To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.

California and its citizens? Are they trying to k**l off humanity that lives there or what. This makes me so angry as I have family there that are wanting to get rid of all of the democratic anti American law makers there. All of the hippies with free love and tree huggers and all of that BS are those that are in power now in all of the democratic controlled cities. All you have to do is look at the majority of those states and you will see nothing but exorbitant taxes and failure. I really cant believe this is going on there. Suing President trump and our government to prevent the farmers and every other person that lives there for wanting to bring water? Are they that stupid, or what?
Semper Fi
Mike

https://youtu.be/y55FDIcI9ik

First, here is the corroboration of what I've said for years...that the religiously oriented right treats politics just like they do their religious beliefs, they form their beliefs and no degree of t***h or facts will change those beliefs.

This list was a well written list of the tactics a believer uses when defending beliefs...

...the "l*****t" is debating facts as opposed to beliefs, and facts are always subject to being corrected, especially with an incoming array of constantly growing facts.

The right winger on the other hand, forms beliefs immediately upon a scandal breaking, these beliefs being formed along party line loyalties. They will immediately pronounce it as f**e news drummed up by a deep state and promoted by a corrupt and f**e news...of course Hannity and others at FOX will provide the rhetoric and talking points that will prevail even though new facts constantly emerge. No facts, no matter how well sourced or corroborated will detract from the original beliefs.

Say what? about accepting e******n results? The Dems don't? Here ya go:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/will-trump-accept-2016-e******n-results-230932

And btw, the last 3 yrs cannot be overturned. Nor can the e******n 2016 be overturned. The impeachment proceedings are about the administration's behavior and policies. You are only fooling yourself with the 'overturn an e******n' position. The 2020 e******n will be the referendum on overturning the 2016 results...all perfectly legal and constitutional. Not a civil war at all...except in your mind.

Did the right really think the t******r of p***r in 2016 was permanent? If so, they are poor representatives for lecturing the left on the constitution. If Trump loses in 2020 it will be because he doesn't have the support of the American people, not some gossamer 'civil war' web of conspiracies.

Yea, lols coming from you:

To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.

Bruce Springsteen calls Trump 'damaged to his core,' says President's 'awful message' of d******eness is 'unforgivable'

“(He) has no interest in uniting the country and actually has an interest in doing the opposite and dividing us, which he does on an almost daily basis. That’s simply a crime against humanity, as far as I’m concerned,” the 69-year-old rocker said in the article, published online Tuesday. “It’s an awful, awful message to send out into the world. You are intentionally trying to disenfranchise a large portion of Americans. That’s unforgivable.”

I think a study of the "Islamization" of Europe would be beneficial in understanding what lies in store for America in the decades ahead. We are doing many of the same things that have brought Europe into the Post Christian era, causing the Cathedrals to become museums or mosques. We might find that our pre-occupation with material wealth and "the good life" has left a vacuum to be filled with other beliefs and values. Europe's metamorphosis is a few decades ahead of the US. Perhaps this isn't the premise of this thread but nevertheless a side issue which is almost certain to happen with our current culture change.

And of course, the usual OPP trumpcons will dismiss this article, but do so at their own peril because of their bias and ignorance.

50% of the country want trump impeached and gone, and the game hasn't even really started yet.

And even if the orange faced liar is not removed, his political brand will very damaged, which will make 2020 very interesting.



https://www.newsweek.com/trump-deep-trouble-p**********l-historian-predicts-poll-shows-half-country-wants-president-1474844