ADVERTISEMENT

Jeff Van Drew

ThunderCat98

ThunderCat98

Platinum Buffalo
Jun 23, 2007
13,869
8,616
113
Uh-oh.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...cs/jeff-van-drew-democrat-republican.amp.html

I know, I know: (1) he's never supported impeachment; (2) it's not that big a deal; and/or [insert extra's or Raoul's other MSNBC-backed standard excuse here].

Except - except - the optics of this to the general public, those that don't closely follow politics, is fvcking terrible for the Dems. This thing is turning into a huge train wreck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
ThunderCat98 said:
Except - except - the optics of this to the general public, those that don't closely follow politics, is fvcking terrible for the Dems. This thing is turning into a huge train wreck.
Click to expand...

Except-except- a majority of Americans approve the impeachment.
 
ThunderCat98 said:
Raoul's other MSNBC-backed standard excuse here
Click to expand...

I've probably watched a total of an hour of MSNBC. As in ever.

All I see here is another political opportunist worried about losing his seat. I'd add he is also a chickenshit. Run as what you are and let the chips fall where they may. Personally I could not run for either party. Sure, I would likely lose, but I prefer sleeping well at night. If Drew had a backbone he would do the same.

On the flip side, the GOP lost Amash. Who is one of about ten people in Congress that still believes in the Constitution. I disagree with him on some things, agree on others...but I would vote for him in a second. Why? Because he places principle first, and I would trust him to make the right decisions when it really mattered (this impeachment/Senate trial stuff doesn't matter, for Christsakes we have the jury meeting with the defense, WTF, it's all a game to 99% of them).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chevy1
Rifle and Extra - I'll bet both of you (1) Trump is not convicted in the Senate, and (2) is reelected. One year self-ban from posting (and, yes, this would include posting under any other screen name). How much faith you got in those polls?
 
ThunderCat98 said:
Rifle and Extra - I'll bet both of you (1) Trump is not convicted in the Senate, and (2) is reelected. One year self-ban from posting (and, yes, this would include posting under any other screen name). How much faith you got in those polls?
Click to expand...


ThunderCat and i am herdman-I'll bet both of you (1) Trump is impeached in the House, and (2) is not reelected in the general election. One year self-ban from posting (and, yes, this would include posting under any other screen name). How much faith you got the polls are wrong?
 
No, no, no, my friend. I made mine first. Don't be a bitch and try and change terms. You already dodged one bet. Here's your chance to "man up."
 
Eliminate the impeachment angle and just do the ban on whether or not Trump is re elected in 2020.
 
banker6796 said:
Eliminate the impeachment angle and just do the ban on whether or not Trump is re elected in 2020.
Click to expand...

Eliminate the Trump is not convicted in the Senate and just do the ban on whether or not Trump is reelected in 2020.
 
How about the same bet with WVfan, Big Country, and the rest of you cons that are so confident of trumps reelection?
 


giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
Bottom line....few, if any, of the facts are in dispute.
  • Did Trump withhold a WH visit for the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens?
  • Did Trump withhold military assistance for the Biden investigation announcement?
  • Was this a months long effort with Rudi Guiliani leading the way?
Those are pretty much all "yes".

The question now is...is this lying and cheating impeachable? Unfortunately, that's where we're at....what degree of lying and cheating is an impeachable offense.

Pretty sad... no matter what side you support. Also, can we officially dispense with the lie, "drain the swamp"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
Chevy1 said:
Never thought I would see the day where self-proclaimed "conservatives" would be on the side of Russian interference into our political system....
Click to expand...
never thought i'd see the day where self-proclaimed american's would fall for bullshit russian narratives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
WV-FAN said:
never thought i'd see the day where self-proclaimed american's would fall for bullshit russian narratives.
Click to expand...
US Intel services clearly said it was "Russia" who meddled in the election....Trump says it was Ukraine. Who to believe....who to believe?

Probably time to check your orange lord and savior's twitter feed for today's dose of "narratives".
 
Chevy1 said:
US Intel services clearly said it was "Russia" who meddled in the election....Trump says it was Ukraine. Who to believe....who to believe?

Probably time to check your orange lord and savior's twitter feed for today's dose of "narratives".
Click to expand...

They both did. I don’t even think that’s debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98 and WV-FAN
Chevy1 said:
US Intel services clearly said it was "Russia" who meddled in the election....Trump says it was Ukraine. Who to believe....who to believe?

Probably time to check your orange lord and savior's twitter feed for today's dose of "narratives".
Click to expand...
oh, make no mistake, i'm not saying russia or the ukraine didn't try to influence our elections. i'm saying that it's despicable that you and people like you fell for the trump collusion hoax hook, line, and sinker. as bad of an individual as he may be, it tells a lot about you people when you have to resort to a false narrative, and totally convince yourselves of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
big_country90 said:
They both did. I don’t even think that’s debatable.
Click to expand...
Oh...I suppose you're equating the Ambassador's Op-Ed to Russian ads, illegitimate social media campaign as well as hacking the DNC server.

It is against the law to write a op-ed in the local newspaper?
 
Last edited:
Chevy1 said:
US Intel services clearly said it was "Russia" who meddled in the election....Trump says it was Ukraine. Who to believe....who to believe?

Probably time to check your orange lord and savior's twitter feed for today's dose of "narratives".
Click to expand...
big_country90 said:
They both did. I don’t even think that’s debatable.
Click to expand...
No kidding and how does Chevy not know this?
 
WV-FAN said:
oh, make no mistake, i'm not saying russia or the ukraine didn't try to influence our elections. i'm saying that it's despicable that you and people like you fell for the trump collusion hoax hook, line, and sinker. as bad of an individual as he may be, it tells a lot about you people when you have to resort to a false narrative, and totally convince yourselves of it.
Click to expand...
I feel equally as bad for you for hearing the line, "there's not enough evidence to prosecute 'conspiracy'" which was interpreted to mean, "there was no collusion". Mueller stated he wasn't investigating "collusion." Oh...and who said there was "no collusion"? Trump? And you bought it? Again!?! Sad.

Shit....if asking the Russians to hack your political opponent and sharing polling data with them isn't "collusion", then what is?
 
Dems for 2.5 years: "Investigate foreign interference in the election!!!"

Trump attempts to do just that: "Bribery! Abuse of power!!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
Chevy1 said:
US Intel services clearly said it was "Russia" who meddled in the election....Trump says it was Ukraine. Who to believe....who to believe?

Probably time to check your orange lord and savior's twitter feed for today's dose of "narratives".
Click to expand...
Why didn’t Obama and the Democrats do something about the Russian interference in 2016 then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
ThunderCat98 said:
Dems for 2.5 years: "Investigate foreign interference in the election!!!"

Trump attempts to do just that: "Bribery! Abuse of power!!!"
Click to expand...
The Dems - primarily Pelosi - didn't want to pursue impeachment for what has been documented to be Russian interference in the election as well as WH obstruction efforts with that investigation.

Trump attempted to pull off this Ukraine investigation the day after the Mueller report Congressional hearing. Facts and testimony (including Trump's white house lawn "Ukraine / China if you're listening" as well as Mulvaney's quid pro quo admission) show it happened. Did he do it? Yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...er-report-showed-that-russia-did-affect-vote/

https://time.com/5573768/mueller-report-trump-russian-contacts/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/i...a-sophisticated-russian-interference-campaign
Mueller report reveals more on Russia's interference in 2016 election
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2FBTLwCCXs
 
Chevy1 said:
I feel equally as bad for you for hearing the line, "there's not enough evidence to prosecute 'conspiracy'" which was interpreted to mean, "there was no collusion". Mueller stated he wasn't investigating "collusion." Oh...and who said there was "no collusion"? Trump? And you bought it? Again!?! Sad.

Shit....if asking the Russians to hack your political opponent and sharing polling data with them isn't "collusion", then what is?
Click to expand...
who said i feel bad for you jackasses? i don't. like ditch diggers, the world needs dumbasses, too.

Chevy1 said:
I read objective, reputable news sources.....I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...
likely the same sources that have spoon fed you the bullshit russia collusion narrative you've obviously fell for. same sources that've told you the steele dossier was all factual. same sources that told you everything done by the FBI was completely legit.

christ, maybe i do feel bad for you.

not really, i simply think you're another anti-american blundering idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back