Trump meeting rocket man

[Kirkland Laing]

The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it. I rest my case.

As for the various Democratic Senators like Byrd and Thurmond, they were told if they wanted to remain part of the Democratic party they'd have to accept and campaign for civil rights and racial equality from then on. Some like Byrd accepted that and spent the rest of their political careers working to further racial equality, some retired. Thurmond, who'd earlier in his career campaigned on a pro-lynching platform, couldn't stomach supporting racial equality and joined the Republican party.

And the Mueller investigation has so far indicted Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, the guy who replaced Manafort as campaign manager, Trump's National Security Advisor, one of his foreign policy advisors. Three of these guys are now co-operating witnesses. So lots more to come at some point.

I'm not sure he'll be impeached. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The Democrats would rather run against a mortally wounded Trump in 2020 than have Trump on his way to prison and an untainted relatively normal noncontroversial Pence to run against. The GOP wouldn't vote to impeach Trump right now but who knows what Mueller will find?

Well if it is then your bellyaching about "muh gerrymandering" is kind of ummmm fucking dumb because then both Republicans AND Democrats would be restricting the voted of blacks in the South moron.


Thurmond wasn't "pro lynching" quite the opposite actually, never read about what he did in the wake of the lynching of Willie Earle have you? Strom Thurmond had a daughter with a black woman so yeah while he indeed was very PRO-segregation he was very ANTI-lynching and for good reason. Now ol' bedsheets Byrd quite a different story, but hey you know what you're talking about don't you son


So Mueller has indicted Trump? No? Then nothing is happening, nothing has happened....wake me up when THAT happens.


"B-b-b-b-but there's more to come........at some point"


LOL

How would Democrats be suppressing the black vote and how would that make any difference to the ability of a state to gerrymander its districts?

[Kirkland Laing]

Report: Dems Need Wave Unseen In 40 Years To Overcome GOP In Midterms

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/b...term-elections

Its like a banana Republic with all the gerrymandering.

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.

Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.

Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

[walrus]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun.

Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated.

Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

[Kirkland Laing]

And a sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached. Even if he's guilty he can pardon himself or anybody else. But only for federal crimes. If there's evidence of money laundering or tax evasion or fraud, the NY Attorney General can prosecute him and/or the rest of his family.

Wether or not a president has the authority to pardon himself is debatable. He may very well have such power but it has never come before the courts. There was an article about it in a recent law journal. Trump may very well be impeached, just as Clinton and Bush were. Impeachment has become a political thing. If the dems get a majority mid term schumer and pelosi will get great air time if they move for impeachment but it will be meaningless. After all the scandal in the mueller investigation no one, other than CNN has faith in his investigation, he allowed too many bias characters access to the investigation and had documented trump haters on board who were not even pretending to be impartial. It seems like you should be a bit more concerned with your own country Kirk. Oh, and to whatever your response is it's a crock of shit

It's biased, not bias. Bias is a verb as well as a noun. Although polls show the public has far more faith in Mueller than in Trump to tell the truth over the Russia investigation it doesn't matter either way. Evidence isn't Democratic or Republican, it's evidence. Proof is proof. If there are any people with bias on the Mueller investigation then they've shown Republican bias. Those "Trump haters" slagged off both Trump and Hillary in various texts, the only 2016 candidate either of them liked was John Kasich. And either way, having a political opinion doesn't prevent you from investigating somebody otherwise politicians could never be investigated. Maybe you should be a little concerned that the response of Trump and people around him to being investigated is to immediately attack the credibility of the people investigating him and attempt to shut it down. If he really was innocent the last thing he would do to the man who is going to publicly exonerate him is attack his credibility.

Ok so nothing on English gerrymandering pal I'm not bothered by the misuse of a word as spell check always makes it interesting

So conservatives are gerrymandering in England too. So what?

Anyway, the Mueller witch hunt as seen through the eyes of a Fox News contributor:

Four decades ago, as a U.S. Army second lieutenant, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” In moral and ethical terms, that oath never expires. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave.

[...]

Fox never tried to put words in my mouth, nor was I told explicitly that I was taboo on Trump-Putin matters. I simply was no longer called on for topics central to my expertise. I was relegated to Groundhog Day analysis of North Korea and the Middle East, or to Russia-related news that didn’t touch the administration. Listening to political hacks with no knowledge of things Russian tell the vast Fox audience that the special counsel’s investigation was a “witch hunt,” while I could not respond, became too much to bear. There is indeed a witch hunt, and it’s led by Fox against Robert Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-i-left-fox-news/2018/03/30/d1224648-32bb-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html

[El Kabong]

How would Democrats be suppressing the black vote and how would that make any difference to the ability of a state to gerrymandering its districts?

Well you seem to be under the assumption that regardless of party affiliation the South as a whole is racist. So yeah, interesting question that YOU should ponder a bit before responding.

[Kirkland Laing]

How would Democrats be suppressing the black vote and how would that make any difference to the ability of a state to gerrymandering its districts?

Well you seem to be under the assumption that regardless of party affiliation the South as a whole is racist. So yeah, interesting question that YOU should ponder a bit before responding.

I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.

Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.

As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:




Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.

[El Kabong]

I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.

Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.

As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:




Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.

You actually said "The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it." where you included Southern Republicans and lumped them in with Southern Democrats for the 1968 Civil Rights Act vote. That's what you did and THEN you complain about gerrymandering in the South which makes little to no sense if you're accusing both parties in that geographical area of being racist.

Also you DO realize that the map you've decided to use has North Carolina, a state you wanted to make a great deal about their "gerrymandering", as pretty much blue from Murphy (Westernmost city in NC) to Rodanthe (Easternmost city in NC). Why would that be the case if North Carolina is gerrymandered and/or racist?


So I guess I don't understand what it is you're actually attempting to push here.....are just the Southern Republicans racist? Is it the South in general? Is it North Carolina specifically that is racist?

[walrus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...gerrymandering

@Kirkland Laing

It's an American thing

[El Kabong]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...gerrymandering

@Kirkland Laing

It's an American thing

And there too it's Conservatives doing the "gerrymandering"....I'm sure that is only a coincidence though

[walrus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...gerrymandering

@Kirkland Laing

It's an American thing

And there too it's Conservatives doing the "gerrymandering"....I'm sure that is only a coincidence though

Yes Lyle but I'm sure Kirk can't reconcile this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...r-constituency

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm not under the impression that the south as a whole is racist. However there are a lot of racists in the south.

Back in 2008 the republican brand was in the toilet. Iraq, Katrina and a whole bunch of scandals had left Bush and Cheney and the GOP with historical low approval ratings and historically high disapproval ratings. And then to top it off their eight year abdication of any regulation or oversight of the financial industry resulted in the biggest financial crash since 1929.

As this map of the country shows, it was impossible for the GOP facing those kind of headwinds to get more votes in districts/states in 2008 than they had done in 2004. Apart from a large swathe of the south and Appalachia where somehow they improved on the 2004 showing:




Blue is where Obama did better than Kerry. Red is where he did worse.

You actually said "The north/south vote breakdown is about as clear as you can get, isn't it." where you included Southern Republicans and lumped them in with Southern Democrats for the 1968 Civil Rights Act vote. That's what you did and THEN you complain about gerrymandering in the South which makes little to no sense if you're accusing both parties in that geographical area of being racist.

Also you DO realize that the map you've decided to use has North Carolina, a state you wanted to make a great deal about their "gerrymandering", as pretty much blue from Murphy (Westernmost city in NC) to Rodanthe (Easternmost city in NC). Why would that be the case if North Carolina is gerrymandered and/or racist?


So I guess I don't understand what it is you're actually attempting to push here.....are just the Southern Republicans racist? Is it the South in general? Is it North Carolina specifically that is racist?

You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events.

What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.

[El Kabong]

You're conflating southern racists voting against the Civil Rights Act over half a century ago with current day events.

What difference would gerrymandering make in a statewide election? In what way do you think gerrymandering would affect changes in the vote between 2004 and 2008 in the same NC districts? You still don't understand what it is. I'm going to get my ten year old niece to register here and explain it to you.

Well you called the South racist and both parties in the South racist and if they were still racist why did NC vote for Obama and not support John Kerry?

Again, you called the South and both parties racist, NC voted more for Obama than Kerry which begs the question "Where's the racism?"


Yeah maybe your niece makes more sense than you Kirk...fucking ridiculous.