
 
There's a real chance Trump's pick for the open Supreme Court seat will be Ted Cruz.
 
That's pretty much because you all slurp the MSM kool-aid and are brainwashed into believing everything that comes out of CNN's broadcasts. "Hillary was going to save you all!" :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Edit:
One down, many more to go:


Further evidence that it was just a place for Quid Pro Quo. Now that Clinton doesn't have political power, the donors don't want to give to the corrupt charity
 
There's a real chance Trump's pick for the open Supreme Court seat will be Ted Cruz.
If so, I wonder if the fact that his dad killed JFK will come up in the hearings.

Oh, and will he be "Justice Lyin' Ted" or "Lyin' Justice Ted"?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top