US Politics



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial Except there is nothing extreme about Trumps presidency, his personality is extreme. But his policies are very mainstream.

    In the eye of the beholder, of course.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial Except there is nothing extreme about Trumps presidency, his personality is extreme. But his policies are very mainstream.

    In the eye of the beholder, of course.

    Maybe... So enlighten to which of his policies is extreme?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial Except there is nothing extreme about Trumps presidency, his personality is extreme. But his policies are very mainstream.

    In the eye of the beholder, of course.

    Maybe... So enlighten to which of his policies is extreme?

    What I'm saying is that many people may view his policies as extreme given their own political slant.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial Except there is nothing extreme about Trumps presidency, his personality is extreme. But his policies are very mainstream.

    In the eye of the beholder, of course.

    Maybe... So enlighten to which of his policies is extreme?

    What I'm saying is that many people may view his policies as extreme given their own political slant.

    Do you find them extreme?
    If so - which ones?



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial Except there is nothing extreme about Trumps presidency, his personality is extreme. But his policies are very mainstream.

    In the eye of the beholder, of course.

    Maybe... So enlighten to which of his policies is extreme?

    What I'm saying is that many people may view his policies as extreme given their own political slant.

    Do you find them extreme?
    If so - which ones?

    Why would you need to know? It has no relevance at all to the comment I made.

    I really should get back off this board. I stopped reading it for ages as it was full of posters getting dragged into personality arguments and irrelevant finger pointing about their own views.

    Any attempt to make comment about political 'happenings' moves quickly to questions like this.



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial Except there is nothing extreme about Trumps presidency, his personality is extreme. But his policies are very mainstream.

    In the eye of the beholder, of course.

    Maybe... So enlighten to which of his policies is extreme?

    What I'm saying is that many people may view his policies as extreme given their own political slant.

    Do you find them extreme?
    If so - which ones?

    the topic is US politics, not Crucial's beliefs.



  • @Crucial
    If you would rather not discuss the policies you don't like of Trump's (or don't actually have an answer because you secretly love them😁 ) that's fine.

    I openly say my own views here. It isn't a sensitive matter to me.
    I am just trying to understand the thinking of people who might have views different from my own.



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Crucial
    If you would rather not discuss the policies you don't like of Trump's (or don't actually have an answer because you secretly love them😁 ) that's fine.

    I openly say my own views here. It isn't a sensitive matter to me.
    I am just trying to understand the thinking of people who might have views different from my own.

    I'm going to call bullshit on that @Frank

    You post on here to cheerlead and support your opinion (which you are entitled to do). I have never once seen you genuinely 'try to understand differing views' even through debate.
    Even recently you attacked a comment of mine, where I said I disliked Trump due to his personality more so than policy by equating me with people stupid enough to criticise policy without knowing it. Again, just now you tried to drag me into the same argument.
    You don't appear to have any desire to debate or 'understand' just a desire to prove your view as the correct one.



  • @Crucial
    Ha ha - partially true. Fair comment.

    But right now I am trying to know what policies you dislike of Trump and you are really, really determined not to say. I am trying to understand you and you don't want to say.

    I guess I should get back to what I do best - cheerleading for Trump.😁



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Crucial
    Ha ha - partially true. Fair comment.

    But right now I am trying to know what policies you dislike of Trump and you are really, really determined not to say. I am trying to understand you and you don't want to say.

    I guess I should get back to what I do best - cheerleading for Trump.😁

    OK, I will give you one example. The only example that affects me directly and one that I feel I have a 'right' to whinge about.

    His Border Protection policies emboldening a bunch of tossers that were already tossers to begin with and giving them unbridled powers to be even bigger tossers.
    I like living in a 'free' society that values an assumption that you are going about your life in a legal manner unless there is good reason to think otherwise . Not an assumption that just because you want to enter a country you are a bad egg and must prove otherwise. The ability to demand electronic devices and passwords just because you want to transit through the US is an example. The ability to detain without representation or good reason is another. The ability to detain someone based simply on their religion is another.
    Now these policies didn't start with Trump but he has solidified them and encouraged their execution to the extreme.

    How does this affect me? It certainly deters me from wanting to run the gauntlet to visit friends in the US and even more so the stupidity of paying for an ESTA to change planes then joining endless queues to get processed. (This is also one of the reasons the AirNZ flights to London have become less desirable and then cancelled)

    There you go, an example. Not sure how that helps you.



  • This post is deleted!


  • Ok.... the last few posts sums up the problem with the left in politics. They call Trump extreme, get asked for examples of his policies that are extreme and instead launch into ad hominum attacks and personal experiences.
    And extreme isnt the same as wrong. It is just extreme compared to previous norms for that country or party.

    If Trumps policies are so extreme it should be dead set easy to list a whole bunch.
    I will list some off the top of my head for Democrats
    Murder of babies up until birth,
    Medicare for all
    Open Borders.
    Elimination of ICE
    The Green new deal
    Reparations
    Removal of Electoral College
    Stacking the Supreme court

    Those are ALL extreme positions, so far form the historical centre of the independents and indeed even the democratic base.
    So @Crucial what are the extreme policies that Trump has instigated , your immigration example is not even close as his policies are more liberal than previous administration



  • I wonder what candidate?

    I guess Trump because Orange man bad

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-ceo-and-seven-others-charged-multi-million-dollar-conduit-campaign-contribution

    According to the indictment, from March 2016 through January 2017, Khawaja conspired with Nader to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions, directed to political committees associated with a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 election.



  • The Democrats are impeaching the President of the United States ... and CNN’s ratings have hit a three-year low. It’s the Boy crying wolf and a three year incessant whine. The American people have tuned out.





  • This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.



  • @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Man, you really do read what you want to.

    That says 'we are tasked with establishing what the motive was, not what it might have been'.

    In a long winded way, of course.



  • @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Its a concern just how far gone and crazy the Democrats are today.

    Here's another. (is this for real?)

    Steve Guest
    ✔
    @SteveGuest

    Democrat Rep. Al Green says the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump is needed “to deal with slavery.”



  • This post is deleted!


  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Man, you really do read what you want to.

    That says 'we are tasked with establishing what the motive was, not what it might have been'.

    In a long winded way, of course.

    Is that any better? Political opponents guessing motive and then trying to remove an elected president...

    The entire impeachment fiasco is reliant on people reading what they want... Cause the Dems sure haven't got any evidence.
    The whole impeachment is a disaster for Democrats as there is partisan approval and non partisan disapproval... Sell that to voters



  • @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Its a concern just how far gone and crazy the Democrats are today.

    Help me understand what is crazy about that excerpt.

    It is a snippet with possible contradictions in the pieces cut at either end, but the complete sentences there are fine.

    This is an investigation at the moment NOT a prosecution.
    The investigation exists to find the facts, no?
    The investigation (whether biased or not) must evaluate accounts to see if they ring true, no?
    The investigation must try to establish real reasons from the possible ones, no?

    Happy for you to knock away at those statements, but I don't see where the craziness you declare exists.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Man, you really do read what you want to.

    That says 'we are tasked with establishing what the motive was, not what it might have been'.

    In a long winded way, of course.

    Is that any better? Political opponents guessing motive and then trying to remove an elected president...

    That is their job if they decide a breach in law isn't it? Or does being elected now afford non-accountability?

    Personally I think this is a storm in a teacup and yes, there is an element of the Democrats latching onto a possible wrong step for their own purposes. There are also others that hold a very strict view on what the presidency affords in the way of powers (and/or how they should be carried out).
    This is the correct process, however to nut those arguments out and establish just how far over the line Trump stepped and what the consequence should be.
    Trump is not a king, he doesn't have the power he thinks he should have. A reprimand here wouldn't change that, I don't think, but surely the system of govt as it was designed must go through its motions?



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Man, you really do read what you want to.

    That says 'we are tasked with establishing what the motive was, not what it might have been'.

    In a long winded way, of course.

    Is that any better? Political opponents guessing motive and then trying to remove an elected president...

    That is their job if they decide a breach in law isn't it? Or does being elected now afford non-accountability?

    No it is absolutely not their job, why do you think it is???? That is the DOJ's job. They are responsible for alleging a political crime, then the Senates job to decide if it actually happened.

    As for being elected affording no accountability.. then why the furore over Biden being investigated? Trump had every right to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption with Hunter and Joe Biden, it fails the smell test and was already of concern. But according to the Dems Biden is immune because he might be elected?

    Personally I think this is a storm in a teacup and yes, there is an element of the Democrats latching onto a possible wrong step for their own purposes. There are also others that hold a very strict view on what the presidency affords in the way of powers (and/or how they should be carried out)

    This is the correct process, however to nut those arguments out and establish just how far over the line Trump stepped and what the consequence should be.

    The process and muddled and I dont agree that it has been correct, the secrecy, the blocking of witnesses make it all very non incorrect IMO. They have targeted the man and are now desperately looking for a crime.

    Trump is not a king, he doesn't have the power he thinks he should have. A reprimand here wouldn't change that, I don't think, but surely the system of govt as it was designed must go through its motions?

    He doesnt have the power he thinks he should have?? According to who? I have heard that democrat talking point a few times, but it is inane. Every president overreaches and pushes, heck so does Congress, doesnt lead to impeachment.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Its a concern just how far gone and crazy the Democrats are today.

    Help me understand what is crazy about that excerpt.

    It is a snippet with possible contradictions in the pieces cut at either end, but the complete sentences there are fine.

    This is an investigation at the moment NOT a prosecution.

    A poiltical investigation by one party into another.

    The investigation exists to find the facts, no?

    Yes. Sadly they arent looking for facts, just smear, half facts, leakings and secrecy.

    The investigation (whether biased or not) must evaluate accounts to see if they ring true, no?

    Yes, but they are only doing that for some witnesses, whilst hiding others.Not to mention only one political party is deciding they ring true. It is just partisan. Facts are irrelevant to the Dems by this point.

    The investigation must try to establish real reasons from the possible ones, no?

    Yes.. and that is why they are failing.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Its a concern just how far gone and crazy the Democrats are today.

    Help me understand what is crazy about that excerpt.

    It is a snippet with possible contradictions in the pieces cut at either end, but the complete sentences there are fine.

    This is an investigation at the moment NOT a prosecution.

    A poiltical investigation by one party into another.

    When the first prescribed step (House Committee) comes from a house controlled by a party other than the President then of course this is the case. You can't exclude that option from the process

    The investigation exists to find the facts, no?

    Yes. Sadly they arent looking for facts, just smear, half facts, leakings and secrecy.

    In your esteemed opinion, of course?

    The investigation (whether biased or not) must evaluate accounts to see if they ring true, no?

    Yes, but they are only doing that for some witnesses, whilst hiding others. Not to mention only one political party is deciding they ring true. It is just partisan. Facts are irrelevant to the Dems by this point.

    If by 'hiding' you are talking about the whistleblower, then again they are following the law set down. Shooting the messenger, or even the messenger's motive, does not change the facts of the actions being investigated. As for being partisan, again that is the process. The minority party has representation but is outnumbered in vote if it comes to partisanship. The founding fathers set it up so. Whether facts are irrelevant is again your opinion.

    The investigation must try to establish real reasons from the possible ones, no?

    Yes.. and that is why they are failing.

    That may be so. Does every police investigation result in a successful prosecution? No, but most of them were necessary in the first place. Doesn't mean that you don't investigate.
    In my opinion there is that fine line where political wants will cause an investigation to be started where it is perhaps an over-reach but that will only come back to bite them in the long run so why the issue for you?
    As far as I can see the (imperfect) process is operating as intended.

    However my original point was to @winger who declared that wording as a sign of craziness when I believe it is quite factual. I'll wait for him to support his own statement.



  • This Trump vs democrats is like a crazy 3 year dream. He's " obviously " not a proper president ( sic) yet not a single concerted effort to win the next election. 3 years of trying to impeach and nary a word on providing for the American people to beat him at the polling booth. Staggering



  • Yes Winger, it’s real. All on videotape. They’re gonna find something/anything to make impeachment stick, right?

    Al Green: Impeachment Must Address the Original Sin of Slavery — Trump Used Racism as a Weapon

    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/12/08/al-green-impeachment-must-address-the-original-sin-of-slavery-trump-used-racism-as-a-weapon/



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is from the Dems articles of impeachment.

    alt text

    Crimes aren’t what you actually do; it’s what we think is inside your head. We need Minority Report style clairvoyants to testify. Thought-crimes must be punished.

    Its a concern just how far gone and crazy the Democrats are today.

    Help me understand what is crazy about that excerpt.

    It is a snippet with possible contradictions in the pieces cut at either end, but the complete sentences there are fine.

    This is an investigation at the moment NOT a prosecution.

    A poiltical investigation by one party into another.

    When the first prescribed step (House Committee) comes from a house controlled by a party other than the President then of course this is the case. You can't exclude that option from the process

    Actually you can by ensuring it is bi partisan, which shouldnt be hard if your crime is real and conducted fairly

    The investigation exists to find the facts, no?

    Yes. Sadly they arent looking for facts, just smear, half facts, leakings and secrecy.

    In your esteemed opinion, of course?

    The investigation (whether biased or not) must evaluate accounts to see if they ring true, no?

    Yes, but they are only doing that for some witnesses, whilst hiding others. Not to mention only one political party is deciding they ring true. It is just partisan. Facts are irrelevant to the Dems by this point.

    If by 'hiding' you are talking about the whistleblower, then again they are following the law set down. Shooting the messenger, or even the messenger's motive, does not change the facts of the actions being investigated. As for being partisan, again that is the process. The minority party has representation but is outnumbered in vote if it comes to partisanship. The founding fathers set it up so. Whether facts are irrelevant is again your opinion.

    Sorry what gave you the impression that impeachment process was supposed to be partisan? The best example is the 2/3 majority required in the senate. The congressional dems are pushing a partisan nonsense through process designed to defeat partisan bullshit.

    The investigation must try to establish real reasons from the possible ones, no?

    Yes.. and that is why they are failing.

    That may be so. Does every police investigation result in a successful prosecution? No, but most of them were necessary in the first place. Doesn't mean that you don't investigate.

    You are comparing this to a police investigation??? T

    In my opinion there is that fine line where political wants will cause an investigation to be started where it is perhaps an over-reach but that will only come back to bite them in the long run so why the issue for you?

    Because it is nasty to have this happening and nothing else. But tell me what else Congress has achieved in the last 18 months. NOTHING. That is disgusting.

    As far as I can see the (imperfect) process is operating as intended.

    It is being made worse by a dishonest Democratic party taking a partisan approach. They have seized the phone records of journalists and political opponents.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    Ok.... the last few posts sums up the problem with the left in politics. They call Trump extreme, get asked for examples of his policies that are extreme and instead launch into ad hominum attacks and personal experiences.
    And extreme isnt the same as wrong. It is just extreme compared to previous norms for that country or party.

    If Trumps policies are so extreme it should be dead set easy to list a whole bunch.
    I will list some off the top of my head for Democrats
    Murder of babies up until birth,
    Medicare for all
    Open Borders.
    Elimination of ICE
    The Green new deal
    Reparations
    Removal of Electoral College
    Stacking the Supreme court

    Those are ALL extreme positions, so far form the historical centre of the independents and indeed even the democratic base.
    So @Crucial what are the extreme policies that Trump has instigated , your immigration example is not even close as his policies are more liberal than previous administration

    CRUCIAL completely ignored this post. I haven't looked at this sub-forum for months, but find it bizarre and amusing that no matter how far left and idiotic the Democratic positions and arguments have become, Crucial just marches in lockstep denial of common sense.



  • @Wairau said in US Politics:

    Crucial just marches in lockstep denial of common sense.

    To be fair, I know a lot of people who have the same thoughts, mostly because that’s all we’ve heard for three years — bombshells, the beginning of the end and walls closing in, an unceasing exercise in indoctrination.





  • @Wairau said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    Ok.... the last few posts sums up the problem with the left in politics. They call Trump extreme, get asked for examples of his policies that are extreme and instead launch into ad hominum attacks and personal experiences.
    And extreme isnt the same as wrong. It is just extreme compared to previous norms for that country or party.

    If Trumps policies are so extreme it should be dead set easy to list a whole bunch.
    I will list some off the top of my head for Democrats
    Murder of babies up until birth,
    Medicare for all
    Open Borders.
    Elimination of ICE
    The Green new deal
    Reparations
    Removal of Electoral College
    Stacking the Supreme court

    Those are ALL extreme positions, so far form the historical centre of the independents and indeed even the democratic base.
    So @Crucial what are the extreme policies that Trump has instigated , your immigration example is not even close as his policies are more liberal than previous administration

    CRUCIAL completely ignored this post. I haven't looked at this sub-forum for months, but find it bizarre and amusing that no matter how far left and idiotic the Democratic positions and arguments have become, Crucial just marches in lockstep denial of common sense.

    Wow?!

    I was just going to ignore this but as I have been shouted at, I will try and reply without falling into the trap.

    @Wairau (and others) can I first state quite clearly, and obviously, that I am not some kind of appointed representative of 'the left' and don't participate here to support anyone's views except my own.
    I know that the echo chamber that these politics boards have become are longing for someone to prove worth against but don't appoint me as that person.

    I find many 'far left' ideas crazy as well. Probably just because they are crazy. I'm not going to go in to bat for something I don't agree as a way of backing up an opinion that I do have. Just because someone doesn't like some of what Trump does or his personality does not make them accountable for every crazy out there.

    To me this is the crux of what is wrong with politics across the world at the moment. Instead of different opinions being debated and discussed they are shouted down and silly names and labels are attached to decrease the worth of an individual and their views.

    The was a good reason that I didn't reply to that post and it was because it was formed from a misconstrued statement of mine. I said that 'some would find Trump's policies extreme', not that I did.
    That true statement led to me being asked to explain a whole bunch of Democratic policies as if there was some need for binary position taking where disagreeing with one thing meant you supported another unrelated one.

    So, @Wairau please go back and actually read the last couple of pages and tell me where I have declared any support for Democratic policies let alone some of the extreme ones being bandied about.
    I came back to this thread with a rather innocuous comment regarding Pete B's lack of support from blacks. I got pounced on with requests to personally justify the behaviours of all and sundry (something I don't even ask Trump supporters to do for him). Since then I have debated impeachment process where my point is simply that you can't claim craziness based on following procedure. Claim it on other points, sure, but not for a party following the rules they didn't make.

    The only way you conclude that I am in "lockstep denial of common sense" is because you are assigning a position for me.



  • @Crucial Well said mate



  • @Tim said in US Politics:

    They achieved all they could back in 2002 . Bizarre to think the kids conceived on the last leave of the soldiers who served there in 2001 are old enough to serve in the same place .

    On the upside they are already one fifth of the way there, only 80 more years till they get a functioning government



  • @Tim said in US Politics:

    It's hard to not say "I told you so" every time this comes up, but I said at the time it was a dumb idea to expand the mission beyond hunting Bin Laden and that we were doomed to failure. The only question would be how much money and how many lives would be expended until someone had the gumption to admit it was all a disaster and move on.

    But that would require people who weren't professionally invested in the advocacy and execution of this disaster to now be in charge and that's unlikely.



  • One of my biggest issues with Trump was him being anti vaxxer , fortunately he seems to have seen the error of his ways and abandoned such silly anti science nonsense and is advocating people get their shots now .

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/president-trump-might-not-be-an-anti-vaxxer-anymore.html



  • I am curious whether news media will cover this yuuge important story or deliberately ignore it and instead go hunting for more bonfires n’ witches to burn?

    alt text



  • This is an astounding clip from three nights ago, a CNN townhall with Nancy Pelosi. It’s been on youtube a couple times, but funnily keeps getting pulled. Another version popped up this past hour, so watch it while you can.

    The gyst: Nancy Pelosi admits that as Speaker of the House and member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2002 she knew that Bush was lying about wmd and starting a war of aggression, and says none of that rised to the level of impeachment the way that corrupt Bad Orange Man has been abusing his power.

    Tells me all I need to know about what a SCAM this whole process has been.



  • Reading through the IG Report it has become clear that the FBI needs to be gutted and overhauled, which won’t be easy. Nobody can trust them. They’re corrupt, they lie, they break the law, they ensnare and litigate on false pretenses, they falsify reports and warrants ... they are Big Brother. Clint’s new film “Richard Jewell” could not have premiered at a more perfect moment.



  • @Salacious-Crumb said in US Politics:

    This is an astounding clip from three nights ago, a CNN townhall with Nancy Pelosi. It’s been on youtube a couple times, but funnily keeps getting pulled. Another version popped up this past hour, so watch it while you can.

    The gyst: Nancy Pelosi admits that as Speaker of the House and member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2002 she knew that Bush was lying about wmd and starting a war of aggression, and says none of that rised to the level of impeachment the way that corrupt Bad Orange Man has been abusing his power.

    Tells me all I need to know about what a SCAM this whole process has been.

    Going to war to benefit Halliburton shareholders isn’t considered impeachable ?


Log in to reply