Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
News Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
Author Message
Native Georgian Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,370
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 517
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #21
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 09:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  “Ultimately , the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
(05-29-2019 09:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Because Trump promised pardons to those that could establish it
Names?
05-29-2019 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
banker Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,602
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 543
I Root For: Marshall
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 11:04 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 10:57 AM)banker Wrote:  I want him to testify specifically so he can answer when he made a determination there was no collusion. If that was early on, then it's an admission that he kept the investigation open only in hopes of ensnaring someone, anyone, in some form of lie or obstruction. In other words, continue to investigate in hopes of creating a crime instead of having a crime to investigate.

I now want him to testify to tell us at what point in our judicial history has a prosecutor determined a person was innocent. (With the exception of Comey and Hillary)

Seem like Mueller is VERY worried about something, and watns impeachment to move forward before Barr and Durham get too far into the process.

Another excellent point. I want him to establish, beyond any doubt, that he has never killed anyone to show it's possible.
05-29-2019 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 25,290
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 596
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
Listened to it on the radio. Mueller gives ample fodder to both sides of the argument. I know Starr charged Clinton so the statement that the DoJ can’t charge a sitting President is bullchit.


What in the hell! Put him on the stand.
05-29-2019 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 25,290
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 596
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
Can we please stop the stupid talking point no collusion no obstruction? He details both of these in the report.

You guys should be saying NO CONSPIRACY!

But the way Mueller states it. Trump could shoot somebody and you can’t indict a sitting President? So if you have a complicit party you are King? Crazy
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2019 11:57 AM by Machiavelli.)
05-29-2019 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LeadBolt Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,164
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: William & Mary
Location: Daleville, VA
Post: #25
Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 11:05 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 09:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  “Ultimately , the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
(05-29-2019 09:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Because Trump promised pardons to those that could establish it
Names?


I think that there is confusion with the email investigation of Mrs Clinton here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
05-29-2019 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Proud traitor.
*

Posts: 33,943
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 575
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #26
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 11:40 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Listened to it on the radio. Mueller gives ample fodder to both sides of the argument. I know Starr charged Clinton so the statement that the DoJ can’t charge a sitting President is bullchit.


What in the hell! Put him on the stand.

Didn't the rules for the SC, and what they can and can't do, change after Clinton?
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2019 12:45 PM by Redwingtom.)
05-29-2019 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Proud traitor.
*

Posts: 33,943
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 575
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #27
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 11:57 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Can we please stop the stupid talking point no collusion no obstruction? He details both of these in the report.

You guys should be saying NO CONSPIRACY!

But the way Mueller states it. Trump could shoot somebody and you can’t indict a sitting President? So if you have a complicit party you are King? Crazy

More than likely you CAN indict them, Mueller just was not allowed to per DOJ policy.
05-29-2019 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,333
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 632
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1QF1D3
Quote:COULD MUELLER INDICT TRUMP DESPITE THE EXISTING POLICY?
Possibly. The Justice Department regulations governing Mueller’s appointment allow him to deviate from department policy in “extraordinary circumstances” with the approval of the U.S. attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement official. Trump appointee William Barr currently holds that post.

Some legal experts have suggested Mueller could invoke this exception if he has uncovered serious wrongdoing and lacked confidence in the ability of the divided Congress to hold Trump accountable. Some lawyers also have said Mueller is not bound by the 1973 and 2000 memos because he is not a typical employee of the department.

Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s in the somewhat different role of independent counsel, in 1998 conducted his own analysis of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted, indicating he did not consider the 1973 Justice Department memo binding on him.


So if Mueller thought Trump committed a crime and wanted to indite him he could have before Barr was the AG. Using Barr as the scape goat doesn't wash...Mueller knew when Barr became the AG and could have acted anytime before that.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2019 12:55 PM by WKUYG.)
05-29-2019 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 25,290
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 596
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
If Bill Barr wouldn’t let Mueller indict than that should be said also.
05-29-2019 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,333
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 632
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 12:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If Bill Barr wouldn’t let Mueller indict than that should be said also.

Mueller did not have to wait till Barr was AG. So that argument doesn't hold water
05-29-2019 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
*

Posts: 25,290
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 596
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
I thought about that too. That’s why Inthink Barr just shut it down. Mueller probably thought he had more time but that’s a guess too.
05-29-2019 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagleaidaholic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,310
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 94
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
Indict him for what?
Quote:“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Am I in Bizarro Land? There doesn't need to be a "crime" for Congress to Impeach a President, but there has been a proven one in every Impeachment in history. This would be the first time an Impeachment will occur "Just because we don't like him."
Do you Lefties not realize that if Trump had broken any laws that Mueller would have listed them in his report. If he thinks he can't indict him and thinks it is up to Congress, he would have most definitely listed the crimes by number followed by the Statute that was broken. This didn't happen. Anyone that thinks he would not have done that is beyond help.
05-29-2019 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,333
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 632
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Indict him for what?
Quote:“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Am I in Bizarro Land? There doesn't need to be a "crime" for Congress to Impeach a President, but there has been a proven one in every Impeachment in history. This would be the first time an Impeachment will occur "Just because we don't like him."
Do you Lefties not realize that if Trump had broken any laws that Mueller would have listed them in his report. If he thinks he can't indict him and thinks it is up to Congress, he would have most definitely listed the crimes by number followed by the Statute that was broken. This didn't happen. Anyone that thinks he would not have done that is beyond help.

100% correct! If his job was not to charge the President and that was congress's job. It was his duty to direct congress to any crimes so they could impeach the President. He should have laid out the charges step by step.
05-29-2019 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagleaidaholic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,310
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 94
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 02:14 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Indict him for what?
Quote:“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Am I in Bizarro Land? There doesn't need to be a "crime" for Congress to Impeach a President, but there has been a proven one in every Impeachment in history. This would be the first time an Impeachment will occur "Just because we don't like him."
Do you Lefties not realize that if Trump had broken any laws that Mueller would have listed them in his report. If he thinks he can't indict him and thinks it is up to Congress, he would have most definitely listed the crimes by number followed by the Statute that was broken. This didn't happen. Anyone that thinks he would not have done that is beyond help.

100% correct! If his job was not to charge the President and that was congress's job. It was his duty to direct congress to any crimes so they could impeach the President. He should have laid out the charges step by step.
It would have looked something like this.
Quote:The Starr report cited 11 specific possible grounds for impeachment in four categories: five counts of lying under oath, four counts of obstruction of justice, one count of witness tampering and one count of abuse of constitutional authority. All of which arose from his liaison with Ms. Lewinsky and not from the Whitewater land deal and other matters Starr investigated. [8]

The outlined eleven possible grounds for impeachment allegedly committed by President Bill Clinton were given in the Introduction of the report as:

"1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States."[9]
I don't remember Slick Willie getting indicted while he was President OR afterward.
05-29-2019 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
A WAC Sheriff!
*

Posts: 7,689
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 484
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
[Image: pib52ntjr6131.jpg]


(This post was last modified: 05-29-2019 02:25 PM by CrimsonPhantom.)
05-29-2019 02:25 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,446
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 959
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 02:23 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 02:14 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 02:09 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Indict him for what?
Quote:“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Am I in Bizarro Land? There doesn't need to be a "crime" for Congress to Impeach a President, but there has been a proven one in every Impeachment in history. This would be the first time an Impeachment will occur "Just because we don't like him."
Do you Lefties not realize that if Trump had broken any laws that Mueller would have listed them in his report. If he thinks he can't indict him and thinks it is up to Congress, he would have most definitely listed the crimes by number followed by the Statute that was broken. This didn't happen. Anyone that thinks he would not have done that is beyond help.

100% correct! If his job was not to charge the President and that was congress's job. It was his duty to direct congress to any crimes so they could impeach the President. He should have laid out the charges step by step.
It would have looked something like this.
Quote:The Starr report cited 11 specific possible grounds for impeachment in four categories: five counts of lying under oath, four counts of obstruction of justice, one count of witness tampering and one count of abuse of constitutional authority. All of which arose from his liaison with Ms. Lewinsky and not from the Whitewater land deal and other matters Starr investigated. [8]

The outlined eleven possible grounds for impeachment allegedly committed by President Bill Clinton were given in the Introduction of the report as:

"1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States."[9]
I don't remember Slick Willie getting indicted while he was President OR afterward.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001...n-cop.html

"President Clinton and Independent Counsel Robert Ray agreed Friday to settle the seven-year Whitewater probe. The president admitted that he gave misleading testimony in the 1998 Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, and promised to cover $25,000 in legal fees related to disbarment proceedings against him in Arkansas. In exchange, Ray agreed not to indict Clinton on perjury charges...."

Note that Clinton also paid 800k to settle Paula Jones's sexual harrassment case.
05-29-2019 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,993
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 1777
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify

05-29-2019 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagleaidaholic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,310
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 94
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
It wasn't Mueller's responsibility to decide whether or not the President can be indicted. It was his responsibility to do an investigation and report the findings to the DOJ(AG). They they/he decides whether or not indictments are handed down. He found nothing. Wasted $35mill and destroyed people's lives in the process who had done nothing wrong until the Govt. broke them while they were trying to prove it. Some even went to jail after going broke. Karma will hit Mueller and his crew hard.
05-29-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,179
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 145
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #39
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
I am not posting this to defend Trump - I am also not here to indict the guy either.


If I really sit back and look at this whole thing (and what Mueller had to say today) as objectively as I can, this is how I would summarize it:

- Mueller's primary objective was to see if the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to rig the election. It sounds very much like Trump did not do so, however, there was plenty of compelling evidence that Russia did try to push things in one direction or the other. Without saying it - he basically said that you are all missing the point here - RUSSIA WAS F-ING with our election!!!!!! But it was not in the way the Dems had hoped they were.

- In the process of the investigation he came across many other wrongdoings. As a law man, I would think he would be compelled to pursue those things if he became aware of them, and it looks like he did that.

- It does seem that Trump was at the very least trying to divert Mueller and at the very most block Mueller from things. He has stated as clearly as anything that he said today, that his report includes his entire account of those actions and it was up to those who have the real power to act on those findings to do so if they choose.

- Nadler is really walking on a fine line and so is Pelosi. They are playing off of each other right now as each other's excuse to basically not actually do anything, but sound like they really are. It stuns me that ZERO dems have looked at the unredacted Mueller report and briefed their peers. They can see it, but for some reason they choose not to?




The dems are in a really bad spot here. There seems to be smoke but they cannot find the fire. If they go all in on impeachment and lose, their party will get pummeled in the next round of elections and the Republicans will railroad every bag of anti-democrat policy schidt they can, so that it will take a decade or more to reverse it if they every get the chance again.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it. I am a republican at heart (and by registration) but I will vote for the best candidate when someone proves to be one, regardless of party lines - if it is a tie, I go by party lines - even if I have to hold my nose while I pull that lever. It is my humble opinion that many many people vote the same way. The dems are fumbling on this in a big way. Trump is the second most unelectable person who has run for that office in my lifetime and as of right now, the dems still cannot put up somebody who can beat that?
05-29-2019 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CG_Hawk06 Offline
CWO of the Board
*

Posts: 10,491
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 372
I Root For: UNCW / America
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Why Mueller doesnt want to testify
(05-29-2019 03:56 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I am not posting this to defend Trump - I am also not here to indict the guy either.


If I really sit back and look at this whole thing (and what Mueller had to say today) as objectively as I can, this is how I would summarize it:

- Mueller's primary objective was to see if the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to rig the election. It sounds very much like Trump did not do so, however, there was plenty of compelling evidence that Russia did try to push things in one direction or the other. Without saying it - he basically said that you are all missing the point here - RUSSIA WAS F-ING with our election!!!!!! But it was not in the way the Dems had hoped they were.

- In the process of the investigation he came across many other wrongdoings. As a law man, I would think he would be compelled to pursue those things if he became aware of them, and it looks like he did that.

- It does seem that Trump was at the very least trying to divert Mueller and at the very most block Mueller from things. He has stated as clearly as anything that he said today, that his report includes his entire account of those actions and it was up to those who have the real power to act on those findings to do so if they choose.

- Nadler is really walking on a fine line and so is Pelosi. They are playing off of each other right now as each other's excuse to basically not actually do anything, but sound like they really are. It stuns me that ZERO dems have looked at the unredacted Mueller report and briefed their peers. They can see it, but for some reason they choose not to?




The dems are in a really bad spot here. There seems to be smoke but they cannot find the fire. If they go all in on impeachment and lose, their party will get pummeled in the next round of elections and the Republicans will railroad every bag of anti-democrat policy schidt they can, so that it will take a decade or more to reverse it if they every get the chance again.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it. I am a republican at heart (and by registration) but I will vote for the best candidate when someone proves to be one, regardless of party lines - if it is a tie, I go by party lines - even if I have to hold my nose while I pull that lever. It is my humble opinion that many many people vote the same way. The dems are fumbling on this in a big way. Trump is the second most unelectable person who has run for that office in my lifetime and as of right now, the dems still cannot put up somebody who can beat that?

Personality wise, I agree with you. Your intuition on how other Americans is correct for me, but I dare not say that there's A LOT of Americans that vote that way. In 2019, all you have to do is look at facebook and twitter on occasion to see that the majority of folks vote straight party tickets.

IMO, there are two simple reasons that dems can't put up someone who can beat Trump right now. The first is that he's doing a good job with the economy and people seldom want to upend a good economy just because they don't like how someone speaks or tweets. Second (and more importantly), the left has gone so far in the way of identity politics that they've alienated many of the centrist politicians who would stand any sort of chance against Trump based on policy. They value identity politics more than policy politics and are clamoring for a new "first" every four years at the expense of putting up electable candidates.
05-29-2019 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.