Anti-Trump ‘Republican’ Group to Run Pro-Impeachment Ads in Target States

[Mesaclone]

@Mesaclone
It is not nonsensical - The very same claims were made through 8 years of Bush.
Bupkis.

Your reply is the equivalent of covering your ears and shouting da-da-da-da loudly so you don't have to address a difficult question. The makeup of the courts matters...a lot. Trump is changing the courts in a dramatically conservative direction...thanks in part to Mr. McConnell's tactics in the Senate to assist him. How is that not "different" than what would have happened under President Hillary?

Are you really going to argue that such a shift in the court...from a Hillary court to a Trump court...is of no significance? The "money" in question IS the appointees.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Mesaclone
It is not nonsensical - The very same claims were made through 8 years of Bush.
Bupkis.

Somebody has already popped the cork for celebrating 2020.

[roamer_1]

Your reply is the equivalent of covering your ears and shouting da-da-da-da loudly so you don't have to address a difficult question. The makeup of the courts matters...a lot. Trump is changing the courts in a dramatically conservative direction...thanks in part to Mr. McConnell's tactics in the Senate to assist him. How is that not "different" than what would have happened under President Hillary?

Are you really going to argue that such a shift in the court...from a Hillary court to a Trump court...is of no significance? The "money" in question IS the appointees.

@Mesaclone
No, in the first place, stop confusing 'conservative' with 'Republican'.
In the second place, McConnell placing actual conservatives in ANYTHING is simply laughable.

I don't see any difference to date, your redirection toward non-provable 'witches' aside.
The witch is always there. And always has been. I will not be distracted by your pointing anymore.

I require PERFORMANCE. MERIT.
And to date, nothing but mere Republican-ism. Again.
Bush Sommore.
meh.

[Mesaclone]

@Mesaclone
No, in the first place, stop confusing 'conservative' with 'Republican'.
In the second place, McConnell placing actual conservatives in ANYTHING is simply laughable.

I don't see any difference to date, your redirection toward non-provable 'witches' aside.
The witch is always there. And always has been. I will not be distracted by your pointing anymore.

I require PERFORMANCE. MERIT.
And to date, nothing but mere Republican-ism. Again.
Bush Sommore.
meh.

Performance: 187 Article III judges approved and on the bench. 1 in 4 US Circuit judges are Trump appointees now. His judges are rated, almost to a man/woman, as deeply conservative...their impact is generational on the courts. Hillary judges would also have been of "generational impact".

So quit being disingenuous...a 4 year old can see there is a HUGE difference in the Trump judicial appointees on those Hillary would have appointed. Further, not even a complete and utter moron could argue that those appointments don't have a HUGE impact on just how conservatively our courts rule...so again...

How can you say there is no difference?

You seem to have no argument beyond "they aint ruled on nuthin' yet so it dont mean shite"...I truly hope that is not the limit of your ability to form a coherent argument. That said, your position is intellectually untenable by any measure...its as if you're trying to argue that dark brown and off white are the same color, which is why I said your argument is nonsensical. You simply seem unable to answer the bolded question...you might ask yourself why that is.

[roamer_1]

Performance: 187 Article III judges approved and on the bench. 1 in 4 US Circuit judges are Trump appointees now. His judges are rated, almost to a man/woman, as deeply conservative...their impact is generational on the courts. Hillary judges would also have been of "generational impact".

@Mesaclone
PERFORMANCE: Actual Conservative decisions. You can pack the court with 'deeply conservative' moderates till the cows come home, and nothing at all will change.

And yeah... All of Bush's appointments were 'deeply conservative' too.

So quit being disingenuous...a 4 year old can see there is a HUGE difference in the Trump judicial appointees on those Hillary would have appointed. Further, not even a complete and utter moron could argue that those appointments don't have a HUGE impact on just how conservatively our courts rule...so again...

How can you say there is no difference?

You seem to have no argument beyond "they aint ruled on nuthin' yet so it dont mean shite"...I truly hope that is not the limit of your ability to form a coherent argument. That said, your position is intellectually untenable by any measure...its as if you're trying to argue that dark brown and off white are the same color, which is why I said your argument is nonsensical. You simply seem unable to answer the bolded question...you might ask yourself why that is.

That is precisely my argument, and the only one that matters. Where the rubber hits the road, there must be Conservative decisions, or all your claims amount to nothing.

FIFTY YEARS - My whole life, without a single real and lasting win. Put up or shut up.

[Mesaclone]

@Mesaclone
PERFORMANCE: Actual Conservative decisions. You can pack the court with 'deeply conservative' moderates till the cows come home, and nothing at all will change.

And yeah... All of Bush's appointments were 'deeply conservative' too.

That is precisely my argument, and the only one that matters. Where the rubber hits the road, there must be Conservative decisions, or all your claims amount to nothing.

FIFTY YEARS - My whole life, without a single real and lasting win. Put up or shut up.

Well... put up then. There are conservative decisions now being made in these courts almost continuously...which meets precisely the definition of the rubber meeting the road. Your apparent inability to read and understand the importance of various court decisions this past year or two is a you problem...there’s good reason the Left is screaming bloody murder over the courts right now.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the requirement to buy Health Insurance in Obamacare is unconstitutional....and that is just one of many important rulings in the past year. Do some research for gods sakes.

[roamer_1]

Well... put up then. There are conservative decisions now being made in these courts almost continuously...which meets precisely the definition of the rubber meeting the road. Your apparent inability to read and understand the importance of various court decisions this past year or two is a you problem...there’s good reason the Left is screaming bloody murder over the courts right now.

Yeah, bullcrap. Heard it all before.
Still liberalism wins.
Not by its merit.
It has no merit.

It wins because it has no opposition.

For FIFTY YEARS y'all been saying without doing, and this is no damn different till proven otherwise (which I am more than sure will not occur)

The far left never has to compromise, and they win all the damn time.
Yet you would always and forever have me compromise for nada. Bupkis. Nothing. Ever.
Never ever again. Put up or shut up. Then you get a 'see, I told you so'... But believe me, I am not holding my breath.

A liberal president, with moderates in control is not going to do anything for Conservatism.

[Mesaclone]

Yeah, bullcrap. Heard it all before.
Still liberalism wins.
Not by its merit.
It has no merit.

It wins because it has no opposition.

For FIFTY YEARS y'all been saying without doing, and this is no damn different till proven otherwise (which I am more than sure will not occur)

The far left never has to compromise, and they win all the damn time.
Yet you would always and forever have me compromise for nada. Bupkis. Nothing. Ever.
Never ever again. Put up or shut up. Then you get a 'see, I told you so'... But believe me, I am not holding my breath.

A liberal president, with moderates in control is not going to do anything for Conservatism.

I don't want you to compromise, I was just hoping you might have a coherent argument to support your position. Perhaps some sort of factual or evidentiary basis for your view. Turns out, rather clearly, you don't. Without that, you can't even be a conservative...or a liberal for that matter...because "being" something requires having some kind of intellectual basis. Quite frankly, the absence of anything resembling a defensible viewpoint makes you irrelevant to any serious discussions about Conservatism, politics and anything more complex than a comic book.

Why should anyone care about your opinion when you refuse, or are unable, to make an argument beyond "just cause I say so"...and its hard to imagine why you'd want to engage in discussion on a conservative message board that strives to be about making reasoned arguments FOR conservatism.

[Applewood]

@Applewood

Roberts was part of the Boy Jorge Homosexual Mafia. Don't blame Trump for that.

Try reading what I posted and show me where I blame Trump for Roberts' elevation to SCOTUS.   

What I said is that after being sold a bill of goods with Roberts, I am not about to trust anyone who says Trump's court nominees are conservatives.  Show me results -- how they rule in cases before them -- if they demonstrate conservativisms in their cases, then I'll believe they are conservatives.

And I might suggest that you and other Trump supporters should also keep an eye on these allegedly conservative judges.

[Applewood]

That means exactly what?

Here in Texas at one time about everyone elected to office was also a Democrat.  Do you really want to diss our entire state from what we used to be?

How about Reagan?  Are your really placing the same brand on him as well that he cannot be trusted as he was once a Democrat?

The mantra should better follow whether his current words and actions follow conservative principles rather than what happened in the past.

The difference  between President Reagan and Trump is that Reagan demonstrated that he was conservative.  He walked the walk, not just talked the talk.  Trump, on the other hand, has shown on several occasions that he is not necessarily a conservative.   I gave some examples in my post if anyone bothered to actually read it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Me too!  I want them to testify also.

Would you be willing to settle on just the witlesses the Democrats want?

[Chosen Daughter]

Would you be willing to settle on just the witlesses the Democrats want?

No sir.  I want Schiff and Biden to testify also.  I just posted a thread about Biden.  He says he won't comply with a subpoena.  I think that both Biden's and Barack Obama should testify also.  Being that its on film Biden telling Ukraine to call Obama if they didn't believe him.

Whether Trump began his investigation to gain political dirt or not if Biden engaged in corruption it should come out.  Then they should have a separate trial on him and convict him on Federal Corruption charges.  Maybe Obama too.

[skeeter]

No sir.  I want Schiff and Biden to testify also.  I just posted a thread about Biden.  He says he won't comply with a subpoena.  I think that both Biden's and Barack Obama should testify also.  Being that its on film Biden telling Ukraine to call Obama if they didn't believe him.

Whether Trump began his investigation to gain political dirt or not if Biden engaged in corruption it should come out.  Then they should have a separate trial on him and convict him on Federal Corruption charges.  Maybe Obama too.

And how do you think it will be proven one way or the other what Trump's intentions were when he asked Zelensky to look into Barisma corruption?

[Cyber Liberty]

No sir.  I want Schiff and Biden to testify also.  I just posted a thread about Biden.  He says he won't comply with a subpoena.  I think that both Biden's and Barack Obama should testify also.  Being that its on film Biden telling Ukraine to call Obama if they didn't believe him.

Whether Trump began his investigation to gain political dirt or not if Biden engaged in corruption it should come out.  Then they should have a separate trial on him and convict him on Federal Corruption charges.  Maybe Obama too.

Then on this we agree, I'd like to see that too, but I know Schumer's demand is for Dem witnesses, and he doesn't want the Republicans to call witnesses he doesn't like.  IOW, Schumer's negotiating position is what I stated, Prosecution witnesses only, with no defense witnesses allowed.

In reality, there probably won't be any public witnesses at all.  Maybe some depositions or interrogatories.

[Chosen Daughter]

Then on this we agree, I'd like to see that too, but I know Schumer's demand is for Dem witnesses, and he doesn't want the Republicans to call witnesses he doesn't like.  IOW, Schumer's negotiating position is what I stated, Prosecution witnesses only, with no defense witnesses allowed.

In reality, there probably won't be any public witnesses at all.  Maybe some depositions or interrogatories.

Well if both sides are not allowed to call witnesses then I say that the impeachment is a sham.    Fair trial is fair trial.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well if both sides are not allowed to call witnesses then I say that the impeachment is a sham.    Fair trial is fair trial.

"Fairness" is a legal totem only applicable to the accused, and notably not to the Prosecutors. 

[XenaLee]

The Democrats have done to Impeachment, what Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize did,   rendered it meaningless.

The Democrats love to set new precedents (remember Obama's "firsts"?), all of them bad for Americans and for America as a free nation.   They also love to weaponize the various alphabet agencies in government whenever they're in power.   They figure it's a means to an end, no justification necessary... and once they finally get total control... they assume they won't have to bother with that again.   They'll just do what other commie tyrants have done.  Send in the goons to arrest and/or execute.  And I have no doubt whatsoever that the leftist rats currently in Congress will be fully "on board" and all in once that day comes.....if it comes.

[Cyber Liberty]

The Democrats love to set new precedents (remember Obama's "firsts"?), all of them bad for Americans and for America as a free nation.   They also love to weaponize the various alphabet agencies in government whenever they're in power.   They figure it's a means to an end, no justification necessary... and once they finally get total control... they assume they won't have to bother with that again.   They'll just do what other commie tyrants have done.  Send in the goons to arrest and/or execute.  And I have no doubt whatsoever that the leftist rats currently in Congress will be fully "on board" and all in once that day comes.....if it comes.

The first thing the Rats would do, if they had a magic wand, would be to have the government decide who can or cannot run for public office.

[XenaLee]

@DCPatriot

There IS no difference. No matter which, you get HUGE government costing trillions upon trillions of dollars that we do not have. Either one you get centralized government with unlimited power... The only argument is in who is doing big government better.

I have no interest in that argument. And no dog in this hunt.

With all due respect, hon.....

for someone that keeps saying they have "no dog in this hunt".....

you spend an awful lot of time here bashing Trump.   Odd, that.   

[txradioguy]

Then on this we agree, I'd like to see that too, but I know Schumer's demand is for Dem witnesses, and he doesn't want the Republicans to call witnesses he doesn't like.  IOW, Schumer's negotiating position is what I stated, Prosecution witnesses only, with no defense witnesses allowed.

In reality, there probably won't be any public witnesses at all.  Maybe some depositions or interrogatories.

Whether you like him...hate hi or you're somewhere in between...Trump is getting railroaded by the Dems.  McConnell needs to just simply do whatever procedural move that needs to be done to flush this thing when and if Pelosi puts int on his desk.

The Dems grossly miscalculated trying to impeach Trump and it's forced people who normally wouldn't stick up for Trump to do just that.

[txradioguy]

With all due respect, hon.....

for someone that keeps saying they have "no dog in this hunt".....

you spend an awful lot of time here bashing Trump.   Odd, that.   

@roamer_1  bashes the Progressives more.  Just sayin...

[XenaLee]

The first thing the Rats would do, if they had a magic wand, would be to have the government decide who can or cannot run for public office.

Since they would have all elections rigged anyway, what would be the point?   The commies only put their own guys in positions of power.... always.

[XenaLee]

@roamer_1  bashes the Progressives more.  Just sayin...

Uh... nope.   Comparing the Trump administration to a "Warren administration" is not what I call equal bashing.   Just sayin...

[Applewood]

Applewood wrote:
"Sorry guys, but I am not going to vote for Trump period."

Then, a simple question:
What are you doing in this forum?

@Fishrrman

Until this site becomes another version of Free Republic, then I'll leave.  The owners have assured me that won't happen.  So I'm staying. 

Now if you or anyone else want a Trump worship forum, I'm sure Free Republic will welcome you with open arms (and take your money).   

[txradioguy]

Uh... nope.   Comparing the Trump administration to a "Warren administration" is not what I call equal bashing.   Just sayin...

You've got tunnel vision on this thread.  I'm talking about the overall bulk of his posting on here.

And in all honesty there's not any daylight between the spending Trump has signed off on and the spending Warren wants to do.  Either way it's increasing the deficit and passing an unsustainable fiscal burden on to our grandkids.