The Republicans Will Not Take Back The Senate!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I've seen your breakdown Hedonist and it's not convincing. Not because you didn't argue your case well, but because you don't have the facts on your side.

There's the "10% for the Big Guy" allegation. Hunter Biden said that. Would you believe anything Hunter Biden said, when he's trying to extract more money for himself in a "business" deal? The incident occurred in 2017 when Joe Biden was a private citizen. IF Joe were going to get 10% on some deal (and I don't think he was), so what. He didn't hold political office. The Trump Organization on the other hand received $5.4 million from a Chinese state owned enterprise, WHILE TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE.

Biden hasn't exactly been handing out favors to the Chinese as payback. The Trump tariffs on toys and textiles and the like are still in place, and the USA is as hostile to China as it's been since the Korean War.

And then there's the Burisma affair. The State Department and the White House told Joe Biden to strong arm the Ukrainian government to fire its prosecutor general, which the USA and Western European governments believed was corrupt. Biden was following orders. He was doing his job. The whole Burisma "scandal" did indeed point out how Biden's worthless son profited greatly from his name. However, the "scandal" was a fantasy cooked up by Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, and their attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and abetted by the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, to try to create political payback for a shady business deal they were attempting to pull off with Naftogaz, the Ukrainian national gas company.

The one thing that has merit is Biden hauling his son along on an official state visit to China, while he pursued his "business" deals, i.e. trading the Biden name for cash.

As to Garland and Wray, maybe I haven't been reading what you've been posting on them. I have no great love for the FBI or Justice Department prosecutors. They've screwed over a lot of people. But that's been going on for many years, long before Garland and Wray got their current jobs. You think they should be prosecuted for removing classified info from Mar A Lago? Why?

Republicans are making a mistake by focusing on the allegedly rigged 2020 election and Biden's corruption. It's backfiring. They should be campaigning on inflation, turbocharged by the Democrats' American Rescue Plan, and how the middle class is slipping behind.

What's going to be the effect of the raid at Mar A Lago? I'd argue it's going to make many Republicans mad as hell, and they're going to be more likely to turn out to vote. This partly makes up for the poor timing of the Supreme Court's abortion decision. Republicans shouldn't make the same mistake Democrats did, by coming off like they're persecuting Biden, Garland and Wray.

And besides, we're the United States of America. We're not a banana Republic. We don't put the ex-president in jail or make him go into exile every time there's an election.

Despite your penis shortcomings , that my friend was well thought out and written.

I haven't lost hope that you will eventually comprehend that higher taxes will eventually lead to less spending.

Hopefully you will agree that forty years of lowering taxes sure haven't done so!

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If the Republicans retake the House there will be no budget bills passed

If the republicans retake the house is a BIG IF. I will be happy as long as the Democrats keep the senate which means Senator Mitch "the turtle" McConnell will not be running the Senate. I like where Warnock is ahead of "college football star" Walker and Demmings is ahead of little Marco Rubio. Go Dems!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I've seen your breakdown Hedonist and it's not convincing.


But neither you or I get a vote on that and if you don't think a majority of Republicans believe what I believe, that Biden is corrupt and participated in bribes with his son you haven't been paying attention. Now they may feel it would be best not to impeach for this or that reason but don't tell me they don't think Biden deserves to be impeached because they do.


Not because you didn't argue your case well, but because you don't have the facts on your side.

There's the "10% for the Big Guy" allegation. Hunter Biden said that. Would you believe anything Hunter Biden said,


OK, I see you haven't been paying attention. YES, the majority of Republicans ( in my opinion ) believe every word, every allegation against Hunter and as usual, you leave out first person testimony of Bobulinski which I haven't quite figured out why yet. And there are many other incidents when Biden was in office as Vice President and in office now as President and YES, having Hunter on that plane ride to China and pretending not to know what his son was up to, strains credulity.



when he's trying to extract more money for himself in a "business" deal? The incident occurred in 2017 when Joe Biden was a private citizen.


And Biden has lied about it everyday since. Knowingly lying about his son's corruption may not be listed under reasons to impeach but then again..... "it's anything the majority of the House believes it to be" and there is nothing and nobody that can stop the House from impeachment that I'm aware of. You are just saying they shouldn't and perhaps you are right. I'm saying they should and if you took a poll right now with Republicans, you don't think a majority of them agree with me? But I could be wrong, been wrong before, will probably wrong again...... one of these days.



IF Joe were going to get 10% on some deal (and I don't think he was), so what. He didn't hold political office. The Trump Organization on the other hand received $5.4 million from a Chinese state owned enterprise, WHILE TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE.


And the Clinton's took Chinese and Russian money as well. Big, big difference between donating to an organization rather than an individual, apparently. What "organization" was Joe's 10% going to? Oh, sorry, I forgot you don't believe anything Hunter said even when viewing the video's I guess. Maybe those weren't hookers weighing meth or crack while Hunter filmed it and maybe Joe didn't send Hunter $5,000 more to convince the hooker stay but Hunter says he did and foolish me, I believe Hunter did all this, Joe knew all of it, and Putin had nothing to do with it IMHO.


Biden hasn't exactly been handing out favors to the Chinese as payback.


Really?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3512385-why-is-biden-appeasing-china/

Why is Biden appeasing China?

Just pointing out that others have a different view.

The Trump tariffs on toys and textiles and the like are still in place, and the USA is as hostile to China as it's been since the Korean War.

Yeah, letting China buy up our farm land, start businesses here within 10 miles of a military base that works on drone weapons? Doesn't exactly meet the definition of hostile but that's just my opinion. Oh, and demanding that the US buy solar panels while 80% of them are produced and China and wind mill turbines also produced in China. In the coming years we will be as dependent on China for "Green Energy" as we were the Arabs, sending billions and billions to our biggest adversary in the world. Being hostile to China would be telling them that we will no longer be purchasing anything from them that relates to our national security and turning over our electrical grid to China. But we'll buy all the toys and clothes they want to sell us.


And then there's the Burisma affair. The State Department and the White House told Joe Biden to strong arm the Ukrainian government to fire its prosecutor general, which the USA and Western European governments believed was corrupt. Biden was following orders.

Do I really have to go there? Don't make me break "Godwins Law". You really want to make the case that a quid pro quo is legal if a President says it is? Biden offered a clear as day "quid pro quo", you get the money if I get a fired prosecutor. Just because every President in the world wants you to do something, doesn't make it a good idea or legal for that matter. Weren't we told that was exactly what Trump was doing? "You continue to investigate ( not fire anybody) and I'll give you money that has already been appropriated by Congress".

Remember that part of the argument, that no President can hold up money already allocated by Congress? But I guess that's just another one of those "inconvenient truths" that Democrats love so much. "Things" done by one person but can't be done by another for any reason, isn't generally how we uphold equal justice under the law but I'm kind of a stickler for that.

He was doing his job. The whole Burisma "scandal" did indeed point out how Biden's worthless son profited greatly from his name. However, the "scandal" was a fantasy cooked up by Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, and their attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and abetted by the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, to try to create political payback for a shady business deal they were attempting to pull off with Naftogaz, the Ukrainian national gas company.

So Hunter was indeed corrupt and Joe knew all about it but it was a scandal "cooked up by others". Sounds like something for a judge to decide.

The one thing that has merit is Biden hauling his son along on an official state visit to China, while he pursued his "business" deals, i.e. trading the Biden name for cash.

I'll settle for one article of impeachment. We have a deal!

As to Garland and Wray, maybe I haven't been reading what you've been posting on them. I have no great love for the FBI or Justice Department prosecutors. They've screwed over a lot of people. But that's been going on for many years, long before Garland and Wray got their current jobs. You think they should be prosecuted for removing classified info from Mar A Lago? Why?


I'm going to wait for a judge someday, to tell us if there were "political implications" for the search instead of another subpoena which Garland himself said is the usual procedure. So like Comey, who bragged he did things to Trump that he would never have done to Obama, just maybe Garland did something that he would never have done to a Democrat in the White House. This might very well end in a decision that the President removed documents that he was not allowed to under the Presidential Records Act, ending "in a civil court, with civil penalties". To get Trump in a criminal court, charged with a criminal act, you damn well better have "intent to misuse" locked down.


Republicans are making a mistake by focusing on the allegedly rigged 2020 election and Biden's corruption. It's backfiring. They should be campaigning on inflation, turbocharged by the Democrats' American Rescue Plan, and how the middle class is slipping behind.

I agree, none of what I'm saying should be said till after the midterms and it looks like the chances of gaining the Senate are slipping away.


What's going to be the effect of the raid at Mar A Lago? I'd argue it's going to make many Republicans mad as hell, and they're going to be more likely to turn out to vote. This partly makes up for the poor timing of the Supreme Court's abortion decision. Republicans shouldn't make the same mistake Democrats did, by coming off like they're persecuting Biden, Garland and Wray.

Agree. Not yet!

And besides, we're the United States of America. We're not a banana Republic. We don't put the ex-president in jail or make him go into exile every time there's an election.

We don't? You better send that message to the Democrats before they do what you saywe don't do. It won't be for lack of trying. I understand your points but you are assuming that a Republican House must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden did this or that. Reasonable doubt is not part of any impeachment criteria. I'm sure you heard the old saying during Trump's impeachment that a reason for impeachment, is what every the majority of the House says it is.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-you-need-know-about-impeachment-180963645/

In April 1970, Congressman Gerald Ford provided a blunt answer to an old question: “What is an impeachable offense?”
Ford, then the House minority leader, declared, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” At the time, he was leading the charge to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a staunch liberal he accused of financial impropriety.

Perhaps the Republicans shouldn't do it but I want them to if for no other reason, they'll look like pussies if they don't. This isn't a "turn the other cheek" kinda game in my opinion.

[1blackman1]

I sure hope (and I actually believe) you’re smarter than the shit you’ve been writing lately HF. I’m starting to fear you’ll be the next Oeb, Salty and/or Bambi soon.

I still believe you have a chance of joining the reasonable but it’s fading fast.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I've seen your breakdown Hedonist and it's not convincing. Not because you didn't argue your case well, but because you don't have the facts on your side.

There's the "10% for the Big Guy" allegation. Hunter Biden said that. Would you believe anything Hunter Biden said, when he's trying to extract more money for himself in a "business" deal? The incident occurred in 2017 when Joe Biden was a private citizen. IF Joe were going to get 10% on some deal (and I don't think he was), so what. He didn't hold political office. The Trump Organization on the other hand received $5.4 million from a Chinese state owned enterprise, WHILE TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE.

Biden hasn't exactly been handing out favors to the Chinese as payback. The Trump tariffs on toys and textiles and the like are still in place, and the USA is as hostile to China as it's been since the Korean War.

And then there's the Burisma affair. The State Department and the White House told Joe Biden to strong arm the Ukrainian government to fire its prosecutor general, which the USA and Western European governments believed was corrupt. Biden was following orders. He was doing his job. The whole Burisma "scandal" did indeed point out how Biden's worthless son profited greatly from his name. However, the "scandal" was a fantasy cooked up by Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, and their attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and abetted by the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, to try to create political payback for a shady business deal they were attempting to pull off with Naftogaz, the Ukrainian national gas company.

The one thing that has merit is Biden hauling his son along on an official state visit to China, while he pursued his "business" deals, i.e. trading the Biden name for cash.

As to Garland and Wray, maybe I haven't been reading what you've been posting on them. I have no great love for the FBI or Justice Department prosecutors. They've screwed over a lot of people. But that's been going on for many years, long before Garland and Wray got their current jobs. You think they should be prosecuted for removing classified info from Mar A Lago? Why?

Republicans are making a mistake by focusing on the allegedly rigged 2020 election and Biden's corruption. It's backfiring. They should be campaigning on inflation, turbocharged by the Democrats' American Rescue Plan, and how the middle class is slipping behind.

What's going to be the effect of the raid at Mar A Lago? I'd argue it's going to make many Republicans mad as hell, and they're going to be more likely to turn out to vote. This partly makes up for the poor timing of the Supreme Court's abortion decision. Republicans shouldn't make the same mistake Democrats did, by coming off like they're persecuting Biden, Garland and Wray.

And besides, we're the United States of America. We're not a banana Republic. We don't put the ex-president in jail or make him go into exile every time there's an election.

+1
At about 90%. Lol. Well written and reasoned. Soon you’ll be agreeing with me on posts.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Republicans taking control of the House is probable, but the turnover in seats won't be as bad as in 2010 and 2018. Republicans picked up more seats in the House in 2020 than expected. Democrats will increase their hold on the Senate by a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 seats -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, NC are possible gains. As far as Biden being impeached -- there must be a reason to impeach him and right now there is none. As usual, Tiny made an excellent post on the subject. Even if Trump is guilty of having highly confidential material in his private home, he does not do jail time. However, Trump's interference in Georgia may be a different story.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I sure hope (and I actually believe) you’re smarter than the shit you’ve been writing lately HF. I’m starting to fear you’ll be the next Oeb, Salty and/or Bambi soon.

I still believe you have a chance of joining the reasonable but it’s fading fast.

I believe you give HF way to much credit.

He sounds like a campaign writer for Margie Taylor Green, writing nonsense that only the I'll informed could possibly consume.

Now if there were an prize for patting one self on the back...this guy would win it.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Despite your penis shortcomings , that my friend was well thought out and written.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

+1
At about 90%. Lol. Well written and reasoned. Soon you’ll be agreeing with me on posts.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As usual, Tiny made an excellent post on the subject.

Gentlemen, Thanks for your kind words. And SpeedRacer, thanks for your excellent, as always, bottoms-up analysis of upcoming elections.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

We don't? You better send that message to the Democrats before they do what you saywe don't do. It won't be for lack of trying. I understand your points but you are assuming that a Republican House must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden did this or that. Reasonable doubt is not part of any impeachment criteria. I'm sure you heard the old saying during Trump's impeachment that a reason for impeachment, is what every the majority of the House says it is.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-you-need-know-about-impeachment-180963645/



Perhaps the Republicans shouldn't do it but I want them to if for no other reason, they'll look like pussies if they don't. This isn't a "turn the other cheek" kinda game in my opinion.

Hedonist, two thoughts. You gave some good reasons why Hunter Biden should be impeached if he were president. But he's not. And I disagree with your belief Republicans should impeach Biden, Wray and Garland so they don't look like pussies. We're too divided as a country, we don't need that. And I just don't see what they've done that merits impeachment.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I sure hope (and I actually believe) you’re smarter than the shit you’ve been writing lately HF. I’m starting to fear you’ll be the next Oeb, Salty and/or Bambi soon.

I still believe you have a chance of joining the reasonable but it’s fading fast.

I haven't given up on saving WTF's immortal soul, and you shouldn't give up on Hedonist either. When you look at what he really thinks, on abortion, the COVID vaccine, and whether Trump should continue to play the leading role in the Republican Party, he believes about the same as you and I. His problem is TMTC, that is, Too Much Tucker Carlson. His judgement and wisdom are better than Tucker's, but if you watch too much of that stuff you start to absorb it.

Hedonist agrees with me on the two issues that matter the most to me, energy and taxes, so this is not my monkey. You and he are particularly well versed on and interested in the intersection of law and politics, so this is your job.

[Redhot1960]

This is where we let the 0zombies rest after their giant circle-jerk session... boiling frog

[Jackie S]

I go back to my original post.

In at least three critical State, we have three really bad candidates.

It reminds me of quite a while back, (can’t remember just how far back), we had the same scenario. The Democrats had fucked everything up, and there was real hope of a conservative wave.

But the Republicans insisted on nominating a bunch of far right loons that took the winds right out of their sails.

One was that (kinda) cute brunette out in one of the Western States. She got the nomination, went on a religious rant, and got beat. Maybe one of you guys that have been around a while can help me remember her.

Winning primaries doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with winning a general State wide election.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

This is where we let the 0zombies rest after their giant circle-jerk session... boiling frog

Why are Democrats are now favored to win the Senate? Because Trump fans only support Republican candidates who circle jerk along with the Donald. Just say no to circle jerking. It's too late now, but that's how we can end up with stronger candidates in the 2024 general election.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I go back to my original post.

In at least three critical State, we have three really bad candidates.

It reminds me of quite a while back, (can’t remember just how far back), we had the same scenario. The Democrats had fucked everything up, and there was real hope of a conservative wave.

But the Republicans insisted on nominating a bunch of far right loons that took the winds right out of their sails.

One was that (kinda) cute brunette out in one of the Western States. She got the nomination, went on a religious rant, and got beat. Maybe one of you guys that have been around a while can help me remember her.

Winning primaries doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with winning a general State wide election.

I agree 100%.

I bet you're thinking about the 2012 election, where Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost. Both were favorites, and both said women who are raped shouldn't be allowed to get abortions. I don't remember the brunette though.

[1blackman1]

Michelle Bachman? But she was not from the west. She was from Minnesota or Wisconsin.