Would impeachment of Trump be a positive or negative for Republicans?

[kentuck]

Would Republicans rush to the polls to defend Donald Trump from the "evil" Democrats?

Would Democrats be making a major blunder if they impeached Donald Trump?

Those are a couple of concerns that we hear every day.

In my opinion, the opposite is true in both instances. Republicans will not rush to the polls to defend Donald Trump and it could be a major blunder if Democrats do not impeach Trump.

Instead, I think many Republicans would be punished by their voters if they voted to not impeach. I refuse to believe that the entire Republican Party supports the politics and the divisive language of Donald Trump. In my opinion, many would show their disgust at the polls if their Party defended Trump.

If impeachment does happen, I believe Democrats will enlarge their majority in the House and will take back the US Senate by a healthy margin.

If impeachment does not happen, both the House and Senate will be up for grabs, as well as the Presidency.

Although this has been discussed many times here, it is important that we continue to look at it from a new perspective. Facts change and circumstances change.

[beachbum bob]

1. the question is how many democratic voters will say its a waste of time to vote?

When we elect people too afraid to do their job? I could care less on the impact on trump supporters. ITS OUR VOTERS that will make us pay in Nov 2020 with continued inaction. Zero reason why an impeachment inquiry not underway against Barr...and others right now

[Maxheader]

2. Would cutting a malignant tumor out of your body..

be beneficial?

If the liberals had the votes...in the congress and senate...they would kick the moron out...

[kentuck]

3. But the bigger question is:

Will Republicans pay a price if they vote to not impeach Trump?

In my opinion, they will.

[lame54]

59. One Dr. cuts you open - then the specialists Dr. McConnell refuses to...

Remove the tumor and also refuses to sew you back up

[Recursion]

4. An acquittal of Trump would be a HUGE boost for Republicans next year

Huge. Possibly unbeatably huge.

[kentuck]

5. Are there any facts that could come to light that would change your opinion?

I think new facts and circumstances are coming to light as we speak.

[Thekaspervote]

39. Unfortunately I agree. I trust Pelosi and our dem leaders to do the right thing for us

[KPN]

77. Only in God do I trust ... and I'm not even sure there is a God. Plus, Pelosi's wrong on this.

[Ligyron]

66. You think it will somehow increase the number of GOP voters?

They're going to vote for him anyway.

Dem legislators not doing their job and feeding the "Dems are weak" perception may well discourage many who would otherwise vote for our candidate(s).

[lagomorph777]

83. We need to quit binary thinking. Hold the hearings right up until Election Day.

Then let Mitch McFuckface acquit Turd. After a giant pile of evidence and testimony makes it perfectly obvious that Turd is a career criminal.

[Recursion]

86. That seems to be Pelosi's plan; I'm fine with it

I just want a constant drip of bad news for Trump right through next November.

[world wide wally]

6. I couldn't agree more.

Not impeaching will be taken as a sign of acquiescence and weakness and give Trump room to lie about his record (as if he needs room to lie more).

[kentuck]

8. Trump would bellow loudly....

"If the Democrats had found anything, they would have impeached! I have been totally exonerated!"

[Bettie]

11. That is exactly what will happen

it will hurt us in the election. Democrats too afraid to do anything.

[emmaverybo]

27. No. People lobbying for impeachment NOW will take it that way. Republicans and many

Americans disinterested in what they see as partisan politics— outside the bubble of their own “stuff” —will think Dems over-reached. The believers double down in the face of facts anyway.

Impeachment without conviction is no kinda impeachment at all.

[boston bean]

7. Impeachment without conviction is a losing strategy for democrats.

Way more on the line. If we give fodder to republicans and rally republicans politically against a political spectacle we lose our chance to save ourselves.

Winning the election is of utmost importance.

You have to be living in alternate universe to think it impeachment without conviction helps us in any way.

Keep eyes on the ball. Remove the fucker. We must do that. Impeachment does not remove him.

[kentuck]

10. We cannot make decisions out of fear or intimidation.

Impeachment has never removed an American president, so it's not about having the votes to remove. It's about having the votes to hold him accountable.

To not impeach is a bigger gamble that he will serve a second term. Democrats will not be inspired.

[spanone]

13. ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧ ⇧

[boston bean]

14. Umm. Impeachment does not remove him. Period end of story.That has nothing to do with fear. It is a

FACT.

Our only chance to remove him is to vote him out.

My opinion, not based in fear, but in reality is that he has 40% of this country that is strongly backing him in states that are less favorable to us and impeachment will make them stronger not weaker. The electoral college is what we need to win. We do not need a political side show going on when we need all attention on our candidates. Let the orange anus crimes hang over his head and give him no line of attack with the media. My god he wold love nothing more than having that spectacle a la Bill Clinton. He would be the victim. His favorite role to play. All the while his republican fascist friends in power continue to back him. There is zero evidence republicans would turn on him if impeached.

It is a loser for us. It will not help us. It can strengthen him.

Have you been living in the same world as me the last 2 plus years?

[kentuck]

15. That is like....

..your opinion, man.

[boston bean]

16. With lots of facts, man.

[kentuck]

17. What facts do you have that this will embolden Republicans to go to the polls?

The one fact we know for sure is that Donald Trump will say that Democrats had nothing or they would have impeached. He will continue to call it a hoax and a witch hunt. He will declare himself totally exonerated. Those are facts you can count on.

[durablend]

18. You people are in a dream

If you think the other side will stay home if he's not impeached. Like the other person said, for the next 16 months he'll be bleating "If Democrats had anything on me they would've impeached! Clearly they're just sore for losing!"

[KPN]

79. THIS!!!

[Turin_C3PO]

26. I think impeachment weakens him.

Of course we’ll never know until it happens but I think it will help our side to impeach him because impeachment hearings will win over some people on the fence about Trump. His base is going to come out to vote, impeachment or not.

[Meadowoak]

41. And how do we beat him, by impeaching. If we don't impeach

We lose in 2020 anyway, because the Democrats will stay home. Of course the Republicans will crawl through broken glass to get to the polls, always have and always will. If we don't impeach, Trump will get a second term.

[sagesnow]

81. Well put.

I agree. We need to keep our eyes on the 2020 prize.

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. Failure to at least open an inquiry will indeed suppress the youth vote

Millennials turn out, along with POC, will determine the outcome of this election- they need to be motivated to get to the polls- if Congress abandons their sworn duty to defend the Constitution, millennials will abandon them at the ballot box.

[KPN]

80. No question. Same with a Biden nomination.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. Not if they hold hearings throughout election year, and don't vote

Without voting on articles of impeachment, but merely opening an inquiry and holding relentless hearings using ruthless tactics against all those who obstruct, Trump’s crimes would be front and Center for the whole year leading up to the election.

The public would need repeated exposure to intense, Maddow-esque examination of all the separation of powers violations that are happening daily- I sincerely believe that a large number of American don’t understand the concept of co-equal branches of government (they probably can’t even name the branches). So fall 2019/winter 2020, They’ll need to be educated, so their education can inform their outrage- that’s the purpose of the hearings.

The Senate would be powerless, since no bill of impeachment would be sent to them, until maybe just before/after Election Day. But if Pelosi teases weekly “we could be ready to vote on articles any day now, the senate needs to prepare for a trial”, think of the intense pressure on Mitch and all the GOP senators up for re-election...

All through the primaries and the general, Dems could say “we don’t know who our opponent will be- Trump could be gone tomorrow!”

It would drive Trump crazy, maybe to the point of doing something so extreme, he would lose millions of votes.

[lagomorph777]

84. Yes! Yes! Yes! That is exactly what I have been saying!

Destroy Turd every day from now until Election Day. Let McTurtle have his sham vote (or refuse to vote) after it's too late.

Although, to be honest, I don't think "separation of powers" is going to get many people riled up. "Crimes against humanity" will, as will "Racketeering," "Tax evasion," "Election theft" and "Russian saboteur" will probably attract more attention.

[boston bean]

85. Well isn't this post about impeachment?

[KPN]

78. Give fodder? They don't need fodder. They make up more than enough of it on their own. In fact,

they'll, just use us not impeaching against us; in two ways:

1) they'll say we didn't have a case, we couldn't show collusion or obstruction because there wasn't any and that's why we didn't impeach;

2) and then they'll blabber on and on about how weak and ineffective we are, controlling the House but dithering about and dallying with a "never-ending witch-hunt" rather than taking care of the people's business.

Not impeaching will lose at least the WH for us and possibly the House!

[marble falls]

9. Positive either way: they get to keep their hands clean for the basket of ...

deplorables and if the Trump goes down they get rid of him, too.

[watoos]

12. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks

Speaker Pelosi is opposed to impeachment.

There are other benefits to holding an impeachment inquiry, Dems would certainly have a case to get the grand jury information where all of the juicy testimony is.

Holding an impeachment hearing would keep the narrative where Democrats want it to be. One thing that Trump is good at is controlling the narrative, he would not be able to do that during an impeachment hearing, short of a war with Iran.

It has always been an easy choice for me. Are their grounds for impeachment? If there are then it is the duty of Congress to impeach. As Republican turned Independent Justin Amash said, the danger isn't that we use impeachment too often, the danger is that we don't use it enough which will encourage presidents to abuse their power.

[AncientGeezer]

19. They have the same case Now to get the GJ material.

File with the court to unseal the 6E material.
They don't get special super powers for 6E by route of impeachment

[crazytown]

22. Pelosi has said countless times she does not have the votes

Why people do not believe her, or think she can conger up 217 when many representatives have the same strong misgivings that are expressed here is beyond me.

[Bradical79]

29. At least partly because she weilds her power and influence to undermine the idea

It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy.

[LiberalFighter]

20. It will depend on the hearings and how they build the case.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

21. I agree with your conclusions.

If he is not investigated by Congress on record, the survival of our democracy is in serious jeopardy because his behavior and that of Barr will then be even more normalized.

KY.......

[AncientGeezer]

34. Dumpster IS being investigated by Congress on record.....right NOW.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

40. What I meant to say but didn't change it was....

"impeachment inquiry" rather than just investigation.

Carries far more gravity in the public eye than everyday congressional investigations, IMO.

KY......

[AncientGeezer]

42. Doubtful....the public has the attention span of a stick.

American Idol. Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Dancing with Has Beens has probably more viewer than the C-Spans will ever get in an "inquiry".
C-Spans will be the major coverage....

[Thekaspervote]

47. Yes the dotard is!! Thx for pointing that out

[Luka Boyd]

23. I think its a matter of timing

If they open the impeachment inquiry too soon, no matter what they uncover it will be forgotten and out of the news by the election. Especially without a conviction. The repugnantcants would control how fast it moves through the senate and they would rush it through without a conviction so its all forgotten by November of next year.

I think the proceedings need to be in the news during the election cycle, even if there is no trial in the senate before the election, the apricot hellbeast will be "under investigation" and on trial in the court of public opinion at the time of the election. Think about this, an uncommitted voter has a subconscious choice, "do I vote for Trump again? they didnt find anything, hes okay". Or do we want him to think subconsciously that the evil one is a criminal under investigation. We have the time, we will never get a removal with impeachment so lets use it to our advantage. I dont see a downside to doing it next year. The case just keeps getting stronger. If voters have forgotten about the crimes by then starting impeachment inquiry will put it front and center again.

[trc]

24. The repugs will not vote to convict trump in the senate. Period.

That is why Pelosi is not moving forward. Would repugs pay a price for acquitting? Pay a price with whom? The republican party is all in with this president and do not care about optics, they only care about keeping dems out. So, the House would impeach, the senate would acquit and trump would claim victory. Impeachment is a trap at the moment that dems don't need to fall into. Any good lawyer will say "don't ask a question you don't know the answer to." So, don't impeach if you know the answer will be acquittal and a boost to this president. This is not the republican party that would have convicted Nixon, this is the republican party that completely changed the rules of the senate to get a supreme court justice in place who would give them the edge...rules no longer apply to these guys. Our only recourse is to vote these shits out of power in 2020. And, if groups get it into their heads that they will vote for only one candidate, or stay home and not vote if Pelosi does not impeach, we will lose the presidency again and, far worse, lose the Supreme Court to the conservative Taliban for 30 years or more.

[Thekaspervote]

46. Oh indeed ...the pukes will always vote their party and look the other way no matter

[Bradical79]

25. Negative

Calling Trump a criminal over and over, accusing him of various things, then not impeaching just make them look weak. Pelosi's statement "I don't want him impeached, I want to see him in prison" was a big mistake. She's having a very difficult time justifying no impeachment while accusing him of crimes. The two messages don't mix well.

Edit: With the Epstein case looming large, and a few other goings on, I'm fine now with not immediately starting the impeachment inquiry. Wait too long though, and Republicans will control the narritive with their bullshit investigations. We'll end up with Clinton Emails 2.0.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. Depends on how most people see it

If the Democrats push for impeachment based on sound, solid reasons, it *should* be a negative for Trump/GOP. If it's a circus and based on "shaky" ground (see the Clinton Impeachment), then I suppose it could be positive for them. Not many people have a favorable view of Trump and I can't imagine the Democrats are going to push for impeachment on something outlandish, so I can't imagine it being positive for Trump/GOP.

[BeyondGeography]

30. With aggressive and principled leadership it would mobilize far more Democrats than Republicans

If leadership's attitude is See-I-told-you-he-would-be-acquitted-in-the-Senate, forget it.

[Troy The Raver]

31. Wouldn't impeachment at least allow for investigation?

[AncientGeezer]

37. There are several investigations going on right now

[Poiuyt]

48. No one is paying attention to the current investigations

Impeachment hearings, OTOH, would be plastered all over the news. Then the public would see the extent of trump's crimes.

[AncientGeezer]

55. It would be the same investigations...

Let's pretend it was "plastered all over the news"...it wouldn't change squat.

The public can see it NOW on the C-Spans....if they chose to tune in...because MSNBC and CNN shows some hearings does NOT in any way promise increased visibility..

[Crunchy Frog]

32. I've never believed that the Democrats gain anything

By appearing weak, scared and indecisive.

There seems to be an idea that that will appeal to the "moderates", but I just don't see it.

BTW, the overall attitude on this board seems to have flipped 180 degrees from what it was when I joined in 2003.

[Thekaspervote]

44. I don't see it as a matter of being weak only -IMHO I see it as playing the long game

The repukes have always known how to play the long game.. and they win! It’s high time we did the same.

[Liberty Belle]

33. If Epstein rats out Trump as a chlid rapist, that could get some Reps. to vote him out.

Or they look like they are protecting pedophiles. It's probably the only thing that would.

If they leave him alone they risk voters ousting Trump rather than support a pedophile.

If they impeach, they get Mike Pence who could be the Republicans better shot at reelection, in my opinion.

[AncientGeezer]

38. Epshit won't rat the Dumpster...that is pardon possibility

[stillcool]

35. I think it would be a push..

Nothing changes. Republicans are so good at putting on a show, and I think they and theirs would get a lot of play out of the Congressional hearings, but I don't think the Senate will play along at all, so it's a one-show deal. The Republicans have shown no inclination to object to anything Trump does. I think they need to steal it to win it as of right now.

[ehrnst]

36. I'm not qualified to make that determination. I wish I was. I'll defer to those who

are far more qualified.

[Thekaspervote]

43. Let's think ahead to the political ads the gopeee will run for the general

1. We impeach him without removal, because we all know this is all that’s going to happen. Think about those ads. And think about The non stop rallies feeding red meat to his base. Need I say more

2. We don’t impeach, all he can do is whine per usual. And the gopeee looses that wedge too. When he’s gone as Pelosi has said, then we can put his ass and his ilk in jail!

[uponit7771]

45. Impeachment has never been a positive of the impeached for the control of government ***NEVER***

[Poiuyt]

49. That's correct

Though to be fair, there isn't a very big sample size.

[Gothmog]

51. POLITICO Playbook: New swing-district polling illustrates impeachment peril

Impeaching trump without 20 GOP Senate votes could cost the Democratic Party control of the House https://www.politico.com/playbook

IT’S WELL DOCUMENTED that Speaker NANCY PELOSI does not believe impeaching the president is smart politics. People around Pelosi have argued that it places vulnerable Democrats in a tough spot, and puts the House in jeopardy. She repeated her broader argument to Maureen Dowd in a column published in Sunday’s New York Times.

WELL, PER NEW GOP POLLING, SHE’S GOT A POINT … The National Republican Congressional Committee polled five battleground districts, and found impeaching President DONALD TRUMP to be exceedingly unpopular.

THE DISTRICTS: California 21, where Rep. T.J. COX (D-Calif.) beat David Valadao; California 39, which Rep. GIL CISNEROS (D-Calif.) took in an open race; California 45, where Rep. KATIE PORTER (D-Calif.) toppled Mimi Walters; Georgia 6, where Rep. LUCY MCBATH (D-Ga.) beat Karen Handel; and New Jersey 7, where Rep. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-N.J.) knocked off Leonard Lance.

[uponit7771]

56. Similar to Nixon, there's no good political reason against impeachment

[Gothmog]

57. We risk losing control of the House if we pursue impeachment without 20 GOP Senate votes

Article of Impeachment are a stunt. Right now the polling shows only 27% favor an impeachment inquiry which is a far cry from actual article of impeachment. That number is up 10% percent from the prior polling which is some movement. 27% is not sufficient to win a congressional seat. Many moderate democrats are worried and for good reason. Right now it is my understanding that only 60+ house democrats favor an impeachment inquiry and that is not close to half of the caucus.

Moderate democrats have reason to worry

Link to tweet

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) will entertain the idea of impeaching President Trump when he’s sure enough votes exist in the GOP-controlled Senate to convict him. Which is to say, not anytime soon.

“We’re not anywhere close,” Peterson told The Daily Beast as he exited the House floor on Tuesday. He’s been pressing his colleagues in the House Democratic caucus to recognize that this simple fact should put impeachment fever to bed, for now. But he says he hasn’t had much luck.....

But political concerns clearly are a factor for Democratic moderates and the leadership that is closely following their re-election prospects. Pelosi, for starters, has fed the idea that Trump would welcome impeachment because it would fire up his base heading into the 2020 election. Impeachment proponents scoff at that argument, stressing that historical data isn’t conclusive that the public rallies to the president under fire. But polling data tends to show that the country right now isn’t enamored with the idea. A new survey from a Michigan-based pollster found in that key swing state, over 41 percent of voters strongly oppose impeachment, while 27 percent strongly supported.

The two seats that we flipped in Texas would likely be lost if we file articles of impeachment and trump is vindicated by a GOP controlled Senate.

I want to pick up additional house seats this term and not lose seats. Lizzie and Collin are both good people and it would be a shame to lose these House members. I have been on the phone with both of them (dialing for dollar calls) and they are class people. Collin was with Marc Elias' firm and was involved in the 2016 voter protection efforts.

I support Nancy Pelosi's position here. I also support calling witnesses to testify bout the Mueller report and seeing if we can get the polling to shift on the percentage of Americans who support an impeachment inquiry (which is a far cry from Article of Impeachment).

[uponit7771]

60. There's no historical reference for this, claim all there impeachment processes

... ended up on the party of the impeached not gaining control of the government or losing it.

There's ... NO... good reason against impeachment politically

Gaining seats doesn't mean controlling the government

[Gothmog]

62. Luckily it is Nancy Pelosi who gets to make this decision

I fully support Nancy Pelosi’s actions. Without 20 GOP Senate votes, impeachment is just a stunt that could cost the Democrats control of the House. The polling shows that impeachment in not popular in swing districts. Speaker Pelosi is correct to want to protect vulnerable Democrats

Right now the Democrats have not lost any court cases seeking to enforce subpoenas under the House’s oversight authority. There is currently no need for an impeachment inquiry

Again, I am glad that it is Speaker Pelosi making the call here. I trust her judgment on the political issues here

[uponit7771]

63. We don't need the Senate to hurt Red Don and gop politically and uphold constitution

We need good timing for Impeachment

Not impeaching is not an option

[Gothmog]

64. We are fortunate that it is Speaker Pelosi who is making this decision

I trust Speaker Pelosi will make this decision based on facts. Impeachment without 20 GOP Senate votes, impeachment is a stunt. The Senate republicans can quash any impeachment proceeding easily

Link to tweet

[Kurt V.]

53. it doesn't matter how republicans are affected. only democrats. the latest research shows NEW

voter turnout decided the 2018 midterms. this is likely to continue in 2020 as long as democratic leadership doesn't crawl into a shell. Impeachment would only help our chances.

[Cetacea]

54. Clinton's impeachment hurt Al Gore and other democrats

Clinton's popularity rose for a while only because the public largely understood the Whitewater investigation to have been a real "witch hunt". But Gore refused Clinton's help in the campaign and dems lost congress. Starr released the huge report in a very public fashion, with vans unloading the vast array of documents.
Compare that with Barr lying about the Mueller report and suppressing the report for three weeks. The current position on impeachment should be reconsidered after the public becomes informed about it's contents on July 17.

[Trumpocalypse]

58. The Dems didn't lose congress in 2000

They lost in 94 long before impeachment. However, the Dems picked up seats in the 98 midterms which took place in the middle of the impeachment fight.

[Cetacea]

67. They picked up five seats in 98

Thanks. "Though Republicans lost another two House seats in 2000, they again maintained control of the chamber’s majority—and again narrowly won the nationwide House popular vote. Only in the Senate did the GOP slip, losing five seats that initially created a 50–50 tie until Jeffords’s switch gave Democrats a majority."

Good article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/did-clintons-impeachment-actually-hurt-republicans/591175/

[uponit7771]

69. +1, " they (republicans) again maintained control of the chamber's "

[uponit7771]

68. They didn't gain any part of congress either in 98 or 2000 either, that's the point. Impeachment ...

... ALWAYS hurts the party of the impeached.

[Trumpocalypse]

70. Dems gained seats in 98 and 2000

So how were they hurt by impeachment?

[uponit7771]

71. Gaining net 3 seats changed nothing, gaining seats is not gaining control

[Trumpocalypse]

74. Still they were not hurt by the Clinton impeachment

The GOP was because they lost seats. And in 2000 the GOP lost enough seats that they did lose control when Jeffords switched parties.

[uponit7771]

88. This is false, dems gained no control of gov for nearly 3 election cycles post impeachment and

... someone switching seats doesn't negate the election cycle voting ... that's something that happened POST vote.

There is ... NO... history of the party impeached faring well when it comes to controlling government post impeachment NONE.

[Trumpocalypse]

89. No your measure is false

You’re basing everything thing on control. But a majority party losing seats when they should have gained seats is significant whether you care to recognize that reality or not.

[uponit7771]

90. "You're basing everything thing on control" cause winning the game is better than just scoring

... points.

Losing a game by 3 points less this time is still losing ...

[Trumpocalypse]

91. It's not a game

That’s the problem. Too many see it as a game.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

61. WHOOOO CAAAARESSSS - the question should be, what is the right thing to do .... not fretting about

how our abuser daddy is going to react (figuratively speaking).

The very definition of co-dependency - having no self esteem and being entirely too wrapped up in how the other person is going to react, what they think, do they approve, etc.

[Mr.Bill]

65. I do know this.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Congress shall impeach a president only if it is politically advantageous to their party.

I don't want my great grandchildren learning in school one day that Trump was never impeached but Bill Clinton was.

[Luka Boyd]

72. My question is this

If impeachment would be a net positive for repubs then why doesnt Nancy have the REPUBLICAN votes for impeachment to begin? If its a positive for them, they should be for it. How many repub representatives are FOR impeachment?

[zentrum]

73. Impeachment

.....will energize Repugs and hurt Democrats IMHO. We need more clear, undeniable evidence first. It has to be a clear case and not look, to them, like a "librul conspiracy".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. It would hurt them. Against all logic, decency, and

Rule of law, they would vote that they don't care that trump breaks the law.

[KPN]

76. I agree 100%. A frigging negative for Repugs hands down, unless House/Senate Dems really do

a poor job in the hearings.

This is a no brainer at this point. There is so much negative crap surrounding tRump without even considering the Russia thing, impeachment proceedings will be impossible for the GOP/RW talking heads to ignore, downplay or effectively deny/de-legitimize.

Get on with it Dems. ITMF Now! Doing otherwise will only hurt us.

[Mike Nelson]

82. Well... we know it won't be...

… negative. What is negative to the Trump Republicans? They keep lowering the bar... they have no bottom! Moore is running again and Acosta is staying... rape allegations mean nothing, even it the victim is 14-years-old. To be impeached would be a more positive story.

[rufus dog]

87. If your neighbors house is on fire do you put it out?

Now the new ones that moved in are pure white trash and they started the fire by cooking meth. But the house has become an eyesore, so rather than putting it out, let's just let it burn to the ground. Then the owners may not have the funds to rebuild and we can rid the neighborhood of these losers forever! Then I want have to look at that damn confederate flag they fly.

Sound like a good plan, or pure passive aggressive fucking bullshit?

FFS!

Oh look, there are a whole bunch of teen aged girls being taken into their barn!

WTF! - What are in those cages he put up against the border of his property?