Omerta

Well there is evidence...

And no I won't believe anything until there is proof of the allegation. Show me something not just your word

The texts you reference specifically say there is no quid pro quo...

I don't know if it's lost in the shuffle, but that is something I have absolutely been wondering about more than anything else. Trump tapes the heat for trying to find out if Biden is corrupt. it would be one thing if he suggested planting evidence, to make the situation look like something it wasn't. But even if you believe the whistleblower, and it's kind of hard to at this juncture, then there is still something that we need to know about Joe Biden. you mentioned Hillary is well, and I'm glad that somebody else is making this connection. She also had a vast amount of dirt on her, and we are worried about how Trump talks in a locker room. I think that that guy is so low that you couldn't have him walk under a snake and it would not knock off his toupee. That said, I think it's interesting how Donald Trump is trying to find out the truth, albeit about a political opponent, and he's not doing it for altruistic purposes. That being said does nobody else want to know if Biden did anything wrong? I mean if we want to find out what every single politician in this country is done, I'm all for it start with Trump and work your way down. That being said, don't just stop at Trump. Don't stop at your own party. don't you want to know all of the bad things that the people who say they represent you or doing? I mean in a weird way turning a blind eye to your own party makes you culpable. I just don't understand what is happening right now. We are more worried about Trump investigating Biden, then if Biden actually did anything.

Until the text or the anonymous whistleblower back up there statements with more than, "trust me" it isn't proof, it's a conspiracy. That is no different than any politician saying that they should check out the wrongdoings of their political opponents, especially when it involves other countries. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying there's no definitive proof. Right now there's a whole bunch of he said she said and then nothing. At the very least there's nothing that would hold up in a court of law.

I think that's where it gets bollocks'd up. Trump is a piece of shit. Much live almost every president of my lifetime or anyone who even ran for it. But this impeachment shit is old. It has been Mueller, Stormy Daniels, his Mental Health, The Charlottesville bullshit, and so much other bullshit they want to impeach him for but never can for 2 reasons. There is never definitive proof and their weak. They should just say we have shit candidates and want a gimme next election because we can't beat anybody. They will look as weak as they are but at least it's honest. Then the Republicans can say we would back Satan if he hated the right people. It would make them look as immoral as they are, but it would be honest.

They're right though...That's the problem. We are deeply divided as a nation. And it's among Republicans AND Democrats and the rest of us are collateral damage.

I'd lay money he didn't use Medicare. Hopefully he recovers well though.

....And you're surprised?

I'm not saying people shouldn't be outraged over this. That's not what I meant, I was more speaking to the way they go about winning the election. It seems as though we're always trying to accent things that divide us instead of talking about things that unite us. I don't mean this as a campaign slogan or anything like that, I'm just pointing out the way that Democrats have gone about winning the election. Just as an example reading Cortez Green New deal is a bunch of generalities that are behind a good principle. I don't think anybody is going to argue that if the climate changed dramatically, that we would be in for something nasty. What we're debating about is the timetable, and I am all for taking the conservative estimate here. As somebody who owns an electrical contracting business, I would love to see a huge push in green energy from a money standpoint. I would also love to see it from an environmental standpoint, so if we want to make radical changes to the way we power our nation I'm all for it. That said, there are two different strategies in the political sphere for how we deal with this. if you're a Democrat they talk about getting away from fossil fuels, lowering our carbon footprint, and moving towards renewable energy sources. All of that's a good thing. And then we have to taint it by getting drawn into a fight with Republicans because we like to point out the fact that oil money is a primary motivator as to why we have not gotten away from non-renewable energy sources. it is true that many Republicans benefit from the oil industry, but it's not like they're alone. There are a lot of Democrats who make oil money to. it is at this juncture that the conversation starts to devolve, and as a consequence diverges from what we really need. So in the green New deal, it hardly lays out anything in specificity about achieving green energy about , instead it's about the traditionally impoverished and people of color. this really has little to do with the environment, but it's a way to rally a base behind what you're saying. This is when we start to diverge from things that are actually important. we would rather talk about the pronouns that we used to address less than 5% of 1% of this country. We are so constantly worried about checking each other's privileges, that we very rarely see what we have in common. Your pole was a great example of this. You and I have been going round and round about banning assault rifles. outside of people who know me, even in an internet setting, people would assume that I'm a far-right whack job. That being said the problem is when we say terms like common sense. That means that if I don't agree with you that I am lacking in common sense, instead of just a minor disagreement over an issue. I am all for background checks, I am all for different laws that will keep guns out of the hands of people we know to be dangerous. Are we going to stop them all? No, of course we're not. Do I think that we should be able to keep all of the rights that are in the Constitution? Absolutely, and I don't think they should be bent using the logic that while most of us agree we should ban them. That's why they're there. That being said we pick one issue and divide ourselves into camps. The entire Democratic strategy for winning the election for the last 10 years or so has been catering to our differences, instead of establishing what we have in common, and then taking one issue at a time. Everybody on this site was able to find middle ground on the gun issue. But when you don't approach the topic from a holistic standpoint, it quickly devolves into your in your camp, and I'm in my camp and we're going to fight to the death for it. Foreign policy is another one. people like Sean absolutely hate Israel, and there's going to be no middle ground on it. We are all for an isolationist viewpoint when it comes to war in another country, until we see things like Syria, or even the Russian interference in the election, some people are wanting to go to war behind that. maybe it's because I have a personality that doesn't really see a lot of gray area, at least from a moral standpoint. But that is the biggest draw to Tulsi gabbard for me. She leaves no room for interpretation on what she thinks of these regime-change wars. We're going to stay out of them, this really isn't a debate for her. whether she's arguing with her party or the Republican party, she sticks to her guns on that, and that's something I can absolutely appreciate. as to Trump being impeached, if I'm being 100% honest, I could not care less either way. That is what I was referring to when I was talking about the Democratic party being maddening. At this point in time in our country, the Democrats have some things that they need to work out, and they say a lot of stupid things. That being said on most issues they find their selves in the enviable position of having facts supporting your argument. And yet there's all these appeals to emotion. I think they would be much better served to get out of the mud slinging competition with a pig. Trump is absolutely counting on this in the next election, he wants the next Democratic candidate to sling mud with him, because he likes it, and because he's good at it. That is his only path to victory. What is maddening to me, is that Democrats won't use things to their advantage. Right now all of the climate change data supports their hypothesis, and yet they want to use it to sling mud. Rise above it, stay calm, and present your case. It works. sure you're not going to have those reaction videos about you dunking on someone, but it is far more effective. Yet again, looking at Tulsi gabbard, what she did to Harris was a thing of beauty. Harris was running a campaign to strictly appeal to the black and impoverished people, and she was using that issue to champion them. She had no real facts to back up her argument, but it didn't seem to matter. Until somebody stayed calm, used fact as ammunition, an open fired in a way that left absolutely no room for retreat, only surrender. Every since Tulsi dropped that bomb on her she went from a top-three candidate to now she's actually pulling lower then the top five candidates. This is how it campaign should be run. Tulsi attacked her in a way that was calm, articulate, in laden with facts. After that debate people are scouring Google to check the veracity of her claims, they found out she was correct, and Harris no longer has a path to victory. I just don't understand why Democrats are going to refuse to use this, they would rather deliver fiery speeches about taking down the man, or wiping out racism, and using a set of unrealistic ideals and goals to pander to a base that is more prone to use emotion as a decision maker instead of logic. I actually don't want Trump to get impeached. I would rather see him beaten at The ballot box. If we were able to get somebody like gavotte in, with a whole nation behind her I think that set her up for success. Or any candidate for that matter. If you impeach Trump you're going to do two things immediately. You're going to make him a martyr to a very very powerful ease who has a lot of money, and you're going to make him a martyr to a base that votes. The second thing you're going to do is cheapeb a Democrat win. people are going to say that you could not have won an election straight up, and they very well could be right. So it's going to immediately undermine The credibility of the democratic nominee. Should he absolutely. if it turns out that the whistleblower is an impeccable source, and they are not lying, and it can be corroborated, then absolutely impeach him. It's going to be a tough road to hoe though, mainly because of the Mueller investigation. People are going to conflate the two as the same thing. they're going to use the logic that how come it's okay that Democrats do it, but when a republican does it it's a problem. The answer is obvious, but as we've already established the truth doesn't really matter does it? Something else this does is take Joe Biden completely out of the race because if Trump was searching for something, then he probably had a lead. Out of all the countries in the world you picked the Ukraine? Biden did something dirty, so he's no longer in the race in my opinion. if he is it would be a colossal strategic error. that leaves us with Warren to fight the Republican candidate, and if it's Trump she's going to get absolutely lambasted. So then who's next? That leaves Bernie Sanders, but he is already been kept out by his own party once. this leaves a path to the presidency for people like Yang and gabbard, although it's a small one. The Democrats have ran themselves out of options by backing terrible people that's far, now the elections next year and they have plenty of time to put money and resources behind it decent candidate, or at this point I would even settle for a decent human being. They have time to turn it around, but as of right now if Trump can escape this inquiry oh, it's going to be very hard times for the Democrats. that is all I was saying, I was trying to keep it brief, because as you can see when I explain my full point oh, it gets windy.

I still think it has to be Yang or Gabbard. I really think Warren fucked herself with the native thing, and basically just co-opting Bernie. If you dig a little into her you can uncover things that make her look more dishonest, or dumb. Bernie will NEVER get it imo. I don't think this will hurt Trump much. I actually see this backfiring on Democrats in earnest. Even if the Democrats pull it off there are only two people worse than Trump. Pence and Hillary. Ones not running and the other would be defacto president. The guy who believes you can electrocute the far out of people...nah dog.... Not my kind of guy. That is what is so maddening about Trump and the Democrats relationship. If Democrats weren't so intent on relying on the outrage culture and just played moderate ball, they would destroy Trump. Yet they for some reason refuse.

Oh, when you said "Bush ruined the economy" I just assumed you meant all him. It seems like not more than ever there is a difference if individuals and party, although people are desperately trying to keep people in the club.

Could they beat him? Probably. It's for naught though, we have seen how they treat Gabbard, and Yang is a man. This isn't going to happen. It won't be Trump that stops them, it will be the DNC. we are getting Warren or Sanders. They are going to lose. Either way he is polling well, not that polls are the be all end all as Sean points out. The polls are deeply flawed Bidens dementia will prevent him from winning. And Clinton had just as much to do with ruining the economy. In fact he probably had the most to do with it thanks to his repealing glass steagall and the higher education amendments that ballooned student debt. He did more for banks than Bush ever did. Not to say Bush's war did us good, just saying you can't just blame the Republican here when the problem has Democrat roots.

Yeah I saw he has a higher appeal eating in his first term up to this point than Obama. And Obama was reelected against tighter opposition in my opinion. I see him beating the hell out of anyone in the election. Before Gabbard torpedoed Harris, I would have said she probably could have gotten the minority and female vote and energized the base. Now that people know she is one of the worst things to happen to black people in California she is radioactive. Warren, Biden, Sanders, Harris, Gabbard, or Yang. I don't see how they win honestly.

...So were looking at 4 more years of Trump in your opinion?

I hope they realize this is only going to help him. If they impeach him his popularity is going to soar because it looks like an actual witch Hunt when they are making the claims far greater than what they are. Is he a piece of shit? Yep. A liar? Compulsively so. Dumb? Not really, at least not more than the democrats because they can't catch him. Or he really isn't doing anything, neither would shock me.

2.3 point behind you and 3-0. Who cares though as long as my old ass RB Mark Ingram is the number 4 back in fantasy and the injury plagued Kennan Allen is the number one fantasy WR...Right Sean?

It's no secret I think he is pretty batshit, but I have no real problem with the guy. It's pretty obvious the DNC does not want a white male candidate. It is not representative of what their constituents want. They screwed him last time for a white woman, they will again.

I don't think Sanders can win either tbh.

And you're missing mine. This is getting tiresome. We disagree.

Yes and the public overwhelmingly hates the media. Let's scrap the first one too. This is why the bill of rights is so important, to keep the mob from trampling people's rights. We have done well being civil but if you are going to put words in my mouth the cordial attitude ends here. I have said MANY times I support background checks. Don't do the bullshit where you make up my argument for me and argue that. Now I'm a climate change denier..? Is this really how you want to play this? Did you read the report? It tells you in there.

Because it's not true. At least not yet. The EXACT same logic is used by the right. Have some illegals taken jobs that white people could do? Sure. Is it some widespread pandemic, no. It's usually lazy people who don't want to work who get their jobs taken. Now are there some industries where it is prominent, yes. Is it causal for the 08 collapse? No. Is it something to beat your cheat about? No. Technology is the same. Has it taken some jobs, sure. There are kiosks at Applebee's but really there is the same amount of employees because I'm not getting my own drinks, food, or what have you. They still need those people even with kiosks. All the projections are doing is causing people to panic and live in fear when there is no actual evidence that it is going to take a massive percentage of jobs. And MOST projections say it will create more jobs. The trucker Things gets brought up all the time but there is a study that is about a year old saying it is not going to be a profound shift. People would rather cause panic and prey on people's fears of making a living by saying the big tech Boogeyman is going to take all the jobs, when that isn't any more true than the immigrant theories. When people do that I think it is reprehensible. Elon Musk I am not impressed with so he doesn't away me one way or the other. He is a business owner, nothing more really. And you keep saying that the 2nd amendment has all these restrictions. It's bullshit. It doesnt. You made that up as have other people and say we agreed to it as a society. We obviously didn't or it would not be hotly contested. The only thing it says really is a well regulated militia ( nothing to do with regulating guns, I can source you no less than six books that this was speaking to funding the militia, even the federalist papers point this out), and shall not infringe. When it was written the citizenry had military grade weaponry. So you saying it restricts them is not factually correct. I was with Yang until he bent to a mob. I think people who do that are weak and will do it again. Now for me, Gabbard is the only one who I think has any balls. She has had mobs at the door and she owned it and said the course. That is all the PC Mafia and outrage machine have. A weak but vocal mob imo.

And yeah, I'm not trying to convince anyone how to vote. I'm not that cool. I would like to discuss for once how there is an actual good candidate and not just the retards we get to vote for.

He had a hard change of mind about the 2nd amendment when he had those big crocodile tears and him walking back his position which just coincided with when the outrage SJW's growled at the door. I won't vote for anyone who I feel is that way. He may not be the raging outrage peddler Bernie and Warren are, but he is susceptible to their bullshit. He has no sack is my point.

First the Department of Labor is saying the effect on truckers is vastly overstated. https://www.fleetowner.com/autonomous-vehicles/fewer-drivers-risk-losing-jobs-over-truck-automation-study-says And we are a loooooong way from that if it happens anytime soon. I don't buy we are beyond fucked. If the Democrats would ease up on using nuclear energy we would beat AOCs green new deal like a drum, but alas they won't. He isn't talking about that. Yang is weak, not somebody I want. He has no balls, he caves to the clamoring of the outrage culture crowd. And his policies are ass imo. UBI, anti- 2nd amendment and so on, dumb energy plan that is a kickback to his base using 400,000,000 in vouchers. He is garbage imo. More tolerable than Bernie or Warren but not a great option imo.