So it was a “witch hunt”!

[ousdahl]

All nothing burgers!! Telling someone to lie is not a crime, directing aides not to disclose notes is not a crime, telling the Ruskies less pressure is not a crime, Trump tower Moscow was never built. You’re really reaching there twocoach.

You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".

Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.

Amirite?

Could the democratic party even produce such a candidate/president though?

if we learned anything from 2016, it's that while republicans are willing to hold their nose and march in line no matter what, dems are willing to cannibalize their own party's chances if their candidate is of questionable character, or ideology, or simply not the one they wanted.

if they were, then Hillary would be president right now, and dolomite would be clamoring on about how we can't possibly have enough special investigations to get to the bottom of determining the width of potus's ankles.

[ousdahl]

(and don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of the democratic party either)

[Deleted User 75]

This was a unique election. With 2 unique candidates.

2 choice system results in occasionally having to choose between 2 shitty options.

[DCHawk1]

You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".

Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.

Amirite?

Could the democratic party even produce such a candidate/president though?

if we learned anything from 2016, it's that while republicans are willing to hold their nose and march in line no matter what, dems are willing to cannibalize their own party's chances if their candidate is of questionable character, or ideology, or simply not the one they wanted.

if they were, then Hillary would be president right now, and dolomite would be clamoring on about how we can't possibly have enough special investigations to get to the bottom of determining the width of potus's ankles.

lulz

HiLLarY wOn thE PopULAr vOtE!

Pick an argument already.

[ousdahl]

bro I never said anything about the popular vote.

[Geezer]

Not mutually exclusive.

[DCHawk1]

Not mutually exclusive.

Yes, actually. By definition.

[dolomite]

All nothing burgers!! Telling someone to lie is not a crime, directing aides not to disclose notes is not a crime, telling the Ruskies less pressure is not a crime, Trump tower Moscow was never built. You’re really reaching there twocoach.

You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".

Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.

Amirite?

LOL

[twocoach]

All nothing burgers!! Telling someone to lie is not a crime, directing aides not to disclose notes is not a crime, telling the Ruskies less pressure is not a crime, Trump tower Moscow was never built. You’re really reaching there twocoach.

You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".

Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.

Amirite?

As usual, no.

[Deleted User 75]

You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".

Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.

Amirite?

As usual, no.

Neither of the 2 choices met that "bar".

[twocoach]

Then you have a different bar for presidential behavior than I do, I suppose. Repeatedly commanding employees to lie in order to obstruct a federal investigation is below my personal bar.

[DCHawk1]

So...you're saying you voted for Johnson?

[TDub]

So...you're saying you voted for Johnson?

You arent allowed to admit that on this forum.

[Mjl]

So...you're saying you voted for Johnson?

You arent allowed to admit that on this forum.

Hey, I'm proud of my Johnson.



Um... My vote for Johnson.

[Deleted User 89]

https://www.reuters.com/article/2019/04 ... =applenews

[DCHawk1]

I mean...I hate to have to do this again, but we call this The Holder Precedent.

[Shirley]

I mean...I hate to have to do this again, but we call this The Holder Precedent.

^^^

[Deleted User 89]

I mean...I hate to have to do this again, but we call this The Holder Precedent.

and you tell me to try harder?

if you’re referencing the fast and furious gun-running debacle, then i agree that holder behaved poorly and should have faced repercussions

1) was he the first AG to obstruct, ever?

2) while bad, the fast and furious debacle isn’t anything like the current situation

[Deleted User 89]

i'm curious, DC, as to why you'd call it the Holder Precendent, unless you're just trying to be partisan with another bout of whataboutism

you just did so well in listing out former presidents that were "corrupt" in an attempt to prove that, some how, drumpf is no different than others that have come before him...even going so far as to claim that drumpf isn't just similar, but somehow exemplifies the rule (which would imply that a majority of presidents have been on his level of corruption)

[DCHawk1]

i'm curious, DC, as to why you'd call it the Holder Precendent, unless you're just trying to be partisan with another bout of whataboutism

Holder was the first (and so far only) cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents.