I'd love to see an analysis of how many times he's contradicted himself inside the same sentence or paragraph.

Lol at believing there is really a pee tape

Chuck is a liar too

"All these here damn politicians are so dishonest! Who knows what to believe, amirite?"

Wellnamed does write with the left intonations

SE the mans an idiot if he had started with this and the fact that Schumer and Pelossi had voted before fencing. He might swing more folks but they just keep throwing lies out there.

How you say I never meant they would write a check? Were you thinking E-Transfer?

Yeah. Except for all those sex workers we know he cheated on his wife with, there's just no way he would have ever been caught on tape in a hotel room.

And further proof that there's absolutely no way the pee tape is real is trump himself explained at a press conference soon after that story came out that he KNOWS russia records people in hotel rooms all the time, and he tells his friends that's exactly what they do to people. But not him, no way, he just knows about that because of different non-blackmaily reasons

I’m surrounded by bodyguards. I’m surrounded by people. And I always tell them—anywhere, but I always tell them if I’m leaving this country, “Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go, you’re gonna probably have cameras.” I’m not referring just to Russia, but I would certainly put them in that category.

And number one, “I hope you’re gonna be good anyway. But in those rooms, you have cameras in the strangest places. Cameras that are so small with modern technology, you can’t see them and you won’t know. You better be careful, or you’ll be watching yourself on nightly television.”

I tell this to people all the time.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...um-what-weird/

Excellent quoting skills.

It is too bad the Dems spent 1992-2016 trying to prove how tough they are and yeah, they mostly were and often still are cool with a wall. 50/50 if a Dem is potus in 2021 they will be pushing for tighter border security.

I tell this to people all the time, I say, "if you're chatting with a girl online and she says she's 16 and she wants to meet up for sex, be careful, because a lot of times these are cops on the other end and you show up to the girl's house but there's no girl there it's just the cops and they have the whole conversation printed out and they know everything." So i always tell everybody you gotta be careful when you're chatting up young girls online.

Thanks derp

The pee tape will never be released, it makes no sense for Russia to do so. as per the original report it may not have been a pee tape, but some other embarrassing sexual act.

The odds of something along those lines existing at this point is probably>85%, possibly close to 100% considering everything else in the report besides that has been proven true.

( twitter | raw text )

This really irritates me. It irritates me more that Dems don't have a unified and forceful response to this bull****.

As part of the speech coverage Tuesday night, I heard the Newshour Congressional reporter say this:

I mean WTF? How do you not have an answer for that?

word a day calendar activated!..

intransigence!!

Ah, winning was easy, young man, governing’s harder

They’re being intransigent

You have to find a compromise

But they don’t have a plan, they just hate mine (convince them otherwise)

What happens if I don’t get congressional approval?

I imagine they’ll call for your removal

The dems ruined my trip to Disney.

GTFO with intransigence, Tweet writer. Be better.

Well his position is incoherent. He's really against giving money for a wall, fence or barrier simply because Trump is so strongly for it and giving him money would be a win for Trump. It's obviously pretty hard to reconcile past support for a barrier/fence/whatever with the current Democratic party line of 5 billion dollars for a wall is immoral.

That is obviously a horrible answer, both on appearance and on messaging.
The "I don't really know"-part has the consequence of this just being a partisan game and the obvious correct answer is:
"Democrats are open to improving the situation on immigration and border security. But that's not what this is about. This is about the president taking the process of passing a budget and millions of Americans who depend on it as hostages. We want to pass the budget in order to open up the government and be able to pay hundreds of thousands of federal workers. After that is the time to talk about border immigration and border security."

Regardless of what you think about the validity of it, it's ****ing easy to reconcile supporting a package that includes the wall at one point and then not supporting it later. For example:

"That proposal was part of a broader compromise that included humane treatment of DACA recipients. Donald Trump blew up that compromise and he's not willing to compromise here either. Now he's trying to use the suffering foisted on ordinary Americans by his insane shutdown to force this wall he's so obsessed with past the normal appropriations process and we won't have it."

Problem is that at one point Schumer was supporting a wall as a positive good regardless of the rest

Cite?

No he didn't. Or, if he did, he can pretend he didn't. This is not rocket science.