Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

whip dead horse.jpg

Maybe to you the Attorney General of the United States giving a flawed and slanted summary of the Mueller investigion, and not allowing a much fuller version to be released is a small issue. But calling it such doesn't explain why it is a small issue.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bristolboy said:

Maybe to you the Attorney General of the United States giving a flawed and slanted summary of the Mueller investigion, and not allowing a much fuller version to be released is a small issue. But calling it such doesn't explain why it is a small issue.

 

Really? How much of it was redacted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

Really? How much of it was redacted?

Had you read the article, enough so that the judge felt it was significant. Even the headline might have given you a clue. Not fond of reading much?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
17 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

whip dead horse.jpg

Maybe to you the Attorney General of the United States giving a flawed and slanted summary of the Mueller investigion, and not allowing a much fuller version to be released is a small issue. But calling it such doesn't explain why it is a small issue.

 

the gist is "beating a dead horse"

 

might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, atyclb said:

 

the gist is "beating a dead horse"

 

might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome

Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills. 


I thought the house only approved actual bills, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
the gist is "beating a dead horse"
 
might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome


No, Trump will be impeached any day now!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


I thought the house only approved actual bills, no?

 

It's not a bill until the President signs it. Before that, it has to be reconciled with the Senate version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's not a bill until the President signs it. Before that, it has to be reconciled with the Senate version.

If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a bill until the President signs it. Before that, it has to be reconciled with the Senate version.


Then why do they call them bills?

So all the guys that have said Trump refused to sign an gun control bill were lying? I knew it!

Anyways,I thought once the President signed it became law, no?

So why do they call them law makers and not bill makers?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


Then why do they call them bills?

So all the guys that have said Trump refused to sign an gun control bill were lying? I knew it!

Anyways,I thought once the President signed it became law, no?

So why do they call them law makers and not bill makers?

 

You are correct. I was mistaken. Now that we've established that, how does it alter in any meaningful way my reply to this:

 

"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome"

  •  
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You are correct. I was mistaken. Now that we've established that, how does it alter in any meaningful way my reply to this:

 

"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome"

  •  

 

Your response was: "Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills." , correct?

 

I think a better question might be: How does your response address in any meaningful way, the post you were responding to?

 

What has the house gotten done besides passing a lot of bills they know will go nowhere? They even refused to impeach Trump, why? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the senate will kill it. 

Edited by mogandave
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Your response was: "Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills." , correct?

 

I think a better question might be: How does your response address in any meaningful way, the post you were responding to?

 

What has the house gotten done besides passing a lot of bills they know will go nowhere? They even refused to impeach Trump, why? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the senate will kill it. 

I suppose I could be flattered by the way you echo me rather than saddened by your rather clueless use of my words.

I absolutely did answer him. His assumption seems to be that the House can't do more than one thing at a time. That doing an impeachment will prevent it from getting other things done. I pointed out that this is not only ridiculous but far from the truth. 

 

In addition I guess it's kind of amusing your lack of awareness of the contradictory nature of the posts you make. On the one hand, you say the impeachment is pointless because the Senate will vote it down. But on the other you reproach the House for passing bills the Senate won't take up. The fact is that the Senate is dominated by right wing Republicans. So there's very little chance that the House and Senate can agree on much.

 

And concerning what they can agree on has not been blocked by calls for impeachment. Or did you miss the fact that the Congress just passed a budget  in which it agreed to suspend deficit constraints for 2 years? Do you actually follow the news at all?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, marcusarelus said:

If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.

Well you finally got something right. And I did get that wrong. But mine was merely an error of nomenclature, whereas you made repeated errors about the actual process. The other difference between your  and mine is that I admit my errors. Whereas you try to cover yours up with ridiculous excuses or don't acknowledge them at all. 

Edited by bristolboy
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I suppose I could be flattered by the way you echo me rather than saddened by your rather clueless use of my words.

I absolutely did answer him. His assumption seems to be that the House can't do more than one thing at a time. That doing an impeachment will prevent it from getting other things done. I pointed out that this is not only ridiculous but far from the truth. 

 

In addition I guess it's kind of amusing your lack of awareness of the contradictory nature of the posts you make. On the one hand, you say the impeachment is pointless because the Senate will vote it down. But on the other you reproach the House for passing bills the Senate won't take up. The fact is that the Senate is dominated by right wing Republicans. So there's very little chance that the House and Senate can agree on much.

 

And concerning what they can agree on has not been blocked by calls for impeachment. Or did you miss the fact that the Congress just passed a budget  in which it agreed to suspend deficit constraints for 2 years? Do you actually follow the news at all?

 

Well, you catch more flies with sugar than salt, yes?

 

You understood his post differently than I did, when he said (copied from your post): "might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" , I took that to mean he felt that pursuing the Mueller investigation was a waste of time, I didn't take it to mean the house could do only one thing at a time, or that if they chose to pursue impeachment, they could do nothing else. 

 

I never said nor meant to imply impeachment was pointless, I only asked why they didn't pursue it.  And the reason is that they will end up looking like a bunch of idiots. Nancy knows this. If they went through with impeachment and the republicans blocked it in the senate, they would own the next election, unless of course a bunch of stuff came out that made them look like morons. Fortunately (unfortunately for them) they would not be able to limit the scope of the testimony, and everything would come out. Even with the press running interference for them and controlling the dialog, it would likely be devastating.

 

If you don't think this is true, then why do you think they don't move ahead with impeachment? Most everyone I know wants to them to move ahead with it, I know I do.

 

Yes, the senate is dominated by right wing republicans in the same way the house is dominated by left wing democrats.

 

Wow, the house voted to increase spending, shocking. So do you give Trump any credit for pushing republicans to vote for it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...