#43 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

I respectfully disagree and actually laughed out loud at part of your comment. We are clearly not going to agree here and I am not going to spend more of my time on this topic.

I am not elevating her to anything. I said activists are needed and they are. Better recycling and less plastic use would be great starters. 31,000 balloons are found on US beaches each year. Where I moved from has nothing to do with this topic, this is happening everywhere.

#32 - While I do agree that they shouldn't be so hysterical about it, we do need changed and activism brings that.

MADBOMBER -- GND is also the Going Nowhere Deal. It is not going to happen so stop hyperventilating.

#24 -- Wow, I normally agree with you on pretty much everything but this is beyond wrong. Nobody is "nice enough" since it is all taken from us directly off the top. The pile of IOUs needs to be paid back by the government, that isnt what the money was there for. SS is absolutely not and entitlement. It is a forced investment and I expect my return.

Be honest Boaz, if in November your choices are Trump, Biden, and a short list of other party candidates, are you going to vote Biden in the booth? You said this once before but then made it seem like you would still pull the lever for Trump at the end. I have a hard time believing that you would actually vote Biden when it comes down to it.

Joe shouldnt be off limits but if you idiots would be honest about the article you'd understand that disabilities should absolutely be off limits. It really should go without saying.

I see where you are coming from. It is probably made all the more likely because most Americans view this as far off conspiracy theory stuff and are either led to believe our elections are safe, or believe that their votes dont matter and stay home.

Gal -- Presidential power isnt going to get someone else elected though is it? Are you saying they would do away with the term limits and keep Trump in office? The way I see it a Dem will be voted in at some point.

#4 | POSTED BY DANNI

I dont understand the thought behind that either. Anything they allow in this president will then be precedent for the next. Eliminating checks and balances because they want dictator trump could instead give them dictator warren. What is the upside here for them?

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Simplify what you find so disturbing about how the House ran the inquiry. They called material witnesses, denied those with no knowledge of what they were investigating, and first had closed door sessions where both Dems and Reps on the committees were allowed time to ask questions. List what was so unfair, especially since they followed the rules republicans made for Hilary. You dont get to bitch about the rules you made just because someone else is using them.

#124 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "On the WB form he claimed some firsthand knowledge, which jumped over that hurdle. Yet, in the complaint itself ALL of his citations are second or thirdhand."

The inspector general came out saying that the WB did in fact have some first hand knowledge. Who should I believe, you? Hahaha... They dont have to tell us what that first hand knowledge was, especially if it could risk exposing the WB.

Then there is this: "Intelligence community workers have long been able to blow the whistle based on second-hand or hearsay information. The law only requires federal workers to have a "reasonable belief" of misconduct in order to file a complaint, according to Debra D'Agostino, a federal employment lawyer."

#13 that was making the rounds on Facebook last night. That even if he hasnt been removed the impeachment invalidated his first term and therefore he could run 2 more times. It is false but that doesnt stop the idiots from re-posting it over and over across social media. This is how fake news works. This is why people actually believe, and will argue until blue in the face, that Trump has not been impeached. They dont understand (or care to) that it is basically "impeached" = "charged" and yes he has been impeached. Conviction or acquittal is in the Senate.

Why should anyone be shielded from testifying? I mean that as an honest question. Anyone that was involved in what is being investigated should absolutely be called. If the GOP actually believes that Hunter, Joe, and Schiff have anything of value to add to the investigation then by all means they can push for their testimony in exchange for actual fact witnesses. Trump, Rudy, Bolton, Mulvaney, etc should all testify under oath to what they were running here.

#66 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I would never dictate what you could post, however I can and will express where my displeasure stems from. I see it not just from you here, but all over the internet. It is only useful in making idiots believe what Trump did isnt impeachable. You may think he should be, but the type of information you spread here shows up in memes from my dad's facebook account. Whom btw is still a firm believer this is all fake - that Trump hasnt obstructed anything, he's been the most transparent POTUS, Nancy made all of this up, and the call was perfect...

Jeff, here is my problem with your arguments - you continuously say "from a political standpoint", nobody cares about a standpoint in your mind. We care about what Jeff actually things. And guess what else... Jim Redneck at the corner gas station that doesnt follow politics doesnt know what a "political standpoint" even is. He just sees the arguments others like you are making every day online and in the news and thinks that this is all ok, and what Trump did wasnt really impeachable. So stop spreading your manure on this blog just to play devils advocate. You are like everyone else that muddies the water.

31 -- yes well Jeff has jumped off the fence onto the deplorables' side so...

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Oh definitely, there was never a question of that. Trump wants to spread his conspiracy theory as far as he can.

Yes, but I doubt it would work. They put Hilary on the stand and grilled her for hours with nothing to show. I believe Joe's version as it has the most information to back it up and seems pretty transparent. Now do Trump, oh that is right, we cant...

#23 what could Hunter and Joe possibly testify to? Whether the prosecutor was fired in order to impede the investigation that was not currently occurring when he was fired? Ya, that is one hell of a story... I would accept Joe testifying after Trump, and you can have Hunter for Mulvaney. Fat lot of good it would do you.

#106 | POSTED BY WISGOD
Keep ignoring 2018, troll. Suits your assumptions in spades.
#111 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Rusty, Wisgod is always only a troll. Plonk him and move on because he will never add anything of substance to a thread. I removed him from my killfile recently to see if he would answer a direct question and no surprise all he did was hurl insults, back on silent he went. Let it go and save yourself some time.

we will be impeaching presidents from both parties thru the next two decades....
#16 | POSTED BY PEGASUS

Which if true would literally show the GOP throwing a tantrum. The Clinton impeachment didn't cause retaliatory impeachments each term. Go ahead and show how childish you can be.

Wisgod is a predictable jack-ass. He should just remain on the Nooner with the other hacks.

#59 | POSTED BY MODER8

Things must be really bad for Trump if Wisgod is in this thread...

they decided not to break precedent and cede their Constitutional authority to the Courts --#23 | POSTED BY CORKY

They did break precedent tho and not hold any of the people ignoring subpoenas in contempt. There is also precedent in arresting and detaining witnesses that ignore subpoenas. Just because it has been more than 100 years doesn't mean they couldn't have done it.

McConnell is 77 and has been in the Senate since 1984, he is a poster child for why we need term limits.