Nancy Pelosi said behind closed doors that she thinks impeachment isn't enough and that Trump should be locked up behind bars. Hmmm.. Ok so saying behind closed doors to that someone should be locked up is bad today.
As a matter of fact Hannity, Trump, and the whole “Lock Her Up” crew are absolutely outraged at Pelosi’s private prosecution and prison comment.
I guess she should have said it at a rally.
"She's a nasty, vindictive, horrible person," Trump said about himself er no about Nancy Pelosi. You've got to have the memory of a gnat to buy this bullshit that saying lock someone up is bad hahahahahahahaha omg... As if at the next rally when the crowd begins "lock her up" he will be like "No, based on no actual crimes we don't want a political opponent locked up in prison." hahahahahaha these clowns.
If Trump was any other person in the country he would have been indicted for at least two crimes, and this is not debatable. And hundreds of former federal prosecutors will attest to that fact. Or you just ask the Republican ones:
@Mathsorcerer: Again, I think the hesitance is just a political consideration. The odds of removing him before 2020 are basically zero, so I think most Democrats are focused on removing him in the 2020 election, and there's fear of a backlash that could affect the election results under the right circumstances.
That's the thing. If you think he should be removed from office and/or prosecuted for this or that crime, impeachment isn't necessarily the most reliable way to do it. I have mixed feelings on the matter myself, but I can easily understand why Democrats would view the 2020 election as the superior method of removing him from office, no matter how much they might want him out earlier.
Some Democrats still strongly favor impeachment--at least two different resolutions have already been introduced to the House--while others would rather wait and try to beat him at the ballot box. Some Democrats are facing pressure from constituents to impeach now while others risk losing constituents if they do press for impeachment; trying to find a balance there can be difficult.
The choice would be so much more clear-cut if there was some sense of bipartisanship alive today. But it's not obvious to me that Trump's innocence or guilt has any relevance to folks like Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell. Graham stopped criticizing Trump the moment he won the election. Party loyalty--or maybe just fear--trumped all of Graham's previous concerns.
If Trump was any other person in the country he would have been indicted for at least two crimes, and this is not debatable.
When is the House of Representatives going to do something about it then? Why are they waiting?
Trump's hiding the good evidence. Obstruction of Justice is working - he's hiding documents, testimony, lying daily.
Now there's no use rushing and letting the criminal get away with it.
They need facts and to overcome Trump's stonewalling. So either they get actual evidence of he turns stuff over or they get more damning evidence of obstruction.
The Trump administration is canceling its plans to levy tariffs on Mexican imports, apparently due to a deal reached with the Mexican government to reduce border crossing. We don't know yet what the deal specifically entailed.
The Trump administration is canceling its plans to levy tariffs on Mexican imports, apparently due to a deal reached with the Mexican government to reduce border crossing. We don't know yet what the deal specifically entailed.
There is NO evidence there is any tangible deal at all other than Trump saying there is. This is the game every damn time. Create a fake crisis, take it right up to the edge, back down, and then claim you "fixed" something. And the media falls for it every time. The Washington Post already has a headline simply based on Trump's tweet. I cannot believe people keep falling for this. Dollars to donuts absolutey nothing of consequence was agreed to.
And frankly, this whole idea that it is Mexico's responsibility to keep migrants from Central and South America out of the United States is ridiculous. They aren't obligated to enclose people within their borders. They aren't our servants. The height of bottomless American arrogance.
Here is the joint US / Mexico declaration setting out the terms of the deal. In summary: Mexico agrees to try harder to restrict the flow of migrants and won't protest when the US returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await the adjudication of their claim. There's also an expressed desire to tackle the causes of migrant flows.
I agree that it feels as though Mexico has been bullied into accepting a greater share of the migration problem. I would have thought a fairer deal would be something like the one between the EU and Turkey. That deal is explained here. Essentially though it has the same aim of reducing migrant flows and adopts the same tactics of reducing the rights of individuals to claim asylum. A big difference though is that the EU paid Turkey (to help with the costs of supporting the millions of refugees there) rather than just demanding they undertake costly action aimed at helping the EU rather than themselves.
Here is the joint US / Mexico declaration setting out the terms of the deal. In summary: Mexico agrees to try harder to restrict the flow of migrants and won't protest when the US returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await the adjudication of their claim. There's also an expressed desire to tackle the causes of migrant flows.
I agree that it feels as though Mexico has been bullied into accepting a greater share of the migration problem. I would have thought a fairer deal would be something like the one between the EU and Turkey. That deal is explained here. Essentially though it has the same aim of reducing migrant flows and adopts the same tactics of reducing the rights of individuals to claim asylum. A big difference though is that the EU paid Turkey (to help with the costs of supporting the millions of refugees there) rather than just demanding they undertake costly action aimed at helping the EU rather than themselves.
It is the most quintessentially American demand imaginable for a large portion of our citizens to not only demand action be taken on immigration, but also that they will insist that none of THEIR tax dollars go to even something they support. Some other country should foot the bill, as if those countries are obligated to hold their citizens hostage in their own countries and not ALLOW them to cross international borders.
The Trump administration is canceling its plans to levy tariffs on Mexican imports, apparently due to a deal reached with the Mexican government to reduce border crossing. We don't know yet what the deal specifically entailed.
This is the game every damn time. Create a fake crisis, take it right up to the edge, back down, and then claim you "fixed" something. And the media falls for it every time.
Don the con man strikes again. Another fake crisis averted.
Back to paying himself to go golfing at his own resorts on the tax payers dime right.
Here is the joint US / Mexico declaration setting out the terms of the deal. In summary: Mexico agrees to try harder to restrict the flow of migrants and won't protest when the US returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await the adjudication of their claim. There's also an expressed desire to tackle the causes of migrant flows.
I agree that it feels as though Mexico has been bullied into accepting a greater share of the migration problem. I would have thought a fairer deal would be something like the one between the EU and Turkey. That deal is explained here. Essentially though it has the same aim of reducing migrant flows and adopts the same tactics of reducing the rights of individuals to claim asylum. A big difference though is that the EU paid Turkey (to help with the costs of supporting the millions of refugees there) rather than just demanding they undertake costly action aimed at helping the EU rather than themselves.
It is the most quintessentially American demand imaginable for a large portion of our citizens to not only demand action be taken on immigration, but also that they will insist that none of THEIR tax dollars go to even something they support. Some other country should foot the bill, as if those countries are obligated to hold their citizens hostage in their own countries and not ALLOW them to cross international borders.
If the US/Mexico issue is the same as the EU/Turkey one then the problem isn't so much about restricting the number of Mexicans crossing the border into the US, rather it's about migrants from other countries transiting through Mexico to access the US border.
Here is the joint US / Mexico declaration setting out the terms of the deal. In summary: Mexico agrees to try harder to restrict the flow of migrants and won't protest when the US returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they await the adjudication of their claim. There's also an expressed desire to tackle the causes of migrant flows.
I agree that it feels as though Mexico has been bullied into accepting a greater share of the migration problem. I would have thought a fairer deal would be something like the one between the EU and Turkey. That deal is explained here. Essentially though it has the same aim of reducing migrant flows and adopts the same tactics of reducing the rights of individuals to claim asylum. A big difference though is that the EU paid Turkey (to help with the costs of supporting the millions of refugees there) rather than just demanding they undertake costly action aimed at helping the EU rather than themselves.
It is the most quintessentially American demand imaginable for a large portion of our citizens to not only demand action be taken on immigration, but also that they will insist that none of THEIR tax dollars go to even something they support. Some other country should foot the bill, as if those countries are obligated to hold their citizens hostage in their own countries and not ALLOW them to cross international borders.
If the US/Mexico issue is the same as the EU/Turkey one then the problem isn't so much about restricting the number of Mexicans crossing the border into the US, rather it's about migrants from other countries transiting through Mexico to access the US border.
That's exactly what it is. Numbers of Mexicans seeking to cross has been dropping for years (in fact recently more Mexicans have been leaving the US than arriving). The surge in migrants over the last year or so is mainly due to Central Americans transiting through Mexico - which is why Trump wanted the Mexicans to close or heavily police their southern border.
Well, this is the kind of thing that I actually like about Trump. It's a privilege to trade with the US, not a right. Mexico would have done exactly nothing if we hadn't flexed our muscles. 'Nothing' seems to be exactly what liberals wanted to be done however...
Well, this is the kind of thing that I actually like about Trump. It's a privilege to trade with the US, not a right. Mexico would have done exactly nothing if we hadn't flexed our muscles. 'Nothing' seems to be exactly what liberals wanted to be done however...
Why is it a "privilege" to trade with us, but not vice versa?? This is the kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world despise this country. Unless you don't want tomatoes at your supermarket anymore, it actually isn't a "privilege", it's a necessity. And someone still needs to explain to my why it's Mexico's job to police our borders and stop traffic to the US. Is it then also the OUR responsibility to stop people from entering Canada?? Because plenty of THAT has been happening as well. Only they aren't threatening to impose 25% tariffs because of it.
What's ironic of course is that Obama kept illegal immigration consistently low using existing law, and the influx is way up under Trump using legally dubious and draconian methods. Go figure.
Well, this is the kind of thing that I actually like about Trump. It's a privilege to trade with the US, not a right. Mexico would have done exactly nothing if we hadn't flexed our muscles. 'Nothing' seems to be exactly what liberals wanted to be done however...
Why is it a "privilege" to trade with us, but not vice versa?? This is the kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world despise this country. Unless you don't want tomatoes at your supermarket anymore, it actually isn't a "privilege", it's a necessity. And someone still needs to explain to my why it's Mexico's job to police our borders and stop traffic to the US. Is it then also the OUR responsibility to stop people from entering Canada?? Because plenty of THAT has been happening as well. Only they aren't threatening to impose 25% tariffs because of it.
It is a privilege to trade with Mexico. They can place tariffs on us if they want to. Canada can do the same if they desire. Unfortunately for them, we buy more from them then they do from us. That means we hold most of the cards. There are some benefits to a trade deficit after all!
Well, this is the kind of thing that I actually like about Trump. It's a privilege to trade with the US, not a right. Mexico would have done exactly nothing if we hadn't flexed our muscles. 'Nothing' seems to be exactly what liberals wanted to be done however...
Why is it a "privilege" to trade with us, but not vice versa?? This is the kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world despise this country. Unless you don't want tomatoes at your supermarket anymore, it actually isn't a "privilege", it's a necessity. And someone still needs to explain to my why it's Mexico's job to police our borders and stop traffic to the US. Is it then also the OUR responsibility to stop people from entering Canada?? Because plenty of THAT has been happening as well. Only they aren't threatening to impose 25% tariffs because of it.
It is a privilege to trade with Mexico. They can place tariffs on us if they want to. Canada can do the same if they desire. Unfortunately for them, we buy more from them then they do from us. That means we hold most of the cards. There are some benefits to a trade deficit after all!
And yes, I do think it's Mexico's responsibility to police their borders. If a huge amount of refugees got together and formed a caravan to cross our northern border I can guarantee they'd never enter Canada...
People like fake crisises and when Trump makes threats that could tank the economy? The mad king act is admirable? People think that when a lifelong con man claims he did something, but when nothing actually happened, that is impressive? Are people seriously falling for another con? What happened to 'fool me once' lol? Did daddy realy save us from the scary brown man? Or will he have to save us again in a week when he gets in more trouble?
It's Trump theater. Most people find his constant flip flopping, lying, and mean spirited hare brained schemes to be exhausting and awful. This was a a transparent attempt to distract from his incompetence and criminal behavior. Apparently it worked. But nothing's changed. The placebo effect is real.
Well, this is the kind of thing that I actually like about Trump. It's a privilege to trade with the US, not a right. Mexico would have done exactly nothing if we hadn't flexed our muscles. 'Nothing' seems to be exactly what liberals wanted to be done however...
Mexico still did nothing.
Do you think Trump cancelled the tariffs because Mexico caved? Hell no. The Republican Party said, these tariffs are stupid and will hurt us (both the party and the American people) tremendously if they go through (both publicly and behind closed doors) that Trump has to back down.
And he only made this claim because he wanted to change the news cycle away from the Mueller presser. As jj said, it was a hoodwink.
People like fake crisises and when Trump makes threats that could tank the economy? The mad king act is admirable? People think that when a lifelong con man claims he did something, but when nothing actually happened, that is impressive? Are people seriously falling for another con? What happened to 'fool me once' lol? Did daddy realy save us from the scary brown man? Or will he have to save us again in a week when he gets in more trouble?
It's Trump theater. Most people find his constant flip flopping, lying, and mean spirited hare brained schemes to be exhausting and awful. This was a a transparent attempt to distract from his incompetence and criminal behavior. Apparently it worked. But nothing's changed. The placebo effect is real.
This 'scary brown man' talk is really annoying. It's not like lily white folks are trying to leave Latin American countries in droves. It's also not white Canadians or Europeans trying to illegally enter the US. If the only people trying to enter the US illegally are brown, then it's certainly not discrimination to try to stop them. Sorry to rain on your oppression parade...
@Balrog99 " It's also not white Canadians or Europeans trying to illegally enter the US."
Nitpick here. Canadians are actually one of the demographics that stay past the duration of travel visas. At any given time, there are a couple thousand Canadian visitors who are illegally staying in the country due to expired Visa. Which is also the BIGGEST source of illegal immigration. But no, gotta blame the brown people.
For all the conservative cries of people entering the country illegally. Its just not happening.
Well, this is the kind of thing that I actually like about Trump. It's a privilege to trade with the US, not a right. Mexico would have done exactly nothing if we hadn't flexed our muscles. 'Nothing' seems to be exactly what liberals wanted to be done however...
Why is it a "privilege" to trade with us, but not vice versa?? This is the kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world despise this country. Unless you don't want tomatoes at your supermarket anymore, it actually isn't a "privilege", it's a necessity. And someone still needs to explain to my why it's Mexico's job to police our borders and stop traffic to the US. Is it then also the OUR responsibility to stop people from entering Canada?? Because plenty of THAT has been happening as well. Only they aren't threatening to impose 25% tariffs because of it.
It is a privilege to trade with Mexico. They can place tariffs on us if they want to. Canada can do the same if they desire. Unfortunately for them, we buy more from them then they do from us. That means we hold most of the cards. There are some benefits to a trade deficit after all!
You DO realize that the losers of tariffs are both sides, right?
Buyer pays more per product, but also buyer buys less product. Seller sells less product. Ideally (for the seller), they sell their overstock elsewhere.
Buyer gets screwed regardless.
This why virtually ALL economists agree that tariffs are bad for economies.
And there's very damn few things economists will agree on outside of the REAL basic stuff.
People like fake crisises and when Trump makes threats that could tank the economy? The mad king act is admirable? People think that when a lifelong con man claims he did something, but when nothing actually happened, that is impressive? Are people seriously falling for another con? What happened to 'fool me once' lol? Did daddy realy save us from the scary brown man? Or will he have to save us again in a week when he gets in more trouble?
It's Trump theater. Most people find his constant flip flopping, lying, and mean spirited hare brained schemes to be exhausting and awful. This was a a transparent attempt to distract from his incompetence and criminal behavior. Apparently it worked. But nothing's changed. The placebo effect is real.
Agree 100%. This is absolutely nothing. There's 10 million undocumented people in the US right now, most working for (largely Republican owned) agribusiness and construction companies. Trump has made a "deal" to have Mexico stop the couple thousand people who present themselves at the border and legally ask for asylum. And we're supposed to drink the kool-aid and pretend that this is "doing something".
Comments
Heheh, well, it does hit close to home for me. So its easy to be sympathetic to the cause.
As a matter of fact Hannity, Trump, and the whole “Lock Her Up” crew are absolutely outraged at Pelosi’s private prosecution and prison comment.
I guess she should have said it at a rally.
"She's a nasty, vindictive, horrible person," Trump said about himself er no about Nancy Pelosi. You've got to have the memory of a gnat to buy this bullshit that saying lock someone up is bad hahahahahahahaha omg... As if at the next rally when the crowd begins "lock her up" he will be like "No, based on no actual crimes we don't want a political opponent locked up in prison." hahahahahaha these clowns.
26-year-old Najila Trindade Mendes de Souza from the Municipio Darío Meira, de Bahía claimed Neymar raped her in a hotel in Paris on May 15th.
https://fabwags.com/najila-trindade-mendes-de-souza-top-facts-about-neymars-accuser/
An video interviewing here(not in English, but maybe can help someone that speaks portuguese here)
When is the House of Representatives going to do something about it then? Why are they waiting?
That's the thing. If you think he should be removed from office and/or prosecuted for this or that crime, impeachment isn't necessarily the most reliable way to do it. I have mixed feelings on the matter myself, but I can easily understand why Democrats would view the 2020 election as the superior method of removing him from office, no matter how much they might want him out earlier.
Trump's hiding the good evidence. Obstruction of Justice is working - he's hiding documents, testimony, lying daily.
Now there's no use rushing and letting the criminal get away with it.
They need facts and to overcome Trump's stonewalling. So either they get actual evidence of he turns stuff over or they get more damning evidence of obstruction.
Pretty smart actually.
There is NO evidence there is any tangible deal at all other than Trump saying there is. This is the game every damn time. Create a fake crisis, take it right up to the edge, back down, and then claim you "fixed" something. And the media falls for it every time. The Washington Post already has a headline simply based on Trump's tweet. I cannot believe people keep falling for this. Dollars to donuts absolutey nothing of consequence was agreed to.
And frankly, this whole idea that it is Mexico's responsibility to keep migrants from Central and South America out of the United States is ridiculous. They aren't obligated to enclose people within their borders. They aren't our servants. The height of bottomless American arrogance.
I agree that it feels as though Mexico has been bullied into accepting a greater share of the migration problem. I would have thought a fairer deal would be something like the one between the EU and Turkey. That deal is explained here. Essentially though it has the same aim of reducing migrant flows and adopts the same tactics of reducing the rights of individuals to claim asylum. A big difference though is that the EU paid Turkey (to help with the costs of supporting the millions of refugees there) rather than just demanding they undertake costly action aimed at helping the EU rather than themselves.
It is the most quintessentially American demand imaginable for a large portion of our citizens to not only demand action be taken on immigration, but also that they will insist that none of THEIR tax dollars go to even something they support. Some other country should foot the bill, as if those countries are obligated to hold their citizens hostage in their own countries and not ALLOW them to cross international borders.
Don the con man strikes again. Another fake crisis averted.
Back to paying himself to go golfing at his own resorts on the tax payers dime right.
If the US/Mexico issue is the same as the EU/Turkey one then the problem isn't so much about restricting the number of Mexicans crossing the border into the US, rather it's about migrants from other countries transiting through Mexico to access the US border.
That's exactly what it is. Numbers of Mexicans seeking to cross has been dropping for years (in fact recently more Mexicans have been leaving the US than arriving). The surge in migrants over the last year or so is mainly due to Central Americans transiting through Mexico - which is why Trump wanted the Mexicans to close or heavily police their southern border.
Why is it a "privilege" to trade with us, but not vice versa?? This is the kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world despise this country. Unless you don't want tomatoes at your supermarket anymore, it actually isn't a "privilege", it's a necessity. And someone still needs to explain to my why it's Mexico's job to police our borders and stop traffic to the US. Is it then also the OUR responsibility to stop people from entering Canada?? Because plenty of THAT has been happening as well. Only they aren't threatening to impose 25% tariffs because of it.
What's ironic of course is that Obama kept illegal immigration consistently low using existing law, and the influx is way up under Trump using legally dubious and draconian methods. Go figure.
It is a privilege to trade with Mexico. They can place tariffs on us if they want to. Canada can do the same if they desire. Unfortunately for them, we buy more from them then they do from us. That means we hold most of the cards. There are some benefits to a trade deficit after all!
And yes, I do think it's Mexico's responsibility to police their borders. If a huge amount of refugees got together and formed a caravan to cross our northern border I can guarantee they'd never enter Canada...
It's Trump theater. Most people find his constant flip flopping, lying, and mean spirited hare brained schemes to be exhausting and awful. This was a a transparent attempt to distract from his incompetence and criminal behavior. Apparently it worked. But nothing's changed. The placebo effect is real.
Mexico still did nothing.
Do you think Trump cancelled the tariffs because Mexico caved? Hell no. The Republican Party said, these tariffs are stupid and will hurt us (both the party and the American people) tremendously if they go through (both publicly and behind closed doors) that Trump has to back down.
And he only made this claim because he wanted to change the news cycle away from the Mueller presser. As jj said, it was a hoodwink.
This 'scary brown man' talk is really annoying. It's not like lily white folks are trying to leave Latin American countries in droves. It's also not white Canadians or Europeans trying to illegally enter the US. If the only people trying to enter the US illegally are brown, then it's certainly not discrimination to try to stop them. Sorry to rain on your oppression parade...
Nitpick here. Canadians are actually one of the demographics that stay past the duration of travel visas. At any given time, there are a couple thousand Canadian visitors who are illegally staying in the country due to expired Visa. Which is also the BIGGEST source of illegal immigration. But no, gotta blame the brown people.
For all the conservative cries of people entering the country illegally. Its just not happening.
You DO realize that the losers of tariffs are both sides, right?
Buyer pays more per product, but also buyer buys less product. Seller sells less product. Ideally (for the seller), they sell their overstock elsewhere.
Buyer gets screwed regardless.
This why virtually ALL economists agree that tariffs are bad for economies.
And there's very damn few things economists will agree on outside of the REAL basic stuff.
Agree 100%. This is absolutely nothing. There's 10 million undocumented people in the US right now, most working for (largely Republican owned) agribusiness and construction companies. Trump has made a "deal" to have Mexico stop the couple thousand people who present themselves at the border and legally ask for asylum. And we're supposed to drink the kool-aid and pretend that this is "doing something".