The DNC gives Joe the Boot

[Ray From Cleveland]

Following up on Tubefreak's post ... I'm especially itching to hear what Ole Joe has to say about young Hunter's activities in The Ukraine ... itching like poison ivy bad ...

I hear it's been a year and there has been exactly ZERO from Trump's DOJ on this. What else do you need to know?

The more chaos, unresolved scandals, llies and caterwauling, the better.

It's resolved alright. Trump and his crazy Ukraine traveling lawyer found NOTHING....except impeachment

Which failed. Y'all haven't seen the extent of the failure yet. Y'all will be screaming at the sky again in November. Just please, keep the ANTIFA fags in their welthy parents basement. People are likely to start shooting y'all if you get dumb again

Skipping over all the deplorable nonsense "Y'all" spew, Trump WAS impeached and although he wasn't removed, he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If you think that HELPS Trump's re-election chances then you simply don't know up from down.

Eight???? Who were they???

Lamar Alexander
Markowski
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Rob Portman
Ben Sasse

I don't recall the 8th, but Ben Sasse did say that Alexander "speaks for a lot of us"

Seems to me you don't recall a lot. Better use more reliable sources than CNN:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 2nd Session

www.senate.gov

Seems you don't know wtf you are reading.

Only one Republican voted for removal - Romney.

The rest of them voted against removal, but they still condemed Trump's behaviour and admitted that he was culpable in everything Article I accused him of (abusing his office for personal political gain)

The only ones that still belive Trump did not bring this on himself are blind politicos and Trump tools.

Typical lib. When proven wrong, move the goal posts. You said:

he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If he was found culpable by them, they would have voted for removal.

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Hope the boot went far up his ass where it belongs

 

[Pogo]

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

Uh NO, you DON'T. You're not elected by a "party". You're elected --- HIRED --- by your constituents. Check your Constitution. Borrow mine if you need to. As far as what "most Republicans hate" nothing could be less relevant to anything. He ain't there to represent Republicans. He's there to represent Utahans. There's no way you can prove that wrong.

There is, literally, NO SUCH THING as a "RINO". All that represents is butthurt tribalists from OTHER states trying to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator or Rep should be doing. THAT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS. You've got your own Senators, and you get two, like everybody else. Utah is NOT Ohio; you can't tell their Senators what to do and in like fashion, they can't tell yours what to do.

You've got to come to the realization that this wish for a one-party-über-Alles dictatorship simply disrespects the whole idea of a representative system of government. If we're going to run things via two parties that get awarded some "score" like a perverse electoral college representing X number of votes, then there's no point in electing representatives at all.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

Yyyyyeaaah that 44% wasn't "when he first ran". It was in the actual election results of November. Again, they preferred a 3P local boy who had ZERO chance of winning to holding their collective nose to cast a vote for Rump.

 

[Crixus]

Following up on Tubefreak's post ... I'm especially itching to hear what Ole Joe has to say about young Hunter's activities in The Ukraine ... itching like poison ivy bad ...

I hear it's been a year and there has been exactly ZERO from Trump's DOJ on this. What else do you need to know?

The more chaos, unresolved scandals, llies and caterwauling, the better.

It's resolved alright. Trump and his crazy Ukraine traveling lawyer found NOTHING....except impeachment

Which failed. Y'all haven't seen the extent of the failure yet. Y'all will be screaming at the sky again in November. Just please, keep the ANTIFA fags in their welthy parents basement. People are likely to start shooting y'all if you get dumb again

Skipping over all the deplorable nonsense "Y'all" spew, Trump WAS impeached and although he wasn't removed, he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If you think that HELPS Trump's re-election chances then you simply don't know up from down.

Eight???? Who were they???

Lamar Alexander
Markowski
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Rob Portman
Ben Sasse

I don't recall the 8th, but Ben Sasse did say that Alexander "speaks for a lot of us"

Seems to me you don't recall a lot. Better use more reliable sources than CNN:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 2nd Session

www.senate.gov

Seems you don't know wtf you are reading.

Only one Republican voted for removal - Romney.

The rest of them voted against removal, but they still condemed Trump's behaviour and admitted that he was culpable in everything Article I accused him of (abusing his office for personal political gain)

The only ones that still belive Trump did not bring this on himself are blind politicos and Trump tools.

Typical lib. When proven wrong, move the goal posts. You said:

he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If he was found culpable by them, they would have voted for removal.

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

Uh NO, you DON'T. You're not elected by a "party". You're elected --- HIRED --- by your constituents. Check your Constitution. Borrow mine if you need to. As far as what "most Republicans hate" nothing could be less relevant to anything. He ain't there to represent Republicans. He's there to represent Utahans. There's no way you can prove that wrong.

There is, literally, NO SUCH THING as a "RINO". All that represents is butthurt tribalists from OTHER states trying to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator or Rep should be doing. THAT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS. You've got your own Senators, and you get two, like everybody else. Utah is NOT Ohio; you can't tell their Senators what to do and in like fashion, they can't tell yours what to do.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

Yyyyyeaaah that 44% wasn't "when he first ran". It was in the actual election results of November. Again, they preferred a 3P local boy who had ZERO chance of winning to holding their collective nose to cast a vote for Rump.

Do you really have a copy? You have a history of saying you got this and that but when asked to produce it you go silent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

Uh NO, you DON'T. You're not elected by a "party". You're elected --- HIRED --- by your constituents. Check your Constitution. Borrow mine if you need to. As far as what "most Republicans hate" nothing could be less relevant to anything. He ain't there to represent Republicans. He's there to represent Utahans. There's no way you can prove that wrong.

There is, literally, NO SUCH THING as a "RINO". All that represents is butthurt tribalists from OTHER states trying to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator or Rep should be doing. THAT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS. You've got your own Senators, and you get two, like everybody else. Utah is NOT Ohio; you can't tell their Senators what to do and in like fashion, they can't tell yours what to do.

You've got to come to the realization that this wish for a one-party-über-Alles dictatorship simply disrespects the whole idea of a representative system of government. If we're going to run things via two parties that get awarded some "score" like a perverse electoral college representing X number of votes, then there's no point in electing representatives at all.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

Yyyyyeaaah that 44% wasn't "when he first ran". It was in the actual election results of November. Again, they preferred a 3P local boy who had ZERO chance of winning to holding their collective nose to cast a vote for Rump.

I don't care what people vote for, that's their business. The representative however should be loyal to his or her own party. Yes, a RINO is somebody that joins our party and votes like a leftist. The opposite with DINO's, but they are extremely rare.

If you want to vote against our parties ideas and goals because you think that's what your constituents want, fine with me. Leave our party, and join the party that is against our agenda if that's what your constituents want.

The representative is obligated to tow the party line. The RNC and DNC spend money on their candidates to get them elected. We voters provide that money to our party. So don't tell me that a representative only has obligations to their state. They have an obligation to everybody who provides that funding that helped get them elected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

He is not going to do that, as he has stated many times that it is a priority is to remove Trump from office.

 

[Pogo]

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

Uh NO, you DON'T. You're not elected by a "party". You're elected --- HIRED --- by your constituents. Check your Constitution. Borrow mine if you need to. As far as what "most Republicans hate" nothing could be less relevant to anything. He ain't there to represent Republicans. He's there to represent Utahans. There's no way you can prove that wrong.

There is, literally, NO SUCH THING as a "RINO". All that represents is butthurt tribalists from OTHER states trying to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator or Rep should be doing. THAT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS. You've got your own Senators, and you get two, like everybody else. Utah is NOT Ohio; you can't tell their Senators what to do and in like fashion, they can't tell yours what to do.

You've got to come to the realization that this wish for a one-party-über-Alles dictatorship simply disrespects the whole idea of a representative system of government. If we're going to run things via two parties that get awarded some "score" like a perverse electoral college representing X number of votes, then there's no point in electing representatives at all.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

Yyyyyeaaah that 44% wasn't "when he first ran". It was in the actual election results of November. Again, they preferred a 3P local boy who had ZERO chance of winning to holding their collective nose to cast a vote for Rump.

I don't care what people vote for, that's their business. The representative however should be loyal to his or her own party. Yes, a RINO is somebody that joins our party and votes like a leftist. The opposite with DINO's, but they are extremely rare.

If you want to vote against our parties ideas and goals because you think that's what your constituents want, fine with me. Leave our party, and join the party that is against our agenda if that's what your constituents want.

The representative is obligated to tow the party line. The RNC and DNC spend money on their candidates to get them elected. We voters provide that money to our party. So don't tell me that a representative only has obligations to their state. They have an obligation to everybody who provides that funding that helped get them elected.

WRONG.

You continue to EVADE the base point, which has been there the entire time, and that is that A CONGRESSIONAL REP DOES NOT REPRESENT A POLITICAL PARTY, HE OR SHE REPRESENTS HIS OR HER CONSTITUENTS. There is simply no way out of that, ignore it all you like but this country is NOT designed to be run by political parties. I don't give a fuck what you're "used to", IT AIN'T. It's designed to be run by representatives of the voters. As such, NO voter is even required to affiliate with a political party in order to vote for a candidate, or for that matter to vote against one that the voter's "affiliated" with, to the extent that even means anything at all.

Stop being such an enslaved dichotomist. Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution that political parties even come up, let alone are given the reins of power to do anything.

You also evaded this other question that proves the point. If the purpose of a Senator is to represent a political party, then who the fuck do Angus King and Bernie Sanders represent?? How did they even get elected?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

Uh NO, you DON'T. You're not elected by a "party". You're elected --- HIRED --- by your constituents. Check your Constitution. Borrow mine if you need to. As far as what "most Republicans hate" nothing could be less relevant to anything. He ain't there to represent Republicans. He's there to represent Utahans. There's no way you can prove that wrong.

There is, literally, NO SUCH THING as a "RINO". All that represents is butthurt tribalists from OTHER states trying to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator or Rep should be doing. THAT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS. You've got your own Senators, and you get two, like everybody else. Utah is NOT Ohio; you can't tell their Senators what to do and in like fashion, they can't tell yours what to do.

You've got to come to the realization that this wish for a one-party-über-Alles dictatorship simply disrespects the whole idea of a representative system of government. If we're going to run things via two parties that get awarded some "score" like a perverse electoral college representing X number of votes, then there's no point in electing representatives at all.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

Yyyyyeaaah that 44% wasn't "when he first ran". It was in the actual election results of November. Again, they preferred a 3P local boy who had ZERO chance of winning to holding their collective nose to cast a vote for Rump.

I don't care what people vote for, that's their business. The representative however should be loyal to his or her own party. Yes, a RINO is somebody that joins our party and votes like a leftist. The opposite with DINO's, but they are extremely rare.

If you want to vote against our parties ideas and goals because you think that's what your constituents want, fine with me. Leave our party, and join the party that is against our agenda if that's what your constituents want.

The representative is obligated to tow the party line. The RNC and DNC spend money on their candidates to get them elected. We voters provide that money to our party. So don't tell me that a representative only has obligations to their state. They have an obligation to everybody who provides that funding that helped get them elected.

WRONG.

You continue to EVADE the base point, which has been there the entire time, and that is that A CONGRESSIONAL REP DOES NOT REPRESENT A POLITICAL PARTY, HE OR SHE REPRESENTS HIS OR HER CONSTITUENTS. There is simply no way out of that, ignore it all you like but this country is NOT designed to be run by political parties. I don't give a fuck what you're "used to", IT AIN'T. It's designed to be run by representatives of the voters. As such, NO voter is even required to affiliate with a political party in order to vote for a candidate, or for that matter to vote against one that the voter's "affiliated" with, to the extent that even means anything at all.

Stop being such an enslaved dichotomist. Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution that political parties even come up, let alone are given the reins of power to do anything.

You also evaded this other question that proves the point. If the purpose of a Senator is to represent a political party, then who the fuck do Angus King and Bernie Sanders represent?? How did they even get elected?

I don't know about King, but Sander's is the next best thing to a Communist, he's a model Democrat.

The point I made is the Republican party funded Romney, therefore he's beholden to their goals and views. If he is not, then get out of our party; run as an Independent, join the Democrat party, do whatever, but don't be part of our party, funded by we the Republican voters, and then go against our parties agenda.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The New York Post is currently owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns many conservative/sensational media outlets around the world.

The New York Post reports a Republican polling outfit found that the New York governor is preferred over Biden.

I would be mildly suspicious of that report inasmuch as Biden is beating Trump by ten points or more in nearly every poll.

Even Trump friendly Rasmussen has Trump underwater, 43 to 56.

 

[easyt65]

That's right. The DNC has sent up the trial balloon.
Jill and Joe are having the 'conversation' today.
I hear Joe is going to get into poodle breeding after he leaves the race for 'health reasons'.
John Kerry has some mighty fine 'tea-cup' poodles.

Democrats want to drop Joe Biden for Andrew Cuomo, poll finds

A majority of Democrats want to nominate New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for president instead of Joe Biden, according to poll results shared exclusively with The Post. The national poll found 56 percen…

nypost.com

Democrats live and die by 'Polls', so it's gotta be true.

 

[Pogo]

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

"RINO"?

So you think the job of a Senator is to bleat along with the sheep in his political party huh? Strange, I always thought it was to represent his constituents. Kinda makes you wonder, if Senators' votes are to be dick-tated, why have a vote at all? Why have Senators at all? Just hire a dick-tator. Save time.

Guess how much of the vote Rump got in that state btw.

44%.

He's always been a RINO. How did your "sheep" bleat with their party? Care to take a look at the vote for removal record?

Don't say it's because of what Trump did. You can also look how they voted in the Clinton impeachment; you know, the guy that actually committed a real crime and a real impeachable offense?

The other real Republicans seen this for what it was, a waste of time witch hunt. Nothing there. He did no wrong. No crime, no impeachable offense, and nothing that DumBama or Biden didn't do.

I don't have a party but I do understand what a Senator does, and what a Senator does NOT do is represent a political party, period.

Then that Senator should leave for a party he does represent and support.

Once AGAIN --- I dunno if my posts are somehow translated into Macedonian here or what --- a Senator's job is not to represent a political party. It is to represent his CONSTITUENTS. You know, the voters who elected him. THEY are his boss. If you're expecting a given Senator (or Rep) to vote the way you want, and they're not your representative --- then you're just wrong.

Did he ask every constituent how they wanted him to vote?

If you could be honest with yourself, just for a second, you might understand it had nothing to do with his constituents. It had nothing to do with any law being broken. It had nothing to do with an impeachable offense since there was none. It had to do with him hating Trump.

He hated Trump since Trump won the nomination. Trump is sitting in a place Romney feels is rightfully his. Trump considered him for a position with his team, and opted not to hire Romney. I don't know if the President was serious, or just yanking his chain as a joke. But Romney is a TDS person if there ever was one.

Irrelevant.

Senators do have open lines to their constituents, yes. Obviously said Senator doesn't solicit opinion from literally everybody in the state one at a time, that would be practically impossible. But anyone who wants to opine, can. Again, this is UTAH's business, not yours, not mine, and certainly not that of a political party. Senators DO NOT REPRESENT political parties. Show me in the Constitution where I'm wrong.

And again, as far as your TDS wishlist, Rump could not muster even as much as 45% of that state's vote -- even in a deep-red state with an R after his name --- so it's fair to say he's not the new-clothes emperor that many on a site like this drool over. He finished so poorly because Evan McMullin was on the ticket. In other words Rump was so distasteful to Utahans that a significant chunk of them voted for a 3P candidate who only appeared on a handful of state ballots and had no chance of winning, yet they preferred that to Rump. So as far as there exists outward evidence of what the state thinks, it does not support your little tree-house fantasy.

A Senator represents the constituents of his or her state, NOT a political party --- PERIOD, FULL STOP. The only (waste) product of a term like "RINO" or "DINO" is lockstep tribalism. And that's useless. If that's not the case --- WHO do Bernie Sanders and Angus King represent?

If his constituents are anti-Trump or anti-Republican, he should leave the party to represent them. He should have went third party.

But as we both know (if you are going to be honest with yourself) it had zero to do with his constituents. If every constituent sided with Trump, he still would have voted for more witnesses, and to have Trump thrown out.

Yes, you have to represent your constituents, but you also have to have loyalty to your party. As I said, if you can't do both, then choose one or the other. It's not just me. Most Republicans hate Romney and always have. He is the poster boy for RINO.

Uh NO, you DON'T. You're not elected by a "party". You're elected --- HIRED --- by your constituents. Check your Constitution. Borrow mine if you need to. As far as what "most Republicans hate" nothing could be less relevant to anything. He ain't there to represent Republicans. He's there to represent Utahans. There's no way you can prove that wrong.

There is, literally, NO SUCH THING as a "RINO". All that represents is butthurt tribalists from OTHER states trying to dick-tate what somebody else's Senator or Rep should be doing. THAT AIN'T YOUR BUSINESS. You've got your own Senators, and you get two, like everybody else. Utah is NOT Ohio; you can't tell their Senators what to do and in like fashion, they can't tell yours what to do.

You've got to come to the realization that this wish for a one-party-über-Alles dictatorship simply disrespects the whole idea of a representative system of government. If we're going to run things via two parties that get awarded some "score" like a perverse electoral college representing X number of votes, then there's no point in electing representatives at all.

People did look at Trump as a joke when he first ran, however Hillary was the bigger joke. Before the worldwide pandemic, people have seen what Trump has accomplished. Nobody thinks his abilities are a joke any longer.

Yyyyyeaaah that 44% wasn't "when he first ran". It was in the actual election results of November. Again, they preferred a 3P local boy who had ZERO chance of winning to holding their collective nose to cast a vote for Rump.

I don't care what people vote for, that's their business. The representative however should be loyal to his or her own party. Yes, a RINO is somebody that joins our party and votes like a leftist. The opposite with DINO's, but they are extremely rare.

If you want to vote against our parties ideas and goals because you think that's what your constituents want, fine with me. Leave our party, and join the party that is against our agenda if that's what your constituents want.

The representative is obligated to tow the party line. The RNC and DNC spend money on their candidates to get them elected. We voters provide that money to our party. So don't tell me that a representative only has obligations to their state. They have an obligation to everybody who provides that funding that helped get them elected.

WRONG.

You continue to EVADE the base point, which has been there the entire time, and that is that A CONGRESSIONAL REP DOES NOT REPRESENT A POLITICAL PARTY, HE OR SHE REPRESENTS HIS OR HER CONSTITUENTS. There is simply no way out of that, ignore it all you like but this country is NOT designed to be run by political parties. I don't give a fuck what you're "used to", IT AIN'T. It's designed to be run by representatives of the voters. As such, NO voter is even required to affiliate with a political party in order to vote for a candidate, or for that matter to vote against one that the voter's "affiliated" with, to the extent that even means anything at all.

Stop being such an enslaved dichotomist. Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution that political parties even come up, let alone are given the reins of power to do anything.

You also evaded this other question that proves the point. If the purpose of a Senator is to represent a political party, then who the fuck do Angus King and Bernie Sanders represent?? How did they even get elected?

I don't know about King, but Sander's is the next best thing to a Communist, he's a model Democrat.

King and Sanders are both free of political party. You're deflecting the question with adjectives, and wrong ones at that. The question stands ---- if Senators are there to represent political parties, as you claim, then WHO are King and Sanders representing?

I'll give you the answer in a spoiler but see if you can figure it out.

Spoiler: Answer

The citizens of their respective states ---- like every other Senator per the United States Constitution, because the premise above is FALSE.

Oh and by the way not only has Sanders never been a Democrat, he defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office and over the decades continued to defeat both Republicans and Democrats, including at least one election where the Republicans and Democrats ran a join candidate against him and he still won.

The point I made is the Republican party funded Romney, therefore he's beholden to their goals and views. If he is not, then get out of our party; run as an Independent, join the Democrat party, do whatever, but don't be part of our party, funded by we the Republican voters, and then go against our parties agenda.

Show me where --- in the Constitution or anywhere else --- a politician is "beholden to their goals and views" and is required to vote in lockstep ---- EVEN THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTIONALLY REPRESENT THEIR STATE, NOT A PARTY --- with that party. What the fuck is the point of even holding votes, or in persuading votes, if there isn't a choice involved? Why not just automatically count X number of votes for "Democrats", Y number of votes for "Republicans" and the Independents ---- apparently ---- don't even get one?

You make NO sense dood. This is exactly why I said stop being an enslaved dichotomist. The world simply does not work that way. In the example above you've tried to hammer one of two independents into the binary world you think is all there is, while taking a strike called on the second one. Neither has answered the question.

And btw I'm pretty sure Senators, or any other office-seeker, are funded from multiple sources, not just a political party, if they're funded by a party at all. How is that going to work if votes are "bought"? If a political party kicks in X amount, and XYZ Corp kicks in Y amount, and they have different interests.... who gets the purchase?

 

[AntonToo]

Following up on Tubefreak's post ... I'm especially itching to hear what Ole Joe has to say about young Hunter's activities in The Ukraine ... itching like poison ivy bad ...

I hear it's been a year and there has been exactly ZERO from Trump's DOJ on this. What else do you need to know?

The more chaos, unresolved scandals, llies and caterwauling, the better.

It's resolved alright. Trump and his crazy Ukraine traveling lawyer found NOTHING....except impeachment

Which failed. Y'all haven't seen the extent of the failure yet. Y'all will be screaming at the sky again in November. Just please, keep the ANTIFA fags in their welthy parents basement. People are likely to start shooting y'all if you get dumb again

Skipping over all the deplorable nonsense "Y'all" spew, Trump WAS impeached and although he wasn't removed, he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If you think that HELPS Trump's re-election chances then you simply don't know up from down.

Eight???? Who were they???

Lamar Alexander
Markowski
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Rob Portman
Ben Sasse

I don't recall the 8th, but Ben Sasse did say that Alexander "speaks for a lot of us"

Seems to me you don't recall a lot. Better use more reliable sources than CNN:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 2nd Session

www.senate.gov

Seems you don't know wtf you are reading.

Only one Republican voted for removal - Romney.

The rest of them voted against removal, but they still condemed Trump's behaviour and admitted that he was culpable in everything Article I accused him of (abusing his office for personal political gain)

The only ones that still belive Trump did not bring this on himself are blind politicos and Trump tools.

Typical lib. When proven wrong, move the goal posts. You said:

he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If he was found culpable by them, they would have voted for removal.

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

Yea thats bullshit, as their own words should've informed you.

They voted to not impeach him for the transgressions, but they agreed that what Trump did was wrong and in fact abused his position and office.

Not doubt Trump will get clubbered with these findings all the way through the 2020 election.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point I made is the Republican party funded Romney, therefore he's beholden to their goals and views

And that is false and stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Following up on Tubefreak's post ... I'm especially itching to hear what Ole Joe has to say about young Hunter's activities in The Ukraine ... itching like poison ivy bad ...

I hear it's been a year and there has been exactly ZERO from Trump's DOJ on this. What else do you need to know?

The more chaos, unresolved scandals, llies and caterwauling, the better.

It's resolved alright. Trump and his crazy Ukraine traveling lawyer found NOTHING....except impeachment

Which failed. Y'all haven't seen the extent of the failure yet. Y'all will be screaming at the sky again in November. Just please, keep the ANTIFA fags in their welthy parents basement. People are likely to start shooting y'all if you get dumb again

Skipping over all the deplorable nonsense "Y'all" spew, Trump WAS impeached and although he wasn't removed, he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If you think that HELPS Trump's re-election chances then you simply don't know up from down.

Eight???? Who were they???

Lamar Alexander
Markowski
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney
Marco Rubio
Rob Portman
Ben Sasse

I don't recall the 8th, but Ben Sasse did say that Alexander "speaks for a lot of us"

Seems to me you don't recall a lot. Better use more reliable sources than CNN:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 2nd Session

www.senate.gov

Seems you don't know wtf you are reading.

Only one Republican voted for removal - Romney.

The rest of them voted against removal, but they still condemed Trump's behaviour and admitted that he was culpable in everything Article I accused him of (abusing his office for personal political gain)

The only ones that still belive Trump did not bring this on himself are blind politicos and Trump tools.

Typical lib. When proven wrong, move the goal posts. You said:

he was found culpable of everything laid out in Article I of impeachment by no less than 8 Senate Republicans along with all Democrats.

If he was found culpable by them, they would have voted for removal.

Thats not a logical conclusion.

You may well agree with everything a person is accused of but disagree with the punishment or would rather defer that puinishment for someone else to administer (in this case voters in november).

What I said about 8 Republican senators finding that Trump was guilty of the behaviour Article I layed out remains true.

Sure, which is why all but one RINO voted not guilty.

Yea thats bullshit, as their own words should've informed you.

They voted to not impeach him for the transgressions, but they agreed that what Trump did was wrong and in fact abused his position and office.

Not doubt Trump will get clubbered with these findings all the way through the 2020 election.

You posted no link to your claims. Some have said they didn't care for the way Trump said it to Zelensky, but there was no crime or impeachable offense either. How did he abuse his position of office? He asked Zelensky to do him a favor, as in it's not contingent on anything. It was more like a friendly gesture.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

King and Sanders are both free of political party.

They are? So what party did Sanders represent running for the nomination?

Show me where --- in the Constitution or anywhere else --- a politician is "beholden to their goals and views" and is required to vote in lockstep ---- EVEN THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTIONALLY REPRESENT THEIR STATE, NOT A PARTY --- with that party. What the fuck is the point of even holding votes, or in persuading votes, if there isn't a choice involved? Why not just automatically count X number of votes for "Democrats", Y number of votes for "Republicans" and the Independents ---- apparently ---- don't even get one?

You make NO sense dood. This is exactly why I said stop being an enslaved dichotomist. The world simply does not work that way. In the example above you've tried to hammer one of two independents into the binary world you think is all there is, while taking a strike called on the second one. Neither has answered the question.

And btw I'm pretty sure Senators, or any other office-seeker, are funded from multiple sources, not just a political party, if they're funded by a party at all. How is that going to work if votes are "bought"? If a political party kicks in X amount, and XYZ Corp kicks in Y amount, and they have different interests.... who gets the purchase?

I never said it was a constitutional requirement. Is it a constitutional requirement that they show loyalty to their constituents?

What I said is they need to have loyalty to the party. Yes, they get funding from other places, but the party you belong to also funds your campaign. For being part of that party, the return is loyalty to their goals. If you disagree with their goals, GTF out of that party and run with a party that agrees with your agenda. In this case, the agenda of the left is to get rid of Trump. If you agree with that agenda, go with that party. Representatives have switched parties before, sometimes multiple times. Romney should do the same thing.

 

[Pogo]

King and Sanders are both free of political party.

They are? So what party did Sanders represent running for the nomination?

None. You don't "represent a party" in a nomination campaign. You represent yourself, in solicitation of the nomination OF that party. And that doesn't even require you to be a "member" of that party, whatever that means. Actually it means nothing, since in Vermont you don't register with a "party" -- you just register, period.

Who was the Democratic POTUS nominee in 1872?
Who was the Republican VP nominee in 1864?

Show me where --- in the Constitution or anywhere else --- a politician is "beholden to their goals and views" and is required to vote in lockstep ---- EVEN THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTIONALLY REPRESENT THEIR STATE, NOT A PARTY --- with that party. What the fuck is the point of even holding votes, or in persuading votes, if there isn't a choice involved? Why not just automatically count X number of votes for "Democrats", Y number of votes for "Republicans" and the Independents ---- apparently ---- don't even get one?

You make NO sense dood. This is exactly why I said stop being an enslaved dichotomist. The world simply does not work that way. In the example above you've tried to hammer one of two independents into the binary world you think is all there is, while taking a strike called on the second one. Neither has answered the question.

And btw I'm pretty sure Senators, or any other office-seeker, are funded from multiple sources, not just a political party, if they're funded by a party at all. How is that going to work if votes are "bought"? If a political party kicks in X amount, and XYZ Corp kicks in Y amount, and they have different interests.... who gets the purchase?

I never said it was a constitutional requirement. Is it a constitutional requirement that they show loyalty to their constituents?

What I said is they need to have loyalty to the party. Yes, they get funding from other places, but the party you belong to also funds your campaign. For being part of that party, the return is loyalty to their goals. If you disagree with their goals, GTF out of that party and run with a party that agrees with your agenda. In this case, the agenda of the left is to get rid of Trump. If you agree with that agenda, go with that party. Representatives have switched parties before, sometimes multiple times. Romney should do the same thing.

Once A G A I N ------ that is up to Romney and the state of Utah, not up to an Ohioan. And no, they DON'T "need to have loyalty to the party" anyway. Prove they do. I'm afraid the Constitution is exactly why they exist at all, so yes it has to be a Constitutional requirement.

What they need to do, what they're ELECTED to do (and this IS codified) is represent the citizens of that state. That's why you in Ohio don't get to vote for who the Senator in Utah is, and also why they in Utah don't get to vote for YOURS. If it were simply a matter of party, that wouldn't be the case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

King and Sanders are both free of political party.

They are? So what party did Sanders represent running for the nomination?

None. You don't "represent a party" in a nomination campaign. You represent yourself, in solicitation of the nomination OF that party. And that doesn't even require you to be a "member" of that party, whatever that means. Actually it means nothing, since in Vermont you don't register with a "party" -- you just register, period.

Who was the Democratic POTUS nominee in 1872?
Who was the Republican VP nominee in 1864?

Show me where --- in the Constitution or anywhere else --- a politician is "beholden to their goals and views" and is required to vote in lockstep ---- EVEN THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTIONALLY REPRESENT THEIR STATE, NOT A PARTY --- with that party. What the fuck is the point of even holding votes, or in persuading votes, if there isn't a choice involved? Why not just automatically count X number of votes for "Democrats", Y number of votes for "Republicans" and the Independents ---- apparently ---- don't even get one?

You make NO sense dood. This is exactly why I said stop being an enslaved dichotomist. The world simply does not work that way. In the example above you've tried to hammer one of two independents into the binary world you think is all there is, while taking a strike called on the second one. Neither has answered the question.

And btw I'm pretty sure Senators, or any other office-seeker, are funded from multiple sources, not just a political party, if they're funded by a party at all. How is that going to work if votes are "bought"? If a political party kicks in X amount, and XYZ Corp kicks in Y amount, and they have different interests.... who gets the purchase?

I never said it was a constitutional requirement. Is it a constitutional requirement that they show loyalty to their constituents?

What I said is they need to have loyalty to the party. Yes, they get funding from other places, but the party you belong to also funds your campaign. For being part of that party, the return is loyalty to their goals. If you disagree with their goals, GTF out of that party and run with a party that agrees with your agenda. In this case, the agenda of the left is to get rid of Trump. If you agree with that agenda, go with that party. Representatives have switched parties before, sometimes multiple times. Romney should do the same thing.

Once A G A I N ------ that is up to Romney and the state of Utah, not up to an Ohioan. And no, they DON'T "need to have loyalty to the party" anyway. Prove they do. I'm afraid the Constitution is exactly why they exist at all, so yes it has to be a Constitutional requirement.

What they need to do, what they're ELECTED to do (and this IS codified) is represent the citizens of that state. That's why you in Ohio don't get to vote for who the Senator in Utah is, and also why they in Utah don't get to vote for YOURS. If it were simply a matter of party, that wouldn't be the case.

DUDE, you have to understand. Ray will say ANYTHING, at any time. He will shamelessly make stuff up, just to use bandwidth and revel in watching you sift through the steaming pile he just pinched off.

Do you find yourself correcting shit he has obviously just made up and repeating yourself over and over? Well, get used to it.

 

[SmokeALib]

Maxine for president!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

None. You don't "represent a party" in a nomination campaign. You represent yourself, in solicitation of the nomination OF that party. And that doesn't even require you to be a "member" of that party, whatever that means. Actually it means nothing, since in Vermont you don't register with a "party" -- you just register, period.

Yes, if you are running as a Republican, then you are running for that party. If you don't believe in their ideals and views, then run for a party that has your views. But don't take our money, run for our party, and then do your duties as a member of an opposition party.

Once A G A I N ------ that is up to Romney and the state of Utah, not up to an Ohioan. And no, they DON'T "need to have loyalty to the party" anyway. Prove they do. I'm afraid the Constitution is exactly why they exist at all, so yes it has to be a Constitutional requirement.

What they need to do, what they're ELECTED to do (and this IS codified) is represent the citizens of that state. That's why you in Ohio don't get to vote for who the Senator in Utah is, and also why they in Utah don't get to vote for YOURS. If it were simply a matter of party, that wouldn't be the case.

Great. Then let him represent the citizens of his state with a different party. Quit taking our money and our support if you're going to try and throw out our President. If you want to remove our President, then join the party that wants the same.

 

[HenryBHough]

It is quaint old concept - that of congresscritters representing their constituents.

Quit living in the past an accept that they serve only their party; constituents be damned. True that the reality is strongest on the Democrat side of the aisle but understandable. When you look up at the leader, see the face, see the eyes....you're so spooked you don't even notice the cauldron and the jars of dried lizard guts, snewered toads and mandarke root powder.

And that's just on the cosmetics shelf!