Democrats: Who can unseat Trump?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by VikingToker, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. Sounds like what Obama promised..... How did that go?
     
  2. [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. upload_2018-7-12_12-24-2.jpeg
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. I am not sure who they will run, but it was a step in the right direction to get rid of super delegates.

    :smoke:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. No, I read your drivel. It's just usually not worth a reply.

    Sent from my LGL57BL using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. I'm fucking serious fellas. Joe fucking Rogan 2020. The right got their reality tv president, now it's time for the left-middle-sometimes Republican-sometimes just a refugee from drug experimentation-perhaps a Libertarian people to have a tv prez. Either that or run Howard Dean, the original Vermont outsider.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. Well now that you dug up Al Franken... i say why not? after all he only "simulated" touching breasts through clothing for an unfortunate comic photo opp... yet the current POTUS stated on tape that he could "grab them by the p**sy" and apparently did based on the general consensus of those he had groped...

    Here is a little something from Al, some questions he would like to ask the next would be SCOTUS if given the chance... taken from his facebook page... Great questions, hope some of his former colleagues step up and ask them for him, but doubtful they have the balls to do it... Al would though, no doubt he would.
    ---------

    Al Franken: I have some questions I'd love to see Brett Kavanaugh answer

    When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

    I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

    1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

    He’ll say no, of course.

    2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

    3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

    This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention—but not nearly enough.

    4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

    5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

    This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

    It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

    6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

    If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

    7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

    8. So, today, you are telling the American people—under oath—that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

    9. And that determination—it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

    10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

    11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

    12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

    Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

    13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

    14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

    Of course he doesn’t.

    15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts—isn’t that right?

    16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

    17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

    18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

    19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection—whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

    20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that—and I’ll quote it again—“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

    21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

    Then I’d try to sum it up.

    22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

    23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

    By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

    24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

    25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

    I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

    And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

    But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

    More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

    In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

    The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar—but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

    That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

    When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

    Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence—and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing—even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. That might be the strangest post in the history of this site..... A conversation in the 4th person?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. I doubt you really believe Franken could beat Trump but I would love to see him as Trump's opponent. I know the picture was staged but Franken resigned from Congress because of his sexual misadventures. Now it's your turn to admit you know Trump never said he grabs anyone by the pussy, he said he kisses them and that women let stars do anything, he said they let you grab them by the pussy, he didn't say he does it.

    Regarding your questions for Kavanaugh, in your mind that was some clever questioning and you think you know how he would answer but IRL you have no idea how he would answer. How many times to you see interviews where the respondent actually answers the question as asked? Do you realize the Supreme Court's job is to determine if laws are unconstitutional? Yet you didn't mention the constitution in your questioning. Don't you think it's important to know how a judge feels about the constitution? How do you feel about the Constitution, svedka? Do you think it should be followed or should it be changed to fit your idea of what's right or wrong? It's not the court's job to make life fair, their job is to keep unconstitutional laws off the books and we need Supremes that understand that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. [​IMG]

    why rand tho? also meant who's a viable left wing candidate to unseat trump

    inb4 smug chortles and cheap jokes :laughing:

    I'm sure you would agree that this generally fits a left-wing bill. While it would have my vote in Norway on nearly every point, I have the luxury of living in a land where everyone is largely in agreement. You don't have that same luxury. An American cultural trait, for good and for bad, is steadfastness, you guys can be hard to convince

    So, keeping this of the other guy in mind as well, as thought experiment in power, if given the choices of [push for] [compromise] and [sacrifice] on your listed policy demands, keeping your opposition's convictions and passions in mind - how would you rank your policies if the aim is to win them over with enough given away to win an election?

    (Edit: With, if you'd entertain me, at least 1 in the [sacrifice] column - where the enemy is given his way, and at least 2 in the [compromise] column, where you cede considerable ground on a given issue in order of passing critical parts of your own)

    What's the best argument against getting rid of the super delegates?
     
  11. I honestly have no clue who the dems will put forth. I do get the feeling it will be someone we are not talking about though, someone out of the loop like trump. It seems to me the other candidate is the one who will win at the moment. Meaning a outsider.The trump, the girl who won in NY, I think all incumbents are going to have a hard time on both sides of the isle. I want new blood, kinda. Actually what I ideally would want is someone who has a long strong track record of limiting government and turning away special interest, but unfortunately Dr. Ron Paul is too old and not running. His son Rand would seem like a logical second choice, but to be honest it is to early to tell how far (or close) the apple has fallen from the tree. I'm really leary of the new johnny come lately politician or celebirty who sounds good and talks good but we have no clue how they will react when confronted with the evil temptations of politics and governing. Its a crap shoot at best to elect someone who has never had power and hope they can manage it. There is virtually no one on either side of the isle I would personally endorse outside of Dr. Paul which I did when he ran based soley on his stellar voting record that spanned decades.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. The BIG fear for me is that they will do it again! That is nominate someone either out of it (Like Sanders) or hated (Like Hilary).
    No one good wants to run anymore, except the power hungry individuals like El Trumpo. TBH..I don't blame them..You must be a complete masochist to consider running imo.

    We need someone to UNITE and not DIVIDE this once great nation..;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. i agree and although he may have been mentioned i think Forrest or Tom Hanks would fit the bill nicely.

    upload_2018-8-9_8-38-5.jpeg
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Since the Socialists gave up on their own party they're now running their candidates in the Democratic Party. Add those nutcases to the extremists like Maxine Waters already in the Party and it makes the lot of you look foolish. There is no place in the Democratic Party today for a centrist who could actually win a general election.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. "the lot of us look foolish"? beg to direct your attention to the right wing old school GOP kissing up to tRump as if they are spineless... they know their bland emotionless style can't keep his supporters interested as they are addicted to this "reality" theater and the pump em up rallies...

    Kind of hard for the dems or any non tRump supporter in the GOP to capture the attention away from cheeto when so many find him so (cough cough) inspiring and entertaining... only difference with the dem socs is they are speaking of real solutions to real problems... same problems that took votes away from HRC and gave them to Bernie...

    Now isn't the climate for milk toast type centrists imo... it will come but for now it's "shake'm up, wake'em up" time... fight fire with spunk and a clear mapped out plan, not superfluous BS as 45 spouts..
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. You are completely wasting you time with these followers..See no evil, hear no evil and their beat goes on..
    What is fascinating were the headlines from CNN and Fox..Each claimed that their favorite were winning or had won political races..
    Haven't heard didly since, which means that no one really had a decisive victory. Fox was the most aggressive with the BS.

    I would consider that a defeat for the Orange Boy, in certain races where he (republicans) had previously trounced the democrats..
     
  17. I like his style, always pissing vinegar on tRump, not a wimp, doesn't fit the tRumpConned stereotype of the "haters"...
    /////

    Avenatti in Iowa, 'exploring' a White House run

    [​IMG]

    Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, was in Iowa Thursday, where he told reporters that he is considering running for president in 2020.

    "I’m exploring a run for the presidency of the United States, and I wanted to come to Iowa and listen to people and learn about some issues that are facing the citizens of Iowa and do my homework," Avenatti told the Des Moines Register on Thursday.

    The Los Angeles-based lawyer toured the Iowa State Fair, a traditional stop for presidential candidates in the state that hosts the nation’s first presidential caucus each election cycle, on Thursday. He is scheduled to speak Friday night at the Democratic Wing Ding fundraiser in Clear Lake, Iowa, an event that hosted Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2015 and former President Barack Obama in 2007.

    "I think there’s a huge appetite within the party for a fighter," he continued. "I think the party has yearned for a fighter — a fighter for good, if you will — for a significant period of time. And for many, I’m probably seen as that individual."

    (more at link)
    Avenatti in Iowa, 'exploring' a White House run
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. The lawyer that is trying to defame Trump is contemplating running on the democratic ticket??? But of course he was just trying to shine light on the truth! What a joke! Politics attracts the worst people in society to run.

    Sent from my SM-G935V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. [​IMG]

    michael avenatti what the fuck
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Grasscity Deals Near You

Loading...

Share This Page