Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I think these guys need to restrain their fellow "conservatives".  This one would make Bill Clinton blush. 

Hardly.  This incident was pretty tame by Lolita Express standards.

Still, this is good to know:

"An employee has a duty to not allow the use of Government property for anything other than authorized purposes," the report states. "Having sex in the central office building is not an authorized purpose for use by the public. Further, there is no law or GSA regulation that allows an employee to have sex in the building."

I'll keep that in mind if I ever find myself employed by the government!

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Why is lying ok, Mel? The GOP doesn’t have anyone better than Trump? I’ll just say what old Donny likes to say. We’ll see what happens.

Hi Jim:

Lying is not OK.  The real question is why do politicians have to lie so much?  You'll recall that in 2016 our choices were Liar A or Liar B.

I think that the GOP has some great talent in line for the next couple of elections.  I really like Nikki Haley.  Of course if she were to run in 2024, the press would assassinate her character to the point where I would probably be ashamed to admit supporting her.  I really like our senator Cory Gardner, but most unfortunately he is probably going to be clipped next November by former presidential candidate John Hickenlooper.  Colorado is just too blue overall, and Gardner is too moderate to really jazz up Richard's demographic.

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Still a lot of people that will take a lying Trump over an honest Warren.

I sure hope it does not come to that.  But I would take a lying Trump over and honest Warren or Sanders.  

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

In my case, I could easily support someone like Kasich, for example. Even better George Conway. My party loyalty only runs as deep as Trump has to go.

James:

If you don't mind me putting you on the spot - Will you vote for Sanders over Trump if those are your choices? I know that you are no socialist!  Despite what our local oracle might proclaim.

Personally, I will not panic if Sanders is elected over my vote for Trump in this hypothetical, because I am reasonably confident that the big socialist policies of free college, student debt forgiveness, Medicare for all, green new deal and so on are dead on arrival in gridlocked Washington.  I'll be out of the market long before November though, if it looks like Sanders v. Trump. 

Jim

p.s. We won't get to vote for Kasich etc. will we?  That is a shame.  I am not a fan of the extremes controlling the nominating process now-a-days.  (Yes, Richard, I know very well that the last two moderates that the GOP nominated got thumped, but I credit Obama's general popularity for those losses, not any inherent electibility problems with candidates like McCain and Romney.)

Jim  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The White House reaction so far has been incompetent to the point of being comical. For example, they sent a copy of their talking points on Trump/Ukraine to the House Democrats, and then once they realized their mistake followed up with a "recall" email asking them to please disregard the talking points. For people that are obsessed with emails, they sure don't seem to know how to use email well. Who actually believes that message recall works in email? 

Hi James:

On the surface, it seems that any threat to withhold aid unless the Bidens' heads or Hillary's server were delivered from Ukraine, (the "quid pro quo" angle) certainly seems to be sketchy behavior, maybe illegal behavior, if shown.   

So, the D's will eye roll and state loudly and with certainty that the quid pro quo was implicit, and proved to all but partisan hacks by the circumstances surrounding the call.  In response, the  R's will scoff and state loudly and with certainty that any "quid pro quo" is a figment of overheated hyper-D imaginations.  And so it will go, with not a single partisan mind changed about Trump.

Since impeachment, plus removal from office by 2/3 of the Senate is not going to happen in either case, the tactical issue is, "how will this whole drama play with the small cohort of persuadable, on-the-fence Trump/Biden/Warren voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?"   I don't have a clue about that. 

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

All speculation is worthless until the accuser is heard from. We only have what Trump released so far.
this is what Trump wants, get people focused on the wrong stuff before facts come out and it gets actual scrutiny.

Trump wants a narrative that he literally did not say “do this or I cut you off.” Even though he was trying to achieving the same thing. Gee, I’d hate to see anything bad happen to your country is not a defense, it’s  mob parlance.

Hi Russ:

FWIW I just read the memo, and I didn't feel that Trump made veiled threats.  The read-through left me thinking that these two presidents have a bro-mance in the making, the over-the-top mutual admiration they expressed for each other was kind of nauseating.  They both were happy to underbus allies too, which is juvenile and also kind of nauseating. 

But, FWIW, I am not picking up the "Gee, I’d hate to see anything bad happen to your country" vibe.  Obviously we only have Trump's memo to go on so far, but speculation is not worthless, it is the new national pastime!  At least for me it is since the Broncos and Rockies suck...

Jim 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

LOL !!

The whistleblower complaint was just released and it is complete hearsay.  He says he "heard about the conversation from some people"

This is a complete joke, but you left wing Democrats just can't get enough.  

The complete transcript of the complaint:


https://www.scribd.com/document/427562749/Whistleblower-Complaint-Against-President-Trump#from_embed

It was a joke yesterday and it is more of a joke today.  

Another political witchhunt to satisfy the leftist tools and puppets who drool over every statement from Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.  

When Joe and Hunter Biden have to answer for their corruption in Ukraine, they will have a really tough time defending their crimes

And the usual frauds on the left will be once again exposed.  

Hi Richard:

Have you read the complaint and partially redacted exhibit?  What do you think?  Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

LOL.....the sky is falling again huh?

Hi Greg:

Do you really think this situation is LOL funny?  Let me elaborate. 

Based upon the memo and the complaint, I think it is more likely than not that Trump and Giuliani made it perfectly clear to the president of Ukraine that authorized military aid was going to be held up unless the Ukraine dug into the Biden affairs.  (I also agree with Mel that the Biden deal appears to be absolutely and brazenly corrupt, but that is not the issue here.)  Note that I think the existence of a quid pro quo shakedown is more likely than not, based upon what I have read of the released documents.  New evidence could move my opinion one way or the other.

I agree with Russ that withholding duly authorized military aid from an ally in need for political gain (assuming that is what is ultimately shown) is really bad.  I think that this is an impeachable offense, if shown.  The Federalist Papers make it clear that impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.  Jonah Goldberg noted this morning that, "If the president stood on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and shouted obscenities on national television while dancing in the nude, that would be impeachable but not illegal."  I agree.  I also agree with Goldberg that withholding duly authorized military aid from an ally engaged with Russia for political gain is impeachable, even if it does not prove to be illegal.

I've not lived in a cave the last three years, and I know that the left has repeatedly amplified and shouted over nothings, fabrications and echo-chamber BS to try to take down Trump.  It will not surprise me if the complaint unravels as more evidence comes to light.  I do not agree with James that DJT is categorically F'd. But is this a LOL moment?  Not to me anyway.

Should the D's rush to impeachment?  That is purely a political calculation.  I know there is 0% chance that 2/3 of the Senate convicts and removes him from office so why bother?  I suspect he'd die before he resigned.  So, the political question is how will impeachment play with the million or so persuadable voters in MI, WI, PA, and maybe OH who will decide the next election?  If the D's can really tag Trump with this one, Biden will be taken out as collateral damage.  This increases the chance of Warren grabbing those MI, WI, and PA voters and being the next president in my opinion, and that is anything but funny.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing in your own words whether you, Richard or any other steadfast Trump supporters are worried about all of this.  I don't see how you can't be worried.  I'm on record supporting Trump over Warren, even though I despise Trump, but this sort of thing causes me serious worry.  I would literally dance in the street if Trump resigned or was removed from office in time for Pence or preferably Haley to mount a campaign.

Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Since no one will probably see it in the other thread I'll say it again. 

It will be hilariously ironic if Trump gets taken down by a private (top secret) server.

You should get an award Jim, for starting the best thread on this forum since the election.  Herb, please send that man a Nagler!

Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Thanks to everyone for posting in the thread AND for being (somewhat) nice to each other.

I still wonder how anyone can support him. 

Hi Jim:

I ask myself that a lot.  I also asked myself how anyone could support a corrupt, self-enriching hack like Hillary Clinton.  In many cases, I think that the answer is the same.  When we vote for president, we are only incidentally voting for the person.  We are really voting for the wide ranging executive branch that this person will presumably establish and for the influence that this person's appointments will have on the judiciary.  In reality, many voters say to themselves, "what do I want the federal government to look like?" and then vote accordingly.  This explains why most Republicans voted for DJT although probably half despise him personally.  This explains why most Democrats voted for HRC, even though I presume many many many Democrats wished they had a better choice.  Some folks love DJT's abrasiveness of course, but not all of his voters.

Also, this sort of voting tends to work.  I think the USA has done just fine the past three years, even though Trump is a buffoon.  I have no serious complaints about the Obama and Bush years either, although those presidents also attracted partisan hatred.  I am genuinely worried about the expansion of government that Warren and Sanders are pushing.  I do not want the government to look like that at all, so if it comes to it, I'll vote against them, even if it involves voting for Donny Two-Scoops .

Jim