The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   News Democrats move forward towards impeaching Trump. (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=425007)

Her December 18th, 2019 5:49 PM

it’s impeachment day y’all

Sothis December 18th, 2019 5:55 PM

News on twitter says that he's been impeached.

EnglishALT December 18th, 2019 6:41 PM

Awesome with polls showing the public against impeachment, despite the Democrats doing everything possible to make their case, it now moves onto the Senate where the Republicans can decide for either a swift aquital or a prolonged trial with witnesses based on the Republican majority choosing.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

Maedar December 18th, 2019 7:01 PM

I assume everyone here has seen Mr. Trump's, ahem, "letter" to Speaker Pelosi?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-letter-pelosi-impeachment-eve-195636055.html

IMOHO, the term "not helping your case comes to mind.

Incidentally, ALT, your own link shows two polls with the "Yes/Remove" group up. The poll in The Economist says the Yes group is up 8 points, the Politico poll has them up 7.

I found a very different poll, btw:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/cnn-poll-impeachment-views/index.html

EnglishALT December 18th, 2019 7:06 PM

Quote:


Incidentally, ALT, your own link shows two polls with the "Yes/Remove" group up. The poll in The Economist says the Yes group is up 8 points, the Politico poll has them up 7.
Yes you will find a few outliers in any poll just as I don’t believe is -8 against impeachment, right now the general means of the poll are slightly against impeachment. Which again is part of a general trend of the public turning against it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10103096)

That poll is almost a month old, the latest CNN poll is +3 percent against impeachment. 45% for impeachment, 48% against.


http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/12/16/rel14a.-.trump,.impeachment.pdf

Alex December 18th, 2019 7:29 PM

Get him outta there

Maedar December 18th, 2019 7:48 PM

ALT, your link includes THESE two Polls.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ua3ar45wbg/econTabReport.pdf

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/191266_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_PARTIAL-v3.pdf

Quote:

Yes you will find a few outliers in any poll just as I don’t believe is -8 against impeachment, right now the general means of the poll are slightly against impeachment. Which again is part of a general trend of the public turning against it.
May I ask why you believe your poll means everything mine means nothing? Need I bring up the Fox poll again?

And why do you excuse the juvenile, threatening letter he made to Ms. Pelosi?

EnglishALT December 18th, 2019 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10103110)
ALT, your link includes THESE two Polls.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ua3ar45wbg/econTabReport.pdf

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/191266_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_PARTIAL-v3.pdf



May I ask why you believe your poll means everything mine means nothing? Need I bring up the Fox poll again?

Yes I am very well aware what is in the link I posted, as should be obvious, the link is a culmination of polls, showing every poll released in the past few weeks and giving a proper total, it does not weight one poll or another, but gives you a general idea of where the public is at right now based on all the polls. That seems to be slightly against impeachment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10103110)
And why do you excuse the juvenile, threatening letter he made to Ms. Pelosi?

Threatening? I didn’t read all six pages but there were threats? Other than that as for the letter... meh.

Sothis December 18th, 2019 8:45 PM

He was impeached, it's fact, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end of his presidency. Unfortunately we may have 4 more years of his idiocy ahead of us.
He may not be removed or indicted since the senate is mostly republicans, but still, being impeached is a huge embarrassment to him and could affect his 2020 election campaign?

EnglishALT December 18th, 2019 8:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri (Post 10103134)
He was impeached, it's fact, just deal with it and discuss the next procedures.
He may not be removed or indicted since the senate is mostly republicans, but still, being impeached is a huge embarrassment to him and may affect his 2020 election campaign?

Is it that much of an embarrassment? It was largely a party line vote, suggesting further impeachment’s may be similar and become more of the norm. Republicans are already saying the next Democratic President should be impeached.

As for his re-election campaign, his polls have gone up recently, and this whole thing is helping Trump rake in money, if anything Trump will try and turn this into Kavanaugh 2.0, to fire up the base.

gimmepie December 19th, 2019 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103135)
Is it that much of an embarrassment? It was largely a party line vote, suggesting further impeachment’s may be similar and become more of the norm. Republicans are already saying the next Democratic President should be impeached.

That is a seriously messed up statement. Trump has been impeached because it is believed, rightly if I'm going to be frank, that he solicited a foreign power's aid in securing the 2020 election, threatening to withhold needed military aid in the process. He was impeached for flouting democracy and criminal behaviour, not for being a Republican and the only reason that this has been divided on party lines is because Republicans protect their own (so do Democrats, but it's not a Democrat that was impeached so that's hardly relevant).

To say that they will attempt to impeach the next Democratic president in retaliation is both horrendously immature and a clear sign that a person with power shouldn't have it.

Quote:

As for his re-election campaign, his polls have gone up recently, and this whole thing is helping Trump rake in money, if anything Trump will try and turn this into Kavanaugh 2.0, to fire up the base.
I don't think the impeachment will have much impact on the election in either direction. It fires his fanbase up more in defence and his detractors in validation. It's more of the same. My fingers remain crossed that he doesn't get to screw everyone around for a second term, but it's a lot more up in the air than anyone wants to admit.

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10103205)
That is a seriously messed up statement. Trump has been impeached because it is believed, rightly if I'm going to be frank, that he solicited a foreign power's aid in securing the 2020 election, threatening to withhold needed military aid in the process. He was impeached for flouting democracy and criminal behaviour, not for being a Republican and the only reason that this has been divided on party lines is because Republicans protect their own (so do Democrats, but it's not a Democrat that was impeached so that's hardly relevant).

To say that they will attempt to impeach the next Democratic president in retaliation is both horrendously immature and a clear sign that a person with power shouldn't have it.

Before we get upset about the politicization of the use of impeachment lets take a trip down memory lane.

April 2016 before Trump is even the nominee, "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office"

https://www.politico.eu/article/could-donald-trump-be-impeached-shortly-after-he-takes-office-us-presidential-election-2016-american-president-impeachment/

July 12 2017, Representative Sherman introduces articles of impeachment.

August 2017, Representative Steve Cohen introduces articles of impeachment.

December 2017, Representative Al Green introduces articles of impeachment. It is defeated 364–58.

January 19, 2018, Representative Al Green introduces articles of impeachment AGAIN, It is defeated 355–66.

January 4, 2018, Representative Rashida Tlaib yells out, “And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Mama, look, you won. Bullies don’t win,’ and I said, ‘Baby, they don’t’ – because we’re gonna go in there and we’re going to impeach the mother........”

March 1, 2019, Representative Brad Sherman introduces articles of impeachment

March 27, 2019, Representative Rashida Tlaib introduces articles of impeachment

May 25, 2019, Representative Shelia Jackson Lee introduces articles of impeachment.

I'm sorry but if you believe that it is messed up for a party to use impeachment as a political tool against a President you don't like. Then you are about three years too late.

gimmepie December 19th, 2019 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103215)
Before we get upset about the politicization of the use of impeachment lets take a trip down memory lane.

April 2016 before Trump is even the nominee, "Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office"

https://www.politico.eu/article/could-donald-trump-be-impeached-shortly-after-he-takes-office-us-presidential-election-2016-american-president-impeachment/

July 12 2017, Representative Sherman introduces articles of impeachment.

August 2017, Representative Steve Cohen introduces articles of impeachment.

December 2017, Representative Al Green introduces articles of impeachment. It is defeated 364–58.

January 19, 2018, Representative Al Green introduces articles of impeachment AGAIN, It is defeated 355–66.

January 4, 2018, Representative Rashida Tlaib yells out, “And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Mama, look, you won. Bullies don’t win,’ and I said, ‘Baby, they don’t’ – because we’re gonna go in there and we’re going to impeach the mother........”

March 1, 2019, Representative Brad Sherman introduces articles of impeachment

March 27, 2019, Representative Rashida Tlaib introduces articles of impeachment

May 25, 2019, Representative Shelia Jackson Lee introduces articles of impeachment.

I'm sorry but if you believe that it is messed up for a party to use impeachment as a political tool against a President you don't like. Then you are about three years too late.

I don't agree with any of the Democrats who were misusing the system for political gain either - I would argue though that Trump has done enough in his tenure as President to have at least warranted the discussion several times. There's a difference between that and saying "let's decide to aim for impeachment before we even know who the next Democratic candidate will be" or "Let's impeach Trump immediately without investigation into anything because fuck Trump."

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10103216)
I don't agree with any of the Democrats who were misusing the system for political gain either - I would argue though that Trump has done enough in his tenure as President to have at least warranted the discussion several times. There's a difference between that and saying "let's decide to aim for impeachment before we even know who the next Democratic candidate will be" or "Let's impeach Trump immediately without investigation into anything because psyduck Trump."

Thing is any President, especially any modern President can be accused of warranting an investigation into impeachment.

Clinton: You have Whitewater, lying under oath, etc etc
Bush: You have Iraq ( Lead up to war, hiding information, etc ).
Obama: You have Iran ( Exchanging money for hostages, turning a blind eye to drugs, etc ).

If a party believes that impeachment is just a tool to fix an election that they lost, which lets be realistic, a lot of Democrats believe that, then you can impeach any President.

I would say that maybe impeachment would carry more weight behind it, if we hadn't spent the last three years deciding not if but when Democrats will impeach Trump.

Edit: Also want to point out a poll taken a month after he was sworn in, 58% of Democrats said they wanted to impeach Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/24/impeach-trump-most-democrats-already-say-yes/

This has been a thing since day one, and is it any wonder that Republicans are saying they will do the same, whenever another Democrat is elected?

Hands December 19th, 2019 2:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103215)
I'm sorry but if you believe that it is messed up for a party to use impeachment as a political tool against a President you don't like. Then you are about three years too late.

You guys literally impeached a President over a few blowies so I'd suggest that it's not 3 years late, rather, its 21 years late

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 10103245)
You guys literally impeached a President over a few blowies so I'd suggest that it's not 3 years late, rather, its 21 years late

Close, Republicans impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation during a sexual harassment lawsuit, and even if you do not think those rise to impeachable crimes, I would say you would be hard pressed to find Republicans wanting to impeach Clinton from the moment his hand left the Bible, like the Democrats have with Trump.

Hands December 19th, 2019 3:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103248)
Close, Republicans impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation during a sexual harassment lawsuit, and even if you do not think those rise to impeachable crimes, I would say you would be hard pressed to find Republicans wanting to impeach Clinton from the moment his hand left the Bible, like the Democrats have with Trump.

Not quite, but they basically did to Obama


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


Also let's not pretend it was over sexual assault lol. Clinton tried to block a civil lawsuit coming through when he was in office, the SCOTUS refused it and the republicans spent the next year trying to find anything they could to impeach Clinton


Though I'm glad you think lying is an impeachable offence, considering Trump's record.

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 10103251)
Not quite, but they basically did to Obama


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

Really that is what we are going to compare that too? All of those bills I have shown submitted by Democrats in 2017 - 2019, and the closest yours comes in a similar amount of time are a few Republicans saying Obama should be impeached, and one submitted bill in March 2012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 10103251)
Also let's not pretend it was over sexual assault lol. Clinton tried to block a civil lawsuit coming through when he was in office, the SCOTUS refused it and the republicans spent the next year trying to find anything they could to impeach Clinton

"On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against U.S. President Bill Clinton and former Arkansas State Police Officer Danny Ferguson. She claimed that on May 8, 1991, Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, propositioned her. David Brock had written, in the January 1994 issue of The American Spectator, that an Arkansas state employee named "Paula" had offered to be Clinton's mistress. According to the story, Ferguson had escorted Jones to Clinton's hotel room, stood guard, and overheard Jones say that she would not mind being Clinton's mistress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

The lawsuit that Clinton lied and engaged in witness intimidation in, was a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 10103251)
Though I'm glad you think lying is an impeachable offence, considering Trump's record.

Sure, and if Trump is on tape lying to a grand jury and engaging in witness intimidation you would have an apples and apples comparison for impeachment.

Hands December 19th, 2019 3:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103252)
Really that is what we are going to compare that too? All of those bills I have shown submitted by Democrats in 2017 - 2019, and the closest yours comes in a similar amount of time are a few Republicans saying Obama should be impeached, and one submitted bill in March 2012.



"On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against U.S. President Bill Clinton and former Arkansas State Police Officer Danny Ferguson. She claimed that on May 8, 1991, Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, propositioned her. David Brock had written, in the January 1994 issue of The American Spectator, that an Arkansas state employee named "Paula" had offered to be Clinton's mistress. According to the story, Ferguson had escorted Jones to Clinton's hotel room, stood guard, and overheard Jones say that she would not mind being Clinton's mistress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

The lawsuit that Clinton lied and engaged in witness intimidation in, was a sexual harassment lawsuit.



Sure, and if Trump is on tape lying to a grand jury and engaging in witness intimidation you would have an apples and apples comparison for impeachment.



"The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."


" In late 1997, Linda Tripp began secretly recording conversations with her friend Monica Lewinsky, a former intern and Department of Defense employee. In those recordings, Lewinsky divulged that she had had a sexual relationship with Clinton."

"In the November 1998 House elections, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House, but the Republicans still maintained majority control. The results went against what House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted, who, before the election, had been reassured by private polling that Clinton's scandal would result in Republican gains of up to thirty House seats. Shortly after the elections, Gingrich, who had been one of the leading advocates for impeachment, announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat"


It was always politically motivated. Clinton having a civil court claim against him was not grounds for impeachment, they tried to do him over claiming he had no relations with Lewinsky.


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


It's very, very clear that it wasn't about "sexual harassment" for the GOP, if civil cases around sexual harassment were grounds to impeach, then why haven't they moved on Trump for it?

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 3:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 10103254)
It was always politically motivated. Clinton having a civil court claim against him was not grounds for impeachment, they tried to do him over claiming he had no relations with Lewinsky.


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


It's very, very clear that it wasn't about "sexual harassment" for the GOP, if civil cases around sexual harassment were grounds to impeach, then why haven't they moved on Trump for it?

We are really getting off track here, so its the last I will say on this, as I think we are talking over one another.

The Republican's impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation, where did he lie under oath and engage in witness intimidation? A sexual harassment lawsuit case. I never said the lawsuit itself was grounds for impeachment, what was grounds for impeachment was lying under oath and witness intimidation in attempting to get around the sexual harassment lawsuit.

Hands December 19th, 2019 3:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103256)
We are really getting off track here, so its the last I will say on this, as I think we are talking over one another.

The Republican's impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation, where did he lie under oath and engage in witness intimidation? A sexual harassment lawsuit case. I never said the lawsuit itself was grounds for impeachment, what was grounds for impeachment was lying under oath and witness intimidation in attempting to get around the sexual harassment lawsuit.

A court case that didn't go anywhere lol. It was politically motivated, had absolutely nothing to do with the case. Incredible the lengths you go to when it comes to defending Trump as a victim of political bias despite the litany of lawsuits brought against him but are completely willing to pretend that Clinton's own impeachment wasn't an attempt at a political hitjob

Maedar December 19th, 2019 5:50 AM

Quote:

Close, Republicans impeached Clinton for lying under oath and witness intimidation during a sexual harassment lawsuit, and even if you do not think those rise to impeachable crimes, I would say you would be hard pressed to find Republicans wanting to impeach Clinton from the moment his hand left the Bible, like the Democrats have with Trump.
Right, SURE they did. The Starr Report contained the word "cigar" more than twice as much as the word "Whitewater".

ALT, we ain't dumb. Let me give you a comparison, Al Capone.

When he was finally arrested, the charge was "tax evasion". So why did they send a small army of federal agents to arrest him and employ the best prosecutors in the country at his trial, all for a white collar criminal?

Because, they were using "tax evasion" as an excuse; they doubted they could present charges of mass-murder, bootlegging, extortion, and bribing countless officials and police, and make them stick. But Capone was a dangerous man who had to be taken down, so they did so with "tax evasion".

And to think, people don't like the IRS, who contributed just as much towards taking the fiend down as Eliot Ness.

Clinton's impeachment was a politically-motivated attack on his person, using "perjury" as an excuse to paint him as an immoral sex-fiend (orchestrated by a hypocritical House Speaker who was himself an unfaithful husband), and I gotta laugh at anyone who suggests otherwise.

Nah December 19th, 2019 7:05 AM

So what do y'all think is gonna happen now? Are the Senate Republicans gonna go for a short trial and vote, or are they gonna drag it out?

Maedar December 19th, 2019 7:29 AM

Quote:

So what do y'all think is gonna happen now? Are the Senate Republicans gonna go for a short trial and vote, or are they gonna drag it out?
IMOHO, if they were smart, they'd take the former option. But I do think they're vindictive and petty enough to try the latter.

If they DO call Schiff to the stand and try to get him to confess to whatever they think he's guilty of, they're in for a reality check. Hopefully, whoever tries to grill him will be better at it than those RUDE protesters who stormed his Town Hall event last week uninvited and called him a traitor with rather "colorful" language.

TailsMK4 December 19th, 2019 9:37 AM

I do believe the Senate will be successful if they decide to drag this out, and I personally think they should, but that is not my call to make. That is likely why the Democrats are not going to submit the articles right away, as they know their chances of making this work are zero, and they will lose all control once it moves to the Senate. The public has been split on impeachment for a while (though again, polls only tell a small part of the story, so I do not take them into consideration), so we can tell how divisive this has been to the country. I do believe the Democrats set a very dangerous tone moving forward (I again stick to the opinion that the impeachment process has been a huge waste of time), so I would urge the House and Senate to perhaps take another look at how the impeachment process should be set up, or it is very likely to come up again.

Sothis December 19th, 2019 9:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103135)
Is it that much of an embarrassment? It was largely a party line vote, suggesting further impeachment’s may be similar and become more of the norm. Republicans are already saying the next Democratic President should be impeached.

As for his re-election campaign, his polls have gone up recently, and this whole thing is helping Trump rake in money, if anything Trump will try and turn this into Kavanaugh 2.0, to fire up the base.

This is what I call "Trump Mania" why is he so popular? Why are these people do ride and die for him? He's immature as shit and makes shit deals that ends up making other countries hate the US.
Also we don't know who the next dem president will be so how...can they say that?

Taemin December 19th, 2019 9:48 AM

As long as we don't have four more years of him, I've gotten to the point where I didn't care if he was impeached, because all it will do now is embarrass him. He likely won't leave office, and no matter how childish he sounds when he speaks or tweets, there's still millions of people who want him in office. I'm just sick of hearing about it. At this point even people who don't support him won't speak up or go against him, because they're afraid of the people in their social circles judging them. I've had so many people tell me that, it's so sad to me.

Merry Impeachmas indeed, I just want him gone so I never have to hear about him ever again unless I willingly look it up. lol

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 1:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri (Post 10103375)
This is what I call "Trump Mania" why is he so popular? Why are these people do ride and die for him? He's immature as shit and makes shit deals that ends up making other countries hate the US.
Also we don't know who the next dem president will be so how...can they say that?

It’s the same reason Obama was popular, people in an increasingly divisive social media world latch on to their side and refuse to let go.

He also is a fighter, someone that will punch, bite, and claw back, compare that to the last three Republicans: Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W Bush. All of which wanted to express decorum and not fight back.

Anyway latest impeachment strategy seems to be that Pelosi won’t send over the appointed members to make the house’s case to the Senate. This seems to utterly undermine the urgency displayed earlier to get impeachment done as fast as possible. It also does not make any constitutional sense as the Senate could theoretically start the trial without anyone from the House anyway.

Her December 19th, 2019 2:24 PM

Oh that George W. Bush, known for his decorum and sense of decency

EnglishALT December 19th, 2019 2:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Her (Post 10103466)
Oh that George W. Bush, known for his decorum and sense of decency

Yes, largely George W Bush, was seen as someone who would not hit back, be it against the media, or those that maligned him in the Senate or House. He saw it as beneath the Presidency.

Maedar December 19th, 2019 2:50 PM

Quote:

Yes, largely George W Bush, was seen as someone who would not hit back, be it against the media, or those that maligned him in the Senate or House. He saw it as beneath the Presidency.
And he should have. Dignity has always been seen as a positive trait among world leaders. Trump is a rude, obnoxious boor, who somehow wonders why other world leaders despise him. He is NOT a fighter, fyw, he is ALL talk.

I personally have no idea why anyone supports him. He makes me sick.

But here's an article I found with an opinion on it:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3-types-trump-supporters-and-why-they-defend-ben-shapiro

Sothis December 19th, 2019 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10103462)
It’s the same reason Obama was popular, people in an increasingly divisive social media world latch on to their side and refuse to let go.

He also is a fighter, someone that will punch, bite, and claw back, compare that to the last three Republicans: Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W Bush. All of which wanted to express decorum and not fight back.

Anyway latest impeachment strategy seems to be that Pelosi won’t send over the appointed members to make the house’s case to the Senate. This seems to utterly undermine the urgency displayed earlier to get impeachment done as fast as possible. It also does not make any constitutional sense as the Senate could theoretically start the trial without anyone from the House anyway.

It's ok to be assertive but I find most of what he does is childish, like threats and tantrums. Surely world leaders can solve more issues if they talk in a mature, respectful manner to each other and learn to compromise but that's just me.

Also Bush was a fucking idiot who didn't know how to talk, I'm shocked he graduated high school. He fabricated a lie about Iraq just to "finish" what his idiot father started and destabilized a whole nation just for oil. The war in the middle east doesn't need to continue, there's no weapons of mass destruction, bin laden is dead. Let these people rebuild their lives.

Maedar December 19th, 2019 5:46 PM

Being "assertive" is one thing. Trump long ago crossed the line into "obnoxious" and "vulgar".

Quote:

The war in the middle east doesn't need to continue, there's no weapons of mass destruction, bin laden is dead. Let these people rebuild their lives.
You forget, Dimitri, the policy among right-wingers is, "until we see the body, Bin Laden ain't dead!"

And when they DO see photographic evidence, it's "obviously" been "shopped".

Why? Well, as Seth Meyers famously said, "Barack Obama will go down in history as the first black person ever to have to prove that he killed someone."

LDSman December 20th, 2019 4:10 AM

Back on topic....
Feldman says that if pelosi doesn’t transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then the Pres isn’t actually impeached.

It’s rather amusing that Pelosi seems to be demanding a quid pro quo for for this.

TailsMK4 December 20th, 2019 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDSman (Post 10103664)
Back on topic....
Feldman says that if pelosi doesn’t transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then the Pres isn’t actually impeached.

It’s rather amusing that Pelosi seems to be demanding a quid pro quo for for this.

The longer they wait to do this, the more the independent voters will suspect that this was not an attempt to "uphold the Constitution", but rather a partisan move to make it easier for their candidate to win the 2020 election using any means necessary, which for me is pretty obvious that is the reason for the impeachment, But the Democrats also know that the impeachment is dead on arrival in the Senate, and the Republicans there have a choice on how they want to proceed with it, whether to just end the impeachment right then, or hold a trial anyway, but more focus on Schiff and the Bidens rather than on Trump, in addition to forcing many of the Democratic challengers to have to stay at Washington as opposed to being able to campaign for their shot at the presidency. I like the latter myself, but if the Senate decides not to do a trial, there will be others that will investigate, so this topic of impeachment is going to be talked about long after it dies out in the Senate.

The Senate, as-is, needs the House to submit the articles as well as representatives from the House before a trial can officially begin, but the Senate could change that if they wish, since they have the votes needed to change how impeachment works in the Senate. What they will do depends on what Pelosi decides to do, since right now she has chosen to hold the articles.

The other thing that can happen is that the articles are not submitted at all, and just dropped...which is ironic since they were so fired up about impeachment in the first place that it would look really bad on them if they did that, meaning it was even more of a political play than any attempt at "justice". Either way you look at it, the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner, with both ways to get out of said corner potentially very damaging to them, and staying in said corner also damaging. The smart move was not to do this in the first place, but I think Pelosi and the others gave in to the radicalized portion of the party that really should have joined the Socialist party in the first place...ah, but third parties do not do very well in this country, so that option was out.

Couple what's going on with candidates that are not very strong to go against Trump, and it makes perfect sense why they went through with this: they stand no chance unless they are able to convince voters to vote Democrat, and I do believe they have succeeded somewhat in this due to many factors, but maybe not enough since they have alienated many of the independents that do follow politics, even if it was very painful this year to follow politics. Again, I am just stating my opinions on the matter, but I have not seen anything by the Democrats to convince me to change my mind on the topic of impeachment, and in fact I have a very negative opinion of the party now.

LDSman December 20th, 2019 11:04 AM

I think it’ll be the same outcome no matter what the senate does. The Dems will be upset the Trump wasn’t removed from office and claim political bias.

Nah December 21st, 2019 6:12 AM

tbh I don't see the point in Pelosi delaying sending it up to the Senate, there's nothing to be gained from it afaik

even if the Senate for some reason grants her request, the extra testimony won't change the outcome of the vote, nor will it significantly change public opinion (and maybe by extension, the election), it's obvious those were set in stone a long time ago

LDSman December 21st, 2019 6:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10104092)
tbh I don't see the point in Pelosi delaying sending it up to the Senate, there's nothing to be gained from it afaik

even if the Senate for some reason grants her request, the extra testimony won't change the outcome of the vote, nor will it significantly change public opinion (and maybe by extension, the election), it's obvious those were set in stone a long time ago

She wants to dictate how the Senate runs the “trial.” A clear violation of the separation of powers, I think.

EnglishALT December 21st, 2019 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10104092)
tbh I don't see the point in Pelosi delaying sending it up to the Senate, there's nothing to be gained from it afaik

even if the Senate for some reason grants her request, the extra testimony won't change the outcome of the vote, nor will it significantly change public opinion (and maybe by extension, the election), it's obvious those were set in stone a long time ago

One suggestion I heard is she wishes to string this out as long as possible so that Trump will give his State of the Union while under impeachment. It is a little extra jab, where he cannot claim vindication during the speech.

Maedar December 21st, 2019 10:22 AM

Quote:

One suggestion I heard is she wishes to string this out as long as possible so that Trump will give his State of the Union while under impeachment. It is a little extra jab, where he cannot claim vindication during the speech.
Some would call that clever, because when he does inevitably claim victory with a grandiose speech on how he "vanquished the corrupt Deep State" and was "exonerated completely" and all that nonsense, it's much better to limit it to a Tweet storm than let him use the most important annual event in Washington D.C. to do so. Wouldn't you think?

LDSman December 21st, 2019 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10104189)
Some would call that clever, because when he does inevitably claim victory with a grandiose speech on how he "vanquished the corrupt Deep State" and was "exonerated completely" and all that nonsense, it's much better to limit it to a Tweet storm than let him use the most important annual event in Washington D.C. to do so. Wouldn't you think?

Instead he can use it to point out that pelosi case is so weak that she won’t even let the Senate have the articles of impeachment.

gimmepie December 21st, 2019 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDSman (Post 10104218)
Instead he can use it to point out that pelosi case is so weak that she won’t even let the Senate have the articles of impeachment.

There is an open attempt at quid pro quo in the Transcripts, Trump has openly admitted to the transcripts being accurate. That is a crime and there is indisputable evidence of it. This is, of course, ignoring all the shit with Russia that people keep pretending Trump had nothing to do with. I have no idea what Pelosi's doing, seems stupid to me, but her case against Trump is iron. The result will be the same as if it wasn't, given that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans who will under no circumstances vote to remove Trump, but the Republican party being more interested in partisanship than doing the right thing is not exactly new.

Maedar December 21st, 2019 7:05 PM

Maybe Pelosi is simply keeping her ultimate strategy hidden so Trump and McConnell won't see it coming.

Who was the guy who in 2016 stressed the importance of "the element of surprise"?

gimmepie December 21st, 2019 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10104315)
Maybe Pelosi is simply keeping her ultimate strategy hidden so Trump and McConnell won't see it coming.

Who was the guy who in 2016 stressed the importance of "the element of surprise"?

Not going to lie, as much as I'd love to believe this, I don't.

Maedar December 21st, 2019 7:21 PM

Quote:

Not going to lie, as much as I'd love to believe this, I don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDznQYahpkc

Ironic, ain't it? But then, I truly doubt HE remembers it either.

EnglishALT December 21st, 2019 9:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10104311)
There is an open attempt at quid pro quo in the Transcripts, Trump has openly admitted to the transcripts being accurate. That is a crime and there is indisputable evidence of it. This is, of course, ignoring all the shit with Russia that people keep pretending Trump had nothing to do with. I have no idea what Pelosi's doing, seems stupid to me, but her case against Trump is iron. The result will be the same as if it wasn't, given that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans who will under no circumstances vote to remove Trump, but the Republican party being more interested in partisanship than doing the right thing is not exactly new.

The transcripts are not so clear cut and concise of their being a quid pro quo, no where does he link the Biden investigation to the money, it is only inferred, which is why there has been no witness that has said that they heard Trump say quid pro quo or something similar.

As for Russia, I really wish the left would give up on that conspiracy theory. The Mueller report should have driven a stake through it once and for all.

gimmepie December 21st, 2019 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10104362)
The transcripts are not so clear cut and concise of their being a quid pro quo, no where does he link the Biden investigation to the money, it is only inferred, which is why there has been no witness that has said that they heard Trump say quid pro quo or something similar.

"I'd like you to do me a favour though..."
Nope, no attempt at quid pro quo there. None at all. Frankly though, even if Trump wasn't offering a trade, asking for Ukraine to undermine a political opponent still goes against democracy and is probably impeachable in and of itself.

Quote:

As for Russia, I really wish the left would give up on that conspiracy theory. The Mueller report should have driven a stake through it once and for all.
The Mueller report, regardless of what Trump and the Republicans like to claim, very openly stated that it did not exonerate Trump of any crimes. It said that it did not find evidence of Trump being a foreign agent and stated that collusion was not classified of a crime. It also made a note of pointing out numerous links between Trump's campaign and the Russian government and charged several of those links with obstruction - which Trump could not be charged with as he's a sitting president. There would have been no need to obstruct if there was no links with Russia to hide. There was a lot more than nothing in that report and people on the right are way too happy to breeze over the more incriminating aspects and very much like to claim an exoneration that is not there.

Even if we choose to pretend that the stuff with Russia is nothing though, the open attempt at a quid pro quo with Ukraine is plenty incriminating alone and is well and truly grounds for impeachment by itself.

Maedar December 22nd, 2019 10:44 AM

Lindsey Graham has completely lost his mind:

https://in-other-news.us/2019/12/22/huge-lindsey-graham-promises-to-call-in-every-person-who-signed-bogus-carter-page-fisa-warrants-comey-mccabe-yates-rosenstein-video/

So much for any hope of a "quick acquittal".

On another note, Trump, if you recall, warned that "the Stock Market would crash" if he were impeached. It did not. In face, since the vote was taken, it's been up 7%.

LDSman December 23rd, 2019 3:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10104566)
Lindsey Graham has completely lost his mind:

https://in-other-news.us/2019/12/22/huge-lindsey-graham-promises-to-call-in-every-person-who-signed-bogus-carter-page-fisa-warrants-comey-mccabe-yates-rosenstein-video/

So much for any hope of a "quick acquittal".

On another note, Trump, if you recall, warned that "the Stock Market would crash" if he were impeached. It did not. In face, since the vote was taken, it's been up 7%.

That’s about the FISA warrants that the court ruled would have been declined if the FBI hadn’t lied. Not the impeachment process.

Maedar December 23rd, 2019 7:24 AM

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/12/23/mcconnell-senate-gop-has-not-ruled-out-witnesses-in-trump-trial/23886646/

McConnell seems to be changing his stance slightly...

Couples-Consoling December 25th, 2019 2:20 PM

I was real upset with how democrats were handling impeachment until Pelosi held up sending to the Senate. Now if they request the Supreme Court expedite decisions relating to Trump like Special Prosecutor Jaworski did against Nixon, I’ll be REALLY psyched.

Maedar December 26th, 2019 5:10 PM

New Poll from the Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-52-of-americans-support-trumps-impeachment-and-removal-2019-12

LDSman January 3rd, 2020 9:26 AM

Listening to Senator McConnell talk. Sounds like he may be for ending the impeachment process.

EnglishALT January 6th, 2020 6:04 PM

A little update, Sen. Josh Hawley is introducing a resolution that changes Senate rules, if Pelosi does not send over the impeachment articles in 25 days, after passing impeachment ( January 13th ), the Senate will dismiss the articles "with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles".

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/476974-gop-senators-introduce-resolution-to-change-rules-dismiss-impeachment-without

At least a dozen GOP Senators have signed on to this resolution, I wouldn't be surprised if it passes and forces Pelosi's hand.

Maedar January 7th, 2020 6:42 AM

Truthfully, I'd be very surprised if it does:

https://www.axios.com/bolton-romney-collins-republicans-impeachment-trial-f7867185-0d6c-4764-9f92-73c12c4e7bd9.html

Btw, who is Josh Hawley? Never heard of him myself.

Nah January 7th, 2020 1:09 PM

Personally I'd rather that the House just hand it over to the Senate so we can get this over with already

EnglishALT January 7th, 2020 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10110648)
Truthfully, I'd be very surprised if it does:

https://www.axios.com/bolton-romney-collins-republicans-impeachment-trial-f7867185-0d6c-4764-9f92-73c12c4e7bd9.html

Btw, who is Josh Hawley? Never heard of him myself.

Junior Senator from Missouri, he defeated Democratic Senator Clair McCaskill in 2018 to take the seat.

Also a bit of breaking news, Senator Mitch McConnell has the votes to impose the rules from the Clinton trial, and seems to be moving forward with that.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/mcconnell-prepares-to-move-forward-on-impeachment-trial-rules-without-democrats-095537

Maedar January 7th, 2020 2:16 PM

Okay, so what's keeping him?

EnglishALT January 7th, 2020 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10110806)
Okay, so what's keeping him?

He has said he will introduce the measure next Monday. We will see what happens by then, and if Pelosi submits the articles between now and then making the measure useless.

LDSman January 9th, 2020 11:16 AM

Pelosi still won’t send the impeachment over to the Senate. The Senate just needs to vote it dead and close it.

Maedar January 10th, 2020 2:42 PM

Nope.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/10/nancy-pelosi-to-send-articles-of-impeachment-to-the-senate/23898480/

Nanusmightyena January 10th, 2020 3:27 PM

Trump isn’t great but Pence is an actual Demon from hell. Pence has stated multiple times that he supports the LGBT community going through shock therapy to “cure” them. If Trump gets impeached then Pence is going to be in charge and I’m just not with that as a member of the LGBT community.

EnglishALT January 10th, 2020 3:47 PM

Looks like she finally blinked, however McConnell is backing Josh Hawley‘s rule change so if that passes Monday, then she will have to send them next week.

LDSman January 10th, 2020 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanusmightyena (Post 10112332)
Trump isn’t great but Pence is an actual Demon from hell. Pence has stated multiple times that he supports the LGBT community going through shock therapy to “cure” them. If Trump gets impeached then Pence is going to be in charge and I’m just not with that as a member of the LGBT community.

Yeah, some people don’t seem to get that Pence would be Prez. They seem to think pelosi would get the position.

Nanusmightyena January 10th, 2020 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDSman (Post 10112353)
Yeah, some people don’t seem to get that Pence would be Prez. They seem to think pelosi would get the position.

People really need to retake 7th grade history then, lol.

Maedar January 10th, 2020 5:19 PM

Nanu, as much as I despise Pence, I find him about as scary as a block of wood.

Pence seemed to have learned his lesson when, as governor, his own economic advisers discovered his "religious freedoms act" would cause more damage to the economy of Indiana than a volcanic eruption the size of Vesuvius. Gaining support for a nationwide version would be political suicide and he knows it. If he EVER managed to get his "gay conversion therapy" idea made into an actual law, I'd eat my umbrella, okay?

I much prefer him to Trump.

Nanusmightyena January 10th, 2020 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112393)
Nanu, as much as I despise Pence, I find him about as scary as a block of wood.

Pence seemed to have learned his lesson when, as governor, his own economic advisers discovered his "religious freedoms act" would cause more damage to the economy of India than a volcanic eruption the size of Vesuvius. Gaining support for a nationwide version would be political suicide and he knows it. If he EVER managed to get his "gay conversion therapy" idea made into an actual law, I'd eat my umbrella, okay?

I much prefer him to Trump.

It’s not that I think that any of that is ACTUALLY going to happen. Obviously since this is a first world country it’s not. It’s the fact that the man is psychotic and a menace to the LGBT community. He’s much more batsh!t crazy than trump is by far.

Maedar January 10th, 2020 8:25 PM

Quote:

It’s not that I think that any of that is ACTUALLY going to happen. Obviously since this is a first world country it’s not. It’s the fact that the man is psychotic and a menace to the LGBT community. He’s much more batsh!t crazy than trump is by far.
Well, unlike Trump's base - who believe stuff like Pizzagate - Democrats are more in touch with reality. And are NOT afraid of a fool like Pence.

EnglishALT January 10th, 2020 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112496)
Well, unlike Trump's base - who believe stuff like Pizzagate - Democrats are more in touch with reality. And are NOT afraid of a fool like Pence.

Really? Lets have a moment of silence for all the strawmen burnt here, it is truly a massacre.

Anyway Pence is not going to become President, unless there is impeachment, out of which he wouldn't win election as the Republican base is going to be pissed and punish Republicans for voting to take out Trump. He also does not get much excitement among potential 2024 nominees, those like say Dan Crenshaw are far more popular.

Maedar January 11th, 2020 6:17 AM

Quote:

Anyway Pence is not going to become President, unless there is impeachment, out of which he wouldn't win election as the Republican base is going to be pissed and punish Republicans for voting to take out Trump.
On this we agree, although again, I doubt his base has as much influence as his sycophants claim.

Quote:

He also does not get much excitement among potential 2024 nominees, those like say Dan Crenshaw are far more popular.
Assuming Trump is re-elected, and IMOHO, the chances of that are getting less and less. Hopefully, by then, Trump and his sycophants will be nothing but bad memories.

Nah January 11th, 2020 6:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanusmightyena (Post 10112355)
People really need to retake 7th grade history then, lol.

nah that wouldn't help, the reason why people don't know shit in the first place is cuz our education system is so poor, they'd just be going back to 7th grade to learn nothing all over again =)

But regarding the whole Pence thing, that's sort of a catch 22 with the impeachment. Removing Trump from office would then saddle us with another awful president until at least January 2021, but not removing Trump from office would then mean we still have to deal with him, plus he gets away with committing a crime (again).

EnglishALT January 11th, 2020 6:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10112631)
nah that wouldn't help, the reason why people don't know muk in the first place is cuz our education system is so poor, they'd just be going back to 7th grade to learn nothing all over again =)

But regarding the whole Pence thing, that's sort of a catch 22 with the impeachment. Removing Trump from office would then saddle us with another awful president until at least January 2021, but not removing Trump from office would then mean we still have to deal with him, plus he gets away with committing a crime (again).

Does anyone honestly expect Trump to be removed? The votes, like the evidence, honestly do not seem to be anywhere close to being there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112628)
On this we agree, although again, I doubt his base has as much influence as his sycophants claim.

You... just said the exact opposite of what I was saying, if Trump is removed it means a large number of Republicans voted for it. That means the vast majority of Republican voters, ( Trump's base ) will punish Senate Republicans by not voting for Pence and letting a Democrat take the White House, and showing their disapproval for removing Trump.

Nah January 11th, 2020 6:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10112635)
Does anyone honestly expect Trump to be removed?

I think I've mentioned this before, but am 100% certain and have been for quite a while that Trump will not be removed from office, and nobody should believe otherwise

Nanusmightyena January 11th, 2020 8:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10112631)
nah that wouldn't help, the reason why people don't know shit in the first place is cuz our education system is so poor, they'd just be going back to 7th grade to learn nothing all over again =)

But regarding the whole Pence thing, that's sort of a catch 22 with the impeachment. Removing Trump from office would then saddle us with another awful president until at least January 2021, but not removing Trump from office would then mean we still have to deal with him, plus he gets away with committing a crime (again).

I couldn’t agree more with all of this. It’s just a sh!t situation.

Maedar January 11th, 2020 8:10 AM

Quote:

Does anyone honestly expect Trump to be removed?
No.

It's never been Pelosi's goal either.

Quote:

You... just said the exact opposite of what I was saying, if Trump is removed it means a large number of Republicans voted for it. That means the vast majority of Republican voters, ( Trump's base ) will punish Senate Republicans by not voting for Pence and letting a Democrat take the White House, and showing their disapproval for removing Trump.
Oh, I agree there too. But I doubt Trump's "base" would matter either way. They aren't as large nor as influential to make a difference, and Trump has done literally nothing to increase their numbers.

EnglishALT January 11th, 2020 8:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112652)
No.

It's never been Pelosi's goal either.

Which honestly goes back to how much of a sham this whole thing has been, and goes back to what I said before, about how the next Democratic President should expect similar treatment from a Republican house.

Maedar January 11th, 2020 8:19 AM

Quote:

Which honestly goes back to how much of a sham this whole thing has been, and goes back to what I said before, about how the next Democratic President should expect similar treatment from a Republican house.
Assuming there ever IS a Republican House, and with 22 GOP incumbents retiring, many of them in districts they could have won in their sleep, it's not likely.

I swear, you still think Trump is so popular? Answer me this, ALT, when was the last time a sovereign nation put an $80 million bounty on the U.S. President's head? Iran would never have dared do that to Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, or Obama, but they realize Trump is a weak and incompetent President.

EnglishALT January 11th, 2020 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112628)
Assuming there ever IS a Republican House, and with 22 GOP incumbents retiring, many of them in districts they could have won in their sleep, it's not likely.

Don't be absurd of course there will be a Republican house, either in 2020 when so many districts in Trump counties are up with Trump's coattails helping Republicans in those areas, are the next off year election when a Democrat is in the White House, as those usually swing to the party out of power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112628)
I swear, you still think Trump is so popular? Answer me this, ALT, when was the last time a sovereign nation put an $80 million bounty on the U.S. President's head? Iran would never have dared do that to Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, or Obama, but they realize Trump is a weak and incompetent President.

Yeah... I am sure Trump's popularity is really low in Iran, with it's 0 electoral votes, and it's populous that regularly chants "Death to America".

Maedar January 14th, 2020 5:42 AM

More news:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/13/gop-senators-reject-plans-to-dismiss-trump-impeachment/23900335/

You know, it's so satisfying to hear Trump's sycophants state, day after day, how the Democrats' plans have been "destroyed". Seems "destroy" is one of many words they just don't know the meaning of. Like "patriot" and "treason".

Edit: Still more news:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/14/house-releases-note-on-biden-case-from-giuliani-associate/23901095/

LDSman January 16th, 2020 4:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112660)

I swear, you still think Trump is so popular? Answer me this, ALT, when was the last time a sovereign nation put an $80 million bounty on the U.S. President's head? Iran would never have dared do that to Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, or Obama, but they realize Trump is a weak and incompetent President.

I disagree. You don’t put bounties on weak and incompetent people. You laugh and ignore them as they can’t stop you. You put bounties on dangerous people. Plus it doesn’t seem that the bounty’s actually exists. An unnamed eulogist at the terrorist general’s funeral stated that Iranians should donate a dollar each for this bounty. No word on if anyone has actually done so. It’s bull. No one will take the job and any money donated to this “cause” will just disappear.

Nah January 16th, 2020 5:34 AM

So Pelosi finally sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate last night

EnglishALT January 16th, 2020 1:51 PM

So today begins the removal trial of the impeachment process. The Chief Justice has been sworn in and the Senators have signed a book saying they will be impartial. Any one want to guess how long it will be before the final vote? The Iowa Caucus and State of the Union are coming up so both sides have a reason to hurry up and get this over with.

However I will say this drags on until Mid February at the earliest.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.