1 - 10 Next
But nobody in the (In)Justice Department is going to get in trouble for prosecutorial misconduct. For now. I think the prosecutors in this case might, just MAYBE, want to start looking for flights to Switzerland on January 20, 2017...
Eh...I think it's worse than that. I think she's living proof that it's possible to talk when you're in a persistent vegetative state.
There's a REASON the dame is known derisively as "Debbie Was-A-Man Schultz"...
An American president with a track record of courage in international affairs could look straight at the camera, tell ISIS that they care more about keeping Mecca on the map than they care about taking Chicago off of it, and that would be the end of the threat. The Syrian red line was Obama's last chance to show the world that he actually had a pair, and instead, he showed down with a jack high. No enemy of the United States is going to take his threats seriously, ever again. And since he cares more about his golf handicap than he cares about the safety of the American homeland, that's not going to change, and we've got two very interesting years ahead of us. And yes, I do mean "interesting" in the Chinese sense.
He's going back to DC STRICTLY to deal with the optics, if you ask me. Two solid weeks at the Vineyard while the world is going to heck in a hand basket won't exactly do his approval numbers any favors. The mid-terms are 86 days away, and if he loses the Senate, he's going to have a united opposition Congress. He can't afford to slip any lower in the polls, so he's hoping that spending a couple of days back in Washington, at least pretending to go through the motions, will slow down the drop he expects to take in his numbers..
Actually, Obama HAD run something before running for president, and he was very good at running it, too. Trouble is, that "something" he was oh so good at running...was his mouth.
Clinton and Bush lost 11 and 7 points, respectively, between years 6 and 8 of their terms. If that holds, Obama could end up in the low 20's, or even the high teens, before it's all over.
The GOP had more than enough Senators to acquit Nixon had the vote gone along party lines. 34 Nays would have been enough, and they had 40. That is a fact. Look it up. It's ALSO a fact, that the Democrats only got to 62 Yeas after the '74 mid-terms. Nixon could not have been convicted without GOP votes in the Senate. Period. Yes, the Republicans did tip Nixon off that they intended to throw him under the bus. But that was done--wait for it--for the good of the country, to spare the citizenry from the sorry spectacle of an impeachment trial. The Republicans in '74 did NOT take the line of, "Yes, he's a crook, but we have to defend him because he's OUR crook," the way the Democrats did with Clinton, and are doing again with Obama. They knew Nixon needed to go, FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY; they told him as much, and away he went. My previous comments stand. YOU are the liar here, MudontheTires.
The Republicans do not put the party ahead of the country. That is not my opinion, it is a historical fact. Nixon resigned when the Democrats had less than 2/3 of the United States Senate. Yes, they had the House. But the GOP also had 40 votes in the United States Senate--41, if you include Conservative James Buckley of New York. If the GOP were going to put party over country the way the Democrats do, Nixon would have stayed in office, and he would have gotten acquitted.
If you want to insult someone's love life, say it's like a soccer game: lots of running around, but not a lot of scoring.
1 - 10 Next