New Democratic Member: “We Gonna . . . Impeach The Mother**ker”

YouTube

After fueling impeachment calls in the election, some Democratic leaders are trying to tamp down on the issue despite the filing of impeachment articles on the first day of the session. The leaders could now have a serious problem in controlling dozens of members who secured their fees in part on impeachment pledges. That was obvious this week when newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) proclaimed the intention to “impeach the motherf**ker” at a reception for the liberal group MoveOn. The statement obviously delighted the crowd but undermined the credibility of the new Democratic majority in seriously examining the basis for impeachment. In a measure of the distemper that has taken over our politics, Tlaib has refused to apologize.

Tlaib quoted her son telling her, “Look mama you won. Bullies don’t win.” Tlaib reportedly replied, “You’re right, they don’t. And we’re gonna go in and impeach the motherf**ker.”

There may or may not be grounds for impeachment in the Mueller report expected. However, being a bully is not one of them. More importantly, the glee expressed by Tlaib is concerning enough but there also seems a lack of concern over the actual proof of a high crime and misdemeanor under the constitutional standard. Impeachment is not meant to be a partisan tool or some cathartic act. That might be a better — and less profane — lesson to share with one’s son.

326 thoughts on “New Democratic Member: “We Gonna . . . Impeach The Mother**ker””

  1. Excerpt from Daily Beast article:

    Trump Referred to Shutdown as ‘Strike’ in Profanity-Laced Meeting With Democratic Leaders

    The president also dropped three f-bombs and claimed Democrats wanted him impeached.

    by Asawin Suebsaeng,
    Sam Stein

    01.04.19 7:55 PM ET

    Trump proceeded to tell the room he was too popular to impeach.

    Along with saying the word “fuck” at least three times throughout the meeting, the president bizarrely stated that he did not want to call the partial government shutdown a “shutdown,” according to the source. Instead, he referred to it as a “strike.” (Many of the federal employees affected by the weeks-long shutdown have been working without pay. That is essentially the opposite of a strike.)

    During the course of this meeting, the Democrats in the room were visibly shaking their heads in exasperation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was one of the Republicans in the room. An aide to McConnell did not provide a readout of the meeting—citing office policy—but noted that the senator rarely talks in such sessions.

    Another person familiar with the meeting disputed that Trump said “fuck” three times, though conceded he said it once.

  2. Trump Referred to Shutdown as ‘Strike’ in Profanity-Laced Meeting With Democratic Leaders

    The president also dropped three f-bombs and claimed Democrats wanted him impeached.

    Asawin Suebsaeng,
    Sam Stein

    01.04.19 7:55 PM ET

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-referred-to-shutdown-as-strike-in-profanity-laced-meeting-with-democratic-leaders

    Excerpt:

    Trump proceeded to tell the room he was too popular to impeach.

    Along with saying the word “fuck” at least three times throughout the meeting, the president bizarrely stated that he did not want to call the partial government shutdown a “shutdown,” according to the source. Instead, he referred to it as a “strike.” (Many of the federal employees affected by the weeks-long shutdown have been working without pay. That is essentially the opposite of a strike.)

    During the course of this meeting, the Democrats in the room were visibly shaking their heads in exasperation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was one of the Republicans in the room. An aide to McConnell did not provide a readout of the meeting—citing office policy—but noted that the senator rarely talks in such sessions.

    Another person familiar with the meeting disputed that Trump said “fuck” three times, though conceded he said it once.

  3. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/10/how-the-geography-of-u-s-poverty-has-shifted-since-1960/
    Peter Hill,…
    I can’t tell where the recent comments are, since the most recent comment display is now only showing comments that are 8-12 hours old.
    And I don’t want to scan all 200+ comments here trying to find out where our last exchange was.
    The c. 8 th paragragh of the linked article notes that the U.S. poverty rate was over 20 % in 1960, and at 14.5% in 2013.
    Over the past c. 50 years, it’s probably been mostly in the 12-15% range.
    While 12%, or 15%, or 20% + are all “too many”, the historical trend long-term is that the number of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped.
    “Shorter term”, over the past c. 50 years, it’s stayed mostly in that c. 12-15% range.
    The primary reason that c. 45 % of Americans no longer pay federal income tax is not some recent spike in the poverty levels; it is primarily due to the series of tax cuts that has raised the threshold where tax payment is required.

      1. Absurd,..
        What would you substitute in its place, at least for the purposes of determining the income threshold that requires federal income tax payment?

        1. My preferred tax regime would assess payroll taxes and specialty income taxes on the broad mass of the population, while making use of a value-added tax as the primary means of raising federal revenue.

          In re the general income tax, you’d collect a small amount to finance a discrete menu of redistributive programs not financed by payroll taxes or specialty income taxes (e.g. veterans’ benefits and SSI). The remainder would be remitted to the public at large. A person’s liability would be determined thus: (r x y) – (g x m), where ‘r’ is a assessment rate, y is your personal income, ‘m’ would be the number of members of your household as it is understood for tax purposes (you, your lawful spouse, your dependents under the age of 20), and ‘g’ would be the $ value of a general credit (which value would be adjusted annually according the the change in the nominal personal income per capita in the country at large).

          A great many people would receive a net rebate. The value of the rebate which could be remitted would be capped at a particular % of the household’s earned income, a cap which would be relaxed in reference to each member of the household over the standard retirement age or adjudicated as disabled.

          At the same time, federal programs which subsidize people’s mundane expenditure (on groceries, rent, utility bills, &c) or provide a long-term dole to people neither elderly nor disabled, would be discontinued. TANF, SNAP (ne Food Stamps), housing vouchers, subsidized public housing, LIHEAP would go.

          Personal income would be defined broadly and include employee fringe benefits and welfare benefits provided by state and local government. At the same time, interest income would be understood as real interest, not nominal interest. There would be no deductions, and and no credits other than the general credit described above.

          The general assessment rate for capital gains taxes would be the same as that for the personal income tax. ‘Capital Gains’ would be understood to be real capital gains. The GDP deflator would be applied the the purchase price of an asset to determine that. If you recorded a real loss, the application of the capital gains tax would give you a credit with the IRS which you could work off with income tax liability or inheritance tax liability.

          The payroll tax to finance unemployment compensation would retain an employer’s portion, but that to finance Social Security would not. It would be a % assessment on your total compensation (cash & fringes alike) which would top off at a particular $ value (which value would be adjusted annually according to the change in employee compensation per worker).

          Public medical and ltc insurance would be financed by a specialty income tax on your total income. You’d have a general assessment rate on all household income, but the total liability would top off at a given $ value (which value would be adjusted each year according to the change in nominal expenditure on medical care and long term care in the country at large). Like the Social Security tax, it would be a capitation for high income people and an income assessment for those lower down.

          In sum, the broad mass of the public would be hit with full or partial income assessments for Social Security, public medical insurance, unemployment compensation, & c. but would not have much in the way of a general income tax liability. About 2/3 I would expect would be due a net rebate. Everyone faces the same marginal rate, but one’s average rate varies, with the most affluent taxpayers facing average rates which approach a certain value asymptotically. For federal taxes, I’m guessing that rate would be ~26% and for state taxes ~ 6.5% (roughly speaking).

          Municipal governments and school districts would be financed by property taxes, county governments by a mix of property taxes and general sales taxes, and state governments by general sales taxes, with some ancillary revenue sources for each. Ideally, general sales taxes would have no exceptions but rent. The Federal government would be financed by a value-added tax; a rate of 22% or so on value-added would be about the norm. The rebates on the general income tax would cross-compensate the impecunious for the effect of these taxes on their real incomes.

        1. REPUBLICANS DENY ANY ISSUE THAT CONFLICTS WITH IDEOLOGY

          Climate Change, Gun Violence, Demand For Reproductive Choices, Need For Healthcare and Income Inequality are all issues Republicans must deny to reconcile their ideological beliefs.

          Regarding Income Inequality: Republicans can’t possibly admit that such a problem exists because it would mean that endless tax cuts are a mindless component of budget deficits. Therefore they must deny that inequality is any issue to even speak of.

            1. And your point is what, fool? All rich people aren’t rethuglicans. I see you have a devotee, birds of a feather, etc..

          1. Climate Change, Gun Violence, Demand For Reproductive Choices, Need For Healthcare and Income Inequality are all issues Republicans must deny to reconcile their ideological beliefs.

            Peter, this is a brainless remark. Again,

            1. The significance of income inequality is a normative question, not a positive question. There can be disputes over facts in such a discussion, but the factual disputes are subsidiary.

            2. The utility of health care and of various regimes for financing it isn’t a discretely factual question either, where one disputant is ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’.

            3. Those babbling about ‘reproductive choices’ aren’t pondering any factual questions either. The question at hand is a normative one.

            4. No one denies there is gun violence They do dispute what are the proper and utile methods of crime control. And it’s not as if there haven’t been statistical studies on the marginal influence of gun control regimes on crime rates. The results of the studies are just inconvenient to the argument you’re advancing.

            5. There’s a reason people don’t trust Michael Mann and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Peter, not that you are capable of puzzling out what it might be.

        2. Peter, whether a particular income distribution is a ‘problem’ or not is a value judgment. Wikipedia cannot answer that question for you.

      1. Peter Shills for liberal millionaires and billionaires like Hillary, Soros, Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, but doesn’t bat an eye about creating rants on income inequality.

        Preach, often, Peter….use words seldom

        1. Estovir, where does it say I think liberal millionaires should pay ‘less’ taxes??

          Your comment here really makes no sense. The idea seems to be that liberals have no right to be rich. Which conflicts with the myth that liberals ‘dont understand how money works’. Yeah, liberals dont understand money but they get rich anyway and become hypocrites. Go figure.

      2. Peter,…
        There has been an increasing “wealth gap” and “income gap”, a trend that probably started in the 1970s.
        There are some fairly “new” billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., whose wealth and income mostly consists of their shares ( stock) in the companies that they started and built.
        I’ve never calculated how much the wealth/ income of the super-rich accounts for/ distorts the statistical gaps in wealth and income.
        There are more widespread factors like the decline of unions, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, executive greed, etc.
        The days when a steelworker or auto workers’ family had a few generations of relatives who could rely on walking into a factory with a high school education or less, earning a good-size salary with good benefits, are mostly gone.
        Contrary to what your headlines scream, this is not an issue recognized only by sanctimonious liberals.
        We were discussing the tax rates, tax burden, etc.; if you think that tinkering with the tax code is going to remedy the problems I’ve listed, I think you’re mistaken.
        I would add that those who think this some sort of uniquely American “oligarchy” structure that has evolved should look at the wealth gap in other countries with “oligachies” like Canada.

        1. Tom, currently the upper tax bracket is taxed at 37%, which is certainly low by the standards of Post-War America. Even during Reagan’s presidency upper income brackets were taxed over 50%. 37% is cheap! The wealthiest are doing just fine. They didn’t need that tax cut Republicans pushed last year. It was just a kickback to the Koch Bros Network of Financial Donors.

          1. Peter,…
            I mentioned earlier that I thought that the c.35 year trend of cutting income taxes had gone too far.
            For now, I won’t get into the spending side of the ledger in factoring U.S.deficits/ debt.
            The top tax rate is now 37%, as you said. It was lowered from the previous top rate of 39.6%.
            I think the Obama administration raised the previous administration’s ( Bush 43) top rate of 35% to the 39.6% rate.
            So in recent history, we’re at 35%, up to 39.6%, now down to 37%.
            I’ll repeat what I said earlier; I don’t view any of this tinkering as a major factor in the wealth/ income gap, especially compared to the bigger factors that I listed earlier.

        2. Compensation per worker has increased by 50% in real terms since 1973. Higher education is hypertrophied as we speak. However, about 38% of each cohort earn neither a baccalaureate degree nor an associate’s degree. They get by.

            1. You need to read the actual data published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      3. Tom, inequality is now a threat to the national economy.

        This is a nonsense statement, Peter.

        1. Inequality is a major threat, Tabby. A huge number of working people dont make enough to cover their basic expenses. The reasons are many and not easy to address. But tax cuts for the wealthiest make no sense at all.

          1. And, while we’re at it, the American Community Survey reports that 91% of all American households have a vehicle available. The Federal Reserve also reports that the share of household incomes devoted to consumer debt service (5.6%) is a shade below the median value observed over the last 38 years. The ratio of consumer debt stocks to personal income flows is higher than it was a generation ago, but no higher than it was five years ago.

  4. This foul mouthed Representative is not the first nor will she be the last. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been more foul mouthed in more formal venues, at a podium.

    The thing that this woman should think about is the fact that she is one of a few Muslim elected Representatives ever. Her conduct reflects on her religion whether she likes it or not. I am more concerned with the map in her office which covered Israel with a post it note with the word Palestine on it.

    To paraphrase Andrew Gillum I’m not saying the Democratic Party is anti Semitic but the anti Semites think they’re anti Semitic .

  5. Did Trump win the votes in Michigan? My recollection was that Hillary forgot to go campaign there at all and that Trump won that state. Is this new congress person a Palestine person? Where was she born?

  6. She is crude but this is nothing compared to what used to happen in Congress in the decades leading up to the Civil War

    1. DB Benson,..
      Still, you have to give Tlaib credit; after only one day as a freshman member of Congress, she’s become the best-known Palestinian-American since Sirhan Sirhan or Major Hasan.

    2. DBB:
      You put your finger on it without knowing it. Welcome to 1860. Like the Southern separatists, you Leftists will get the bloody process you want but not the outcome. Glory, glory hallelujah. They say every generation gets to fight a battle in the American Revolution. I suppose fighting Marxists is just as gratifying as fighting Redcoats.

    3. Does that mean you’re ok with it?
      Does that mean you’re ok with slavery and Jim Crow too?
      Pointing to past wrongs in an attempt to justify current poor behavior is ineffective at best.

  7. Rep. Tlaib needs reminding that she is a civics teacher now to a national audience of children. Her 1st day lesson is one of militant, ad hominem attack.

    1. Just as the President of the United States plays to a national audience of children–although one can reasonably assume from his behavior that he wouldn’t be allowed contact with the children of any rational parents.

      this is to “but he’s an old white guy, so what if he’s a traitor” binca

      1. You cannot complain about the way Trump acts and speaks by act and speaking in a more egregious fashion. If you are better than he is you should act that way.

    1. Sad but true.

      Meanwhile, Drudgereport is listing these headlines and it’s more of the same: outright pandemonium. All we can say at home is thankfully we have Glocks

      Bob & Jim

      ———-

      OCASIO-CORTEZ: Raise Tax Rates to 70%!

      82.7% for richest New Yorkers…

      Compares self to Lincoln, FDR…

      Democrats Look to Kill Electoral College…

      Make DC 51st state…

      1. what’s coming will require rifles and organization and offensive operations, not just handguns and hiding out behind closed doors

        1. Excellent! Another keyboard warrior. I regret to inform you, sir, that you’ve missed your target market as reddit is down the hall. None of the wingnut wackjobs here would even dare to say anything at all to a real person in real life; for here is the habitat of the old, timid, frightened, gullible and paranoid who buy commemorative “silver” coins from hannity’s show, and spend the day forwarding wackjob, wingnut nonsensical emails to their unwilling relatives. But by all means, you just keep doin’ you; it fits you well. Pro tip: thumbing through wackjob “survivalist’ magazines for cammo underwear and facepaint does not a warrior make. So sorry for your loss.

          this is to ‘but I bought a magazine on boxing, too” anon

          1. Mark M:
            Like King George the Mad you underestimate the will of armed Free people and severely overestimate their tolerance for oppression. Prepare to be surprised like all apparatchiks to tyrants are. See The Yellow Vest War as precursor.

      2. I’m waiting for any politician who claims that taxes must be raised that they themselves voluntarily give 70% of their income to the IRS. (which does allow donations to reduce the federal debt)

        Anyone who advocates for high taxes is welcome to give up that amount to the government. Any takers?

        1. Darren, the upper bracket income tax hasn’t been 70% since the Reagan era.
          Are you one of those Joe The Plumber types?

          It turned out that Joe was a non-union plumber making about $30,000 per year. Yet he was terribly concerned about tax rates for the rich. Presumably Joe worried that when ‘he’ got rich, from plumbing, he would have to pay too much in taxes.

          Oddly enough many Republicans share Joe’s concerns. They may not be rich, but they worry incessantly about the welfare of our richest. Go figure!

          The lion’s share of Trump’s tax cut went to the richest 10%. So much, in fact, that Republican pollsters found said tax cut was useless as a campaign issue during the recent midterm election. Yet Republicans, like you, Darren, continues worrying about the rich. Believe me, they’re doing fine.

            1. It comes down to that. Seriously. I worked in Beverly Hills for five and a half years. The rich are doing just fine. Neighborhoods so tasteful they look like Monet paintings.

          1. When republicans are in power, they give out tax breaks to the rich like candy. When Democrats are in power, the republicans scream about the debt.

            1. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24
              An often overlooked result of the series of federal income tax cuts ( ongoing for over 35 years) is that nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income tax.
              You can’t really “cut” the tax bill any more for the large group that has been already knocked off the tax-paying rolls, but because of Earned Income Credits and similar tax credits, some of those 45% who pay no taxes end up with “tax” refunds via the credits.
              It’s not surprising that the smaller and smaller group of taxpayers who pay, by far, the largest % of federal income taxes, would benefit the most from the tax cuts.
              The idea of tax “cuts” for that 45% not paying income tax to begin is ludicrous.
              I actually think that the overall trend in cutting federal income taxes has gone too far , with most administrations and Congresses seemingly trying to outbid each other with larger and larger cuts.
              But given that the income tax cutting has become almost a standard feature in American politics, I don’t object to the highest payers getting the biggest benefit from those cuts.
              Re the Hyphen-Cortez 70% proposal;
              A major headwind for the economy going forward is the removal of massive monetary stimulus by the Fed, after nearly a decade of lower and lower interest rates.
              Jacking up tax rates massively, in tandem with the Fed’s turnaround, is a good way to put the economy into a tailspin by an act of fiscal stupidy on top of the monetary drag.
              That might suit Ms. Hyphen-Cortez and others just fine if they calculate that they’ll benefit politically from the tailspin, but that doesn’t help out on the merits ( lack of) of a patently stupid, ill-conceived proposal by Cortez.

              1. Tom, the fact that such a high percentage of people pay no taxes is proof of inequality. It means too many people are EARNING TOO LITTLE. That’s it; very simple.

                And I see you make no mention of the fact the corporations now pay far LESS than individuals. It wasn’t always that way. Until the 1960’s, businesses paid a higher percentage of taxes than individuals. It’s been so long since that was the case that people no longer even think about it.

                Regarding Ms Ocasio Cortez, let’s wait until her proposal is getting a vote in Congress. Talk is cheap till then.

                1. Tom, the fact that such a high percentage of people pay no taxes is proof of inequality. It means too many people are EARNING TOO LITTLE. That’s it; very simple.

                  I have news for you, Peter. There is no society more complicated than an agricultural village where ‘inequality’ is not the order of the day in social relations. Nothing you can do about that. You can erect a legal regime where every stratum in society faces the same legal obligations and is granted the same set of privileges and immunities, but that’s about it.

                  And, no, they’re not ‘earning too little’ in any systematic way. If someone else would hire them for a higher wage, they’re earning less than they could be earning. You’re not going to design an economic system without information imperfections and without friction.

                  Now, you may wish to complain about the standard of living of certain strata which is available to them given their earnings. The standard of living of the most affluent would not be a necessary concern in addressing that complaint.

                  The taxes necessary to finance collective consumption and income transfers would affect the standard of living of the most affluent (along with the standard of living of every other net contributor). You would be concerned to distribute the tax burden in a salutary way. The affluent would pay more because they have more income. They would be taxed at a higher rate because the marginal utility of a an additional unit of income is lower among high-income people than it is among middle income people. However, manufacturing ‘equality’ is not a necessary object among persons concerned with effecting a salutary distribution of tax burdens.

                  1. Tabby, statistics clearly show that inequality has been on the rise in this country since the late 1970’s. Globalization is, of course, a major factor. But tax cuts for the wealthy have also factored big. It’s no coincidence that Hedge Fund managers are well-represented among Forbes 400 wealthiest. Hedge Fund managers get preferential tax rates presumably so they can ‘create jobs’ which they sometimes do. But more often they function as buccaneers looking once-profitable companies.

                    So this idea that inequality is just a reality we have to deal with is merely an ultra-cynical excuse to justify mindless tax cuts that run up the national debt.

                2. Re Ms. hyphen-Cortez, there have always been members of the lunatic fringe.
                  In the modern era, their districts generally were not as inclined to send them to Congress.
                  When you have a foolish extremist like her, with the media buzz and at least something of a following, you don’t have to wait until “her proposal gets a vote in Congress”.
                  It may not be her bill, her proposal, but the left wing loons can influence the shape of a party’s legislative agenda.
                  It’s not as widely covered as the split in the GOP, but their is “The Old Guard” in the Democratic Party ( Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, etc) and the left wingnuts like the Rapida Tlaibs, hypen-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Keith Hakeem Ellison, etc).
                  The “idendity” of the 2020 Democratic Party has yet to be established.
                  The reduction in rates, the higher standard deduction, more tax credits, lifting the level ( bracket) that requires tax payment, are all factors that removed any federal income tax liabilty from such a high percentage of the population.
                  If you prefer to ignore all of those factors and claim that it is, instead, “proof that too many people are EARNING TOO LITTLE”, then stick with your belief.

            2. Yes, Darren, Ms Ocasio-Cortez looks like a pop star. So now liberals like me are obliged to account for everything she says. Though it might be easier to wait until her proposals become actual bills on the floor.

              However the congresswoman’s remarks, as referenced in your article, hit on something important. As recently as the 1960’s, Americans considered taxes a patriotic duty to maintain our superpower status.

              That attitude characterized the so-called ‘Greatest Generation’; people born in the 1910’s and 1920’s who grew up with FDR and fought W.W. II. There was a shared sense of responsibility that we all had to ‘pitch in and do our part’. The rich had prospered from the efforts of soldiers in the field and workers on shop floors. Therefore the rich had a responsibility to help offset the costs of a muscular government.

              But by the 1980’s, we were far enough away from The Depression and W.W. II, that that ‘shared responsibility’ message had faded into history. Instead we adopted a ‘greed is good’ philosophy that has stuck with us ever since. Trump even affirmed ‘greed is good’ when he proclaimed himself ‘smart’ for paying ‘no taxes’ for 10 whole years (as a carry-over for real estate losses).

              Personally I don’t thing ‘greed is good’ works for America. I think ‘shared responsibility’ was more patriotic.

          2. The lion’s share of Trump’s tax cut went to the richest 10%.

            You’re being silly, Peter. That reflects the distribution of federal income tax liability.

          3. Joe should worry more about losing his job to an illegal alien that will do his job for half the price

        2. As a gesture, maybe Rep. Hyphen-Cortez will step up to the plate and pay at the 70% rate.
          Bernie might have to give up one of his three homes were he to volunteer, so I don’t expect the Vermont Socialist to make that big of a sacrifice.

        3. You’d be nowhere near that rate if it ever came to pass. And people should pay there fair share. If you are so concerned about taxes, as a former ( thankfully) LEO, you could give up your early retirement, etc.. Don’t mind taking just don’t expect me to give, nice creed to live by.

          1. And what is “their (there) fair share”? Or could you at least disclose who gets to decide what the fair share is? And would the decision-maker also have to pay their fair share?

      3. Haha. Pro tip: hollywood isn’t real; The Walking Dead is only television.

        this is to “quick, pull down the blinds, the neighbor’s dog is in our yard” bobjim

  8. House Democrats can’t be thrilled. Rule of law irrelevant. Political destruction is the mantra.
    Now asserting that it’s sexist to voice opinion that the comment was out of line. Tactics won’t work, Speaker Pelosi, I hope there is some behind the scenes guidance being offered and accepted.

  9. Off topic, Meuller to go on for 6 more months. This investigation will not end until Trump is out of office. I just keep thinking of Whitey Bulger.

    1. 1. Even the interminable six year long Walsh investigation had no accomplishments of interest past the 41 month mark (or at least no accomplishments of interest to anyone not on the payroll).

      2. Reviewing the last 50 years, you’d have to scrounge to locate a case in which a special prosecutor in Washington was able to put a case in front of a petit jury less than nine months after an indictment was secured.

      3. So come April Fool’s Day, the smart money says Mueller and his merry band of Democratic Party donors will secure their status as the most unproductive special prosecutor investigation of the last half-century. Rah rah sis boom bah.

        1. No, it appears ‘absurd’ to you David because you’re declining mentally. The statement has adequate clarity to people who are not impaired.

  10. Given the widespread and unending conduct of Republican House members with respect to Obama this is a tempest in a teapot. So what if she said that? It means nothing. She’s a freshman with zero power. She’s just reflecting to a friendly crowd the way most Democrats feel about our corrupt, incompetent, buffoonish embarrassment of a President.

    1. Yes, Horuss, she’s a real credit to her constituency.
      And you are one dumb MF.
      So what if I said that.

        1. “You too Nash”

          my, oh, my….aren’t we Americans quite the spectacle.
          One supposes at least you didn’t write, “my daddy can beat up your daddy”.

          1. JP,..
            I was saving that one for later….for the benefit of those here who have said “nothing wrong with that” or “she was just speaking her mind”.

        2. Brilliant comeback.
          I was trying to make a point in terms that even you could understand.
          Too bad it went over your head.

            1. If it didn’t go over your head, LT Anonymous, there’s a first time for everything.😏😄😀.
              Congratulations.

    2. Given the widespread and unending conduct of Republican House members with respect to Obama this is a tempest in a teapot.

      Yeah, they resisted him and criticized him. Can’t have that.

      Pretty amusing the attitude of partisan Democrats that the public square is their property.

  11. The Kavanaugh confirmation circus, the bogus “campus rape culture” myth, and social media vigilantes have demonstrated at least to my satisfaction that “due process” and “standards of proof” are artifacts the left has deemed expendable. We had better get used to the idea and start fighting it for all we are worth, or there will be hell to pay in the coming decades as we level-headed, rational people die off.

  12. This thread shows how easy it has been to divide and conquer people and how easily it is for a dominant group to willingly dehumanize another group. The hatred of Muslims here is extreme. If you were in Nazi Germany, the descriptive language about Muslims could be easily fit into Nazi descriptions of homosexuals, jews, the disabled and any other hated group of the majority population in Germany. This is exactly how a nation becomes totalitarian and how one group of people learns to think nothing of killing others. Good Work Oligarchs!

    This is the way Democrats spoke of Tea Party people while Obama was in charge. Dems wanted the “lower orders” rights taken away. The called people in the Tea Party filthy pigs, cockroaches etc. It’s very dangerous and here we are. Unless people wise up and stop falling for divide and conquer, we will have Nazi America, out front, in the open, no way out.

    1. “The hatred of Muslims here is extreme.”
      What’s your proof? We don’t like foreign enemies, regardless of religion or no religion. American Muslims are not a “foreign enemy.” The only place “hatred of Muslims” lives is in the media that is the sworn enemy of the duly elected President. It’s a figment of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, & NBC used to delegitimize Trump.

      I challenge you to present proof of your claim.

    2. My comments about the foul mouthed female dog of a Congresswoman were not anti-Muslim. In fact, I defended the propriety of Islam as a religion with a moral code and a specific ethic of public modest for women. I’ll say it again. the word the bad lady used is immodest and obscene in the extreme. it’s amazingly bad that she says she used it to her son, considering the literal context. She is a bad person and an embarrassment to Congress and this is one that you can’t put on Islam.

      I can put it more than a little on the rest of public-indecency culture exemplified by American women however and I do and in that, is precisely the irony, because that is one of the critiques of American society which Muslims repeat to themselves, that the women are immodest and corrupted. And here their very own shows precisely that.

      Some folks dont grasp irony i guess. Or maybe I do not make myself clear.

      1. of course it used to be that Christianity valued modest for all and especially for women, too. but that sort of evaporated the past 60 years and is pretty much totally gone. I finally just quit going to church for about 100 different reasons—- but all the women dressed up like tarts was definitely on the list somewhere.

        1. Mr. Kurtz,…
          Can you mention the name and location of the church where all the women dress like tarts?
          I may want to attend services there.😊😀

          1. when i was a callow youth, the pastor’s wife was a real fireplug. she wore this clingy angora dress, hourglass figure & DDs with perpetually THO, and was totally shameless about it. imagine being a 13 year old boy staring at that in the pew in front of you for an hour and a half every sunday, that was in the protestant church

            i grew up and migrated to Cat. church and there was no pastor’s wife. LOL. just all the girls and women giggling their way up to communion in tights. Essentially the problem continued.

            American women are trained by the mass media that they have a “Right” to dress any way they like, dammit! one hears this often. it’s an article of constant repetition. Schools have daily drama over it. If a boy or a man is distracted and drools over them, then he is an object either of manipulation or contempt. So they have a right to dress provocatively and you have a right to ignore them. Well by now I am old enough that I ignore them quite effectively even as their attempts to seduce me have accelerated. All i need to stop a seduction by an American woman now is listen to whatever she says and usually within two sentences I am totally turned off by the stupidity.

            Islam has kept a lid on all this with the simplicity of the requirement of modest dress– and the social will to require it. Well, in the past at least. I don’t know if they have the social will in America because here’s this awful Talib Congesswoman saying very immodest things and who Muslims have stepped forward to criticize her? none I gather.

            in the link below the jewish ladies at jezebel discuss and mock Christian men about this. it’s garbage like jezebel magazine that instructs the youth of America and the weak hearted and phony Christian churches just sit back and take it like the totally wimpy nothings they have generally become.

            https://jezebel.com/5788765/christian-men-beg-women-not-to-dress-like-sluts

            It’s all a big joke see? Joke is on us. Now look this up for re-education: MGTOW

          2. He’ll take time out from being a White Knight for hookers in order to answer you.

      2. Ah, another one of those; women are to be seen and not heard. Check. However, along those lines, you’ll be saddened to find out that “The Handmaid’s Tale” is merely a work of fiction; and even if it weren’t, your type wouldn’t be the cohort being provided with young victims to rape at their pleasure.

        this is to “back in the good ole days, her man would just take a switch to her” kurtzie

    3. The enemy is China which just demonstrated its space warfare capability, burgeoning aggression in the South China Sea and threats against sovereign Taiwan and, by extension, America and the West.

      The enemy is a republic “…in which power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”
      _____________________________________________________________________

      Merriam-Webster

      REPUBLIC noun
      re·​pub·​lic | \ri-ˈpə-blik
      \
      Definition of republic

      b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
      ______________________________________________________

      America was established as a republic under the Constitution which severely restricted government while it provided full and complete freedom and free enterprise to individuals. Central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering are immutably unconstitutional.

      The intended American republic has progressively transformed into a one man, one vote – one foreigner, one vote democrazy which will self-destruct before engagement with its international adversary.

      As Lincoln said, “Destruction will come from within.” Presumably, “Crazy Abe” could not grasp that his hysterical delusions, Marxist ideology and egregiously unconstitutional acts comprised this genesis of said destruction.

      I fear, at this stage, the situation is entirely without remedy; with the possible exception of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

      It’s every man, woman, child, freed slave, LGBGT, foreign invader voter, asylum seeker voter and parasite for himself.

      God help us.

      Goodnight, America!

      1. Taiwan’s already been thrown overboard. If American business won’t even recognize it as a place then do you think the American military would life a finger if it’s attacked?

        I don’t think they will attack however, No need. It will just kind of go sideways until the communists can win the election. I give it about 10 years before they can orchestrate a reunification referendum. That is, if they don’t wreck the PRC in the meantime. Which they might. Xi is cracking down hard

    4. The only thing you have proven is the fact you buy into the propaganda kool-aid of extremist leftist. You offer no proof what-so-ever than anyone hates Muslims, the hate is for extremist who use religion to do the evil, they do.

  13. Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

    President Trump, as “Crazy Abe” Lincoln acted in violation of the Constitution for the benefit of the republic, must declare martial law by executive order and re-implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights bereft of the injurious and unconstitutional subsequent “amendments.”

    His first act must be mass deportation of illegal aliens and treasonous and disloyal “immigrants” with foreign allegiances followed by the immediate implementation of voting restrictions which were essential to the foundation of the American republic.
    __________________________________________________

    Merriam-Webster

    REPUBLIC noun
    re·​pub·​lic | \ri-ˈpə-blik
    \
    Definition of republic

    b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Comments are closed.