Planet Rugby Forum

sorCrer wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

With the world's largest economy, any grownup not interested in US politics is a blithering idiot.

Interested or not. Blithering idiots abound.

saffer13 wrote:

sorCrer wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

With the world's largest economy, any grownup not interested in US politics is a blithering idiot.

Interested or not. Blithering idiots abound.

You should see him when he is ridding his dino about.

Totally bonkers.

The proceeding for Trump's trial have started.

It is interesting to see how the battle will span out.

The Dems know Trump will be acquitted. There is no way enough Republicans break ranks with the majority, unless public opinion turns emotional and pressure builds up. It is not looking that way yet.

Their tactic is to show that beyond the "Perfect Phone Call", there is a lot of dirt, in particular mafia-like behaviors with the like of Parnas and Giuliani. Here, either the Republicans refuse to hear new evidence, and they can leak that evidence in the press and climb on their high horses to claim that the trial is a travesty of a trial, and that the Republicans are colluding to allow a corrupt President to manage his own corrupt dealings with the mafia.

Now, some Republicans are starting to feel edgy about the whole thing. Those with a bit of a swing state to manage, and political pressure back home, or those with a bit of a decent morale compass must not be at ease with the mafiosi turn this is taking. The more that becomes public, the more they may want to dissociate themselves from that corruption. The first one already broke ranks yesterday (Susan Collins of Maine) when voting in favor of the Schumer admendment. The Dems require 3 more defections to get their own motions voted to call witnesses in.

Yet at the same time, the same Republicans know that, if Trump is not impeached and they have broken ranks, they won't even get an opportunity to go in front of the voters... and that therefore, public opinion back home may come second to getting another chance to run for a Senate seat...

A lot of dealings must be going in on in the Senate corridors. I'd love to be a little mouse to watch and listen.

Republicans' tactic will be to argue that the nature of the offense doesn't warrant an impeachment, and that therefore no time should be wasted in a trial. They will push a motion to dismiss to ensure Trump can stand as a acquitted President at the next State of the Nation.

Now, if there are defections and witnesses are called, their plan B is to destroy Biden son and father. This is currently the threat they are using as a deterrent to keep the Dems in check.

Who knows what the Dems feel about Biden? Would they protect him and let Trump off the hook (which would almost certainly carry him to a reelection), or sacrifice Biden and hope Sanders come through and takes the Presidency next?

Backwoodsman1 wrote:https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five- ... nnections/

Book Bombshell: James Biden’s Firm Got $1.5 Billion in Government Contracts Despite Zero Experience
Breitbart

'' If we call one witness, we call all the witnesses.'' Senate Leader.

Another 'cunning plan' by inept Dems goes tits up , .. meanwhile Schiff's closeness to Ed Buck , his donor with the dead rent boys in his apartment , now increasingly openly discussed on social meja !

Yes, threatening implosion of both camps to keep the Dems in check. Obviously, the Republicans are admitting that calling witnesses would leave Trump in a very weak position. Their only argument is to threaten back.

Rinkals wrote:Here's a very strong argument against impeachment.

I haven't read the whole article, but this assumes wrongly that criminal trials and political trials follow the same rules.

This is wrong, and this is actually the manipulation attempted by Trump's defense team who try to convince the Senate that an impeachment trial is a criminal trial. It is not. It is a political trial, and the question to be answered is whether or not Trump's behavior violate the Constitution and whether or not the President is fit for office given his behavior and dealings.

The two issues brought forward by the Democrats are:

- Abuse of power: ignoring Congressional vote and disposing of funds allocated to Ukraine to achieve his own personal objectives. This is actually quite an important vote here for the Senate, as it can totally undermine the Congress going forward. In other words, this redefines the balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches. There have been quite a number of abuses already by previous President (including Obama). I think the latest one before this issue was Trump diverting funds allocated to defense to build the wall on the Mexico border. Will the Senate say this is fine, even if that behavior is not for what the President believe is good for the country, but for what is good for his own personal purposes.

- Obstruction of Congress: this will vote will also further redefine the balance of power. Can the Executive Branch refuse to comply with Congressional votes? In particular, can they do this to obstruct the process of justice?

Those two votes have enormous consequences, as did the Democrat dismissal of Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath.

The USA are building for themselves a less and less democratic political organisation, that is concentrating powers in the hands of the President and could result in a mad man hurting country and world alike... At the same time as they pretend to be worried about North Korea and Iran...

sorCrer wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

With the world's largest economy, any grownup not interested in US politics is a blithering idiot.

That would be credible if the main topic of this thread was the discussion of the US economy and how that relates to the Trump presidency.

The tedious kak that get's talked about here is simply soap opera. The gossip, the drama, the twists. Just a male acceptable form of Huisgenoot.

Lemoentjie wrote:

sorCrer wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

With the world's largest economy, any grownup not interested in US politics is a blithering idiot.

That would be credible if the main topic of this thread was the discussion of the US economy and how that relates to the Trump presidency.

The tedious kak that get's talked about here is simply soap opera. The gossip, the drama, the twists. Just a male acceptable form of Huisgenoot.

Yes indeed- except our Trump character is too over the top for most soap operas

Lemoentjie wrote:

sorCrer wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

With the world's largest economy, any grownup not interested in US politics is a blithering idiot.

That would be credible if the main topic of this thread was the discussion of the US economy and how that relates to the Trump presidency.

The tedious kak that get's talked about here is simply soap opera. The gossip, the drama, the twists. Just a male acceptable form of Huisgenoot.

The background remains whether a man as unfit as Trump to rule the most powerful country in the world, will remain in power or not.

Had Trump been the leader of North Korea, the USA would have bombed Pyongyang already (slight exaggeration but you get my point).

If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

piquant wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

Not true - I saw a photo of Chuck and Nancy in full on Muslim gear, they were posing in front of the Iranian flag and everything

BokJock wrote:

piquant wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

Not true - I saw a photo of Chuck and Nancy in full on Muslim gear, they were posing in front of the Iranian flag and everything

There's a sadly reasonable chance many Trump voters equate wearing 'foreign' clothing, and that might include Native American, with being a terrorist. And as someone who for some weeks after 7/7 was conscious of people in 'foreign' dress with backpacks on the underground I guess I'm convinced

EverReady wrote:Liar. They wanted to bomb him and humiliate him all because he had the temerity to become the greatest leader the US has known since Roosevelt

Which one? 'cause if it's FDR then Trump might appreciate a partial bombing that puts him in a wheelchair and saves him having to stand and walk given how crap he is at standing and walking.

EverReady wrote:Liar. They wanted to bomb him and humiliate him all because he had the temerity to become the greatest leader the US has known since Roosevelt

Don't sell him short; he claimed he was the greatest since Lincoln !

Who; not many people know founded the Republican Party .....

My worry is that the shitgibbon wants to start another civil war

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

The odd thing is that Trump is quite popular among the white population here.

I'm not sure if it's blind hatred of Obama, sympathy with white supremacists, a childlike desire to defer to an authority figure as an ingrained product of a laager mentality or a combination of the three.

Perhaps Trump reminds them of John Vorster.

In any case, we are all affected by Trump's misrule and I don't think it's feasible to ask us to ignore it.

sorCrer wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

With the world's largest economy, any grownup not interested in US politics is a blithering idiot.

Correct.

fishfoodie wrote:

EverReady wrote:Liar. They wanted to bomb him and humiliate him all because he had the temerity to become the greatest leader the US has known since Roosevelt

Don't sell him short; he claimed he was the greatest since Lincoln !

Who; not many people know founded the Republican Party .....

My worry is that the shitgibbon wants to start another civil war

In many ways it's sad the GOP was one of the parties to endure, Trump would be a much better fit for the Know Nothing party. That's actually true both in jest and fact for anyone not familiar with the Know Nothings

TheFrog wrote:

Rinkals wrote:Here's a very strong argument against impeachment.

I haven't read the whole article, but this assumes wrongly that criminal trials and political trials follow the same rules.

This is wrong, and this is actually the manipulation attempted by Trump's defense team who try to convince the Senate that an impeachment trial is a criminal trial. It is not. It is a political trial, and the question to be answered is whether or not Trump's behavior violate the Constitution and whether or not the President is fit for office given his behavior and dealings.

The two issues brought forward by the Democrats are:

- Abuse of power: ignoring Congressional vote and disposing of funds allocated to Ukraine to achieve his own personal objectives. This is actually quite an important vote here for the Senate, as it can totally undermine the Congress going forward. In other words, this redefines the balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches. There have been quite a number of abuses already by previous President (including Obama). I think the latest one before this issue was Trump diverting funds allocated to defense to build the wall on the Mexico border. Will the Senate say this is fine, even if that behavior is not for what the President believe is good for the country, but for what is good for his own personal purposes.

- Obstruction of Congress: this will vote will also further redefine the balance of power. Can the Executive Branch refuse to comply with Congressional votes? In particular, can they do this to obstruct the process of justice?

Those two votes have enormous consequences, as did the Democrat dismissal of Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath.

The USA are building for themselves a less and less democratic political organisation, that is concentrating powers in the hands of the President and could result in a mad man hurting country and world alike... At the same time as they pretend to be worried about North Korea and Iran...

Yes, I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously.

I agree that the impeachment has very little chance of success, but, as I've stated before, the worst possible outcome would be for a successful impeachment. In fact, in my opinion, the GOP would boost their chances of defeating the Democrats in next year's elections, were he to be impeached.

The important thing, as far as the Democrats are concerned, is that Trump's abuses are fully aired in public so that the American electorate can see it for themselves.

fishfoodie wrote:

EverReady wrote:Liar. They wanted to bomb him and humiliate him all because he had the temerity to become the greatest leader the US has known since Roosevelt

Don't sell him short; he claimed he was the greatest since Lincoln !

Who; not many people know founded the Republican Party .....

My worry is that the shitgibbon wants to start another civil war

I don't think that's quite right; he claimed to be a better president than Lincoln, didn't he? saying that he was the greatest since Lincoln implies Lincoln was greater..

piquant wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

EverReady wrote:Liar. They wanted to bomb him and humiliate him all because he had the temerity to become the greatest leader the US has known since Roosevelt

Don't sell him short; he claimed he was the greatest since Lincoln !

Who; not many people know founded the Republican Party .....

My worry is that the shitgibbon wants to start another civil war

In many ways it's sad the GOP was one of the parties to endure, Trump would be a much better fit for the Know Nothing party. That's actually true both in jest and fact for anyone not familiar with the Know Nothings

So it's the Know Nothing versus the Do Nothing?

Rinkals wrote:

TheFrog wrote:

Rinkals wrote:Here's a very strong argument against impeachment.

I haven't read the whole article, but this assumes wrongly that criminal trials and political trials follow the same rules.

This is wrong, and this is actually the manipulation attempted by Trump's defense team who try to convince the Senate that an impeachment trial is a criminal trial. It is not. It is a political trial, and the question to be answered is whether or not Trump's behavior violate the Constitution and whether or not the President is fit for office given his behavior and dealings.

The two issues brought forward by the Democrats are:

- Abuse of power: ignoring Congressional vote and disposing of funds allocated to Ukraine to achieve his own personal objectives. This is actually quite an important vote here for the Senate, as it can totally undermine the Congress going forward. In other words, this redefines the balance of power between Executive and Legislative branches. There have been quite a number of abuses already by previous President (including Obama). I think the latest one before this issue was Trump diverting funds allocated to defense to build the wall on the Mexico border. Will the Senate say this is fine, even if that behavior is not for what the President believe is good for the country, but for what is good for his own personal purposes.

- Obstruction of Congress: this will vote will also further redefine the balance of power. Can the Executive Branch refuse to comply with Congressional votes? In particular, can they do this to obstruct the process of justice?

Those two votes have enormous consequences, as did the Democrat dismissal of Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath.

The USA are building for themselves a less and less democratic political organisation, that is concentrating powers in the hands of the President and could result in a mad man hurting country and world alike... At the same time as they pretend to be worried about North Korea and Iran...

Yes, I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously.

I agree that the impeachment has very little chance of success, but, as I've stated before, the worst possible outcome would be for a successful impeachment. In fact, in my opinion, the GOP would boost their chances of defeating the Democrats in next year's elections, were he to be impeached.

The important thing, as far as the Democrats are concerned, is that Trump's abuses are fully aired in public so that the American electorate can see it for themselves.

I know this was not meant to be taken seriously, but it contributes to the Republican story book in some ways, and this should be clarified at every opportunity. Impeachment is not a criminal trial.

BokJock wrote:

piquant wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

Not true - I saw a photo of Chuck and Nancy in full on Muslim gear, they were posing in front of the Iranian flag and everything

Well the left (and sorC) and equate the Iranian terrorist to Lady Diana cult status....in fact, the guy saved puppies and kittens from burning building in his spare time.

saffer13 wrote:

BokJock wrote:

piquant wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

Not true - I saw a photo of Chuck and Nancy in full on Muslim gear, they were posing in front of the Iranian flag and everything

Well the left (and sorC) and equate the Iranian terrorist to Lady Diana cult status....in fact, the guy saved puppies and kittens from burning building in his spare time.

Mmm... Interesting. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Rinkals wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

The odd thing is that Trump is quite popular among the white population here.

I'm not sure if it's blind hatred of Obama, sympathy with white supremacists, a childlike desire to defer to an authority figure as an ingrained product of a laager mentality or a combination of the three.

Perhaps Trump reminds them of John Vorster.

In any case, we are all affected by Trump's misrule and I don't think it's feasible to ask us to ignore it.

How would you categorize black folk that are pro-Trump or Republican? Just curious because you have the answers to it all.

TheFrog wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

BokJock wrote:

piquant wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

Not true - I saw a photo of Chuck and Nancy in full on Muslim gear, they were posing in front of the Iranian flag and everything

Well the left (and sorC) and equate the Iranian terrorist to Lady Diana cult status....in fact, the guy saved puppies and kittens from burning building in his spare time.

Mmm... Interesting. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Hell, it's better than your C&P efforts of the impeachment trial updates

TheFrog wrote:

piquant wrote:

fishfoodie wrote:

EverReady wrote:Liar. They wanted to bomb him and humiliate him all because he had the temerity to become the greatest leader the US has known since Roosevelt

Don't sell him short; he claimed he was the greatest since Lincoln !

Who; not many people know founded the Republican Party .....

My worry is that the shitgibbon wants to start another civil war

In many ways it's sad the GOP was one of the parties to endure, Trump would be a much better fit for the Know Nothing party. That's actually true both in jest and fact for anyone not familiar with the Know Nothings

So it's the Know Nothing versus the Do Nothing?

Nicely done

saffer13 wrote:

Rinkals wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

The odd thing is that Trump is quite popular among the white population here.

I'm not sure if it's blind hatred of Obama, sympathy with white supremacists, a childlike desire to defer to an authority figure as an ingrained product of a laager mentality or a combination of the three.

Perhaps Trump reminds them of John Vorster.

In any case, we are all affected by Trump's misrule and I don't think it's feasible to ask us to ignore it.

How would you categorize black folk that are pro-Trump or Republican? Just curious because you have the answers to it all.

Dave Chappelle and Clayton Bigsby come to mind.

As per usual, Randy Rainbow knocks it out of the park when it comes to Trump.

If you like musical theatre (and what Trump fan doesn't?) and especially the Gaston song in Beauty & the Beast, you'll love this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWbonwwFG-c

On another note, can we all agree that the dinner conversation in the Conway household would be pretty entertaining...?

saffer13 wrote:On another note, can we all agree that the dinner conversation in the Conway household would be pretty entertaining...?

100%.

saffer13 wrote:On another note, can we all agree that the dinner conversation in the Conway household would be pretty entertaining...?

If entertaining means weird. Or maybe Kelly isn't batshit crazy in real life

penguin wrote:

saffer13 wrote:On another note, can we all agree that the dinner conversation in the Conway household would be pretty entertaining...?

100%.

Very interesting couple, and hopefully role models in how to disagree without being disagreeable (at least to each other).

They first crossed paths apparently when angry George wrote a scathing op-Ed about Clinton and was told that the paper had just received one earlier from a Kellyanne Fitzpatrick. He then saw he on a magazine cover and asked mutual friend Anne Coulter to introduce them.

All ended up as Elves on the Paula Jones suit IIRC.

Seneca of the Night wrote:Tucker on the Biden crime family and why he is being pushed forward by the Democrats. Watch before it's removed: https://youtu.be/m80ccCNX1Zk

Clinton Mafia vs. Biden Mafia....who wins?

Seneca of the Night wrote:Tucker on the Biden crime family and why he is being pushed forward by the Democrats. Watch before it's removed: https://youtu.be/m80ccCNX1Zk

Biden crime family? Seriously?

saffer13 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Tucker on the Biden crime family and why he is being pushed forward by the Democrats. Watch before it's removed: https://youtu.be/m80ccCNX1Zk

Clinton Mafia vs. Biden Mafia....who wins?

Trump mafia?

TheFrog wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Tucker on the Biden crime family and why he is being pushed forward by the Democrats. Watch before it's removed: https://youtu.be/m80ccCNX1Zk

Clinton Mafia vs. Biden Mafia....who wins?

Trump mafia?

Well Trump mafia won round one against Clinton Mafia. Biden seems weak in comparison to all that.

I wonder how both sides of American politics feel about presiding over the descent of the American political system into low farce.

6.Jones wrote:I wonder how both sides of American politics feel about presiding over the descent of the American political system into low farce.

That's where the Democrats may settle for a quick dismissal of the Trump's case at the Senate. They'll put up the necessary pretense of a fight, but they may not want things to become too obvious to the public.

saffer13 wrote:

BokJock wrote:

piquant wrote:

Wilson's Toffee wrote:If the Dems had their way, they would have bombed the White House on a daily basis umtill The Don quit.

Guess they wish...

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the Dems didn't and don't want to carry out terrorist attacks of any size or frequency against the USA

Not true - I saw a photo of Chuck and Nancy in full on Muslim gear, they were posing in front of the Iranian flag and everything

Well the left (and sorC) and equate the Iranian terrorist to Lady Diana cult status....in fact, the guy saved puppies and kittens from burning building in his spare time.

Interesting, you will of course back up that assertion. Iranian military general. I'm pro-abortion and pro death sentence.

Rinkals wrote:

Lemoentjie wrote:

saffer13 wrote:You lot are losing it. I'm flattered that you're all so concerned that I've taken up about half your posts on the last two pages

There is some genuine derangement here. Why are saffers here so obsessed with US politics?

The odd thing is that Trump is quite popular among the white population here.

I'm not sure if it's blind hatred of Obama, sympathy with white supremacists, a childlike desire to defer to an authority figure as an ingrained product of a laager mentality or a combination of the three.

Perhaps Trump reminds them of John Vorster.

In any case, we are all affected by Trump's misrule and I don't think it's feasible to ask us to ignore it.

Why is that odd to you, out of interest? Given that the White House has actually had meetings with Afriforum, and shows at least more worry about the plight of farmers than any other administration, it's not surprising.