Once again, Tulsi stands out as perhaps the only voice of reason in a field of "unreasonable" and hyper-partisan Democratic candidates running for president in 2020. Perhaps this is why the MSM and DNC refuse to give her any positive press and a voice in the second round of debates.

"I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly d******e for the country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the main things driving our country apart," Gabbard told host Brian Kilmeade.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/terribly-d******e-tulsi-gabbard-refuses-join-fellow-democrats-calls-impeachment

According to article two of the US Constitution, a President can only be impeached for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors.

That is the Law of the land. Every accusation against Donald Trump has come up empty. No accusation against this president has ever entered a court of law. Therefore, now, if impeachment is chosen then the false accusations would finnaly be ruled on in a court of law.

Now if it does happen, then all the accusations that are proven false make the accusers t*****rs. I'm all for justice if it is just. But a false accusation is treasonous. The Democrats if they fail in the Senate, they will be branded as the party of t*****rs. Is this what they want?

Whether you like him or not this Man has nothing but a clear LOVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! So I'm asking what the real reason is for either disliking or even hating this president is really and truly all about. Past presidents both Democrat and Republican alike have spoken in all kinds of flowery speeches, continuous pandering to their constituency and in the end very little of what they say has been accomplished based on their so called promises. Now we have President Trump who above all who has not only been around the underbelly of the beast but has succeeded beyond expectations. Does anyone here actually think that flowery speeches and non action by previous administrations to include political malfeasance is a better way for our country, our people and our families? What is so awful about protecting our boarders from all of the additional criminal behaviors and actions like we don't already have enough to last several generations? What is so awfully wrong about not wanting more people coming here that end up being wards of the state when again we have enough already here to last several generations without the additional burden? What is so awfully wrong to demand that other countries that we have treaties with to pay their fair share of the economic burden that was already negotiated by previous administrations for the various protections that we as Americans continuously provide? My thoughts on this is that we as Americans have been so used to being taking advantage of and all of the corruption not only in our government but in our corporate world here and abroad that, it is so damn uncomfortable to actually be shown what the hell has been taking place that we are more afraid of actually seeing it and just wanting the previous STATUS QUO that it actually has stunned and shocked our individual senses into perhaps just wanting things to go back to the way things were so we can feel comfortable in our own demise as a country and have things to complain about.
Semper Fi
Mike

https://youtu.be/wWenqCzzgKw

The left won't listen, because it's okay to them if people in underdeveloped nations die from lack of access to electricity -- their g*******t agenda is all that counts, the men, women and children who die or suffer will just be collateral damage.

They will ignore, ruin or ridicule these scientists and continue to pretend they believe the lies they tell their useful i***ts.

Their useful i***ts, in turn, will continue to stupidly support the Chicken Little alarmism whose "solution" to a non-existent problem would destroy our economy beyond repair as well as those of the rest of the world.

Thank G-d Trump was elected president, and not Hillary!

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’
21,087
NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 17: People hold sign saying "climate emergency" while participating in a direct action with a protest group called Extinction R*******n on April 17, 2019 in New York City. The activists are demanding governments declare a climate emergency to combat pollution. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.24 Sep 20195192
2:43
More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on c*****e c****e.

Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of g****l w*****g, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to g****l w*****g, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

“There is no statistical evidence that g****l w*****g is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines k**l birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”

“If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world,” they state.

In particular, the scientists criticize the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is currently founded as “unfit for their purpose.”

“Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models,” they propose. “Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.”

“We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation,” they declare.