It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   
It’s over. Trump beats them again. Nobody is even listening to the Dems anymore. Their largest viewership is FOX and 80% of that audience is conservative.

They can have hourly pressers and it doesn’t move the needle. They’ve neutered themselves and MSM.

Pretty amazing really. In the span of 2.5 years a political party and MSM collapsed over their hate for one man who will hold office for 8 years. In the big picture, epic fail which could have been avoided.

8 years of Trump and Dems/MSM retain integrity
-vs-
8 years of Trump and Dems/MSM exposed to criminal complaints and branded Fake News.

It’s pretty comical. With every double down they lose even bigger.




posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JustJohnny

What part of presumption of innocence is an alien concept here?


. which to anyone except the completely feebleminded is an obvious recommendation by Mueller to congress that a crime was in fact committed by Trump...

I’m personally sick of their recommendations. If they’re so certain of Trump committing high crimes then I want facts in black and white, otherwise STFU. They’ve had three eff’n years to come up with something tangible and can’t get it done, that’s nonsense, times up. If you have to decipher some cryptic code or “recommendation” as they put it, just to come up with some possible lame ass charge then maybe it’s just not there and it’s time to move on.

My recommendation to them is that they do us all a favor and go look for the tallest bridge they can find.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
...Only thing he can do is either exonerate or not exonerate Trump.
...


Presumption of innocence means if you do not have the evidence of a crime, and it does not go to a court or other legal due process state, then the person is innocent......period...end of discussion. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt following due process in which BOTH sides get the opportunity to present their evidence.


Yes in any normal circumstance, you'd be correct.

But we are talking about a sitting president here and the DOJ has a standing policy that a sitting president can't be indicted or charged with a crime... The report was never going to indict Trump, no matter what they found.

All the report was ever going to do is make a recommendation to congress on whether a crime was committed... which they did, by 'not' exonerating him.

I feel like you guys are deliberately ignoring the facts here, due to wilful ignorance



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deetermined

They will continue to abuse the Constitutional process until they either win or there is an all-out war.


Im for all out war burn all the cities. Sherman marched across Georgia and the patriots will march across the USA and clean it of this cancer of the left.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa


All the report was ever going to do is make a recommendation to congress on whether a crime was committed... which they did, by 'not' exonerating him.

I feel like you guys are deliberately ignoring the facts here, due to wilful ignorance


You deliberately ignore the fact that Mueller said that his team did not make a determination of guilt or innocence even though that's what they were hired to do. Go back and read the guidelines and statutes that Mueller put in the very first sentence of his report. He was supposed to turn in a report explaining why he chose to make a CHARGE or NOT. He wasn't paid to make NO DETERMINATION. Whether you can indict a sitting president or not is irrelevant. He still was placed in his position to see if there were grounds to make a charge or not, and he chose not to.

Talk about willful ignorance!



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Subaeruginosa


All the report was ever going to do is make a recommendation to congress on whether a crime was committed... which they did, by 'not' exonerating him.

I feel like you guys are deliberately ignoring the facts here, due to wilful ignorance


You deliberately ignore the fact that Mueller said that his team did not make a determination of guilt or innocence even though that's what they were hired to do.


He didn't make an official determination because for the thousandth time... THEY CAN'T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

What's so hard to understand about that?

He did however make a recommendation to congress by not exonerating Trump.
edit on 27-7-2019 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
When there is nothing to accuse a person of it comes down to three things of Perjury, Obstruction and Taxes as the last resorts to get anything they can.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

It's Democratic, SH, not Democrat. I'm so sick of Dog Whistles.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

First of all, you're proving your ignorance on what Mueller's Special Counsel's job was. It wasn't his job to recommend ANYTHING to Congress. His report and investigation was for the Department of Justice to determine if any laws had been broken. Mueller admits in his report that the "difficulties of law and facts" made it impossible for him to make a determination of guilt or innocence. The only reason he threw in the language about "not exonerating" Trump was because he knew the report was going to be made public, but once again, it wasn't his job to write his report for the public either.

Once again, as Barr explained, it was the Special Counsel's job to see if laws were broken and Mueller DID NOT prove OR SAY that they were. He could not prove criminal intent nor could he prove that Trump's misconduct affected a grand jury or any other judicial proceeding as the law required.

Mueller's report turned out to be one big pile of propaganda poo to confuse the issue and his job at hand.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Deetermined

It's Democratic, SH, not Democrat. I'm so sick of Dog Whistles.


My post revolves around the lies being told by Democrat party leaders to confuse people, so I have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Something about this hearing made me notice moreso than anything else I've ever seen two groups of people listening to the same thing and hearing the the complete opposite things, not just a little, but with a vast wide casm between the two things that people were hearing.

I was watching it happen in live time both with people I know and live feeds I was watching discussing the hearing. The only explanation I can come up is that the majority of people are literally just hearing what they want to hear now.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Subaeruginosa


All the report was ever going to do is make a recommendation to congress on whether a crime was committed... which they did, by 'not' exonerating him.

I feel like you guys are deliberately ignoring the facts here, due to wilful ignorance


You deliberately ignore the fact that Mueller said that his team did not make a determination of guilt or innocence even though that's what they were hired to do.


He didn't make an official determination because for the thousandth time... THEY CAN'T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

What's so hard to understand about that?

He did however make a recommendation to congress by not exonerating Trump.


Keep beating that dead horse kiddo. Again, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.

Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.
Let me repeat it, no such thing as "exoneration" here...none....zero....zip...zilch...nada.


Understand yet?

Whether OLC rules apply or not, HE (Mueller) WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH INDICTING ANYONE. His charge was to investigate for crimes related to Russian interference in the election and any connection to the Trump campaign.
THEY FOUND NONE.

Whether OLC rules apply or not, HE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH INDICTING ANYONE. His charge was to investigate for crimes related to obstruction of justice in the investigation from anyone.
THEY FOUND NONE.

Understand yet?


Or, are you so blinded by your hate for our president you are denying ignorance here? If so, I suggest you get your brain re-calibrated.




edit on 7/27/2019 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: JustJohnny


So how was the Miller testimony bad for the democrats when if nothing else, it established that trump and cronies were bald face lying by claiming the muller report found him innocent..


It wasn't. Right wingers believe that however they choose to interpret something makes it the truth. Because it's their interpretation.

There's no objective reality outside of what they want to believe at this point.


It wasn’t bad for the dEms?!?!?!

What reality do you live in?



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: trb71
a reply to: JustJohnny

Something about this hearing made me notice moreso than anything else I've ever seen two groups of people listening to the same thing and hearing the the complete opposite things, not just a little, but with a vast wide casm between the two things that people were hearing.

I was watching it happen in live time both with people I know and live feeds I was watching discussing the hearing. The only explanation I can come up is that the majority of people are literally just hearing what they want to hear now.


I think most people knew that's what would happen, but it gives the Democrats one more chance to go on national television to reinforce what they heard and want other people to hear.

What did you hear?



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Deetermined

It's Democratic, SH, not Democrat. I'm so sick of Dog Whistles.


My post revolves around the lies being told by Democrat party leaders to confuse people, so I have no idea what you're talking about.


And I don't pay attention to "arguments" from people who don't even show the common decency of calling an opponent their correct name. Either you are being deliberately ignorant or meerly presenting an ad hominem.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
It’s over. Trump beats them again. Nobody is even listening to the Dems anymore. Their largest viewership is FOX and 80% of that audience is conservative.

They can have hourly pressers and it doesn’t move the needle. They’ve neutered themselves and MSM.

Pretty amazing really. In the span of 2.5 years a political party and MSM collapsed over their hate for one man who will hold office for 8 years. In the big picture, epic fail which could have been avoided.

8 years of Trump and Dems/MSM retain integrity
-vs-
8 years of Trump and Dems/MSM exposed to criminal complaints and branded Fake News.

It’s pretty comical. With every double down they lose even bigger.


You’re right when you say ‘nobody is listening to the dEms’

That’s 100% true. They’re less than irrelevant at this point. Nobody can even name any of their presidential candidates. I imagine the VAST majority of leftist voters are currently thinking that they’ll vote for AOC next November.

The report DESTROYED the dEms. The overall message to the average American was : no collusion, no obstruction.
Any other pathetic interpretation of it is limited only to those TDS sufferers who can’t live with themselves knowing they were lied to and manipulated into having false hope.

Peoples eyes simply roll when the same old pathetic narrative is STILL spewed out even though ITS OVER.

But I do hope they keep it up. I hope they continue using words like collusion, obstruction, can not indict etc. Trump wins every time they speak.

(Imagine of the dEms had ONE policy to speak about. Imagine if they had JUST ONE! Then they could actually be considered a political party. At the moment, they’re anything but)

Every single leftist on this site knows with 100% certainty that Trump is going to win in 2020. It’s over. The dEms forfeit.

How embarrassing for the rabid masses that were so easily sucked in by the more-than-obvious lies. So embarrassing that it seems their only option is to double down.

Again.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


And I don't pay attention to "arguments" from people who don't even show the common decency of calling an opponent their correct name. Either you are being deliberately ignorant or meerly presenting an ad hominem.


I guess I've always referred to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party because I don't ever hear people like Nadler, Pelosi, or Schumer referred to as Democratics, but Democrats.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
... I imagine the VAST majority of leftist voters are currently thinking that they’ll vote for AOC next November.
...


If that sentence refers to the 2020 presidential election, then you must know she is ineligible to run since she is not yet 35 years old.

And, IMO, she will never act old enough if she keeps along this same path.


If you meant the local elections, then I retract my statement as a misunderstanding.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
... I imagine the VAST majority of leftist voters are currently thinking that they’ll vote for AOC next November.
...


If that sentence refers to the 2020 presidential election, then you must know she is ineligible to run since she is not yet 35 years old.

And, IMO, she will never act old enough if she keeps along this same path.


If you meant the local elections, then I retract my statement as a misunderstanding.



Jesus Christ that was my point dude

Read the whole sentence.

Nobody knows who’s running for President because the fricken dEms are irrelevant.

MOST of their followers are so stupid that THEY are thinking of voting for AOC because it’s the only dEm they’ve ever heard of.

I know she’s not running.
edit on 27 7 2019 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Here's another new lie by a Democrat Senator running for President 🤣

Gillibr and: ‘But for Voter Disenfranchisement, Stacey Abrams Would Be the Governor of Georgia’







 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join