Trump

[ShockingButTrue]

... They made a beautiful couple!

[pinstripers]

In about a week, we'll replace one of the two most arrogant Presidents in our history, with the other one.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm just tossing out hypotheticals.

Your tendency to bombard a thread with post after post of intentionally distracting material in order to squash legitimate discussion by others on a separate topic is frustrating.

[Cdizzle]

Your tendency to bombard a thread with post after post of intentionally distracting material in order to squash legitimate discussion by others on a separate topic is frustrating.

Almost reminds one of the media.

[MoValley John]

Your tendency to bombard a thread with post after post of intentionally distracting material in order to squash legitimate discussion by others on a separate topic is frustrating.

Except there has been no legitimate discussion. None. A bunch of whining, yes. A bunch of conjecture, yes. Now JD decides the next tactic is to bring up "what if's" as if that's legitimate discussion. Hypotheticals are the tools used by those without facts.

[MoValley John]

If any of you don't understand it, JD is an attorney. Probably a pretty good attorney. That said, with regard to Trump, the facts were against him, the law was against him and his newfound hypotheticals are the equivelent of pounding on the table and yelling like hell.

[jdshock]

The best part about MVJ's response in all of this is that my position was that liberals are better off if Trump DOESN'T get impeached.

I have no idea in what backwards world that constitutes whining or what "tool" I'm using.

Edit: your newest post actually convinces me somewhat that you're being sincere. I get that you think I was trying to persuade you of something with my hypothetical. I really was just trying to guage whether conservatives thought Trump or Pence has a better chance in 2020.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Nixon was forced to resign. Clinton was impeached but not convicted. Trump is, hmmm, less than the most honest and stable character. Him getting the boot and Pence taking over is at least plausible. Also, this is a message board. Discussing "what ifs" is perfectly reasonable.

Jumping in to say stuff like:

What if a bunch of maniacal liberals kidnapped a person with autism, duct taped him, tortured him and made him drink from a toilet. That would be a good hypothetical way of getting your point across, wouldn't it?

I mean, hypothetically speaking.

And to act as if we must either talk about both hypotheticals, or neither...

MVC, you are acting like a fool. Truly no other way to put it.

[MoValley John]

The best part about MVJ's response in all of this is that my position was that liberals are better off if Trump DOESN'T get impeached.

I have no idea in what backwards world that constitutes whining or what "tool" I'm using.

Edit: your newest post actually convinces me somewhat that you're being sincere. I get that you think I was trying to persuade you of something with my hypothetical. I really was just trying to guage whether conservatives thought Trump or Pence has a better chance in 2020.

I haven't even considered 2020. Why would I? If facts merit that Trump should be impeached, I'd support it. If voting for a Democrat in 2020 was whom I thought was the best option, I'd do it- I've done it before. In fact, I voted for Obama rather than McCain.

Back to 2020, I just hope the best candidate wins. Seriously. I don't care if its a Republican, Democrat, Torry or Whig. Speculating about it now is silly.

Back to Trump. I didn't vote for Trump, he won, so I've accepted him. Until something sustantive, not speculative, changes my opinion, it's time to move on. Constant yelling, constant protest, constant handwringing is just foolish and childish. Hypotheticals are more of the same.

[MoValley John]

Nixon was forced to resign. Clinton was impeached but not convicted. Trump is, hmmm, less than the most honest and stable character. Him getting the boot and Pence taking over is at least plausible. Also, this is a message board. Discussing "what ifs" is perfectly reasonable.

Jumping in to say stuff like:


And to act as if we must either talk about both hypotheticals, or neither...

MVC, you are acting like a fool. Truly no other way to put it.

But...... That wasn't a hypothetical. It happened in Chicago. Remember? This is what angry Democrats have become.

[MoValley John]

Not a hypothetical.

https://youtu.be/bjTbhq-yGOg

This is what has become of the left.

[MoValley John]

I think an exact quote was "Say "**** Trump.""

Drink the toilet water!

Yeah, after seeing that, I'm less inclined to consider hypotheticals from Democrats.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. Should have been this.

Hypothetically, I mean I'm just spitballing ideas here, what if Trump uses his own plane instead of Air Force One. And what if his pilot hired a lawn service that used illegal aliens. And what if one of those illegal aliens bought a midget hooker. And what if all of this happened while Pence was in Californiia. Could we impeach Trump and since Pence was in California, would Alexander Haig become president?

And since Haig is dead, who would be next in line?

This is really simple. MVJ, you are being a jackass. @jdshock: isn't making you discuss his hypothetical. You can even state your reasons for not wanting to. But your efforts to shut down the conversation by spamming the thread with false equivalencies (and you know they are false) is dishonest and rude. It isn't that you don't want to participate that is offensive, its that you intentionally sabotage other people's ability to participate.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I think an exact quote was "Say "**** Trump.""

Drink the toilet water!

Yeah, after seeing that, I'm less inclined to consider hypotheticals from Democrats.

You lumping @jdshock: in with those Chicago turds as one in the same, AKA, "Democrats", is scummy beyond belief. Agree with his opinions or not, he is patient, honest, and fair in his comments on this board. To claim that what happened in Chicago is a reason to sabotage his honest question is lame.

Just stop.

[MoValley John]

You lumping @jdshock: in with those Chicago turds as one in the same, AKA, "Democrats", is scummy beyond belief. Agree with his opinions or not, he is patient, honest, and fair in his comments on this board. To claim that what happened in Chicago is a reason to sabotage his honest question is lame.

Just stop.

It's time for everyone to wait and see. JD jumped on an unsubstantiated report that was never verified as justification to speculate. He's an attorney, he should know better. Never ask a question in which you don't know the answer, right?

Turns out, the report was compiled by some clown in London, paid for by opponents of Trump. It was never verified by US intel because there was nothing to verify. The media originally reported it as US Intel, not true. Then, a little follow up was done. Dates didn't match, people d I didn't match, there was nothing. The author of the report went into hiding. The final outcome was that the report was just bullshit put together to please the people that paid for the report.

And from a bogus report, JD decides to start a hypothetical? Really?

As for Chicago, I'm sure JD didn't condone it. But I'm not so sure he doesn't condone the marching, the protesting, the vandalism, all in the name of civil discourse. We had a bunch of people make false reports about being attacked by Trump supporters, all, I believe, turned out to be false. We have had zero factual attacks from Trump supporters. Then again, we have had plenty of factual cases of looting from Clinton supporters. We also have one factual kidnapping. I'm sick of it.