Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 04, 2019

We keep hearing that Trump's actions aren't impeachable offenses. So I ask Trump supporters to tell us what they think is an impeachable offense(s). What would Trump have to do to warrant impeachment in your eyes?

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A hummer that you did not have to pay an adult entertainer to perform!

-- jeffytoecentrelawyeroazberly

#1 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-12-04 02:20 PM | Reply

Don't expect any Trumperphluffers to give an answer; they all know as soon as they draw a line, Trump will cross it.

Exhibit A: Lindsey Graham.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:24 PM | Reply

We should start the Deplorables with an easy one:

Breaking into the DNC headquarters. Impeachable?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 05:05 PM | Reply

Lying to a federal grand jury, suborn perjury.

#4 | Posted by homerj at 2019-12-04 05:13 PM | Reply

#4 So literally the only thing that would be impeachable is lying under oath to a federal grand jury, but Trump will never testify, so he is never impeachable? What a riot.

#5 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-04 05:18 PM | Reply

If he is called to a grand jury he would have to testify.

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-04 05:27 PM | Reply

Breaking into the DNC headquarters. Impeachable?

#3 | Posted by snoofy

Who did that sno. If it was republicans the dnc would have let the FBI look at it.

#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-04 05:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

WTF does the constitution say? You libs ain't the brightest candle in the room.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-04 05:30 PM | Reply

If he is called to a grand jury he would have to testify.
#6 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Not with Barr in charge.

You're naivete is adorable, yet troubling.

#9 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"#4 So literally the only thing that would be impeachable is lying under oath to a federal grand jury, but Trump will never testify, so he is never impeachable? What a riot."

It's the most luminary GOP thinking since Brett Kavanaugh proved that when No Means No, when she's passed out drunk and can't say No, then it isn't rape. (And this is exactly why "affirmative consent" had to be added to the dictionary. Because of clever rapists.)

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 05:41 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I'm afraid that after 3 years of endless claims that nearly every action that the current President has engaged in is an impeachable offense, that the well is so poisoned that it would need to be something serious, incontrovertible, with concrete evidence, and an unquestionable motive.

#11 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 05:44 PM | Reply

Hmm...didn't read the opening blurb well enough. I suppose my requirements for what constitutes an impeachable offense must come from a non-Trump supporter.

#12 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 05:46 PM | Reply

that nearly every action that the current President has engaged in is an impeachable offense, that the well is so poisoned that it would need to be something serious, incontrovertible, with concrete evidence, and an unquestionable motive.
#11 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Sad, cliche talking point. Especially unconvincing. Tell me this, what Presidential candidate can you name that publicly pleaded with a foreign government to meddle in U.S. democracy?

Unquestionable motive has been established since 2016. Those that choose to ignore can not be helped, apparently.

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:49 PM | Reply

suppose my requirements for what constitutes an impeachable offense must come from a non-Trump supporter.
#12 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Hmmmmm. Would it help if I told you I voted for Trump in 2016?

#14 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:50 PM | Reply

Lying about a BJ.

#15 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-12-04 05:53 PM | Reply

A Dem president, African-American or not, wearing a tan suit in public is certainly impeachable.

A GOP president, Citrus-American or not, shooting a guy on Fifth Avenue in no way shape or form is impeachable...
--GOP mouth-breathers

#16 | Posted by catdog at 2019-12-04 05:57 PM | Reply

"Lying about a BJ."

Say it ain't so!

"Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?" a reporter asked him.
"No," Trump replied.
www.vox.com

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 06:00 PM | Reply

Tell me this, what Presidential candidate can you name that publicly pleaded with a foreign government to meddle in U.S. democracy? - #13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 05:49 PM
I'm still not convinced that exposing emails pertaining to things such as "yoga routines," "family vacations," and "planning Chelsea's wedding" emails were really going to effect democracy in the US. Did you expect many democrats to not vote for HRC based on that kind of thing?
abcnews.go.com

#18 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 06:04 PM | Reply

Did you expect many democrats to not vote for HRC based on that kind of thing?
abcnews.go.com
#18 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I'm still not convinced that matters.

The significance lies within the scope of the request. Are you suggesting that Trump had any clue of the substance of those emails?

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 06:10 PM | Reply

Don't expect any Trumperphluffers to give an answer;

Let's be painfully clear.... if it was Obama of Hilary that were stupid enough to do any of the myriad of things Fat Nixon has done the GOP would be screaming to high heaven about how the CONSTITUTION DEMANDS THE PRESIDENT BE REMOVED TO PURIFY THE OFFICE.

As evidence, just look to Lindsay Graham campaigning for impeaching Bill Clinton over a ------- arguing that he needed to be removed even if he did not commit a crime.

#20 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-04 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Being a Democrat and breathing.

#21 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-12-04 06:19 PM | Reply

Wow... Going on an hour and a half and the only real answer we have gotten is "whatever Bill Clinton got impeached for".

Can't say I'm surprised. MSGT actually responded to me on a different thread that there WERE things that conservatives would impeach a conservative president for. But, when I ask him specifically what those were, he ghosted on me.

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

is "whatever Bill Clinton got impeached for".

Which, as was pointed out, Grump has done as well.

But, as was also pointed out, the Schutheap in Chief has avoided any change of perjury by refusing to testify and the GOP has been more than willing to back him up on that.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 06:36 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting that Trump had any clue of the substance of those emails? - #19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-04 06:10 PM
That was what Sec. Clinton claimed was in those emails months before Trump made his statement. Did you have any reason to believe that she was lying?

#24 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 06:37 PM | Reply

So What Offenses Would You Find Impeachable?

If the prez is a dem, then lying about a BJ is impeachable.

If the prez is a repub, then obstructing justice, committing a criminal coverup, violating the emoluments clause, and blackmailing our allies with government funds in exchange for fake dirt on your rival...NONE of them are impeachable.

This situation - the prez using the powers of the state to help him win an election - is EXACTLY, word-for-word, why the founders created impeachment. Repubs are all traitors to the founders and the country and their whole party is the cult of a con man.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm afraid that after 3 years of endless claims that nearly every action that the current President has engaged in is an impeachable offense, that the well is so poisoned that it would need to be something serious, incontrovertible, with concrete evidence, and an unquestionable motive.

#11 | Posted by Avigdore

It's your lucky day - we have all of that now.

The only thing you have left to do is pretend you're too stupid to see it.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 07:13 PM | Reply

The only thing you have left to do is pretend you're too stupid to see it. - #26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 07:13 PM
Yes, yes...you're incapable of anything other than an attack on someone who has a different opinion than you. Just like every other day and every other interaction. At least you are consistently unable to provide anything useful to the conversation. You think you are right, because are unable to comprehend that you may not be. It is a common weakness. It makes you a chore to deal with, like an angry teenager.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 07:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, yes...you're incapable of anything other than an attack on someone who has a different opinion than you.

Pro tip-when somebody calls you stupid, don't confirm it. Just quietly walk away.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 07:24 PM | Reply

Pro tip-when somebody calls you stupid, don't confirm it. Just quietly walk away. - #28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 07:24 PM

While I have no doubt you are a pro on being called stupid, I prefer to confront lies and ignorance...which is why I confront you so often.

#29 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 07:26 PM | Reply

LOL the only thing you confront is the notion that you do anything other than spread lies and ignorance.

You're either supremely obtuse or disingenuous.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 07:43 PM | Reply

LOL the only thing you confront is the notion that you do anything other than spread lies and ignorance.

You're either supremely obtuse or disingenuous.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 07:43 PM
Any time you feel that you are capable of pointing out any lie that I've spread, you're welcome...no - encouraged to do so. Make sure you provide your evidence. Until then, I'll just accept that you continue to talk out of your ass. Is that pointed, candid and sincere enough for you?

#31 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 07:48 PM | Reply

The only thing you have left to do is pretend you're too stupid to see it. - #26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 07:13 PM
Yes, yes...you're incapable of anything other than an attack on someone who has a different opinion than you. Just like every other day and every other interaction. At least you are consistently unable to provide anything useful to the conversation. You think you are right, because are unable to comprehend that you may not be. It is a common weakness. It makes you a chore to deal with, like an angry teenager.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore

No I'm incapable of joining in your delusion that facts are opinions.

I'm right because the facts are on my side. You're wrong, so all you can do is complain that I'm too mean to you.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:10 PM | Reply

No I'm incapable of joining in your delusion that facts are opinions.

I'm right because the facts are on my side. You're wrong, so all you can do is complain that I'm too mean to you.

#32 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The lack of self-awareness is truly amazing. I've got to hand it to you - you must have an iron-set to be able to make that claim.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 08:15 PM | Reply

The lack of self-awareness is truly amazing. I've got to hand it to you - you must have an iron-set to be able to make that claim.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ

And you've got to have a blindfold on to not see that it's true. But you've proven that over and over and over.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:28 PM | Reply

No I'm incapable of joining in your delusion that facts are opinions.
I'm right because the facts are on my side. #32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:10 PM

I've never complained that you're too mean to me. I've expressed to you that you try to argue like a child.

Facts can be opinions. It is a fact that in Sondland testified that, in his opinion, the Pres engaged in quid pro quo. It is also a fact that Sondland admitted, under oath, that his testimony was based on speculation. It is a fact that Zelinskyy stated that the President did not engage in QPQ. Both of those are opinions....and they are facts.

Did you have any facts that you wanted to add that weren't also opinions? Did any of the evidence include directly linking Trump to a QPQ, because fivethirtyeight.com says it didn't.


In broad strokes, Democrats laid out three questions at the beginning of the public phase of the inquiry, which they said would serve as the foundation for their investigation (and perhaps also the articles of impeachment). Those questions are:

1.Did Trump request an investigation that would personally benefit his political interests?
2.Did Trump and his allies pressure Ukraine into committing to an investigation, including threatening to withhold a White House meeting or military aid?
3.Did the White House then try to suppress or conceal information about Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine?


My problem with your version of the situation is that I don't believe that there has been evidence, other than opinion, proving that the answer to #2 is yes. Please, really, if you have any evidence, not opinion, that shows that 2nd to have been done, share it. #2 really is a tricky bit. While I agree that there may be evidence of holding back from a meeting in exchange for an announced investigation, that hardly meets the criteria of 'serious'. On the other hand, while withholding military aid would certainly be considered 'serious', it fails to meet the criteria of having 'concrete evidence'.

But of course, the Democrats are still missing perhaps the most essential piece of the puzzle " a smoking gun for their second question of whether Trump ordered that military aid and/or a White House meeting be conditioned on the investigations.

To be sure, Democrats do have a wide array of evidence strongly suggesting that the people involved in pushing for the investigations " including the Ukrainians " understood that a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in military aid hung in the balance. Multiple witnesses testified over the course of the public hearings that it was clear to them that there was a quid pro quo. But as Republicans pointed out repeatedly over the course of the hearings, none of these witnesses ever talked to Trump directly. Even Sondland, the one witness who did communicate with Trump directly about the investigations, said he only "presumed" there was a connection and had never heard Trump say it.


Please show us your expertise.

#35 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 08:32 PM | Reply

Speaks,

I don't know if there is a person on this site who presents their own personal opinions as unassailable facts more than you.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 08:37 PM | Reply

While I agree that there may be evidence of holding back from a meeting in exchange for an announced investigation, that hardly meets the criteria of 'serious'. On the other hand, while withholding military aid would certainly be considered 'serious', it fails to meet the criteria of having 'concrete evidence'.

But of course, the Democrats are still missing perhaps the most essential piece of the puzzle " a smoking gun for their second question of whether Trump ordered that military aid and/or a White House meeting be conditioned on the investigations.

#35 | Posted by Avigdore

We have the testimony of the people who were there for the entire process. Corroborated testimony. We have the transcript.

Your cult's entire defense is pretending that all these dots dont connect. The the president hid the call on a classified server for no reason. That he's banning 12 people from testifying just for fun. That no amount of testimony ever proves anything enough for you. Again, you have to pretend to be blind and stupid to not see what happened here.

I dont blame you. What else can you do besides whine about the process or pretend that the evidence doesnt add up to anything?

Your best bet is just the most basic - say it's no big deal. Of course, what you're really saying is that the president is a king and can do whatever he wants and there is no accountability that can be applied to him, but so what?

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Speaks,

I don't know if there is a person on this site who presents their own personal opinions as unassailable facts more than you.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ

I dont blame you for trying to refocus this on me. Classic goatman technique. When you've been reduced to defending a con man, just attack the opposition.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I dont blame you for trying to refocus this on me....

#38 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I should have waited for you to actually do what I accused you of doing (see: any Climate change thread).

Bottom line though is my criticism was personal when it wasn't warranted.

My apologies.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 08:56 PM | Reply

@#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:50 PM
Your connect the dots analogy is better than you know. You are pretending that you know how the dots connect. You are, literally, seeing the pattern in those dots and making connections that you don't have evidence for.

While I can acknowledge that those who provided testimony may very well have been correct in their assumption that QPQ was happening, I can also acknowledge that they could all be acting just as you are...seeing connections in unconnected dots. I understand that those people are fallible, as are we all. They have their opinion, created by their biases, and gave that as their testimony. Unfortunately, 3 years of 'everything is impeachable' can sway the opinion of even the most competent person...allowing them to see connections because they already expect them to be there.

Here we are. I told you what would be required to be found impeachable. You claim that there is concrete evidence. Perhaps you just don't understand what that phrase means. If you did, you wouldn't have mistakenly stated that such evidence existed.

#40 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 08:58 PM | Reply

Hey guys, wanna list what you think are impeachable offenses?

What would Trump have to do to get you to drop your "hope everyone is as dumb as me" obtuse games?

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 09:04 PM | Reply

You claim that there is concrete evidence. Perhaps you just don't understand what that phrase means.

Ok. So an agreement written in crayon signed by Trump with his obnoxious sharpie is the only thing you find credible enough for impeachment.

All those career state people are just stupid never Trumpers who couldn't possibly read between the lines?

And you honestly expect us to believe you're anything other than stupid or dishonest?

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 09:07 PM | Reply

All those career state people are just stupid never Trumpers who couldn't possibly read between the lines?

And you honestly expect us to believe you're anything other than stupid or dishonest?

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 09:07 PM
Stop talking out of your ass. You even quoted the comment that stated that they might be correct: While I can acknowledge that those who provided testimony may very well have been correct in their assumption that QPQ was happening
Only someone dishonest would pose an accusatory question when the evidence is already in their face.

Also, you don't undo the Democratic process because some career government people are 'reading between the lines'.
Reading between the lines means inferring the meaning of something. Inferring a meaning brings with it the risk that you are seeing something that isn't there, or seeing something that you expect to be there. Given

#43 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 09:20 PM | Reply

Given the amazing amount of calls for Trump over the past 3 years, the claims that seemingly any activity of his is traitorous, illegal, immoral, unethical...it is entirely conceivable that these government folks saw what they were conditioned to see. Those are the risks with making accusations for years.

#44 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-04 09:24 PM | Reply

Lying about a BJ

If my wife was the kind of woman who would have Jeffry Epstein killed, I'd lie about a BJ too! ;)

#45 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-12-04 09:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

it is entirely conceivable that these government folks saw what they were conditioned to see. Those are the risks with making accusations for years.

#44 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-12-04 09:24 PM | FLAG:

LOL yeah everybody but the lying lifelong conman are wrong and nefarious.

------- idiot.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 10:38 PM | Reply

#41 If trump woke up as African American.

#47 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-12-04 11:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

What if the Supreme Court upholds his tax returns must be turned over and he moves to try to block his financial institutions from doing so?

#48 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-12-05 12:08 AM | Reply

"The only thing you have left to do is pretend you're too stupid to see it."

Except he isn't pretending.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-05 07:18 AM | Reply

#41 If trump woke up as African American.
#47 | POSTED BY FRESNO500 AT 2019-12-04 11:18 PM

GOLDEN BUZZER

#50 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-12-05 07:35 AM | Reply

I'm afraid that after 3 years of endless claims that nearly every action that the current President has engaged in is an impeachable offense, that the well is so poisoned that it would need to be something serious, incontrovertible, with concrete evidence, and an unquestionable motive.

#11 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-12-04 05:44 PM

I'm afraid that after 3 years of endless claims that every illegal, unethical, unconstitutional, and amoral actions by the current president has engaged in is NOT an impeachable offense, the well is so poisoned that he really could shoot someone on 5th avenue on camera and you idiots would still demand more

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-05 09:14 AM | Reply

Here we are. I told you what would be required to be found impeachable.

#40 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Where? I see nowhere where you say what specifically would be impeachable. The closest you get was saying a quid pro quo involving military aid would be "serious". Is "serious" a synonym for "impeachable"?

Because we already know that Lindsey Graham said that "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing." But, apparently "disturbing" is NOT a synonym for "impeachable" because we KNOW that Trump was engaging in a quid pro quo, yet Graham still vehemently denies Trump's actions are impeachable. And Graham has even gone so far that he refuses to even look at the evidence by reading the transcripts of the hearings.

So Avigdore, WHAT do you think is impeachable? If it can be shown, through first-hand testimony, that Trump withheld military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens, do YOU THINK that Trump should be removed?

Because we are already past post 50, and so far conservatives have refused to answer the original question for this post (other than to say "whatever Bill Clinton did"). Not that I blame them. Because even conservatives know that eventually the accusations against Trump will get proved, and then they will get beat over the head with any responses here as the push those goalposts back even further.

#52 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 09:18 AM | Reply

Yeah I'm not shocked by the results on this thread.

No righty has ventured to answer seriously.

Probably because there's nothing Trump can do to make them call for his impeachment.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 09:30 AM | Reply

Well, since the article lists only the 1787 law, it stands to reason based on the hate the Liberals have shown regarding the 2nd Amendment and wanting it changed that the Reps have an easy soap box to stand on by wanting the rules to change. I mean, that's IF Liberals don't want to be the nasty hypocrites you have been for the last 3 years. It's funny to watch one party cling so hard to a law that was put in the books in 1787 but have years of recent history fighting another law because they claim it is outdated.

As far as Trump's offense, it is impeachable if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that pesky "reasonable doubt" problem that America has had for many years now. There have many many more HUGELY egregious offenses made by people that get off because of reasonable doubt. The issue here isn't that Trump is guilty or not, it's that reasonable doubt has caused half of the country to not get the result they wanted. And, if you have been alive for at least 20 years, you know this happens in a lot of high profile cases. Oh, and make no mistake, reasonable doubt is in play here. People want to claim an impeachment hearing is not a product of court proceedings but it is.

#54 | Posted by humtake at 2019-12-05 12:51 PM | Reply

Here we are. I told you what would be required to be found impeachable. You claim that there is concrete evidence. Perhaps you just don't understand what that phrase means. If you did, you wouldn't have mistakenly stated that such evidence existed.

#40 | Posted by Avigdore

Thats the thing about the word "concrete". There is no definition. So no matter how concrete any reasonable person can see the evidence is, and unreasonable person can always say it's not concrete enough for them.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 01:04 PM | Reply

So What Offenses Would You Find Impeachable?

Pointless question.

Even if you found a Trumper willing to answer this, if it ever became clear Trump actually did what they said, they'd just move the goalposts and say that's no longer good enough.

They elected a demented criminal with the brain of a 6th grader. Like him, their egos are far too fragile to face that fact and admitthey did something wrong.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As far as Trump's offense, it is impeachable if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that pesky "reasonable doubt" problem that America has had for many years now.

#54 | Posted by humtake

No the problem is that the republican party, corrupted by 20 years of fox news, doesn't exist in the same universe as the word "reasonable."

Any reasonable person can see what trump did, beyond a "reasonable" doubt. But since "reasonable" is subjective, and reason has been banned in your party, your cult can always say it's not "reasonable" enough for them.

#57 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 01:06 PM | Reply

#54 nice dodge.

Seems like a lot of words to say "nothing".

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 01:11 PM | Reply

#54 | Posted by humtake

There is "reasonable evidence" that the earth is billions of years old. But there is a huge cult of unreasonable people who say that evidence isn't enough and it's just a trick, or hoax, or conspiracy, or test from god, and the earth is actually 6000 years old.

No evidence will ever be "reasonable" enough for them because they are not reasonable people. Not coincidentally, many of these unreasonable people are also in the cult that will forever dismiss any evidence of trump's crimes as not "reasonable" enough for impeachment.

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 01:12 PM | Reply

Well, since the article lists only the 1787 law, it stands to reason based on the hate the Liberals have shown regarding the 2nd Amendment and wanting it changed that the Reps have an easy soap box to stand on by wanting the rules to change. I mean, that's IF Liberals don't want to be the nasty hypocrites you have been for the last 3 years. It's funny to watch one party cling so hard to a law that was put in the books in 1787 but have years of recent history fighting another law because they claim it is outdated.

#54 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I don't specifically want the second amendment changed. I just want to go back to using the interpretation of it that held up from 1788 until 2006 (that it did not guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms due to the first part of the amendment inconveniently talking about "militias"). But, I honestly think that due to the conservative judicial activism that changed its legal interpretation, the constitution will be eventually amended to remove the second amendment.

So, now you are saying that you want to get rid of impeachment? That is about what I expect at this point from conservatives. EVEN YOU would have to admit that removing impeachment from the constitution would shred the checks and balances that are the basic framework of the constitution and have ensured that our form of government has survived this long. But, destroying this country stopped mattering to conservatives a long time ago. All that matters to them now is "winning" at all costs, no matter what the cost.

Also, you talk about "reasonable doubt". That is generally the standard of proof for a trial. The impeachment trial is what will happen in the Senate. We are still at the impeachment stage, which is equivalent to a grand jury, where an actual vote for impeachment is equivalent in the legal world to an indictment. The standard of proof in a legal proceeding for an indictment is "probably cause". It is a MUCH lower standard, though you will probably claim we have not even reached that standard. Mainly due to my next point which is...

You STILL have not specifically said WHAT would be impeachable. Like for pretty much all other conservatives on this site, it is a smart move for you to make. Because once you draw that line in the sand we will hit you over the head with it when you eventually have to uproot those goalposts and carry them toward the horizon. While I will continue to bash you for not making a concrete declaration of what is "impeachable". It will be a lot worse for you later when we go to an impeachment trial and all those white house officials who refuse to testify are now forced to, and there becomes no "reasonable doubt" that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo to have Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent (Biden) in return for Trump releasing congressionally allocated military aid that he had been holding up.

So, like all the other conservatives on this forum, accept your lumps now and go hide on other threads. It may be tough now but it will be MUCH TOUGHER to handle later if you don't.

And I can ALREADY make a very strong argument that there is "probable cause" to believe that Trump engaged in said quid pro quo, so even breaking down now and making a concrete statement won't save you from being raked over the coals for your lack of support for impeachment (but not yet removal).

#60 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 01:24 PM | Reply

"Well, since the article lists only the 1787 law, it stands to reason based on the hate the Liberals have shown regarding the 2nd Amendment and wanting it changed that the Reps have an easy soap box to stand on by wanting the rules to change."

"it stands to reason"

Yeah.
About that.
Reasoning is not a thing you're good at.

Especially when your "reasoning" is your freedom-loving GOP should follow the lead of the Socialists and Communists in the Democrat Party.

Stay in school, kids!

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 01:28 PM | Reply

"Did any of the evidence include directly linking Trump to a QPQ"

^
The argument being advanced above is like saying Obama didn't kill Osama bin Laden, but rather Navy SEALs did.

Which was a popular argument at the time, for right-wingers... and obvious sour grapes to everyone else!

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 01:36 PM | Reply

Aggravated Assault
Insurance Fraud
Kidnapping
Arson
Assault / Battery
Bribery
Burglary
Money Laundering
Child Abandonment
Murder: First-degree
Child Abuse
Murder: Second-degree
Child Pornography
Perjury
Conspiracy
Credit Card Fraud
Prostitution
Criminal Contempt of Court
Racketeering / RICO
Rape
Domestic Violence
Robbery
Drug Manufacturing and Cultivation
Securities Fraud
Sexual Assault
Drug Trafficking / Distribution
Solicitation
Embezzlement
Extortion
Forgery
Tax Evasion
Theft
Homicide
Identity Theft
Wire Fraud

#63 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-05 01:47 PM | Reply

#63 | Posted by Avigdore

Impeachment involves the political system, not the legal system.

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 02:09 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Trump's resume?

#65 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-12-05 02:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Sexual Assault

He admits to that on tape. Welcome to Team Impeachment.

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 02:30 PM | Reply

So literally the only thing that would be impeachable is lying under oath to a federal grand jury, but Trump will never testify, so he is never impeachable? What a riot.

#5 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-12-04 05:18 PM | REPLY

Trump committed perjury in his interrogatory answers provided in the Mueller investigation. Perjury only matters when Democrats commit it.

#67 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-05 02:31 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Oh good. Well, there is a lot in there I could go after, but I will stick with the current subject.

You list bribery as impeachable. So, you agree that if Trump conditioned military aid on the public announcement of an investigation into his opponent, it would be impeachable (an official act in return for something of personal value)?

Now, Sondland admitted that he told the Ukrainians that US military aid was conditioned upon them publicly announcing the investigation (and separately said that Trump cared only about announcing the investigation, not about the investigation itself). So, that is definitely "probable cause" to believe that a crime (bribery) was committed, and since Sondland said he was taking direction from Trump, that Trump was involved in said crime. The trial will delve into it further and determine whether Trump actually intended to commit the crime or whether Sondland actually committed the crime at his own discretion.

So, you will you now affirm your support for impeachment to move the process forward?

#68 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 02:32 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-12-05 01:47 PM | REPLY |

Defrauding a public charity isn't a concern of yours?

Why not?

#69 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-05 02:33 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-12-05 01:47 PM | REPLY |
Defrauding a public charity isn't a concern of yours?
Why not?
#69 | POSTED BY ANTON

Because Trump is a Republican.

Impeachment only applies to Democrats in Avigore World.

Look at all the Republicans who were completely supportive of impeaching Clinton over lying about a sexual encounter who now take the opposite approach with Trump. Hell, even their expert witness yesterday said that Trump can't be impeached unless he committed an actual crime but back in 1998 said Clinton could be impeached regardless of whether he broke the actual law.

This is the Republican Party. There are no rules. There are no laws. It's all about owning the libs and protecting their own.

#70 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-12-05 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#63 | Posted by Avigdore

So you're taking "high crimes and misdemeanors" in it's most literal sense?

Trump must commit an actual crime to be impeached? There's no way to breach the public trust absent a brazen breaking of the law?

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump must commit an actual crime to be impeached?
#71

But a sitting president can't be convicted of a crime. So if you can't convict him, you can say that he obviously didn't commit it. So why impeach an innocent man?

It's all very self-cleaning.
Let's get back to football.

#72 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-12-05 03:12 PM | Reply

"I'm afraid that after 3 years of endless claims that nearly every action that the current President has engaged in is an impeachable offense, that the well is so poisoned that it would need to be something serious, incontrovertible, with concrete evidence, and an unquestionable motive."

This is nonsense. The level of verbal sniping by political opponents should have no bearing on judging whether a president's conduct is impeachable.

#73 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-05 03:38 PM | Reply

"Wow... Going on an hour and a half and the only real answer we have gotten is "whatever Bill Clinton got impeached for"."

To be fair, it wasn't the Trump supporters who brought up Bill Clinton in this thread.

#74 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-05 03:40 PM | Reply

To be fair, it wasn't the Trump supporters who brought up Bill Clinton in this thread.

#74 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Lying to a federal grand jury, suborn perjury.

#4 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

Those are SPECIFICALLY the "crimes" that Bill Clinton was impeached over. So, while they didn't say the words "Bill Clinton", their intent was clear.

#75 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 04:16 PM | Reply

To me it seems pretty petty what they want to hang Trump on. If he was trading state secrets or giving away the nuke codes yeah impeach or if he was partying with Epstein after being sworn in. I think Pelosi and company are grasping at straws.

#76 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-12-05 04:27 PM | Reply

"So, while they didn't say the words "Bill Clinton", their intent was clear."

This is their MO all along!

They hear Trump say "No quid pro quo of any kind" and won't see beyond those words. The President said no quid pro quo, so that's the end of it.

But when they hear Clinton say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" they are confident the facts are not quite in accord with the President's version.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 04:35 PM | Reply

Case in point:
So What Offenses Would You Find Impeachable?

Lying about a BJ.
#15 | POSTED BY FRESNO500

"Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?" a reporter asked him.
"No," Trump replied.
www.vox.com

Trump literally lied about a BJ.
Fresno still doesn't want to impeach.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 04:38 PM | Reply

76 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

So you're on the record for espionage and sexual assault? Or just rape? Only if a minor?

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 04:43 PM | Reply

And you think withholding foreign aid in exchange for personal gain is just fine? "Grasping at straws" as you put it?

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 04:45 PM | Reply

#76 | POSTED BY BYRDMAN

Trump is accused of soliciting a foreign government to influence the election in his favor to ensure that Trump gets re-elected.

If Congress does not act and Trump wins re-election, then his opponent will have every right to claim that the election was rigged and illegitimate. And make claims that Trump got other, unknown countries, or the same countries in unknown ways, to interfere and rig the election in his favor. Things like this generally lead to protests, violence, and civil war.

THAT is how serious this is. THAT is what you are defending. THAT is why Trump needs to be held accountable. How can anyone trust the outcome of an election when the executive branch is flagrantly undermining the fairness and legitimacy?

Our nuclear codes and state secrets are not going to matter much if we are no longer able to have a peaceful transition of power between opposing parties.

#81 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 04:51 PM | Reply

"If he was trading state secrets or giving away the nuke codes yeah impeach"

Trump has given away state secrets on multiple occasions.
Is that sufficient, or is there not enough quid pro quo for you to care that state secrets are leaking out of the Oval Office, Byrdman?

You guys are good at accidentally saying things Trump has already done are reasons you'd support impeachment.
And even better at clamming up and pretending it never happened afterwards!

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 04:55 PM | Reply

#80 | POSTED BY JPW

You are never going to win the corruption argument with conservatives. They EXPECT their politicians to be corrupt. And their politicians completely live up to their expectations.

It comes with the "winning" at any cost mindset. It doesn't matter whether it is moral, or ethical, or sustainable. All that matters is that they "beat the other guy" so that their fragile little self esteems are propped up for just a little bit longer. Because they don't have any other value as human beings if they aren't "winning" (that's why they get so invested in sports... because they actually prop up their self worth through them seeing other people they "support" winning against other people).

#83 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 04:56 PM | Reply

"So What Offenses Would You Find Impeachable?"

Using the IRS to attack your opponents-Lois Lerner
Spying on your opponents using CIA/FBI assets.
Spying on reporters that don't immediately support you.
Forcing soldiers to sign non-disclosures about Benghazi or go to jail.
Making your own immigration laws (especially after admitting that you didn't have the right to do it in the first place.

To name a few.

#84 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-12-05 05:23 PM | Reply

So you're on the record for espionage and sexual assault? Or just rape? Only if a minor?

#79 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-12-05 04:43 PM

If Trump was convicted of a legit sexual assault in court then yeah he would have to be impeached. It would be a felony conviction.

#85 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-12-05 05:32 PM | Reply

So What Offenses Would You Find Impeachable?

Lying under oath.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 05:52 PM | Reply

You mean an oath aside from the Oath of Office, or what?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 05:54 PM | Reply

To me it seems pretty petty what they want to hang Trump on. If he was trading state secrets or giving away the nuke codes yeah impeach or if he was partying with Epstein after being sworn in. I think Pelosi and company are grasping at straws.

#76 | Posted by byrdman

I'm sure you'd say the same thing if obama was trying to get dirt on mitt romney by withholding things from china.

Your definition of "grasping at straws" is literally the exact scenario the founders created impeachment for. They specifically discussed what should be done to a president who uses his powers to get foreign help in an election.

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 06:38 PM | Reply

Lying under oath.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ

The one thing you can pin on a dem president. What a coinkidink.

#89 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 06:39 PM | Reply

If Trump was convicted of a legit sexual assault in court then yeah he would have to be impeached. It would be a felony conviction.

#85 | Posted by byrdman

Impeachement and the legal system are separate. Abuse of power is not a crime but it an impeachable offense.

#90 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 06:40 PM | Reply

#85 so I'm assuming you think Trump should have to testify then so that he can actually be charged and convicted?

#91 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 06:40 PM | Reply

#85 also you think impeachment should only be used in the case of statutory violations? Felonies only?

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 06:46 PM | Reply

Sondland admitted that he told the Ukrainians that US military aid was conditioned upon them publicly announcing the investigation - #68 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-05 02:32 PM
Sondland also admitted that his testimony was based on nothing more than supposition. Got anything else?

www.youtube.com
3:11:22 here www.c-span.org
Sondland: "THAT'S THE PROBLEM. NO ONE TOLD ME DIRECTLY THE AID WAS TIED TO ANYTHING. I WAS PRESUMING IT WAS." (Sorry about CAPS, that's the copy/paste from the transcript)

#93 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-05 07:18 PM | Reply

#89 you got it, Speaks. I was trolling.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-05 07:24 PM | Reply

89 you got it, Speaks. I was trolling.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ

In the era of trump, suddenly every repub is a comedian.

#95 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 08:06 PM | Reply

In the era of trump, suddenly every Dem is a raving lunatic

#96 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-05 08:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In the era of trump, suddenly every repub is a comedian.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-12-05 08:06 PM | REPLY

It's all they have left.

#97 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-05 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In the era of trump, suddenly every Dem is a raving lunatic

#96 | Posted by nullifidian

Yes please tell us all about lunatics, you full grown adult who decided to spend his golden years repeating the talking points of a crook, con man, and world's most famous liar.

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 08:51 PM | Reply

#93 | Posted by Avigdore

Because everybody is as stupid as you and states their intention in unqualified terms. Right?

Christ you can't be this dumb.

#99 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 09:15 PM | Reply

Yes please tell us all about lunatics, you full grown adult who decided to spend his golden years repeating the talking points of a crook, con man, and world's most famous liar.
#98 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The Clintons excepted of course.

#100 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-05 09:38 PM | Reply

The Clintons excepted of course.

#100 | Posted by Ray a

Thinking the clintons lies are comparable to trumps is just another token on the mountain of evidence that you're a moron.

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-05 09:46 PM | Reply

And you think withholding foreign aid in exchange for personal gain is just fine? "Grasping at straws" as you put it?
#80 | POSTED BY JPW

Even Zelensky himself went on record as saying there was no suggestion of quid pro quo (redefined as bribery for emotional effect). As if it matters to leftist zealots.

#102 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-05 09:48 PM | Reply

Thinking the clintons lies are comparable to trumps is just another token on the mountain of evidence that you're a moron.
#101 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Compared to the Clintons, Trump is a boy scout.

Calling me a moron is the ultimate compliment.

#103 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-05 09:52 PM | Reply

Even Zelensky himself went on record as saying...
#102 | Posted by Ray

Whatever necessary to avoid becoming enmeshed in US domestic politics which could further derail or delay additional aid.

It would be beyond stupid for him to cross or contradict Trump publicly.

#104 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-05 10:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Whatever necessary to avoid becoming enmeshed in US domestic politics which could further derail or delay additional aid.

You can't know that. You pulled it out of your a**, because his version doesn't fit the narrative.

Without Zelensky, you don't have a case. All you have is hearsay, innuendo and opinion.

It would be beyond stupid for him to cross or contradict Trump publicly.

Wrong again. Zelensky fired the prosecutor investigating the Bidens and replaced him with a left wing stooge.

Obviously he's more afraid of the Deep State bureaucracy.

#105 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:31 AM | Reply

because his version doesn't fit the narrative.

*drink*

All you have is hearsay, innuendo and opinion

Oh look, another poster who thinks everybody has to be as stupid as them.

After eight years of reading I'll intent in everything Obama you idiots suddenly exist in a black and white, must be explicitly spelled out in excruciating detail to be true fairy land.

Wrong again. Zelensky fired the prosecutor investigating the Bidens and replaced him with a left wing stooge.

www.salon.com

Obviously he's more afraid of the Deep State bureaucracy.

Deep state squawk deep state!

Obviously you're an idiot.

#106 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 08:24 AM | Reply

A long list should be created here. Some ideas:

1. Coddling criminal heads of state and holding private one-on-one conferences with them while performing official duties as POTUS.
2. Soliciting foreign nations to hack our allies, our institutions, or any US citizen.
3. Soliciting foreign nations to hack one's political rival.
4. Using unsecure electronic devices for official government business.
5. Soliciting emoluments like having potential beneficiaries of government policy pay premium prices to join one's country clubs, lease one's resort or hotel rooms or other assets (especially in cases where the lease is paid but the leased asset is never used " wtf is that!!?), or purchases condos or other assets from the President, President's family or their businesses where there is even a remote appearance of conflict of interest.
6. Inciting distrust of federal institutions, like the FBI, the intelligence community, and federal agencies.
7. Attempting to incite violence against the press and journalists.
8. Covering up or abetting foreign state persecution of US journalists (or the heinous murder and dismemberment of a US journalist).

Just the beginning of a very long list.

#107 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-12-06 09:13 AM | Reply

Obviously you're an idiot.
#106 | POSTED BY JPW

You make a lot of screechy noise. But as your source confirms my post, there will be no investigation of the Bidens. There will be no quid pro quo if there ever was supposed to be one. What that leaves you is a purported crime to which there are no witnesses nor victims. What a joke!

#108 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:49 AM | Reply

"There will be no quid pro quo"

BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT. Zelensky was slated to make the announcement on September 13 on CNN.

The WB complaint became known on Sept 9. Withheld money was finally paid on Sept 11.

No announcement was made BECAUSE THEY GOT CAUGHT.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 09:58 AM | Reply

Sondland also admitted that his testimony was based on nothing more than supposition. Got anything else?

#93 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

A crime was committed. Either Trump approved of the bribe that Sondland communicated to the Ukraine. Or Sondland did it on his own.

So, either Sondland needs to go to jail for soliciting a bribe on behalf of Trump. Or Trump needs to be impeached and removed for "ordering" (in a direct or indirect way) Sondland to communicate the bribe.

And while Sondland admits that no one directly told him that the quid pro quo was military aid for an announcement of investigations, he has said what he did was "following the president's orders".

So, you have a Trump subordinate testifying, under oath, that he broke the law at the direction of the President. That is "probably cause" to believe that Trump committed an impeachable offense. Are there inconsistencies? Sure. That is the point of having a trial. So you work through those "inconsistencies" until you either can or cannot decide guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" (at least in the justice system).

Based upon Sondland's testimony, are you REALLY claiming that there is not "probably cause" to believe that Trump committed an impeachable offense? You are acknowledging that if Trump DID solicit (or direct others to solicit) a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens in return for releasing military aid allocated by congress that it WOULD BE impeachable, right?

#110 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-06 10:39 AM | Reply

You make a lot of screechy noise.

Better than the over confident nonsense you spew, typically with nothing or some fringe source to back you up.

there will be no investigation of the Bidens.

Because an investigation wasn't warranted.

It was a fiction created by Trump to smear his opponent.

Apparently heavy metal poisoning prevents you from knowing this obvious fact?

There will be no quid pro quo if there ever was supposed to be one. What that leaves you is a purported crime to which there are no witnesses nor victims. What a joke!

What that leaves is disingenuous people making disingenuous arguments.

Hilarious coming from you, a guy with an entire webpage dedicated to worshiping his own intellect and critical thinking "skills".

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 10:46 AM | Reply

Boy: (2016)
"Come quickly, there's a wolf!"

Citizens:
"Where?!?! WHERE?!?!"

Boy: (2017)
"Come quickly, there's a wolf!"

Citizens:
"Where?!?! WHERE?!?! WHERRREEE?!?!"

Boy: (2018)
"Come quickly, there's a wolf!"

Citizens:
"Where?!?! WHERE?!?! WHERRREEE?!?!"

Boy 2019....
Even with a Mueller report, Democrats and those who RESIST! only get SO MANY chances...

But seriously, I'll answer the question.
Those who voted for Trump are exhausted with his childish antics.
It's almost unimaginable the Democrats could be MORE PETULENT!
It seems or almost seems you could've controlled yourself.

I would vote for a rival to Trump in a heartbeat. But incumbents for President rarely have a rival. He was over the line for MOST if not a plurality of my GOP friends and family.

HILLARY was THAT MUCH WORSE!

As are his prospective rivals.
Now he's going to win in 2020.

#112 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-12-06 10:57 AM | Reply

I'll add this:

EVERYONE who voted for Trump KNEW WHY he was going to lose.
Seriously, we get it.

NO ONE (that I've seen or heard personally) has admitted why HILLARY lost that had to do with what a sheet candidate she was! Please prove me wrong and tell me why she lost if you voted for her.

#113 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-12-06 10:58 AM | Reply

NO ONE (that I've seen or heard personally) has admitted why HILLARY lost that had to do with what a sheet candidate she was!

Nonsense.

That's been discussed here numerous times.

#114 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 11:04 AM | Reply

there will be no investigation of the Bidens.
Because an investigation wasn't warranted.

Which ignores the video of Biden bragging how he got the prosecutor fired for investigating Hunter.

Hilarious coming from you, a guy with an entire webpage dedicated to worshiping his own intellect and critical thinking "skills".
#111 | POSTED BY JPW

All of which you lack.

You people can't see how transparent your vicious lies are.

#115 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 11:28 AM | Reply

"Which ignores the video of Biden bragging how he got the prosecutor fired for investigating Hunter."

Politifact says Ray is a gullible moron:
www.politifact.com

So does Snopes:
www.snopes.com

Clearly, Ray NoVax (formerly RayDow 1400) will fall for ANYTHING, especially if it's stupid enough.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 11:39 AM | Reply

"You people can't see how transparent your vicious lies are. "

Posts the guy who just lied about Bden, and won't bother to educate himself.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 11:40 AM | Reply

Which ignores the video of Biden bragging how he got the prosecutor fired for investigating Hunter.

Your inserting your bias and interpretation as reality.

What is it you say next?

You people can't see how transparent your vicious lies are.

LOL you only think I lack intellect and critical thinking because I don't swallow your shallow, low brow garbage that's meant to fluff your ego and nothing more.

#118 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 11:52 AM | Reply

#116 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

From your source, politifact: "Biden called for Ukraine to fire Shokin, the prosecutor general, but so did many others. The facts show that Biden wanted Shokin removed due to widespread concerns that Shokin was ineffective in pursuing corruption cases " not that he was too aggressively pursuing cases."

If you believe that, you're has hopelessly corrupt as Biden. No surprise there.

#119 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 11:56 AM | Reply

LOL you only think I lack intellect and critical thinking because I don't swallow your shallow, low brow garbage that's meant to fluff your ego and nothing more.
#118 | POSTED BY JPW

You prove it every time when you resort to vicious ad hominems.

#120 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 11:59 AM | Reply

You prove it every time when you resort to vicious ad hominems.

Ray,

My treating your posts (and many other poster's posts) is like Steven Hawking having a discussion with a Kindergarten class.

Say something factual and we'll see where it goes from there.

#121 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 12:22 PM | Reply

If you believe that, you're has hopelessly corrupt as Biden. No surprise there.

#119 | Posted by Ray

LOL I didn't lie or make anything up! You're just corrupt!

And you want to be taken seriously and conversed with in good faith?

GTFOOH.

#122 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 12:23 PM | Reply

But as your source confirms my post, there will be no investigation of the Bidens.

#108 | POSTED BY RAY

That is interesting, isn't it? That even though you think there is SO MUCH evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens, the Trump administration STILL refuses to open an investigation into them. So, are you claiming Trump and Barr part of the deep state protecting Biden?

If Biden did anything wrong, he should be investigated, tried, and appropriately punished. But, his rights still need to be respected. And if you CAN'T FIND enough evidence to open a legitimate US investigation into him, then he probably did not do what you claim he did. And if you CAN'T FIND enough evidence to do it legally through proper channels, you don't try to subvert our system and his constitutional rights by asking a foreign government to do it for you as "a favor".

From your source, politifact: "Biden called for Ukraine to fire Shokin, the prosecutor general, but so did many others. The facts show that Biden wanted Shokin removed due to widespread concerns that Shokin was ineffective in pursuing corruption cases " not that he was too aggressively pursuing cases."

If you believe that, you're has hopelessly corrupt as Biden. No surprise there.

#119 | POSTED BY RAY

So... "hopelessly corrupt" just because he believes something that doesn't fit your narrative, or do you have any ACTUAL facts or evidence to support your belief that it is false?

#123 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-06 01:54 PM | Reply

"or do you have any ACTUAL facts or evidence"

Careful: For Ray, the FACT that gold has dropped in value over the last 8 years, without paying a dime in dividends, and all while the S&P is up 150%, is PROOF to Ray that he's smart: because gold is suddenly much more affordable.

Ray will be opening a pretzel stand soon, to go with his logic.

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 02:00 PM | Reply

Compared to the Clintons, Trump is a boy scout.

Calling me a moron is the ultimate compliment.

#103 | Posted by Ray

With every post you prove you're a moron. So i'll keep letting you know of your accomplishments.

Your fake independent persona is hilarious. You're the "independent" who repeats corporate republican talking points like a trained parrot.

#125 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 02:07 PM | Reply

Careful: For Ray, the FACT that gold has dropped in value over the last 8 years, without paying a dime in dividends, and all while the S&P is up 150%, is PROOF to Ray that he's smart: because gold is suddenly much more affordable.
Ray will be opening a pretzel stand soon, to go with his logic.

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-12-06 02:00 PM | REPLY

He's an old man. He believes in the augasm. Let him stroke on.

#126 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-06 02:08 PM | Reply

With every post you prove you're a moron.

He's also a troll.

By the looks of this thread. He's being fed.

#127 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-06 02:09 PM | Reply

#124 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of man is staring you in the face and you don't see it.

because gold is suddenly much more affordable.

Buy low and sell high. It's an age old truism.

The irony is that a bet on gold is a bet that the left bankrupts this country. It's the surest bet I ever made. Thank you for your guidance.

#128 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 02:14 PM | Reply

"The irony is that a bet on gold is a bet that the left bankrupts this country." - #128 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 02:14 PM

"Ray is like the worry-wart child who predicted the murder of his parents and now wants them dead just to prove his worries were credible." - Posted by mOntecOre

"Drought conditions are prevailing all around the globe. Water is arguably in more serious shortage than any other natural resource. There's a good chance of higher food prices ahead as nations bid for dwindling food stocks." - Posted by Raystradamus, on the coming apocalypse

"Ray's been hit by so many pieces of falling sky he doesn't know north from south." - Posted by Nullifidian

#129 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 02:21 PM | Reply

So... "hopelessly corrupt" just because he believes something that doesn't fit your narrative, or do you have any ACTUAL facts or evidence to support your belief that it is false?
#123 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

After Mueller. After Schiff. And now after Nadler. After three years of boring cacophony, all the left has is allegations, innuendo, hearsay and opinion. All this agonizing noise hinges on the meaning of "favor." At minimum, you're not going to drive Trump out of office nor replace him in 2020 with one of your own. At maximum, the Democrats put themselves at risk of losing both houses.

#130 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 02:23 PM | Reply

Your fake independent persona is hilarious. You're the "independent" who repeats corporate republican talking points like a trained parrot.
#125 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You would be surprised by how many independent thinkers aren't taken in by leftist theatrics.

For what its worth, I thought that Republican attempts to impeach Clinton was over trivial nonsense. If they tried to impeach Clinton for war crimes, that I could support.

#131 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 02:29 PM | Reply

It doesn't get any better when I have JPW, Danforth and Hans on my a** at the same time.

#132 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 02:34 PM | Reply

Carefull, Ray. Schiff for brains and these tough guys will tattle to AT&T and screw your financial advisor.

#133 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 02:47 PM | Reply

"It doesn't get any better when I have JPW, Danforth and Hans on my a** at the same time." - #132 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 02:34 PM

Low hanging fruit, Ray.

#134 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 02:48 PM | Reply

What does that make you, Hans? A bat?

#135 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 02:56 PM | Reply

After Mueller. After Schiff. And now after Nadler. After three years of boring cacophony, all the left has is allegations, innuendo, hearsay and opinion. All this agonizing noise hinges on the meaning of "favor." At minimum, you're not going to drive Trump out of office nor replace him in 2020 with one of your own. At maximum, the Democrats put themselves at risk of losing both houses.

#130 | POSTED BY RAY

What does this have to do with Trump? Your claim was that the politifact analysis of the claims against Biden were false. Was Mueller investigating the Bidens? Was Schiff? Is Nadler??? And then you blather on about the election? What does the election have to do with the fact of whether Biden was corrupt or not?

I am not defending Biden. If he was corrupt I WANT TO KNOW. SHOW ME THE FACTS that support your claim so that we can make an informed decision in the upcoming primary. But, all I have heard from you, and people like you, about Biden are "allegations, innuendo, hearsay and opinion".

So... you have no facts to back you up. Got it. Regardless of whatever affiliation you "claim", your lack of the ability to back up any argument with facts shows you to be a conservative.

#136 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-06 03:25 PM | Reply

After Mueller. After Schiff. And now after Nadler. After three years of boring cacophony, all the left has is allegations, innuendo, hearsay and opinion. All this agonizing noise hinges on the meaning of "favor." At minimum, you're not going to drive Trump out of office nor replace him in 2020 with one of your own. At maximum, the Democrats put themselves at risk of losing both houses.

#130 | POSTED BY RAY

What does this have to do with Trump? Your claim was that the politifact analysis of the claims against Biden were false. Was Mueller investigating the Bidens? Was Schiff? Is Nadler??? And then you blather on about the election? What does the election have to do with the fact of whether Biden was corrupt or not?

I am not defending Biden. If he was corrupt I WANT TO KNOW. SHOW ME THE FACTS that support your claim so that we can make an informed decision in the upcoming primary. But, all I have heard from you, and people like you, about Biden are "allegations, innuendo, hearsay and opinion".

So... you have no facts to back you up. Got it. Regardless of whatever affiliation you "claim", your lack of the ability to back up any argument with facts shows you to be a conservative.

#137 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-06 03:25 PM | Reply

"Buy low and sell high. It's an age old truism."

Better truism: A gain of 150% over 8 years is better than stuffing your money in a mattress.

Ultimate truism: Since gold actually DECLINED in value over the last 8 years, you actually would've been better off HAD you stuffed the money in a mattress, versus your purchases of gold in the last 8 years.

In the big equation, you bought high, and held while gold paid no dividends, and in fact LOST value over the last 8 years, while a simple index fund more than doubled. If you and the index fund investor both started with $40K, after the last 8 years, he's got $100K...

...while you've got $39K. And your proud of that because...because now gold is REALLY cheap!

Turns out you're just as clueless about investments as you used to be about investments.

#138 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 03:25 PM | Reply

Danfroth is suddenly a fiduciary. Bwahaha

#139 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 03:27 PM | Reply

"Danfroth is suddenly a fiduciary"

Don't look now, but that's a compliment.

I'm proud to be a fiduciary; the advice I give is based on what's best for the client, not best for me. I've steadfastly refused to sell financial products, even though I know I could make a killing; my clients' well-being is more important.

But leave it to Wuss to not know the difference between a compliment and a jab. Of course, when you're too stupid to know the tax rate you're paying in your own home state, I guess that's to be expected.

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 03:33 PM | Reply

screw your financial advisor.
#133 | POSTED BY WISGOD

Ray has a financial adviser? Was his advice to only by gold and wait for the future collapse of paper currencies?

#141 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-06 03:36 PM | Reply

You would be surprised by how many independent thinkers aren't taken in by leftist theatrics.

#131 | Posted by Ray

Independent thinkers dont repeat untrue fox news propaganda like you do all the time. Independent thinkers dont defend all of trump's scams and crimes.

Try again.

#142 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 03:38 PM | Reply

Independent thinkers believe in Chemtrails, right?

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 03:40 PM | Reply

Turns out you're just as clueless about investments as you used to be about investments.
#138 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I never claimed to be an expert on investments. And I'm not. I've said before that the stock market is too opaque for my comfort. Too many sharks. Under those conditions, it's best to stay away.

Considering the massive debts that will never be paid, the Ponzi scheme nature of our monetary system, and the level of corruption in high places, with gold, I can sleep without worry.

The constant grating repetition from you only makes you look like the jerk you are.

#144 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 03:44 PM | Reply

Independent thinkers dont repeat untrue fox news propaganda like you do all the time. Independent thinkers dont defend all of trump's scams and crimes.
Try again.
#142 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

When I want truth, this site is the last place I'll find it. I saw from the beginning that the claimed connection between the Trump campaign and the Russians was a hoax. Neither is the translation of the word "favor" to bribery credible. I don't need Fox to tell me what is true and what is false, when it's as plain as day to me.

That said. Trump's performance is just as bad as any of his predecessors. At least he's entertaining.

#145 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 04:01 PM | Reply

Independent thinkers believe in Chemtrails, right?
#143 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Some do. I don't waste my time on the subject.

#146 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 04:08 PM | Reply

Change occupation Danfroth? Thought you worked with actors you old fool. Another internet liar or loser

#147 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 04:20 PM | Reply

Neither is the translation of the word "favor" to bribery credible.

#145 | POSTED BY RAY

I don't see why the word "favor" is important.

The Trump administration solicited a bribe from Ukraine. That is undeniable. Mainly because it is blatantly admitted in under oath testimony. Sondland TOLD UKRAINE that they needed to publicly announce an investigation into Biden to get military aid released. That is soliciting a bribe. Full stop.

The only real question is whether TRUMP HIMSELF ordered the bribe to be solicited or whether it was a "rogue action" by members of his administration. Sondland said that he was acting under Trump's orders, though Trump never specifically said to him that the military aid would be released after the announcement was made. There is definitely "probably cause" to believe that Trump orchestrated the bribe (the standard of evidence for an indictment) though there is not enough direct evidence to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard for a trial). So, support of impeachment (the political equivalent of an indictment) should be pretty straightforward. Whether enough additional evidence will come out at trial to remove "reasonable doubt" we will have to find out when the trial goes to the Senate (and the Senate start sending subpoenas to the people who refused to comply with the ones from the House).

#148 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-06 04:57 PM | Reply

That said. Trump's performance is just as bad as any of his predecessors. At least he's entertaining.

#145 | POSTED BY RAY

You truly are a conservative. Fully invested in the (R)ealityshow party.

#149 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-06 04:58 PM | Reply

Ignore congressional subpoenas, refusal to co-operate with congressional investigations and obstructing justice. That's enough in my book.

#150 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-06 05:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Trump administration solicited a bribe from Ukraine. That is undeniable. Mainly because it is blatantly admitted in under oath testimony. Sondland TOLD UKRAINE that they needed to publicly announce an investigation into Biden to get military aid released. That is soliciting a bribe. Full stop.

What bribe? Military aid always comes with strings attached. It's standard practice.

#151 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 05:11 PM | Reply

You truly are a conservative. Fully invested in the (R)ealityshow party.
#149 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

If the president was a Democrat and the House majority were Republicans, based on the facts, my position wouldn't change.

#152 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 05:18 PM | Reply

RAY

"What bribe? Military aid always comes with strings attached. It's standard practice."

That's very true. But you left out the important part: for the benefit of the country.

It's against the law to solicit or extort foreign aid for personal reasons i.e. help Trump win re-election.

Did you make a mistake . . . or did you leave the important part out on purpose?

#153 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 05:21 PM | Reply

Ignore congressional subpoenas, refusal to co-operate with congressional investigations and obstructing justice. That's enough in my book.
#150 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

There were no congressional subpoenas or investigations. And especially, there was no House vote to conduct an investigate. It's more accurately seen as an abuse of power on the part of House Democrats.

congress
/kNGr's/
a national legislative body, especially that of the US. The US Congress, which meets at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., was established by the Constitution of 1787 and is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

#154 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 05:28 PM | Reply

#153 | POSTED BY TWINPAC
But you left out the important part: for the benefit of the country.

Exposing the corrupt Bidens is for the benefit of the country.

Since the Bidens will not be investigated, Trump's request for a "favor" went nowhere.

I read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky. Trump did not so much as even hint of holding up military aid. You're reading into it what's not there.

#155 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 05:40 PM | Reply

" Since the Bidens will not be investigated, Trump's request for a "favor" went nowhere. "

I robbed the bank but they had no money. The cops let me go home.

LOL

#156 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-12-06 05:45 PM | Reply

"Trump's request for a "favor" went nowhere. "

Requesting the favor was the crime; Ukraine knew the aid hadn't arrived. Sondland admitted everyone was in the loop.

"I read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky."

No you didn't. You read a SUMMARY, where, for example, the discussion of Burisma was scrubbed; Vindman got worried when his attempts to put in the omitted sections were thwarted. In addition, Morrison put the discussion in the super-secret code-word file...why? Especially if it was a PERFECT call.

But your statement you "read the transcript" means you drank the Kool-Aid. That, or you're too stupid to know the difference between an actual transcript, and a doctored summary, specifically altered TO FOOL PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

#157 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 05:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RAY

"Exposing the corrupt Bidens is for the benefit of the country."

That's for the Judiciary to decide. Not some conspiratorial fancy of Donald Trump.

"I read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky"

The truncated one . . . or the one that's still locked up in the Super-Secret Server? ~ LOL

#158 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 05:54 PM | Reply

My son robbed the bank but I gave them 6 hours to fire the Prosecutor. -Joe, the Plug

#159 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 05:54 PM | Reply

Want to do push-ups, sissies?

#160 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 05:56 PM | Reply

wisgod-

if you didn't have lies and whining, would you exist?

#161 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-12-06 05:56 PM | Reply

"The biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of man is staring you in the face and you don't see it."

That's what you said 15 years ago. And 14 years ago. And all the years you predicted Dow 1400.

Back in early-to-mid 2011, tired of hearing endlessly about the imminent collapse, I asked for a date-certain. You said later on that year, or if not, definitely the following year, which I knew would be the year Obama would be running for re-election. So you were touting gold 8 years ago, as a hedge against imminent collapse.

And today, 8 years later and after losing money for the last 96 months, you're screeching "buy low", as if your investments dropping like a rock (especially compared to the 150% gain in the S&P) are somehow proof of your investment acumen, when all it really is proof of (according to Actual Math) is you would've been better off had you buried the dollars in a sack in the back yard.

#162 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 05:58 PM | Reply

I robbed the bank but they had no money. The cops let me go home.
LOL
#156 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

No. It's more like I asked a friend to help me rob a bank, but he wouldn't go along with me. So the bank wasn't robbed.

#163 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 05:59 PM | Reply

"It's more like I asked a friend to help me rob a bank, but he wouldn't go along with me.'

You must've missed the part where Z was about to go on CNN to announce the 'investigation', since from his perspective, it was literally a matter of life and death. And the part where Taylor messaged about the worst of all possible worlds: where Z would come out with the "announcement", and then wouldn't get the aid.

By ignoring all the facts available to you, you're just a useful idiot.

But I guess that's an improvement in your mind: at least you're "useful".

#164 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:04 PM | Reply

BTW RAY

What do YOU think the Bidens are guilty of? Nobody else seems able to find anything.

(No fair referring to your talking points memo. We'll know if you cheat.)

#165 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 06:05 PM | Reply

When I want truth, this site is the last place I'll find it. I saw from the beginning that the claimed connection between the Trump campaign and the Russians was a hoax.

#145 | Posted by Ray

Thanks for proving you avoid real information.

There were hundreds of contacts between the trump campaign and russia, as laid out in the mueller report. Instead of reading it and informing yourself like an "independent thinker" would, you just take the word of talking heads on trump's propaganda channel.

#166 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 06:06 PM | Reply

I read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky. Trump did not so much as even hint of holding up military aid. You're reading into it what's not there.

#155 | Posted by Ray

And was that ONE CALL all that the case is based on stupid?

#167 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 06:07 PM | Reply

#157 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
#162 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Wow! You remind me of a yapping toy dog. Yap Yap Yap all day long.

#168 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#166 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
#167 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Another yapping toy dog.

#169 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

go count your dwindling pile of gold.

#170 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-12-06 06:11 PM | Reply

"You remind me of a yapping toy dog."

You just hate having to face facts. You haven't even addressed how wrong you were, when you realized it, and what influences you now eschew since they led you so far astray. In fact you're so ------- dumb, you still think your gold investment proves your smarter than everyone else.

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:16 PM | Reply

Another yapping toy dog.

#169 | Posted by Ray

Do you can't even refute an argument from a yapping dog?

#172 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 06:19 PM | Reply

Alex, I'm lying about Joe? Did you have a stroke brought on from reality?
How sad you folks are when it's on TV. Maybe the caregiver will tell you you're full of ----

#173 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply

"Trump did not so much as even hint of holding up military aid."

That was Sondheim's job.

Was there a quid pro quo? "The answer is yes," Sondland declared. His remarks were replete with such lines for the ages. One in particular seemed certain to jolt Vice-PresidentMike Penceand Secretary of StateMike Pompeo: "Everyone was in the loop." www.newyorker.com

#174 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply

#171

^you're

#175 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:31 PM | Reply

Fiduciary Jr. Bwahaha

#176 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-06 06:32 PM | Reply

#171 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You can rant like a madman all you want. When no civil conversation is possible I have to tune you out.

#177 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

SPEAK ~ don't discourage him.

I want RAY's opinion on that much Trump-lauded crime committed by Joe Biden re the billion dollar loan guarantee Biden singlehandedly used to extort Ukraine into firing a crooked prosecutor.

#178 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 06:37 PM | Reply

"You can rant like a madman all you want. "

What a riot: I'm posting fact after fact after fact.

Just admit FACTS make you believe the speaker is a madman...because you have to somehow pretend losing money while others have doubled theirs is a GOOD thing.

I get you're tremendously embarrassed; you should be. But blaming those pointing out the facts makes you look even more idiotic.

#179 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:42 PM | Reply

#172 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
#174 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Do you people have a life outside politics? I can't imagine spending the hours you people spend on meaningless details.

It's days like this day I've spent on this site that reminds why still keep buying gold.

I'm going to need a couple of weeks to let the stench wear off.

#180 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Carefull, Ray. Schiff for brains and these tough guys will tattle to AT&T and screw your financial advisor.

#133 | Posted by wisgod

Why do you bother speaking?

#181 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 06:43 PM | Reply

"Fiduciary Jr"

Awwww, isn't that cute? Wuss finally looked up what a fiduciary is.

#182 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:43 PM | Reply

"Why do you bother speaking?"

Wuss speaks to address those who think he's an idiot; his intent is to remove all doubt.

#183 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:44 PM | Reply

Gimme a break, RAY. I'm not "yapping" at you.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can come up with something that justifies ragging on Joe Biden like Trump does.

Let's talk about that "loan guarantee."

#184 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 06:46 PM | Reply

"I can't imagine spending the hours you people spend on meaningless details."

Riiiiight. Meaningless details like investment returns, and how gaining 150% is somehow...somehow...BETTER than losing 5%.

Do you need me to type slower for it to sink in?

#185 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:48 PM | Reply

Where did RAY go?

#186 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 06:52 PM | Reply

I want RAY's opinion on that much Trump-lauded crime committed by Joe Biden re the billion dollar loan guarantee Biden singlehandedly used to extort Ukraine into firing a crooked prosecutor.
#178 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

You got me there. It shows how bored I've gotten by three years of Trump this Trump that.

#187 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:52 PM | Reply

"It shows how bored I've gotten by three years of Trump this Trump that."

You misspelled "stupid".

#188 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 06:53 PM | Reply

You got me there. It shows how bored I've gotten by three years of Trump this Trump that.
#187 | POSTED BY RAY

Only goes to show your primary objective is going left when told go right.

Because left is clearly smarter than right...when you do it.

#189 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 06:57 PM | Reply

Riiiiight. Meaningless details like investment returns, and how gaining 150% is somehow...somehow...BETTER than losing 5%

Just got three one ounce platinum Australian coins in the mail today. Their beautiful.

#190 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 06:58 PM | Reply

Why would you want platinum in a coin? It's useless as currency. Just get an ingot.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 07:02 PM | Reply

"Just got three one ounce platinum Australian coins in the mail today. Their beautiful."

And 8 years ago, when you were touting metals they were selling for roughly twice the price. Too bad you didn't buy them back then, right?

More to the point about gold: what did you know 8 years ago about gold that made you buy? You were SURE back then...just as sure as you are now, right?

#192 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 07:03 PM | Reply

Only goes to show your primary objective is going left when told go right.

My primary objective is to treat politics as a form of entertainment.

Because left is clearly smarter than right...when you do it.
#189 | POSTED BY JPW

That mindset typifies socialists.

#193 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 07:06 PM | Reply

"It shows how bored I've gotten by three years of Trump this Trump that."

That's OK RAY. Trump's a quitter, too. "White House tells Democrats it will not participate in Trump impeachment hearing."

Can't say that I blame him. Him being a pathological liar and all. He must be a nightmare to his attornies.

#194 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-06 07:13 PM | Reply

Just got three one ounce platinum Australian coins in the mail today. Their beautiful.

POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-12-06 06:58 PM | REPLY

They're

#195 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-06 07:17 PM | Reply

More to the point about gold: what did you know 8 years ago about gold that made you buy? You were SURE back then...just as sure as you are now, right?
#192 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

As I've told you many times and you always ignore. I've been buying what I could afford since 2004. That's fifteen years ago, not eight years ago when gold hit a top. I buy for reasons I've stated many times. If you can't see the high risk of the system imploding, that's your problem.

#196 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 07:17 PM | Reply

That's OK RAY. Trump's a quitter, too. "White House tells Democrats it will not participate in Trump impeachment hearing."

It's the best defense. If he participated, that would give the hearing legitimacy. It would open him up to a barrage of attacks by his accusers. They would do all they could to demean and embarrass him.

#197 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 07:24 PM | Reply

"I've been buying what I could afford since 2004. That's fifteen years ago..."

And in the last 15 years, the return on gold has sucked compared to a basic index fund. You'll admit that MATH, right?

"not eight years ago when gold hit a top."

You were touting buying gold 8 years ago. You bought gold 8 years ago. Are you going to deny it?

"If you can't see the high risk of the system imploding, that's your problem."

You've been wearing your "THE SYSTEM IS IMPLODING" sandwich board for 15 years. So let's try this again: What's your date-certain? 8 years ago it was 2012. Had you shorted the markets since, expecting "implosion", you'd be broke.

#198 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 07:26 PM | Reply

" It would open him up to a barrage of attacks by his accusers."

Yeah, like "We have proof you're lying under oath", for one.

#199 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 07:27 PM | Reply

"Do you people have a life outside politics? I can't imagine spending the hours you people spend on meaningless details."

Moments later,

"My primary objective is to treat politics as a form of entertainment."

To sum up: Ray treats politics like comedy, but he doesn't really pay attention to the details of the jokes, he just laughs when the other right-wingers are laughing, and when asked what's so funny, he can't really say, other than Oh, That Silly Democrat Party!

Ray is like a more streamlined JeffJ. JeffJ pays close attention to politics, but after putting in all that work, still only manages to arrive at the same punchline as Ray.

#200 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 07:34 PM | Reply

You were touting buying gold 8 years ago. You bought gold 8 years ago. Are you going to deny it?

No I'm not denying it. You didn't know me fifteen years ago when I started. Like today, they're small purchases spread out over the years.

And in the last 15 years, the return on gold has sucked compared to a basic index fund. You'll admit that MATH, right?

I've told you over and over again, why I stay out of stocks. Live with it.

You've been wearing your "THE SYSTEM IS IMPLODING" sandwich board for 15 years.

For someone schooled in finance, it should be obvious that our economic system is piling up debts that have no chance of being paid off.

What's your date-certain?

I have none. If you pushed me, I would guess within five years.

#201 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 07:49 PM | Reply

That Silly Democrat Party!

I wish it was. You people are serious about returning this country back to the Stone Age.

#202 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 07:53 PM | Reply

"I read the transcript of Trump's conversation with Zelensky." - #155 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 05:40 PM

No you didn't.

Because there is no verbatium transcript of the July call.

#203 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:05 PM | Reply

Because there is no verbatium transcript of the July call.
#203 | POSTED BY HANS

Are you referring to the one Trump made public?

#204 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 08:11 PM | Reply

"...I would guess within five years." - #201 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 07:49 PM

This was your "guess" more than ten years ago:

"Drought conditions are prevailing all around the globe. Water is arguably in more serious shortage than any other natural resource. There's a good chance of higher food prices ahead as nations bid for dwindling food stocks."
Ray, you sound like Harold Camping.

#205 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:14 PM | Reply

I guess you look like an internet troll: www.123rf.com

Ray, you sound like Harold Camping.

Except I'm an atheist.

There's a good chance of higher food prices ahead as nations bid for dwindling food stocks."

Yes. Global cooling is here. www.youtube.com

#206 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 08:27 PM | Reply

"You were touting buying gold 8 years ago. You bought gold 8 years ago. Are you going to deny it?" - #198 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 07:26 PM

Raystradamus still has not explained how he's going to transport his gold in his car with no gasoline (collapse of the economy, return to the Stone Age, etc.) from his house with no electricity, no refrigeration (collapse of the economy, return to the Stone Age, etc.) to grocery stores with bare shelves (collapse of the economy, return to the Stone Age, etc.).

I understand that gold doesn't have much in the way of nutritional value.

With the collapse of the economy and return to the Stone Age, boaz' guns and ammunition will be more valuable for trading than Raystradamus' worthless precious metal.

#207 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:31 PM | Reply

"You didn't know me fifteen years ago when I started. Like today, they're small purchases spread out over the years. '

And whatever purchase you made, an index fund would've been better. And in the last half of that time, the index fund increased 150%, like something going from $40 to $100, while buying & holding gold was worse than stuffing money in a mattress, actually LOSING money over the last 8 years; your $40 would've been worth less than $39.

Now go ahead and take your victory lap.

#208 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 08:33 PM | Reply

"Yes. Global cooling is here. www.youtube.com" - #206 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 08:27 PM

YouTube?

Basing an opinion on watching a video is the exact technique used by Dr. Bill Frist when he diagnosed Terri Schiavo.

He ended up looking ridiculous using that technique then, just as you look ridiculous using that technique now.

#209 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:35 PM | Reply

"For someone schooled in finance, it should be obvious that our economic system is piling up debts that have no chance of being paid off. "

The difference is by ignoring you, I've got three times what I'd have otherwise. Markets could drop 67%, and I'd still be ahead.

"I have (no date certain). If you pushed me, I would guess within five years."

So 8 years ago when I asked, it was 18 months. Now it's 60 months, maybe. Has the situation gotten BETTER?

#210 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 08:36 PM | Reply

And whatever purchase you made, an index fund would've been better.

You're a broken record. Any kind of stock market fund is too much like casino betting for me.

Now go ahead and take your victory lap.

When the time comes.

#211 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 08:43 PM | Reply

The difference is by ignoring you,

Like I ignore you.

#212 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 08:44 PM | Reply

The difference is by ignoring you,

Like I ignore you.

#212 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 08:44 PM

A classic self-retorting retort.

#213 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:46 PM | Reply

"When the time comes." - #211 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 08:43 PM

You'd better take it now, ray.

Because when your end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it wet dream comes about there'll be no electricity to run the Internet (or everyone's computer to access it), so you'll be victory lapping all by yourself.

#214 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:48 PM | Reply

"You're a broken record. Any kind of stock market fund is too much like casino betting for me."

Okay, so you don't understand how the stock market works. That would be a better admission than pretending gold was a smart choice because it's dropped so much in value.

Just to see if you're attached to reality, you realize a gain of 150% is BETTER than an overall loss, right? And you realize that according to math, the same money you invested in gold over the years would've returned you A LOT MORE than the gold, right? And had you timed it correctly, you could have MORE THAN DOUBLE THE GOLD you have now, right?

#215 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 08:50 PM | Reply

(collapse of the economy, return to the Stone Age, etc.)

That's not a prediction, Hans. It the direction towards which leftists like you are pushing.

Basing an opinion on watching a video is the exact technique used by

Global cooling is a fact. You're the brainwashed sheep.

#216 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 08:51 PM | Reply

"It the direction towards which leftists like you are pushing." - Raystradamus

Something you've been claiming for every one of the 5,310 days you've been a member of this blog.

"Ray is like the worry-wart child who predicted the murder of his parents and now wants them dead just to prove his worries were credible." - Posted by mOntecOre

#217 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 08:55 PM | Reply

"It the direction towards which leftists like you are pushing."

Riiiiight. Because it was the leftists who just passed a tax cut for the wealthiest; just like they did with Dubya's two tax codes.

Good God, man, you can't even admit who has their hands on the dial.

#218 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 09:00 PM | Reply

That would be a better admission than pretending gold was a smart choice because it's dropped so much in value.

I'm not pretending.

After languishing during the 1990s, gold's uptrend started in 2001. Gold was 276.50. Today its about 1450. That's an increase of over five times.
The chart tells the story.
www.barchart.com

My only regret is that I couldn't start collecting in the 1990s.

#219 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:02 PM | Reply

Good God, man, you can't even admit who has their hands on the dial.
#218 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You're right. I wasn't fair. Both parties are competing to bankrupt the economy.

#220 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:05 PM | Reply

Something you've been claiming for every one of the 5,310 days you've been a member of this blog.

Remember after the 2008-2009 market drop when the experts said "no one saw it coming." That'll be you, Hans, and Danforth.

Those bailouts and the QEs that followed only assures the next downturn will be much worse.

#221 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:11 PM | Reply

"gold's uptrend started in 2001. Gold was 276.50. Today its about 1450"

Except you didn't start buying until 2004, when it was around 450-500. That's a gain of about 200%.

"That's an increase of over five times."

No it's not.

You don't even understand what you're talking about, do you? If you've doubled your money, the "increase" is 100%, not 200%.

#222 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 09:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Remember after the 2008-2009 market drop when the experts said "no one saw it coming." That'll be you, Hans, and Danforth." - #221 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:11 PM

2007-09 bear market now totally erased
Published: Apr 4, 2012
You mean that market drop, Ray?

Yeah, I remember it.

#223 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 09:16 PM | Reply

Except you didn't start buying until 2004, when it was around 450-500. That's a gain of about 200%.

Markets are cyclical. I'm talking an uptrend in the cycle that began in 2001. The trend. The trend. Got it! Probably not. You're a broken record.

#224 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:28 PM | Reply

Yeah, I remember it.
#223 | POSTED BY HANS

And you missed the entire point about the downturn taking the experts by surprise.

The irony is that you and your buddy, Danforth, mock my predictions of a failing economy. All that keeps this Ponzi economy afloat is massive infusions from the Federal Reserve.

"Fed Adds $72.8 Billion to Markets, Balance Sheet Moves to $4.07 Trillion"
www.wsj.com

#225 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:35 PM | Reply

"The trend. The trend."

And what's "the trend" since September 2011, when it was $1880? Oh, right...it's down 22%

Meanwhile, the S&P was 1174 in September 2011, and is up over 170% since.

Just to see if you understand the terms you're discussing...what's a better TREND if you're an investor? Up over 170%, or down 22%?

#226 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And you missed the entire point about the downturn taking the experts by surprise." - #225 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2019-12-06 09:35 PM

These people predicted the 2008 recession
Apparently, you missed that bit of history, Ray.

"...mock my predictions of a failing economy."

Something you've been predicting for the 5,310 days you've been a member of this blog.

Maybe you need to remember your Aesop Tales, Ray.

#227 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 09:44 PM | Reply

"you and your buddy, Danforth, mock my predictions of a failing economy."

Riiiiiiiight. I mock your predictions, while more than doubling my money during the time you lost money. The"mockery" is about the only thing you've actually earned; God knows it wasn't money.

"All that keeps this Ponzi economy afloat is massive infusions from the Federal Reserve."

The difference is, I can cash out any time I want, and be waaaaaaay ahead of your game. Meanwhile, you've got less money than you had 8 years ago. For every $40 in gold you had 8 years ago, you've got less than $40. For every $40 the index fund investor had, they've now got over $100.

#228 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 09:48 PM | Reply

You are so predictable. Like a broken record. I knew you wouldn't get it.

Just to see if you understand the terms you're discussing...what's a better TREND if you're an investor? Up over 170%, or down 22%?

The S&P was about 1500 in 2001.
www.macrotrends.net

Today, it's 3145. That's an increase a little more than doubled. In the same time period, gold increased five times.

Think of gold as a volcano. When it awakens, it's a sign that investors are getting jittery about the safety of their capital.

The difference is, I can cash out any time I want, and be waaaaaaay ahead of your game.

That's a skill you have that I don't. I learned the hard way early in life about putting my money in things I don't understand.

#229 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 10:02 PM | Reply

Maybe you need to remember your Aesop Tales, Ray.
#227 | POSTED BY HANS

My favorites are the frog and the scorpion, the tortoise and the hare, and the grasshopper and the ant.

#230 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 10:06 PM | Reply

"In the same time period, gold increased five times."

NO IT DIDN'T. "Increased five times" means six times the original price.

"Think of gold as a volcano. When it awakens, it's a sign that investors are getting jittery about the safety of their capital. "

In the last 8 years of your 15 year investment, it's been a loss.

In the last 8 years, an S&P investment has been up 150%...which is MORE THAN DOUBLE.

"I learned the hard way early in life about putting my money in things I don't understand."

So...besides not understanding trends, and how gains are calculated, you don't understand terms, benchmarks, diversification, or rebalancing. Got it.

#231 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 10:11 PM | Reply

So...besides not understanding trends, and how gains are calculated, you don't understand terms, benchmarks, diversification, or rebalancing. Got it.

Are you happy now? For me, it's too easy to lose in the financial markets. Hence precious metals.

#232 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 10:23 PM | Reply

"In the last 8 years, an S&P investment has been up 150%...which is MORE THAN DOUBLE."

And that's without reinvesting dividends, something gold doesn't pay. Once you include dividends, it's up over 193%...almost TRIPLE.
dqydj.com

#233 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 11:12 PM | Reply

Global cooling is a fact. You're the brainwashed sheep.
#216 | POSTED BY RAY

LOL only Ray is smart enough to get it. Well ray and the guy who published a book and a webpage,

Everybody else are just sheep. Brainwashed sheep!

#234 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-07 08:28 AM | Reply

In any case, the thread served its purpose.

There's really nothing except a felony conviction that will make righties view Trump as impeachable.

Couple that with their support of his refusing to honor subpoenas and refusal to testify (thus removing perjury from the possibilities list) and they've done little more than attempt to sound reasonable knowing it'll never actually work.

Pretty sickening.

#235 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-07 08:33 AM | Reply

Unless the Senate does a complete turn-around and convicts, Pelosi's Plan B is a success.

Plan "A" is those big black letters ("INDICTED") stamped across Trump's mob boss photos in 2020.

#236 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-07 11:30 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort