cinque said:

---

Do any of you who cared so deeply about Hillary's unsecured email server, care at all about Trump's unsecured mobile device? Anybody?

---

How are they different?

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

I wasn't necessarily in favor of prosecuting Hillary, but the issue was a little different with her. In general I think more transparency is better and the government is too quick to classify information that doesn't need to be secret. What made Hillary's conduct so galling wasn't just that she ignored security concerns, but that she did so as part of a systematic effort to hide information from the public and shield herself from things like FOIA.

It's also worth mentioning, at least in passing, that Hillary was actually subject to certain legal rules regarding the handling of classified information. As president, Trump can reveal information to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, however he wants, however he does show some respect to few. At least I think that's how Eminem would put it (forgive the hip hop digression...just got on a roll).

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

Actually, we're in chicken little territory when we're making issue of something like this. Let me let you in on something, that every call to and from a foreign country is monitored. Furthermore, cell networks are likely more secure than landline conversations due to inherent signal encryption in an environment like this. But the bigger issue is that there is so much else that is legitimate criticism that the message is lost when EVERYTHING is nit picked at a level unseen in the past.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

Actually, we're in chicken little territory when we're making issue of something like this. Let me let you in on something, that every call to and from a foreign country is monitored. Furthermore, cell networks are likely more secure than landline conversations due to inherent signal encryption in an environment like this. But the bigger issue is that there is so much else that is legitimate criticism that the message is lost when EVERYTHING is nit picked at a level unseen in the past.

---

Something like this? How can you say that after wanting to lock Hillary up over an unsecured sever that investigations determined was never compromised?

cinque said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

Actually, we're in chicken little territory when we're making issue of something like this. Let me let you in on something, that every call to and from a foreign country is monitored. Furthermore, cell networks are likely more secure than landline conversations due to inherent signal encryption in an environment like this. But the bigger issue is that there is so much else that is legitimate criticism that the message is lost when EVERYTHING is nit picked at a level unseen in the past.

---

Something like this? How can you say that after wanting to lock Hillary up over an unsecured sever that investigations determined was never compromised?

---

You've got the wrong guy.

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

Actually, we're in chicken little territory when we're making issue of something like this. Let me let you in on something, that every call to and from a foreign country is monitored. Furthermore, cell networks are likely more secure than landline conversations due to inherent signal encryption in an environment like this. But the bigger issue is that there is so much else that is legitimate criticism that the message is lost when EVERYTHING is nit picked at a level unseen in the past.

---

I listened to the commentary of life long diplomats and national security professionals. They said it was "insane" to have conducted this call in the manner that it happened. I take them at their word.

Again what you call not picking was the centerpiece of Trump's campaign against Hillary. And it seems like nitpicking because this administration does so much off it that there a million nits to pick.

Above everything else, Trumps "I go with my gut" approach and his governance by social media (and fueled by a troli the haters vibe) philosophy are disasters waiting to happen.

As I have said repeatedly, my personal view is that Trump's manifest failures are no reason to impeach him. But they sure are a reason to fire him come next November.

Booray said:

---

As I have said repeatedly, my personal view is that is not a reason to impeach him. But it sure is a reason to fire him come next November.

---

Who will the Dems choose?

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

As I have said repeatedly, my personal view is that is not a reason to impeach him. But it sure is a reason to fire him come next November.

---

Who will the Dems choose?

---

My vote would go to Steve Bullock. But I think it will be Biden.

cinque said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

Actually, we're in chicken little territory when we're making issue of something like this. Let me let you in on something, that every call to and from a foreign country is monitored. Furthermore, cell networks are likely more secure than landline conversations due to inherent signal encryption in an environment like this. But the bigger issue is that there is so much else that is legitimate criticism that the message is lost when EVERYTHING is nit picked at a level unseen in the past.

---

Something like this? How can you say that after wanting to lock Hillary up over an unsecured sever that investigations determined was never compromised?

---

Of course it wasn't compromised, none of her severs ever are.

ABC BEAR said:

---

cinque said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Not real sure I understand the outrage of the contents of the phone call. Sounds to me like half of the bureaucrats in Washington were listening in. Not sure that is Trump's fault.

Please find something else. The majority of Americans don't want to remove a duly elected President just because you don't like his manners on a phone call. Next scandal please. Find one with just a wee bit of substance.

Thanks

---

I think you missed the point. I am not talking about the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky. Apparently the following day, Ambassador Sonland called President Trump from his cell phone and while at a restaurant in Kiev. Trump was talking so loud that Sonland held the phone away from his ears and several folks in the lunch party overheard it.

The July 25 call was made from a secure line and its readout was placed on our most secure server.

The subject of the July 26 call was whether would be pursuing the investigations, essentially a follow-up to the July 25 call. .

The problem I am referring to does not depend on whether the investigations are appropriate. Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

---

I'm sorry, but this is amazing nit picking we have going on here. Aside from this not being some top secret level conversation, we're also complaining that what, the President should have been whispering about it instead of talking so loud? C'mon....

And let's clarify that we're in the middle of an attempted abuse of power investigation, not even an actual one.

Seriously, people need to move on.

---

When example 1,345 is presented of Trump's self-interest taking precedence over the country's interest, the reaction seems to be to ignore the 1,344 instances that preceded it and minimize the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, but the way this President runs the country is not something I am going to move on from. It is abhorrent.

---

Speaking too loud on a cell phone is closer to item 1,345 than 1. I mean, the horror! This reminds me of when people criticized Obama for filling out a tourney bracket.

---

You are better than this. It isn't the speaking too loud, it is the idea that the cellphone is being used at all. It is worth noting that after making "Hillary's Emails" his number one campaign issue, DJT runs an administration that seems remarkably unconcerned with information security.

But you seem to have fallen into the "any criticism is too much" where Dear Leader is concerned. Too bad.

---

Actually, we're in chicken little territory when we're making issue of something like this. Let me let you in on something, that every call to and from a foreign country is monitored. Furthermore, cell networks are likely more secure than landline conversations due to inherent signal encryption in an environment like this. But the bigger issue is that there is so much else that is legitimate criticism that the message is lost when EVERYTHING is nit picked at a level unseen in the past.

---

Something like this? How can you say that after wanting to lock Hillary up over an unsecured sever that investigations determined was never compromised?

---

Of course it wasn't compromised, none of her severs ever are.

---

Take it up with the GOP led Senate which issued the report.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

fubar said:

---

Booray is correct here, and it is stunning that so many of you won't admit that. Using a cell phone in this case was incredibly stupid -- not remotely impeachable (not that anybody here suggested as much), but stupid beyond comprehension -- and you guys cannot even acknowledge that. You'd rather distort what he said than admit to the truth of it. Unreal.

And spare me the "you didn't care about Hillary ..." ******ation. I didn't vote for her, in large part because of her email fiasco, but I didn't (and don't) think what she did was criminal.

Trump was right about you guys. He's played you for suckers, and you've happily allowed it.

---

Who's been distracting the country for the entire Trump tenure with serial and ever evolving investigations and extensive use of monetary resources, doubling down on discord within the electorate, politicians, and the media? If Trump has played some of his supporters, the Russians have played the Democrats like a friggin Stradivarius.

---

The niftiest trick the Russians pulled off was to convince their dupes that it's not them but everybody else who got played. It's also interesting how under Trump, advocating for integrity and the rule of law has become "distracting" and supposedly divisive. It's only "divisive" because the guy you support whole-heartedly is an unrepentant criminal, if he wasn't the public would justifiably brush off the Dems' accusations without them gaining any traction. But, facts are stubborn things, and you see that in the polling where a majority approaching 70% knows what Trump did was wrong (and that's just this latest episode).

---

FISA abuse IG report dropping Dec. 9th.

Hope you're ready to learn the truth.

---

99 spikes but an end zone ain't one.

How many times you going to fall for "according to unnamed officials"?

Booray said: Instead I am pointing out that security experts say that the manner in which the July 26 call was made made it highly likely that Russian intelligence listened to the second call. After all the "lock her up chants" based on the idea that Hillary did not protect classified or confidential information, it is a little bit ironic that DJT would be broadcasting to Russia his strategy for a country that Russia is intensely interested in? If the July 25 call deserved to be treated as super secret, why would you open your underwear drawer the next day to discuss the same thing?

FWIW: Hillary's unprotected server (next to her underwear drawer) contained Top Secret SCI documents. That is a little different from confidential. In addition, the President has ultimate classification authority; the Secretary of State does not (she may have classification authority over documents originating in the Department of State). Of course the ultimate authority resides with the FBI who can seemingly grant immunity to anyone that it chooses.

And despite Comey's inability to find intent, cutting Top Secret SCI markings off of a document would tend to show intent if I were to do it.

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

As I have said repeatedly, my personal view is that is not a reason to impeach him. But it sure is a reason to fire him come next November.

---

Who will the Dems choose?

---

My vote would go to Steve Bullock. But I think it will be Biden.

---

Are you saying that you will vote for whomever the Dems choose?

I will vote blue no matter who given our exigent circumstances.

57Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

As I have said repeatedly, my personal view is that is not a reason to impeach him. But it sure is a reason to fire him come next November.

---

Who will the Dems choose?

---

My vote would go to Steve Bullock. But I think it will be Biden.

---

Are you saying that you will vote for whomever the Dems choose?

---

That is not what I said. But I would vote for any of the presently declared Democratic candidates over DJT.

Booray said:

---

57Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

As I have said repeatedly, my personal view is that is not a reason to impeach him. But it sure is a reason to fire him come next November.

---

Who will the Dems choose?

---

My vote would go to Steve Bullock. But I think it will be Biden.

---

Are you saying that you will vote for whomever the Dems choose?

---

That is not what I said. But I would vote for any of the presently declared Democratic candidates over DJT.

---

What are your criticism against Democrats? Just curious?

Are you a free college, government healthcare, high taxes, anti capitalism kind of guy, or more moderate?