# Trump Acquittal....



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So he got acquitted on both articles.

One thing I have been seeing and hope the trend doesn't continue is the stupid... Kick Romeny out of GOP and other stuff about VOTE OUT... so and so.

Other elected officials or media types don't need to go on these tangents. Let the voters decide in Nov. Maybe they have a reason why they voted the way they did. But to go right away a knee jerk reaction to how they voted is wrong. Let other canidates hopefully step up and beat them. let them campaign and if they want to use... THEY VOTED a certain way in their campaign let them. But to try and CANCEL them ASAP is bull.... if you ask me.

It is the "Cancel culture" I cant stand.

Let another canidate run against them and hopefully they have a good plat form and not just this voting thing. :bop:

I honestly hope Trump rises above... but we will just have to wait and see. I have already seen possible "tweets" by his son saying to cancel Romney.... which is BS. Just take the high road. If he asks for help come re-election.. then snub his ***. But don't go and "cancel" anyone because of this. IMHO.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think Trump was exhibiting his self control at the state of the Union.
As for Romney I have heard rumblings he like Biden may have some connections in the Ukrain that he should not.

After the help Trump gave Romney it sure was a knife slipped into Trumps back. Only a partisan fool would think Trump impeachable on the nebulous charges, which means Romney knows better. He is simply a jealous, little, UNTRUSYWORTHY man.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Blocked witnesses and documents,ignored evidence, obstruction of justice,profiting from the presidency while in office,election interference by Russia, blind partisanship, separating children from parents, climate change denial, pathological lying, and paying hush money to porn stars.

wow.....what a great guy to lead our country. uke: uke: uke:

And with all this, the Republican lemmings continue to follow him over the cliff. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

KEN W said:


> Blocked witnesses and documents,ignored evidence, obstruction of justice, - Claiming executive privileged is well within a President's RIGHT. If the dems wanted it, they had the opportunity to petition the third branch of Gov called the Judicial Branch to rule on the applicability of the executive privilege and if the dems were in the right, the court could them compel them to release witnesses and documents. BUT, the dems were too stupid, lazy, in a hurry to do so!!!
> 
> profiting from the presidency while in office, - LINK PLEASE
> 
> ...


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

speckline said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > Blocked witnesses and documents,ignored evidence, obstruction of justice, - Claiming executive privileged is well within a President's RIGHT. If the dems wanted it, they had the opportunity to petition the third branch of Gov called the Judicial Branch to rule on the applicability of the executive privilege and if the dems were in the right, the court could them compel them to release witnesses and documents. BUT, the dems were too stupid, lazy, in a hurry to do so!!!
> ...


BAM !!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

:thumb: I'll only make one small correction Specline. Back when Obama was president adults were using children they didn't know, in some cases kidnapped so try could pose as families. Liberals said for re safety of the children they must be separated when they arrived. Obama agreed and immediately implemented that new policy. I have reminded liberals of this reality before, but they continue to blame Bush for it. Imagine that, the very people who called for it. The truth I guess if of little value as long as Trump gets bashed

Edit: Trump not Bush.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

:thumb:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> So he got acquitted on both articles.


Of course he did. That is what normally happens when there is absolutely no proof that you have done that which you are accused of doing. And there was no proof that he had done the things that the democrats based their articles of impeachment on.

The man has done things that even I don't approve of, but overall he has done enough good things that I believe he has been good for this country and I hope that he gets another 4 years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The current democrats running for president are to stupid to be teachable. Look what Trump has accomplished, and what have they learned from it? NOTHING. Obama nearly had this nation on it's knees. The democrats are ticked Trump saved it. If you remember Alinskies Rules for Radicals he states something like only when a nation has been brought financially to it's knees can you offer socialism and it will be accepted by the masses. The public schools have brain washed the last two generations resulting in 70% being fiscally retarded and would readily accept the gov as their momma so the world don't get so scary they would actually have to take care of themselves.

The free college impresses the fiscally retarded, but it sure is ticking off those who worked their *** off to pay for their own college, or their parent who worked to pay for their college. I would guess that means the real percentage against population wise would be about 4 to 1.

Perhaps our public schools turned out many retarded politicians too, like AOC.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Trump.....

" A bad and evil person."

"A vicious and horrible person."

" Need to flush out the pipes in November."


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> Need to flush out the pipes in November


I agree Ken, Pelosi, Schummer, Waters, Schiff, Sanders, Warren, the "Squad" and a host of other "social democrats" need to be flushed from the system in November.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

huntin1 said:


> > Need to flush out the pipes in November
> 
> 
> I agree Ken, Pelosi, Schummer, Waters, Schiff, Sanders, Warren, the "Squad" and a host of other "social democrats" need to be flushed from the system in November.


Nice list.... Flush Republicans West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, Montana Senator Steve Daines, Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde Smith, Senate Majority Leader Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, Georgia Senator David Perdue, South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, and Idaho Senator Jim Risch. Thom Tillis. Joni Ernst, Martha McSally, John Cornyn.

Especially flush these 3 down the toilet where they would fit right in.....Trump, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So Ken are you for abortion? Seriously are you also for gay marriage? Are you for more gun control and how much? How do you justify being for unions, then let in illegal aliens to undercut them. Seriously I'm wondering how you juggle that. These are the things liberals say they are for.

After witnessing all the hate can anyone still say the liberals are tolerant. In the past they cried for freedom of speech. Now they want to do away with it an have more hate speech laws. They are for things until they need to shut others down.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I am opposed to abortion. 
Don't really care about gay marriage.
Not opposed to some gun control....Why do people need machine guns and armor piercing bullets? Why not better background checks?
I was in the teachers union for 35 years. Solidly for unions.
In favor of more restrictive immigration policies. Except Trumps Great wall.....won't do a thing. 
No more Sanctuary cities.
Raise tax rates on the rich.
Set a monetary limit on drawing Soc. Sec......$200,000 max
Bring home the troops.....close military bases in foreign countries.... Let them pay for their own security. And everyone pays their share of NATO or we are out.
Time to rewrite the tax codes......Why can a company send it's executives to Hawaii or Great Bear lake and write it off?
Just a few of my believes.....Kind of puts me neither on the far Right or Left.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I am opposed to abortion.
> Don't really care about gay marriage.
> Not opposed to some gun control....Why do people need machine guns and armor piercing bullets? Why not better background checks?
> I was in the teachers union for 35 years. Solidly for unions.
> ...


Ken... you are pretty centrally located with leaning a little left. :thumb: oke:

The gun control issue is a tough one... because the background checks are in place. The feds dont have enough people sometimes to process all of it. Plus the laws in-regaurds to mental health records or the patient confidentiallity stuff. Go talk with your FFL's. Plus like i mentioned before about how one gun "regulation" i can agree with is that in MN if you want to purchase an AR style weapon or a pistol. You need to go to your local police department and apply for an accusition permit. It is good for one year and allows you to purchase these weapons. You still need to go thru the FFL check but you show that permit and fill out the paper work. It is a little bigger of a check that the local PD does. Also your local PD will know if you have had 10 calls to your address about domestic violence, potential drug stuff, "welfare" checks, etc. They have an "ear" to the ground so to speak that would throw up red flags and possibly deny those permits. Which would help to keep guns out of certain peoples hands. But again... if a criminal wants a gun they will find a way to get it. It only puts more of a "burden" on the law abiding citizen. But those permits are free of charge and if anyone has the CCW it is the exact same type of check. It is why my friend who has his CCW told me I might as well take the class and that permit is good for something like 5 years or so. Just in-case I want to buy those types of weapons or if I happen to be at a banquet and win one.

Also about your tax code and tax the rich..... What is considered "rich". That is the problem I have. Remember the ACA debate... the first draft or what you heard people talk about taxing is anyone who made over $500,000 a year... well that dropped to $250,000 when the bill was finally passed. Which isn't "rich" by any means.

Now with the "write it off".... this always gets me when people say this. Many dont understand it. Here is a quick break down (not to insult anyone)... but here it is. I am a small business owner and get asked all the time to donate $$$ to things and they always say... you can just "write it off". Do people understand that is still money out of my pocket. Quick example. So if I donate $1000 to something... I am out $1000. That money doesn't count towards my income or business income (which gets paid out to me after expenses). But if I keep it it gets taxed at 40%. So if I keep it and get taxed I only get in my pocket $600. But if I donate i am out $1000. So I am out $1000 and get to "write it off". Also look at the tax code that Trump just passed. Charitable contributions allowance is capped. Before it really wasn't. :bop: But the whole "write it off" isn't so great as people think. My example is if i dont donate that $1000 i am only out $600 because of taxes. If I donate that $1000... I am still out of $1000.

Now for the bigger corporations the lower "income" they show could mean less bonuses they pay out to employees, less money to share holders, etc. Which could mean more taxable income for the Feds if that money was distributed down the pipe instead of a vacation.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I am opposed to abortion.
> Don't really care about gay marriage.
> Not opposed to some gun control....Why do people need machine guns and armor piercing bullets? Why not better background checks? define better background checks.... A background check is only as good as the information provided. It's gaps and lags in reporting that are the problem not the way checks are done....
> I was in the teachers union for 35 years. Solidly for unions.  Not for unions My dad worked at a paper mill when I was a kid. 3 of the 5 years he worked there they were on strike because of the union. He finally decided he needed a steady paycheck and we moved. My brother worked under the UAW . Said all the union did was make the factory grossly inefficient
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another take on the taxes and "write offs".

***** DISCLAIMER **** I have nothing against farming or farmers on this.

If you want to go after big corporations and the perks given to CEO's and what not. You should also look at farmers and how they do taxes. Some in good years can show little to no income. They buy a new pick up and say it is "farm use".... buy a new ranger "farm use"... buy new tractor/combine when the one they have is perfectly good and a year old.... etc. Just to show no or little income.

You see the same thing you complain about farmers kind of do the same thing. They expense something that could be considered a Luxuary and not a necessity.

**** Again nothing against farmers at all. But many play the tax system as they should if they can. Just like some businesses do.

The issue should be to let people have more money in there pockets not the goverment having it. This is one reason why Trump got elected. He said he was going to do this and reel in goverment spending. WHICH HE HASN'T DONE THE LATTER!!! :******: :******:

But goverment spending is a huge issue. But it is the mentality of goverment offices. If a goverment offices is budgeted for $100,000 they will do everything they can to spend that amount. Because if lets say they come in at $90,000 year after year... they will start to only have that amount for a budget. So that is why they spend spend spend. A catch 22 for sure. oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota...&#8230; The "tax the rich" that is the war cry of many now is so backwards.

They are rich to begin with... do you think they will still find away to keep that money?

If a person is bringing in $1,000,000 and is a business owner. If they start to get to get taxed at a higher rate and lets say that take home pay is now $900,000. I agree that is still a great take home. But they just lost 10% of their take home money. Don't you think they will think of a way to bring that take home back up to $1,000,000. So would it mean a cut of employees? Cut of expenses (money they pay to other vendors, suppliers, charities, etc.) Cut on investments or re-investing in the company? ETC....

It is another catch 22. Why work hard to make money if someone who isn't working hard gets the same amount as you do and doing less work? It creates a system of under achievement. Just like raising the minimum wage.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I am opposed to abortion. :thumb:
> Don't really care about gay marriage. I have a problem when they push for it in the church when the Bible clearly speaks against it. I am not against the people, but don't corrupt the chuch. Love the sinner hate the sin.
> Not opposed to some gun control....Why do people need machine guns and armor piercing bullets? Why not better background checks? We have enough gun control but it often isn't enforced.
> I was in the teachers union for 35 years. Solidly for unions. To me unions are mostly for themselves not the people. I think they were a good thing to start with, but like many loose their way. Some destroy the business they work for. It's like killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
> ...


Happy to know we have some in common Ken. :thumb:


----------

