And what was I trying to prove?


FYI: Democrats don't want a religious conservative running the party.

That's what I've been wondering all along regarding your posts here :confused:

She doesn't have much reason to withhold the articles now that it's understood they won't have impeachment to hold over the Senate's head until they do (other than tying up candidates in chambers for the primaries).
Her far left colleagues who pushed her into this mess are likely to push with the proceedings and have him officially impeached.

Either that or she doesn't send them at all, knowing that this case will inevitably die in the Senate if they do. Impeachment has already lost popularity, even amongst democrats.

All in all, this was a poor move (IMO) politically with the consequences likely to be seen in November with the possibility of them losing the house while increasing Trump's favorability.
Unless there is more evidence for this case that they're withholding but i doubt it.

^ ... OK, I accept your admission of defeat and acknowledgement of your own stupidity in thinking Trump won't officially carry the Scarlet letter of 'impeached' because Dems aren't going to forward the charges.

"OK whitev70r"

The Dems not sending the articles of impeachment right away for Mitch to rush through his kangaroo court means absolutely nothing. It's so odd watching conservatives grasping for straws on that ridiculous argument, the impeachment vote happened last week! LOL, it's a pathetic argument.

It actually makes some sense as well, as with each day we keep getting further information.

I wouldn't be surprised if they called more witnesses in the House, given the recent bombshell that emails were literally sent to pause the aid funds literally hours after Trump's call with Ukraine.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/polit...ine/index.html

That literally connects the dots completely the validates what was happening here (like we needed any further proof, it's laughable).

Trump is certainly a danger being left in office. Think of it this way, the man LITERALLY was able to Teflon himself out of the Robert Mueller probe, after that he goes on to do this? You would think he would've been more careful, but instead he was almost more emboldened to commit further crimes.

This is the fundamental reason why he must be removed from office.

Is this true? Seriously?!

Censored, or just cut out to fit inside a time slot/add commercial breaks like every movie on TV?

This is the CBC we're talking about. If cut for timing, you can bet this scene was #1 on their list to go.

^ for good reason.

And the problem is?

Are you going to start crying snowflake tears because they removed 10 seconds of a kid's movie? You guys are so soft.

Is 10 seconds of a children's movie going to make you snowflakes cry?

The level of discocurse these days...

A government funded media outlet omitting a humanizing scene of a once Democrat (at the time of filming and pretty much up until the opportunity of the Presidential opening of the Republican party) doesn't raise some eyebrows at all? To me, that scene suggests a number of things: perhaps Trump isn't so bad; or more importantly, how is it someone such as him, could switch parties so easily and gain blind support or blind opposition in such a 'democratic' system? Shielding this scene from sensitive Lefties might do some good in the short term, but it really just does harm to their cause in the long run. Shortsightedness has always been a problem for extremists such as yourself.

I guess you are still upset about Starbucks changing the color of their cup.


How is cherry's podcast doing?

*colour

Now, are you going to cry over my spellling?

Are you still running incandescent bulbs?

Do you know if the scene remained in the edited-for-time versions on TV network broadcasts in the past?

Edit: Turns out they did this edit back in 2014

So... People can stop being such snow flakes now LUL

imagine caring about this...

What did he get away with from the Mueller probe?

That scene was in there because of a clause in the contract to use the Plaza Hotel for filming. Take from that what you will, whether it be clever branding, stroking his own ego, or perhaps both or neither. I doubt it proves anything regarding Trump being not so bad or anything political.

If you’re going to cut something for time (which they shouldn’t do, IMO), a short scene that wasn’t even in the original script is probably a prime candidate, is it not?

CBC stated they cut that scene as well as several other scenes for time concerns way back in 2014 when they acquired the rights to the movie and before he was president.

Sorry conspiracy theorists.

I am unsure how to answer your question here. Technically, he didn't get away with anything in my eyes, as the probe itself was quite damning.

He theoretically got "away" with it in that the public of opinion in terms of his supporters ultimately did not care about the end result, and thus he faced no real consequence in terms of the actual investigation.

He essentially dodged a bullet, and proceeded to then double down in his crimes, as opposed to the opposite.

That in itself makes the impeachment important.

The funny thing is I was watching Home Alone 2 on Christmas Day (it was also on CTV something or ABC Spark or whatever with no commercials)...and I actually rewound back to the Donald's scene to show my wife and dad who didn't believe he was in this movie. Now this CBC story comes up...apparently some intern at Fox News' job is to watch TV movies on a Canadian broadcaster? FailFish

What we need to do folks is go back and watch all rebroadcast movies on CBC which included him, which is quite a few surprisingly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_filmography

Flush out the conspiracy!!

What else are snowflakes going to do over the holidays? They need somthing to rage about.

I wonder if betty is upset that radio stations are geting rid of chistmas music.