The cover-up begins. The Trump trial is on.

Jump to Last Post 1-21 of 21 discussions (301 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks ago

    We're going to find out much about our governing bodies of Congress over the next few days or weeks. We'll also find out if we're to be lead by a President or a dictator in the future.

    History will not be kind to those who allow the POTUS to be above the law.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, yes.  We know.  When the Senate performs it's job and throws this farce in the garbage where it belongs it will be because they all love Trump and are all as evil as he is.

      Any excuse is a good one when it denigrates Trump or anyone not hating the man.

      (Though I WILL say that we already found out much about our governing body when not a single Republican voted for impeachment.  It says a lot about that body and it's willingness to do it's job when votes are 100% partisan.)

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        So only the left is 100% partisan? Not a single Republican voted for impeachment in the House, Dan.  Not so for the Left. Your math is incorrect...as well as your logic.

        You simply hate Obama and Hillary.We'll play the game if you like. tongue

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Can you point to where I said only one half is partisan?  I agree that the math wasn't prefect - there were, I believe, 3 members that jumped the party line - but certainly nothing I said would support your claim that I think only the left is partisan.  Just more false statements, declaring statements that were never made.

          Have no clue where Obama and Hillary came into it, though - just throwing dirt, dirt that has no connection to reality?

    2. Bill Spickerman profile image61
      Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I wonder if History will reflect how Justice Brett Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats at his confirmation?  I wonder who writes History.?  Are they fair and balanced?  Will History report how this Impeachment process was started even before President Trump was sworn in?  Will history to reflect the "Insurance Plan" that was developed by top officials of the FBI and funded by the Hillary Campaign?  Just wondering.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Hello Bill, you're apparently a Fox News  watcher. Brett was given a pass with a faux investigation. Many witnesses wanted to be interviewed, but they weren't deemed worthy by the "investigators."

        So there's that...

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          It sounds like you are saying that if the investigation didn't end up supporting your perspective then it was an incomplete investigation.

          How do you feel about the criticisms of the Air Force's 'Project Bluebook' investigations?

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            It sounds like that to you, Gus. I can't remember for sure, but I think there were over 40 witnesses who were never contacted when they contacted the investigative team.

            Is this simply my prospective? Or a reasonable question?

            Not up to dare on the Report you referenced, and too tired to care tonight, Gus. About time for me to crash if they'll adjourn for the night. (yawn)

        2. Bill Spickerman profile image61
          Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Randy.....Speaking of Free passes, wonder if you said the same for Hillary's  "Investigation"...Oh I am sorry, I should have used the politically correct term "Matter"...and the meeting between Clinton with Obama's "puppet: Attorney General on the tarmac to talk about their Grandchildren? 

          But back to Brett...do you think it  was proper and ethical to wait till the 9h hour to drop the bomb that should have actually been given to the FBI or other authority way before then.  And surely you believed his accuser who said she had a fear of flying as the reason she could not come to the conformation sooner, but then admitted that she flies all the time?  I have never witnessed behavior from so called Democratic leaders in my 50 years of voting eligibility.  .

    3. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Randy, this is just my opinion. First of all the House just has no case as it stands. It's all hearsay and second-hand opinions. The case was poorly investigated by the House.

      The Senate will hear the Houses case and vote to acquit the president due to lack of evidence. This would be prudent due to the lack of evidence. The Senate is doing their job following the law, and ultimately the Constitution. Do you really think it would be fair to remove the president with testimony that was the only opinion-oriented?  This would set a new precedent that would be very harmful. I for one never want to see second-hand opinion-oriented evidence count in any form of trial let alone an impeachment trial. If this kind of logic is adopted we could see the majority using it to impeach president after president.

      The House at best has provided good fodder for once again a conspiracy by the Senate to hide crimes for the president. It's good to feed, but it just is not enough to impeach the president.  It appears their plan has come to fruition, they knew the outcome from day one.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        You're mistake as to the proof the House provided, Shar. They've plenty to Impeach Trump and then some. It seems you really don't understand what Trump has done.

        And you didn't address the past Senate trials which all have had new witnesses and documents after receiving the Articles from the House. An average of 33 witnesses per trial.

        Why is this not important in the present trial?

      2. Bill Spickerman profile image61
        Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Shar, don't worry about Randy's response.  He does the same thing he accuses us of doing.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Not correct, Bill. I see the evidence as bad for Trump. But aren't surprised his enablers can't understand the process as this is a trial without the blessing of the AG. Sad he refuses to do his duty to the country, but instead protects Trump from any blow back on his unethical and illegal acts.

          If Trump gets away with this, all future POTUS' will do the same. We may as well do away with any oversight by Congress if they have no constitutionally granted rights to do so. Congress will be obsolete in that case.

          1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
            Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I Agree with you in concept, but not the way the Democrats handled the hearings he in the house.  I do agree with your quest to do things correctly and I will be anxious to see if you   remain as altrustic as the upcoming investigation into the "deep state" continues and comes to fruitician.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Shar doesn't understand my posts anyway, Bill.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks ago

    It turns out there has never been a trial in the Senate without new documents and new witnesses being added. This puts to bed the excuses of the enablers that the House didn't do its job.

    In the Clinton and Nixon trials, both witnesses and documents were added in the Senate trial.

  3. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 5 weeks ago

    It looks like it will be predictable and interesting.

    Just for kicks I am channel-flipping between Fox and CNN.

    Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Predictable yes, the first Senate trial in history without new witnesses and new documents after the House sent the articles to the Senate. It seems the Right doesn't care about precedent.

      It's also obvious this trial is about protecting a criminal. At any cost to personal integrity or responsibility, as far as I'm concerned. As I've often said, "Time wounds all heels."

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        LOL  This trial is about reducing the competition in the next election and gaining immediate power for the Democrats in Congress.  Nothing else, and certainly not about "protecting a criminal"...the House doesn't even claim criminal events happened.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Get real, Dan. This trial in the Senate is about protecting a corrupt individual. The Senate Republicans are terrified of allowing new witnesses and documents in this "trial."

          Every Senate trial has allowed new witnesses and documents to be seen and heard. Every one. Why are you so afraid of the truth, Dan? And you can ask that of the Senate Republicans as well.

        2. MizBejabbers profile image90
          MizBejabbersposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          That's the Hell of it, Wilderness. Pelosi and Schiff had their chance to add bribery because they have a good case for it. Why didn't they? What is their problem? Why take it this far without going all the way?
          Is there something that might be brought out about Pence that would kick him out, too, and then Nancy would be president? I don't think she wants to be president or she would have been in there fighting tooth and toenail. What is it that is holding her back? My husband thinks she is afraid because of death threats, but I don't think she is afraid of anything.
          Please don't say there's no evidence for bribery when both the president and Mulvaney have admitted it, and Mulvaney has said "get over it!" That is evidence that would hold up in any court of law, but then we know that this is just a kangaroo court with McConnell in charge.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        The first impeachment where the House used hearsay, second-hand and opinion related evidence to develop the articles of impeachment.

        This may be the reason why the Senate has had a change in precedence in regard to calling witnesses? The procedure used in the House was certainly history-making. The House has set a precedent in how they handled their end, and are promoting articles of impeachment without factual evidence.  This is a precedent that is dangerous and opposes the rules of the Constitution.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          The procedure in the House was history making because Barr didn't do his job, Shar. You apparently don't have a clue why the process was done this way.

          How would have gone about it if you didn't have a Special Prosecutor to do the investigation? I'd like to know how you would have handled the grand jury setting with having it behind closed door as every grand jury does.

          Have ever served on a grand jury or testified before one? There are no attorneys or representatives for the accused in the room as this is simply a fact finding process. That's why when someone from your side complains about this, they show their ignorance of the process.

          I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain things to you as it won't make any difference in what you believe.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Barr did his job, he saw no impeachable offense or need to have a special prosecutor. That was his decision. In the end, he was correct in his judgment.  The House made their choice to pursue the impeachment. The House had no case to impeach the president, and today we all bear witness to that fact. The House could not find evidence, and yet today we have Schiff spinning a tale on our Senate floor. A story that he can not prove, yet he has taken it upon himself to accuse the president of crimes without truth or evidence.

            I have full knowledge of how an impeachment procedure is conducted. It was up to the House to investigate. It's up to the Senate to judge what they have put forth. 

            .

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Explain the Grand Jury proceedings then, Shar. I've asked you several times. I don't believe you understand at all.

              Apparently you trust the word of a known liar over the opinions and evidence provided with honored Ambassadors and heroes. Also the many documents proving Trump's guilt in the matter means nothing to you.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            "How would have gone about it if you didn't have a Special Prosecutor to do the investigation? I'd like to know how you would have handled the grand jury setting with having it behind closed door as every grand jury does"

            Did the House ask for a special prosecutor? They could if they wanted too? But I can find no information that said they did? So, I can't even comment any further on your post. If you have a resource I would like to see it. Lot's of If's.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              The AG appoints a Special Prosecutor, Shar. It's his decision but refused to do so. You cannot simply ask for a SP and get one.

              Now address the grand jury question, how would you have handled it?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                The only article I could find on how the DOJ handled the whistleblower's complaint indicates simply the  DOJ assessed the whistleblower's complaint and dismissed it, not finding it needed any further investigation.

                "The Justice Department on Wednesday also released an Office of Legal Counsel opinion finding that the whistleblower complaint about Trump’s call was not an “urgent concern” and was not required to be transmitted to congressional intelligence committees."

                https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … raine-call

                Again the House could have asked the DOJ to have a second look or request the call be investigated, and even request a special prosecutor. It would then be once again in the hands of the DOJ. I can't find any information that the House pursued the DOJ to do any further investigation. Could you offer a resource on where you read Barr refused to appoint a Special Prosecutor? I would be interested in seeing some evidence that the DOIOJ was asked for an SP.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Are you serious, Shar? The House knew Barr was Trump's boy. It's why Trump chose him in the first place. Don't tell me you didn't know that already.

                  Wise up, Shar! Barr represents Trump, not the people as he was meant to represent.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Randy, it's hard to keep up a conversation on the subject. you continually assume more than you should? You assume Barr is Trump's "boy" due to him choosing him for his position. Presidents hire and fire. It is clear you feel Trump should not have this privilege? 

                    At any rate, the House should have done their job. that the bottom line. You are making vague excuses for the House. It is up to the House to do the job of the people and do it properly. There should be no, "well we thought it would be useless to follow procedure".This is a weak excuse that actually sounds ridiculous.

                    I suggest you listen to the defense today. They are giving facts, just full context of the  Trump call, not just a few well-chosen words, and adding some drama to the delivery. I suggest you listen to the defense. Hopefully, it will help you understand why we are not on the same page.

              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I think you might be mistaken Randy. The House can request a Special Prosecutor. It is true that the AG's office must agree, but that doesn't mean one can't be requested by anyone but the AG.

                Congress, (the House), also has the authority to appoint a commission, which would essentially be the equivalent of a Special Counsel. Did they do that? Do you think the DOJ would have refused a House request for a Special Prosecutor?  (okay, I admit that is an arguable point, but, it is not a given that proves your point, it is merely a supposition)

                Had Congress, (the House), pursued either option the DOJ would have been forced to comply or deny. That didn't happen.

                So, just as you support that the House had no other options than take the path they did, others are also on solid ground when they support the contention that the House failed in their efforts to follow protocol and ask for a Special Prosecutor.

                GA

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It wouldn't make the slightest difference Gus, and Nancy knew it. The way Barr went out of his way to pooh pooh the Mueller report should tell anyone what his game is.

                  Or do you believe he's actually the people's guardian of the law instead of Trump's chosen shield against being ousted?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "Nancy knew it" you just read in whatever suits your narrative. My question, do we need a representative that does not follow protocol if she feels our president has committed a crime. You seem to be saying, Nancy, is wringing her hands, and just giving up on her convictions instead of doing the right thing? She had the power to do a proper investigation, and ask for a special counsel if she felt it one was needed.

                    It well appears the Dems wanted a 24-hour Trump-bashing ad. And they had the audacity to use an impeachment charge to have that ad. This is so disgusting I can't even put it into words.

                    This morning the president team is laying out the truth. They are using all evidence in full context. They are clarifying this case with truth and clear law. They need not be dramatic or twist words to meet their needs. They have the truth in full context because it has been there all the time... Read the transcript in full.  Listen, and hear the laws that pertain to the President. Listen to the witnesses' testimony in full, not bits that the Hous have quoted over the past few days.

              3. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I am going to make this very simple. Who's responsibility would it have been to ask for a special prosecutor? As of yet, I have not found any resource that substantiates that the House approached the DOJ for a SP. Please offer a link to a resource.

  4. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    Why would anyone question whether the Senate should bring witnesses when Trump himself said he would "love" to have these witnesses testify before the Senate?
    Here it is..in his words:

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … al-vpx.cnn

    1. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Because "nobody" believes anything Trump says, and that includes the his own supporters. Why should they believe him when he says those words?

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        There's a straight answer! And,I don't care whether you support Trump or don't support him, that is sad to know about the "leader of the free world." Is that winning?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Yes, for some very sad individuals, Don. Sad, but true!

      2. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I don't even believe most of his supporters mean it when they say they want witnesses and a fair trial. Look how easily they acquiesced and regurgitated every lame excuse, even when the latest lame excuse contradicts a previous lame excuse. I tell ya, this episode might go down in history as "Stupidgate.". big_smile

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          They cannot understand why Trump using Rudy--not a government official in any way--to bribe the Ukrainian president to investigate his rival is wrong.

          I'm so ashamed of Trump trying to corrupt a man who ran on an anti-corruption campaign. The very first interaction with the American leader, resulted in him being corruted by the POTUS. What a POS!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Not the first time he has shamed us, and probably not the last. :-(

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I'm more ashamed of his enablers as they're smarter than him. Not saying much though! tongue

  5. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    Why would anyone question whether the Senate should bring witnesses when Trump himself said he would "love" to have these witnesses testify before the Senate?
    Here it is..in his words:

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … al-vpx.cnn

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Because they know it's cover-up, Don. Trump was advised by several people what he was doing was wrong. He knew it and went ahead anyway. Why those on the Right cannot get their heads around his intentionally breaking the law, not to mention his oath of office, is proof they don't care.

      That's the bottom line! I didn't take seriously his "shooting someone on the street  and getting away with it," statement, but now I've conversed with some of his supporters, I truly believe they wouldn't care a bit.

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        That is the bottom line. And their inability to provide anything near a valid answer to this question is evidence of that. Now Trump turns around and says he'd "love" to have them testify but "it's a national security problem." They have no real reason.

        This guy is above the law because that's the way his minions want it to be. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. When I listened in on calls with the likes of conservative "Tea Party" members, and those cut from that same political cloth, I head so much about how Obama was a dictator. But, I also repeatedly heard this theme of "We need a man who can come in and just get things done." They WANTED a dictator...they wanted a white dictator. They found one in the clownish con man. He loves his uneducated.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Your last sentence sums it up perfectly, Dan. But it's more like "Trump loves the willfully ignorant."

  6. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    Instead of having a trial for Trump, they want to investigate any and everyone in the government because the people in our government are boogeymen. They can't see for the wool that blinds them.He turned them against their own country.

    1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
      Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hard to believe so many people can overlook accomplishments, and only focus on the negative aspects of a duly elected president.  Of course if one only looks for negative, they will always find it, as we live in a negative world. Hillary would have been so much better because she is so honest and truthful.

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Is it really that hard to believe considering the nature of this guy? Also, I'm guessing you do remember the Obama Presidency? I think there were more than a few who only looked for the negative with him. Naw, not hard to believe.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Do you find the negativity Obama and Trump face to be relatively equal?

          I don't recall anyone on the forums crying how evil Obama was...for three years, hardly missing a day.

          I don't recall anyone repeatedly, every day, calling the President every vile and disgusting name they could come up with.

          I don't recall anyone seriously claiming Obama was mentally ill.

          I don't recall calls for impeachment before he even took office, as happened with Trump.

          I don't recall the FBI spending years investigating fake claims that the president colluded with Putin (or any other foreign dignitary).

          I don't recall the news media ever even approaching the 92% negativity level they used for Trump.

          In fact, the ONLY thing really negative I can recall about Obama was the birther garbage and his socialistic view of redistributing wealth - a perfectly acceptable reason to complain.  Political viewpoints always are.

          1. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I don't even know where you were during the Obama administration. I was on the political front lines, listening to lobbying calls every day. Believe me (or don;t, lol), there were vile names!!! And, Remember McConnell's one term comment?

            They fought Obama EVERY step of the way. It's not his fault that he didn't give the R's the same kind of ammunition that Trump does. If it walks like a duck...

            1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
              Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Please spare us "hard sun," Obama had the liberal media in his hip pocket.  I voted for him his first term because I was a "fish" for his "hope and change" facade.  The truth is, no president in modern history has had the documented 92% negative media storm that "our President" has endured.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                Trump causes himself trouble, Bill. And will continue to do so  long as he's on the throne.

                1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
                  Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Randy. he speaks his mind.  Those who are concerned with results know that and do not let it stand in the way of his accoplishments.  Those that want smoke and mirrors and political correctness do not care about positive outcomes for Americans and our precious country.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    He speaks his mind because no one has ever whipped his ass, Bill. If he had accused my dad of being in on the Kennedy assassination, and insulted my wife like he did Ted Cruz, either he'd whip my ass or get thrashed himself.

                    He's an arrogant, low class liar, and there's no hiding those facts, for sure.

              2. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                We all know why this is. Trump wants and tries to get the negative media attention. He even calls them the enemy of the people. This makes his voters happy. Most Presidents actually attempt to get the media to like them.

                So the 92 percent media negativity number only means Trump is adept at playing his people like a good con man does.

                1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
                  Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The media of today is the enemy of the people.  You are probly too young to know what  standards real journalists and newscasters were required and happy to maintain back before the liberals tainted those standards to the FAKE news of today.  Even when Bush Jr. Was running for president they had better standards.  Look up what happen to Dan Rather CBS Anchor in 2004.  Even then the media was way more honest than the garbage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, Time, and much more.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I'm not too young to remember, Bill. And we didn't have the likes of non-journalists like Hannity and Limbaugh giving their opinions and conspiracy theories to gullible people.

                    By the way, which media source do you trust?

                  2. hard sun profile image90
                    hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    No hesitation on calling fellow Americans the enemy of the people; following the Trumpian line. You just proved my point and made your first point look meaningless.

                    And, I already lived a couple lifetimes by the Dan Rather fiasco. I do look young though so thanks. My profile pic is only from last year! Thinking keeps me young despite my being through it up and down and all over. Besides, I'm plenty old enough to remember when HW was running for President.

                    Also, when it starts, "You are probly too young" I know the argument is weak. A decade of eyes  open is worth more then a century of following the flavor of the day.

                    At any rate, journalistic integrity is not the same, one reason being um..there are more journalists. Of course there are some bad apples, and we'd do well to start at Fox News. But, how do you know the media was more honest back then? You dont!

                    I mean, I'll give you the media was less biased. It takes more op eds, etc. to to get the attention nowadays with our saturated news. This matter is much more intricate than just, "back in the day the media was more honest."

                    No, this is why Yang's MATH makes so much sense. Americans need to stop over-simplifying everhthing and start thinking. Especially in this day and age where there's so much media that everyone thinks they are political junkies who have the mainlines to the real truth.

                    I'll leave you with a simple question. If all news is FAKE...why do we even talk about politics? Why do you read it or watch it? Do you have the magical mainline to the real news?

                  3. Valeant profile image95
                    Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Calling fellow Americans the 'enemy of the people' is disgusting.  And maybe you're so old that your memory forgets that it was Reagan's FCC that abolished the Fairness Doctrine in media.  It's clear by your many comments that you're getting your news from the 'entertainment channel,' Fox News, and not legitimate news services.

                  4. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "The media of today is the enemy of the people."

                    Joseph Goebbels would love that kind of talk if he were alive today.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              You got lobbying calls that labeled Obama with vile names?  How does that happen?  A lobbyist comes begging and starts by calling names?  Doesn't sound like a very effective tactic.

              Yes, there were nasty comments about Obama.  But those about Trump are a thousand times more frequent - that was the point.

              Fighting his socialistic plans is hardly in the same basket as name calling and false accusations (remember the FBI, diligently searching for Trumps collusion with Putin and finding nothing?).

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I'll say it again. The name calling was loud and clear with Obummer, Obama Bin Laden, NoBama, Odumbass, Mr Potato Head, etc, etc., Where did I get all these? And, let's not forget the Trump makes nasty comments about others on a daily basis. So we should just allow him to do so without fighting back due to reference for our king??? We've been through this before Dan.

            3. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              "It's not his fault that he didn't give the R's the same kind of ammunition that Trump does."

              Oh lordy lordy . . . " No sarcasm intended, a more true statement is seldom seen in these forums.

              GA

          2. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I don't recall Obama being in a scandal almost daily or telling over 10,000 lies in his first two years in office either.

            I don't recall Obama calling people insulting names like a school child either.

            I don't recall Obama kissing up to Putin and other murderous bastards or admitting he was in love with them.

            I can go on, but you 'll deny everything anyway as you usually do,

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Like the song, Two out of three ain't bad . . . "

              I won't make you guess, I think #2 was right.

              I think there is youtube evidence to dispute #3, but #1 is pretty much spot on.—in my opinion of course.

              GA

          3. Bill Spickerman profile image61
            Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks for posting some much needed fact based comment to this discussion "wilderness." Appreciate your opinions.

  7. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    And, why would you take offense to someone stating some R's seem be okay with child abuse...some are. At any rate, people talk to lobbyists, they call people names. And no, the lobbyist says "Obamacare" And the insults fly. This isn't that hard..later.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Some R's seem okay with child abuse."

      This from a party that has legalized (In NY and VA) killing children in the birth canal about to be born.  If you want to talk about child abuse...

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I'm not going to take offense Mike. I was asked what I meant by the R's losing their family values. Take care.

  8. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks ago

    It seems that recent political forum pis$ing contests all share one particular participant. 

    Just an observation. :-)

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yep, a self proclaimed genius with no one worthy of interacting with. Give me a break!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Another stable genius? lol

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          If you're speaking of a jack ass in the "stable." tongue

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Only one? I see many of the same people on most threads? Funny you only notice one?   I would surmise you would hope to see a few not post? How boring would that be, so many just bumping into each other with the same opinion?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I don't know what you are talking abpit? It's kind of hard to know? When every sentence is a question?  I gather you think I don't want someone to post? I don't know where you get that, but okay?

        I guess?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I didn't want to mention all of the question marks, Sandy. I'd get accused of being a punctuation stickler, or of nitpicking on a writer's site. Go figure!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            There is some interesting psychology behind the practice of  routinely phrasing statements as questions. It's more common in speaking than in writing, though. Maybe she is from the San Fernando Valley?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Okay. A valley girl? tongue

  9. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    "In reality Randy,  all I see on these threads is you and your cronies attacking every one personally. "

    Bill, I attempted to have an actual legitimate conversation/debate with you. However, you chose to cop out by stating I was attacking you as a person anytime I disagreed with you in the slightest bit. I guess that can be an effective defense mechanism, but I'd rather read what others have to say, and learn along the way, as opposed to taking offense and shutting down anytime there's a disagreement.

    I feel like I'm on an episode of Candid Camera. Remember that one?

    1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
      Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Go back and read your replies to me and also read what Valeant posted.  Do I have to copy and paste it for you?

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        You post rhetoric that has led to violence against Americans, and then claim that as an attack against you when we call you out on it.  Instead of playing the victim, try for a better understanding of why you should move on from reposting something that has led to violent acts being committed.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Of course!

        1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
          Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Why not just say the truth, you just don't care to have a civil dialog with several on this thread.

  10. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks ago

    Meanwhile the NYT reports Bolton says Trump tied Ukraine aid to inquires he sought in his new book. No shit! yikes I'm shocked! Are you? tongue

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      The truth is going to come out one way or another. The GOP senators who vote against witnesses will suffer the consequences in November. Chief As$ kisser Lindsay Graham is already in trouble in his state, polling neck-to-neck with his Democratic challenger, and Mitch McConnell's approval rating in Kentucky is pretty dismal.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        I may send both of their opponents a bit of coin, even though I don't live in their states. Time wounds all heels!

  11. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago

    It has been a while since I saw a thread turn this snarky.

    GA

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Where have you been the last few years, Gus? A new guy shows up and expects to have his opinion accepted just because he listens to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?

      We already have enough of these people on the forums, and they actually write something on this site. What Val said...

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        No Randy, not what you said, and especially not what Val said. Critical and forceful rebuttal is one thing, pure snarkiness, denigration,  and 'who are you and you don't belong here' attacks are another.

        I have seen a lot of the former, they are par for a political discussion forum, but I am always hopeful this HP forum doesn't adopt the latter as the par.

        GA

        1. Valeant profile image95
          Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          If you're going to come at me, try and do it accurately, buddy. 

          Wondering the motivations of someone who hasn't posted something being on the forums of a publishing site, when there is a preponderance of false profiles posting pro-Trump propaganda seems more than relevant in these times.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Ditto!

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Okay, I will try to be accurate. My primary, almost exclusive reason for being here is for these forums. I have been here more than a few years, but until fairly recently I hadn't published anything new for years. I was only here for the forums.

            Should I not be? Am I not just as entitled as regular 'real' writers?

            And what does whether one publishes or not have to do with forum participation? If "Bill" had espoused opinions that agreed with yours, would you have still challenged his right to be here?

            Shouldn't attacking the message be enough? How many times did you challenge "Jake's" credentials to post in these forums?

            Was that any more accurate?

            GA

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I've gone to most people's profiles who post here.  I could tell you that Wesman is the guitar guy, ahorseback loves poetry as examples.  And yes, I noted Jake's status on the far-left after some of his more ludicrous Trump-bashing posts.

              Like I noted, after the 2016 election that saw numerous fake profiles created on social media sites, it's a reasonable question to ask when someone comes here with no written work to post far-right, pro-trump propaganda.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                It looks like I am batting "0" for the night—I disagree again. That is not how I read your original comment.

                GA

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I assume you like unknown posters who do not write on this site who dive into political forums as if they have some sort of privilege to denigrate the opinions of veteran writers.

          Fee free to think so. No one is stopping you, as usual.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            What part of being a veteran writer validates one's authority and credibility as a political commentator? Are you really putting up a "Writer's Only" fence around these forums? Or will you add qualifiers like 1, or 5, or 50 articles to enter?

            If I write 20 recipe articles will I be more authoritative in these political forums because I wrote about food? Will I then own the privilege to denigrate someone's political opinion?

            Of course, you can guess my answers to all of those questions, but I thought it would be more polite to ask than declare.

            As to whether I like what someone says, no one twists my arm to take them seriously, or even address them.

            GA

      2. Bill Spickerman profile image61
        Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes Gus...you are not supposed to accept someone else's opinion.  They are only allowed to agree.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Anyone who thinks Fox News is fair and balanced is always suspect in my opinion.

          Carry on with your feelings of being attacked if it makes you feel better, Bill.

          1. Bill Spickerman profile image61
            Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Feelings and fact are two different things, and I know the difference, do you?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Of course I do, do you know how to answer a question? Apparently not.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        "We already have enough of these people on the forums"

        Randy, Would you prefer I get lost due to leaning to the right?  This statement is very revealing. Naturally, anyone can see there are more leaning left users on this Political forum. But, it is also very apparent there are about 10  people that actually participate, leaving comments.

        It's clear, many here would prefer to be rid of any users that don't agree with there opinions.  Maybe, it would be wise for those that have disdain for any opposite opinions to just ignore those comments and don't reply.

        Would this not make better sense than insulting others due to their opinion?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          You have written a few things though. Correct? I didn't say e had no business here, simply he shows up and expects people automatically to take his words seriously.

    2. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      When yet another Trump extremist starts posting "the media is the enemy of the people," then snarky is being nice.

      Journalists are assaulted and murdered worldwide and even in the U.S. on a regular basis for doing their jobs.

      At least Trump shut up about "enemy of the people" after the Maryland newspaper shootings and assaults on journalists at Trump speeches. But some people keep it going.

      So yes, it's snarky. But the lack of respect is well deserved.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        So you say. I disagree.

        GA

    3. Bill Spickerman profile image61
      Bill Spickermanposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Blame me GA, so many are, might as well get on the train.LOL!

  12. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 4 weeks ago

    In an article I'm reading about Trump threatening Schiff via Twitter today, this question was asked simply...Do you Support the Articles of Impeachment?

    550,896 votes.  59% - yes, 41% - no

    If Bolton gets called to testify, it's going to be hard for Senators to let Trump escape his abuses of power.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I would say that the charge of abuse of power will be very difficult to prove.  I don't see where President Donald Trump has done anything that many previous president have also done.  MANY presidents have withheld documents and claimed executive privilege.

      If the Democrats really thought President Donald Trump was abusing his power by claiming executive privilege, why didn't they take their case to the Supreme Court?

      It's their job to decide such matters.

  13. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks ago

    [Raising hand to put in her two cents]

    I take a live-and-let-live attitude. If some dude wants to come here and post, who cares? He could be legit or he could be a paid propagandist. I have no way of knowing. Just go after the substance of his posts like you would any other poster of right-wing nonsense and it will work itself out in the end.

    I'm like GA. I haven't written any new articles in years and just come here to argue politics. What's the big deal?

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Just go after the substance of his posts like you would any other poster of right-wing nonsense and it will work itself out in the end."

      I agree with you, but from my perspective, I would switch the term "right-wing" with liberal.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, we all have our perspectives. That is fair.

  14. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    It looks like you are all ganging up on Randy now. Once again, I attempted to have a legitimate conversation here. It proved impossible with the person involved. I attacked no one, but we see the true colors come out now when you get a chance to pile up on someone else.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I am finding it hard to keep score.

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yeah. It's comical; from the beginning. I know how it started: with a fuzzy claim that I hurled a personal insult, and when I asked what that insult was, he couldn't even tell me. That's because the insult was disagreeing with him.  I even said he was probably a good guy. Then, everyone used this as a springboard to be holier than thou, agreeing with the guy that I, along with Valient somehow insulted him. You jumped on that bandwagon without ever saying what it was I did. And, I thought our interactions in the past had been respectable. Oh well.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I too am weary of being accused of insulting someone by simply disagreeing with them. I suppose they're following their role model's lead. Poor sensitive people! It just breaks my damn heart! tongue

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          To further confuse things, I am not sure that  I addressed you in this Thread?  I certainly have been following all the back and forth, and got a bit into the fray with one of the persons involved, and he pretty much vaguely threatened to have me banned.  If I insulted you in any respect I apologize. I have read through the thread and only found the one post to you. The one you responded to.

          I have never found you to be unpleasant or argumentive. As you said you get your point across and have been respectful in doing so.

          1. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            You didn't specifically address me.  I assumed I was included in your comments since this did kind of start with a conversation I was having with Bill S. If I wasn't included in your comments, then I appreciate it. Bill is the only one who called me out and said I attacked him personally. I never got an explanation for that one, though I give up on caring. It is hard to keep score. I thought we were having a legitimate discussion.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              I will get in trouble for this... But, it's my opinion. You have not exhibited the traits I was referring to in my groupthink comment. 

              Randy's recent comment is very telling, it simply gets to the problem, names it, and actually could work to help solve the problem,

              "What you term "groupthink" can be applied to both sides of the arguments, Shar. "

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                I appreciate your clarification and agree with Randy's comment. I try to take a step back, and re-evaluate things when it looks like people are "ganging up on a person." I certainly see it from both sides here on Hubpages.

                My main reasons for coming here are to attempt to understand where others are coming from, to learn some things that I cannot learn from the media, and to flesh out my own views on matters. This is fun for me.  At the same time, I don't mind things getting a bit heated, as I believe you don't entirely also. But, I do make a point to not be the one to start hurling personal insults, which is why I genuinely wanted to know what Bill considered a personal insult from me. Yet, I'm far from perfect, and will sling some insults when I feel like I'm being attacked..(i.e. "typical libtard response," etc.) These types of comments, which do come from both sides, do nothing to advance a debate. I'm not going to back down though...it's just not in my nature.

                Plus, I despise the type of thinking, where just because someone may support single-payer healthcare, this means they also must want to come take everyone's guns. In the real world, I don't think individuals often think along these lines (though I know some do). However, US politicians are forced to look at matters in that way, in order to get the votes in the primaries. The media, and politicians on both sides, also perpetuate these stereotypes. In fact, it seems clear that some have come to rely on dividing the public and making the "other side" out to be one massive brain that all thinks and behaves in one particular way. It's dehumanizing and . This is where I think more parties, or something other than the first past the post electoral system would be helpful.

                Okay..kind of ran the gamut there, but I think these things are all interlinked.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I feel you have expressed your feelings well, and I find it sensible, and relevant to the times we live in. Although it is clear many have come to a crossroads, and just want more from our representatives that we send to Washington. Many are have grown tired of the "stereotypes".

                  1. hard sun profile image90
                    hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Thanks. You summed it up well. Americans should not have to agree on every specific, in order to come together for the common goal of change and improvement. I know this is not likely to go over well with you, but I think this is the fatal flaw of our current President. He only makes attempts to drive divisions, instead of heal them.

  15. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks ago

    Did you all see Ken Starr yesterday? OMG, he was so boring I could barely stay awake. And when I did manage to focus on his words, I would end up laughing hysterically. Someone on TV said it perfectly. "Does Ken Starr remember he is Ken Starr?"

    Oh, the irony was just TOO much!

  16. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago

    It appears that Mitch will succeed in denying witnesses, counter to the wishes of the vast majority of Americans. The president will not be exonerated and the full truth will not be known. Yet.

    Bolton's book will come out. Other information will emerge. In the meantime, our lying, corrupt president will be emboldened and will continue to extort other countries for his own personal benefit. He will, once again,  encourage foreign countries to interfere in our election.

    He will move forward loosening protections against corruption so he can continue to line his pockets through illegal means with even less chance of consequences.

    Good job, people. Thumbs up! Your corruption fighter is winning.I expect when a Democrat president behaves similarly you will be just as supportive of Dershowitz's position, just as opposed to impeachment proceedings as you have been in this case, just as opposed to hearing witnesses as some of you currently are, and just as content to watch a president use his power to lie, coerce, bribe, and bully.

    Our future looks so bright! Be proud of your contribution to it.

    1. hard sun profile image90
      hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Maybe there is still a glimmer of hope on this, but I'm not holding my breath. Unfortunately, you are right on the money as far as the implications of this. And, this is our corruption-fighting President. I guess he fights corruption, if it isn't his own...then he covers it up and just tells everyone that is what he is doing.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      How do you figure he won't be exonerated?  There are only two choices (I think) - guilty or innocent - do you expect a guilty verdict?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        A "not guilty" without a fair and proper trial will not be viewed as exoneration by most people.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Because the majority of people--even Republicans--want to hear from Bolton. There will always be a stain on Trump's presidency if Mitch succeeds in the cover up.

        Wouldn't you like to hear what he knows, Dan?

  17. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks ago

    The cover-up is almost over. This particular one, at any rate. There will be more of course. Trump got away with his obstructing justice during the Mueller probe, and now once again, he escapes any harm by extorting Ukraine and stonewalling cogressa in the same manner.

    I'll wager there are some people who are delighted with his duplicity and want him to keep it up. Wonderful patriots they are! tongue

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      The last remedy will be to boot the cowardly GOP senators out of office for ignoring their oath of office and defying the will.of the people.

      Of course, the Don has now been given free reign to.bribe foreign governments to interfere in the election.

      Yep, you patriots should be super proud of what you have supported and enabled for three years now. Excellent work!

  18. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks ago

    A newly released document from the OMB reveals Trump was leveraging the Ukraine in early June. This backs up Bolton's claim and puts the lie to Trumps claim. No big surprise to anyone who isn't an enabler for his criminal activity.

    Tump stonewalled the release of this document, but the Freedom of Information Act apparently has more power than Congress to get this info.

    Keep watching  as this is only the tip if the iceberg. Let the criminal escape, my fellow patriots. You're making Putin happy you know...

  19. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 3 weeks ago

    I really do think that how this played out will hurt the R's in November. The average voter seems to be fed up with Trump's clear cover ups...even in the MidWest.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Do you find it comical that virtually all liberals think the impeachment fiasco will hurt Republicans and all Republicans think it will hurt Democrats?

      I do.  "The world thinks as I do" is alive and well in our country.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Sadly, the Republicans are around 34% of the population at this point. It really doesn't help they covered up for Trump in the Senate either.

        The only fiasco was in the Senate, not the House. Voting to not seek the truth runs parallel with Trumps whole philosophy during his term.

        Hopefully this is his last!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Voting to not seek the truth runs parallel with Trumps whole philosophy during his term."

          You're saying House Democrats run parallel with Trump?  Because they sure weren't interested in truth!

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Nope, the House did their duty, despite, despite Trump's obstructing them all of the way. They invited him to put up a defense in the House, but apparently he didn't have one.

            The Senate was never going to convict him, as we all knew. They even went so far as to be the first Senate trial in history to not have witnesses and evidence. But then, they were terrified of new documents and witnesses being allowed.

            History will not be kind to those who shirked their duty. Of course, King Donald may change history to suit him.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              I watched the trial, and I saw the House present both 'evidence' and witness testimony.

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Indeed, but this was the first Senate Impeachment trial in history to have no new witnesses and documents, Gus. What does this tell you when they could get them easy enough?

                And what part of a "search for the truth " can you point to in the Senate trial since they wanted no new evidence to be seen or heard?

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Haven't you asked that last question before? I am sure I answered it—a couple of times. Pay attention. ;-)

                  GA

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You did? Did you point to an example with no witnesses? I missed it, I suppose.

      2. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Sure is some truth to seeing things how we want to seem them. However, I am basing my statement on things I've heard and read from people in my area.  I certainly don't think the world sees things  as I do though. In fact, I'd be worried about myself if my views lined up with the majority of the world's views.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I have to disagree. In my opinion, more are feeling benefits in their lives from Trump's presidency.  And many American's just want a president that gets things done. A few days ago I posted a list of how Trump's presidency has affected my life and those in my close circle. Some Dems will be voting for Trump just due to his job performance. One must take into consideration and realize Trump has made some very positive changes that affect many Americans personally. Not sure many would cut their nose off to spite their face, and opt to put in a Dem with progressive ideas that could provide a very be iffy future for America...

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yup. This is just opinion at this point. I don't think it will ever be truly known until after November. I'm also speaking of voters that are middle of the road that wouldn't see voting for a Dem as cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Did you see Graham promising to continue the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden? I once admired him before McCain died, but then he became simply another ass kisser for Trump.

          It's true, Trump corrupts everyone around him unless they escape from his orbit. Namely, Bolton, Kelly, and all the others who have served under him saw the light and got the hell out.

          it'll be funny to watch and hear from those who refused to hear the Truth from Bolton when his book comes out. Can you imagine their excuses? "Well, we didn't see all of the evidence!"  lol

          Cretins, the lot of them.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Baby Lindsay - watch his eyes when he goes on one of his Trump-defending screeds. The man is terrified. What a cowardly tool.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              John McCain is probably spinning in his coffin. There are only a few honest Republican Senators left in Congress. I never thought I'd see the day when the most dishonest and low class person in history would lead our country.

          2. hard sun profile image90
            hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            And they follow a dude who cannot even get a Super Bowl congratulations correct. He may be still be President, but he's also still a no-nothing bully. You'd think they could have at least found a smarter idol. You know the Washington R's would have preferred one, but this is what their voters gave them. That's kind of funny.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              He mirrors his enablers, Don. That's why they like him so much.

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                They know the truth. Now they have a couple day distraction from Trump's corruption and ignorance. And, at least some of them, are still behaving exactly like him of course.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yep, waiting for the new king to address his peons tonight. Wonder if he'll brag and lie as usual? Of course he will. He can't help himself....or no one else, for that matter. yikes

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          You have a point there. The next election will be very telling of the future, and what the people really want for that future.

  20. Onusonus profile image78
    Onusonusposted 3 weeks ago

    Now that the trial is wrapping up...
    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/84333660_3493584364017368_5075715861340225536_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=000Ukic6wmIAX91Q0_6&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=b7c98973db7fa88f08aa4a2cbec8a04f&oe=5ECB5D56

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Need to change the last word to "Dictator," Joey. lol

  21. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 2 weeks ago

    As I predicted when I began this thread, Moscow Mitch got his way with the Senate Republicans....all except the for one honest man in their midst, Mitt Romney.

    Now we can sit back and see the truth come to light as it wasn't allowed to in the Senate trial. Bolton will speak, the documents will come out, and all will see what a POS they have as a POTUS.

    I hope his enablers are very proud of standing up for a person who could care less about their welfare or his oath of office.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)