#22 | POSTED BY JOHN47

I also preferred Popeye's sandwich, but they are different. I can definitely see people feeling that the Chick-Fil-A sandwich is superior. And, I am sure there will be days, based upon my mood, that I would prefer a Chick-Fil-A sandwich over Popeye's. But, I doubt that I will prefer it ENOUGH for it to overcome the negative connotations that Chick-Fil-A has associated with their brand (such that I actually go buy one on any sort of regular basis).

If we're going the cynical route, it's a response to competition from Popeye's Chicken Sandwich. People are literally killing each other for them.

#17 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

I agree with you there. I know I see Popeye's as an alternative to Chick-Fil-A. I like Chick-Fil-A's sandwiches, and would occasionally eat there, though much less than I would have if I didn't find their politics and the causes they support distasteful. Now that Popeye's has an alternative that can satisfy my chicken sandwich cravings, I will probably go there even less.

And, even though Chick-Fil-A is caving to the pressure, I am not sure that is going to change. It is probably too little, too late.

Another corporation caves in to the leftwing thought police.

#1 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Awww... what a little victim you are. Big, bad liberals committing the atrocious act of "not spending money at businesses that donate to conservative causes".

Thought police? You have every right to think what you want.

And I have the right to think what I want. And I think I don't want to have my spending dollars going to support anti-LGBTQ causes. I guess conservative "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" was not able to make up for it???...

"What better way to stand up and say, 'I oppose gay people's rights to get married' than to head to down to a Chick-fil-A, grab a hold of two buttery buns, split em open and gobble down some of that hot, greasy ----?"

Not a strong showing for an incumbent who narrowly beat a political novice who tied himself to the least popular President since Nixon.

#2 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You dolts have zero idea how Louisiana rolls...it's never about party affiliation (Google Buddy Roemer) but all about influence.

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Then... what does "tied himself to the least popular President" have to do with anything?

You have been very snappy at liberals recently. Even contradicting yourself in the same thread three posts later. Watching your party tie themselves ever closer to a President who you freely admit should be impeached and removed stressing you out (TDS)???

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

Conservatives only believe in following the law when it is convenient for them.

Why would Pence hire a "never trumper" as his aide? Is he secretly out to get Trump impeached so he can ascend to the Presidency? Is Pence in charge of the "deep state coup"?

What did Pence know and when did he know it?

And the smearing of the whistleblower continues.

The argument being made by the sycophants here is, as far as I can tell, "it should be illegal for an American citizen to reveal the illegal/impeachable behavior of the President if that citizen also works for the CIA".

Awesome.

MSGT would also see obedience to the Nazis as a business decision.

#15 | POSTED BY DANNI

For a lot of people it was.

"Is it the pee tapes?"
This is most likely disinformation. If such an event actually occurred, video footage would most likely have "leaked" by now.

#11 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

The accusation is that the Kremlin has the tapes. So, why do you think it would have leaked? Last I checked, the Kremlin was not populated by Republicans (as the current White House is, which leaks like a sieve). Only in an environment as morally corrupt as a Republican administration could you take the lack of a leak as "proof" that something doesn't exist. Try to understand things beyond your own personal bubble.

#4 | POSTED BY GRACIEAMAZED

Did they commit a crime?

Because, as long as they didn't commit a crime, you can't put them in jail, and conservatives are in favor of them being able to possess as many guns designed to kill people as they can afford.

Makris, how many white people were slaves in the US?

The argument that slavery is racist is a poor one,

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Still trying to wrap my head around this one.

Tumps been messing around.

#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

With a porn star no less. Remember when conservatives cared about things like that? Lol.

Cue claims of "never Trumper" and "deep state".

Because anyone who says anything bad about Trump must be biased. It can't be because he actually DOES these things. And, for some strange reason, no one who ISN'T a "never Trumper" will agree to testify to contradict (under oath) all the claims of the "never Trumpers".

but took no action when she arrived at her post.

#41 | POSTED BY SNIPER

What "action" do you think she should have taken? I have seen no indication that Hunter Biden did anything illegal. What are you proposing that the US ambassador could do about a private citizen engaging in actions, in a foreign country, that SEEM potentially unethical?

To be clear, you claimed that Trump has the right to outsource ("task") investigations to foreign countries, and that Americans being investigated under that "tasking" have no constitutional rights that have to be respected by the investigators Trump initiated.

#36 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

So, you are saying the president can "task" foreign Nationals, or "task" Americans as long as those Americans do it in foreign countries, to investigate other Americans without having to respect those Americans' constitutional rights?

Can other government institutions do the same thing? Can the FBI open an office in another country and then back into Americans' computers without a warrant? What about the CIA? Why was them "spying on Americans" such a big deal, when they could have simply just made sure the person doing the "spying" was doing it while located in a foreign country?

That is a loophole big enough to sail the Titanic through. Apparently Doc thinks that we have no constitutional rights of privacy from the government as long as they find things over the internet.

Can the chief executive task anyone qualified to do an investigation? Yes,

#28 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Who did he task to do it? Barr knows nothing about it. Are you claiming he can "task" the President of Ukraine to do it? Or his personal attorney? Do they have an obligation to respect the Constitutional Rights of American citizens? If Giuliani or the President of Ukraine violate someone's constitutional rights, are you saying Trump is responsible?

#21 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Is it illegal to hire someone "unqualified"?

Hunter Biden's hiring was sketchy, and possibly unethical. So? Conservatives do unethical things all the time. But, the difference is that they are elected or appointed members of our government, being paid with American tax dollars while Hunter Biden was paid with private (non-American) money.

For example, Sondland has no qualifications to be an ambassador. He got the position (with a taxpayer funded salary) solely because he gave a lot of money to Trump's campaign. If you are so concerned about people being unqualified, why don't aren't you concerned about the unqualified people that CURRENTLY have jobs IN OUR GOVERNMENT?

Because you don't care about that. You approve of Trump abusing his office to try to embarrass his political opponents. So you want to deflect from and defend Trump with BS where there is no sign of illegality by Hunter Biden, and no sign of even impropriety by Joe Biden.

Investigate? What is there to investigate? Nothing illegal was done. If you want to pass legislation that MAKES it illegal, feel free to try. But I don't think you will have much luck, considering the sheer volume of the SAME impropriety that your president's kids are CURRENTLY engaged in.

Trump, believe it or not, is required to investigate by law.

#13 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Oh good. That is convenient. Impeach him, then lock him up.

Trump did not open an investigation into the Bidens. The DoJ said in a statement that Barr had not talked to Ukraine at all about the Bidens. So, according to you, the Trump administration broke the law because they did not in fact open a US investigation into the supposed wrongdoing committed by the Bidens.

How do we impeach for that? Does it fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

#10 | POSTED BY MSGT

As a follow up...

Yovanovitch: "I obviously don't dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason, but what I do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation falsely."

Apparently, Ms Yovanovitch was released from her position well in advance of when the phone with the President of the Ukraine, so just what has she to do with the hearings?

#10 | POSTED BY MSGT

Well... she was fighting corruption, and apparently effective at it, in Ukraine. And, Trump claims that fighting corruption was his goal in investigating Burisma. So, her firing contradicts his claim that this was not about targeting his political opponent, but instead was about combating corruption in general.

In reality, it looks like the reason for her firing was that they needed to get her out of the way before they would feel comfortable engaging in their quid pro quo for Ukraine to help Trump by targeting Trump's domestic political opponent. It shows mens rea, a "guilty mind", that they knew what they were doing would not pass muster so they had to get honest people out of the way before they could do it.

#17 | POSTED BY ZED

Good point... for such a "boring" proceeding, Trump seems to be taking a lot of interest in it. Even though he claimed he wasn't going to watch it. He just can't help himself. He finds this "boring" proceeding so riveting that he can't tear himself away from it to actually do (ha) the job of President.

It is already been well established, conservative politicians are corrupt --------. Everyone... liberals, independents, and conservatives agree.

The only place where we disagree is our views on other (liberal, independent) politicians.

But there's no way that's going to hurt Trump? Pardon me, but today Trump is sounding hurt already.

#9 | POSTED BY ZED

How could he be hurt? He isn't even watching. I know that is true because he said so. And, you know, conservatives like him would NEVER lie.