TRUMP for Prez

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So let’s say I want to outlaw abortion and require Christian town criers in every town square. Am I then immune from any charge of immorality for anything else I might do?

Look man. By definition every person is a sinner. Every president is a sinner and immoral by definition. This hack calling for Trump to be removed for being immoral is idiotic. If he wanted to be consistent, he would call for every president to be removed especially the ones who support abortion. The guy wrote that to get their name in the paper and drum up support for his failing magazine.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So let’s say I want to outlaw abortion and require Christian town criers in every town square. Am I then immune from any charge of immorality for anything else I might do?

Bro, your whataboutisms and chronic contrarian rhetorical questions are exhausting and old.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Look man. By definition every person is a sinner. Every president is a sinner and immoral by definition. This hack calling for Trump to be removed for being immoral is idiotic. If he wanted to be consistent, he would call for every president to be removed especially the ones who support abortion. The guy wrote that to get their name in the paper and drum up support for his failing magazine.

Gold star for you. That just put the perfect cap on this subject.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Which parts weren't written by people who expected such adherence?

Is there a published list of the "certain standards?"

How does the senate failing to consider Merrick Garland' SCOTUS nomination fit into your "only dems game the system" rubric?

Don't know. Maybe they should have and started lining up people to come in an lie and make a circus out of it like the democrats would. Still have not heard a single one of you denounce what the democrats did. That was horrible to do to someone and shows how dangerous you people are.

Democrats, the party of hate, baby killing, trannys & pedophiles. so much to support. Oh & mass illegal immigration because it feels good

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

AFAIK no president has ever been elected without winning the electoral college? What part is hypothetical?

I'm not following you. What are you even arguing here?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It’s a ministerial act. It’s not like there is another vote or some river to be crossed to submit the articles. And it’s not like they won’t be submitted either. Seems like a weird temporal technicality to hang your hat on.

It is not a technicality. It is a political strategy. The democrats wanted to be able to say they impeached Trump. That is why they have been digging into every single thing they could. That is what they have been monitoring him and making up fake whistleblowers. That is why they planet the fake Russian narrative. It is all a strategy to at best remove Trump, at least have talking points about how Trump was dirty and working with a foreign country. That is why that talking point has been repeated over and over even though it has been found to be completely untrue. If she does not submit the articles, Trump can not say he was found innocent. At worst they keep ahold of them because they are hoping to get his financial records. They want to start digging through them as well and come up with some fake reason to impeach him for that. It would look bad to try and impeach Trump twice in 6 months so they keep a hold of the records until they can dig some more. Crap is already old and is getting older.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Look man. By definition every person is a sinner. Every president is a sinner and immoral by definition. This hack calling for Trump to be removed for being immoral is idiotic. If he wanted to be consistent, he would call for every president to be removed especially the ones who support abortion. The guy wrote that to get their name in the paper and drum up support for his failing magazine.

Soooo... we are all immoral and we need to make choices based on the immorality we find least offensive. Is that a fair understanding of what you are saying?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

It is not a technicality. It is a political strategy. The democrats wanted to be able to say they impeached Trump. That is why they have been digging into every single thing they could. That is what they have been monitoring him and making up fake whistleblowers. That is why they planet the fake Russian narrative. It is all a strategy to at best remove Trump, at least have talking points about how Trump was dirty and working with a foreign country. That is why that talking point has been repeated over and over even though it has been found to be completely untrue. If she does not submit the articles, Trump can not say he was found innocent. At worst they keep ahold of them because they are hoping to get his financial records. They want to start digging through them as well and come up with some fake reason to impeach him for that. It would look bad to try and impeach Trump twice in 6 months so they keep a hold of the records until they can dig some more. Crap is already old and is getting older.

So in some cases, exploiting technicalities as a political strategy is OK (say... just for instance... withholding congressionally appropriated funds until a concession can be extracted) but in other cases it's "old crap."

Do I have that right?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You are aware that occupy was part of the backlash from the great recession, right?

Why did the tea party folks descend on washington... because they were out of work layabouts?

the reason you don't see this stuff in flyover country is because.... drum roll.... nobody lives there. If one dude is pissed in a town of 5000, he's not going to conduct a sit in in the town square. But in a city of 8 million, you're probably going to find a few thousand likeminded people for almost anything.

Then again maybe it's because all of the flyover folks who were out of work were too busy getting addicted to prescription opiates?

Fact is great recession hit rurals harder and cities have bounced back but rurals are never going to catch up. Which is a great reason to cut taxes for the billionaires who live in the cities, apparently.

Let's address your "nobody live there comment". I am sure you watch the NFL. 32 teams and only 5 teams are from the liberal hell holes San Fran, LA, New York, Seattle and Chicago. The rest for the most part are in fly over country. They usually don't go around giving NFL Franchises to places where there is "nobody living". Well except Green Bay, but they still have major city support. People in the other 27 cities are not how rioting or doing sit ins. Those cities that I listed are probably the richest cities with the most job and they are overwhelmingly control by democrats for generations. Maybe democrats need to re-evaluate how they do business if they have a significant portions of their populations feeling the need to riot, crap in the streets, and so on when they have the most money, opportunity and jobs.

Ever thought that democrats policies of trying to spread the wealth (meaning American middle class to the world) via regulations, taxes and so on is putting vast pressure on the common people. So much so that even a person trying to live a very modest life can not be allowed to live a modest life? We had a car that ran fine but had a sensor error that could not pass smog due to an error even though the emmission were fine. Had to give the car away to a charity because I was not allowed to sell it to a poor person for very little money. Actually I could not even give it away to anyone because I could not transfer the title because it needed a valid smog certificate.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

I'm not following you. What are you even arguing here?

You say no impeachment because articles not delivered. I say the delivery is ministerial and all of the hard labor has been done, so saying the president has been impeached is reasonable.

As an example of a similar circumstance, I give you the election of the president, which will happen the first tuesday in November. I, like most people, will be reasonably confident with who won by the morning after.

To maintain the consistency of your strict adherence to ministerial requirements, I've asked whether you withhold judgment on who the winner is, and in fact go around correcting everyone that there isn't a winner yet, until the electoral college acts?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So in some cases, exploiting technicalities as a political strategy is OK (say... just for instance... withholding congressionally appropriated funds until a concession can be extracted) but in other cases it's "old crap."

Do I have that right?

The president IS the foreign policy. Just like when Binden had one and only ONE guy fired in a whole country of corruption or he was going to with hold $1 billion dollars. Congress only appropriate funds. The president can decide how to implement HIS foreign policy. Not congress. Congress can make up their rules for how they do business. Nancy can hold back her articles. That is like a prosecutor saying they are going to charge such and such of a crime, but never take them to court. They person is never actually guilty of anything. Just using it to smear them. Here is the other little secret. The Senate can vote to change the rules. They can change it to where they don't have to wait for the house to send over the articles. The vote was taken, it is a matter of public record. They can say to the house that, here is when this is gong to happen. If you don't show up, you are in default, trial over. Just like any trial in any courtroom

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You say no impeachment because articles not delivered. I say the delivery is ministerial and all of the hard labor has been done, so saying the president has been impeached is reasonable.

As an example of a similar circumstance, I give you the election of the president, which will happen the first tuesday in November. I, like most people, will be reasonably confident with who won by the morning after.

To maintain the consistency of your strict adherence to ministerial requirements, I've asked whether you withhold judgment on who the winner is, and in fact go around correcting everyone that there isn't a winner yet, until the electoral college acts?

Well no. Without submittal of the impeachment there is no impeachment. It is a charge. Likewise, if you charged with a crime & they decide not to prosecute, then there is no crime. "impeached" may play good for the cameras & the lefts base but it's dead in the water without its submittal to the senate.

Comparing it to the election is hardly the same. Assuming who won the night before is easily undone the next morning if the votes are there. Kind of how the dems always seem to find just enough "lost" ballots to put slightly over tight races.

If there was a case it would be submitted. They'll try to use it as their excuse to get more docs for their "investigation", but the judge they're banking on who may not even hear the case could potentially rule since they rushed to ahead with impeachment their request for grand jury material & finances is no longer warranted.

This was nothing more than to appease the rabids on the left & prevent their life long dems from being primaried by them

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You say no impeachment because articles not delivered. I say the delivery is ministerial and all of the hard labor has been done, so saying the president has been impeached is reasonable.

As an example of a similar circumstance, I give you the election of the president, which will happen the first tuesday in November. I, like most people, will be reasonably confident with who won by the morning after.

To maintain the consistency of your strict adherence to ministerial requirements, I've asked whether you withhold judgment on who the winner is, and in fact go around correcting everyone that there isn't a winner yet, until the electoral college acts?

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

The senate has the sole power to try. If there is nothing to try, then there is no impeachment. If there was an impeachment, then they would have something to try. Prosecutor can do all the hard work they want. The work they do is always one sided and unfair to a defendant. Everyone in the world recognizes if you don't take your case to court, nothing ever happened. If you don't actually take them to court, then there never was any charges by definition because if someone was actually formally charged (impeached), then they have the constitutional right to defend themselves. In this case Trump is not being allowed to defend himself, thus no impeachment.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Let's address your "nobody live there comment". I am sure you watch the NFL. 32 teams and only 5 teams are from the liberal hell holes San Fran, LA, New York, Seattle and Chicago.

And yet the mayor from those cities are almost all democrats?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Even in bastions of conservatism like Texas, the mayor of Dallas is a dem, the mayor of Houston is a dem.

Phoenix? dem. Cleveland? dem. Indianapolis? dem. Cinci? dem. St.Louis? dem. Charlotte? dem.

Green Bay? yep, dem.

You do get Florida (Jacksonville and Miami)

I'm not sure if this NFL citites are republican argument is as good for you as you think.

I would argue that as population density increases, so does an electorate's propensity to vote dem. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Well no. Without submittal of the impeachment there is no impeachment. It is a charge. Likewise, if you charged with a crime & they decide not to prosecute, then there is no crime. "impeached" may play good for the cameras & the lefts base but it's dead in the water without its submittal to the senate.

Comparing it to the election is hardly the same. Assuming who won the night before is easily undone the next morning if the votes are there. Kind of how the dems always seem to find just enough "lost" ballots to put slightly over tight races.

If there was a case it would be submitted. They'll try to use it as their excuse to get more docs for their "investigation", but the judge they're banking on who may not even hear the case could potentially rule since they rushed to ahead with impeachment their request for grand jury material & finances is no longer warranted.

This was nothing more than to appease the rabids on the left & prevent their life long dems from being primaried by them

So you think the House's vote might somehow be undone?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The senate has the sole power to try. If there is nothing to try, then there is no impeachment. If there was an impeachment, then they would have something to try. Prosecutor can do all the hard work they want. The work they do is always one sided and unfair to a defendant. Everyone in the world recognizes if you don't take your case to court, nothing ever happened. If you don't actually take them to court, then there never was any charges by definition because if someone was actually formally charged (impeached), then they have the constitutional right to defend themselves. In this case Trump is not being allowed to defend himself, thus no impeachment.

I don't know what conservative media outlet is selling you guys this dumb argument, but it's dumb.

EDIT: BTW, where is this "constitutional right to defend themselves"? Can you cite me the clause?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

]

To maintain the consistency of your strict adherence to ministerial requirements, I've asked whether you withhold judgment on who the winner is, and in fact go around correcting everyone that there isn't a winner yet, until the electoral college acts?

Very interesting you bring that up. Technically we do not have a winner until the Electoral College votes. Matter of fact, you democrats are trying to game the system by having states adhere to if the president wins the popular vote, they will automatically switch all their electoral votes to whoever get the popular vote even if it is the other party. They believe that the shear number of people in New York, Chicago, LA and San Fran and using the voter harvesting laws like they put in for california last election coupled with illegals flooding the market will be enough to always win the popular vote.

I am sure Wes is gong to chime in that voter harvesting is a good thing. Wait until the Republicans go into the democrat districts and collect their ballots from all the non english speaking immigrants and write in Republican votes instead of the democrat votes that these "collectors" did last election.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I don't know what conservative media outlet is selling you guys this dumb argument, but it's dumb.

EDIT: BTW, where is this "constitutional right to defend themselves"? Can you cite me the clause?

Really, Now there is no right for an accused to defend themselves? Is this along the continued lines that if you defend yourself, you must be guilty? You guys are dangerous to humanity man.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I don't know what conservative media outlet is selling you guys this dumb argument, but it's dumb.

EDIT: BTW, where is this "constitutional right to defend themselves"? Can you cite me the clause?

Federal impeachment
Constitutional provisions

According to the U.S. Senate: "if a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office."[2]

There are several provisions in the United States Constitution relating to impeachment:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.[3]

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Really, Now there is no right for an accused to defend themselves? Is this along the continued lines that if you defend yourself, you must be guilty? You guys are dangerous to humanity man.

You might find, Delta, that that only applies in criminal cases.

For instance -- I'm sure that you'd agree that in a criminal case, the defendant has a right against self incrimination, right? They don't have to testify, lest their testimony be used against them. But that's not the case at all in civil cases. Remember the perjury trap that the Paula Jones lawyers set for Clinton? He got caught in it because he was ordered to testify because the case was civil.

I don't see why constitutional rights which apply when a person is going to be jailed would apply to what is essentially a termination proceeding.

It's an interesting question tho, but pretty much a deadly one for SCOTUS to weigh in on. Whether or not the President is entitled to mount a defense, and what the scope of that defense will be, is going to be completely up to the rules the Senate adopts, not some constitutional principle.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I don't know what conservative media outlet is selling you guys this dumb argument, but it's dumb.

EDIT: BTW, where is this "constitutional right to defend themselves"? Can you cite me the clause?

Now that I have shown you the clause. back to reality. An impeachment is a FORMAL CHARGE. If you are charged, you have the right to defend yourself in court. In this case, the court is the Senate. If you are never charged then you are never charged. A prosecutor can hand wave all they want, call you everything and even say you are guilty all they want. IF they don't actually charge you, then you have done nothing and the people running around saying you did these things are lying asses who should be kicked out of office for the behavior.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

And yet the mayor from those cities are almost all democrats?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Even in bastions of conservatism like Texas, the mayor of Dallas is a dem, the mayor of Houston is a dem.

Phoenix? dem. Cleveland? dem. Indianapolis? dem. Cinci? dem. St.Louis? dem. Charlotte? dem.

Green Bay? yep, dem.

You do get Florida (Jacksonville and Miami)

I'm not sure if this NFL citites are republican argument is as good for you as you think.

I would argue that as population density increases, so does an electorate's propensity to vote dem. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Yep, and they are in moderate to conservative states. They happen to be dems surrounded by Republican state policies that don't let them destroy their people. Just like California used to be. Now that the dems have cheated, imported and gamed the system there is no long Republican policies keeping the democrat from subjegating the people.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You might find, Delta, that that only applies in criminal cases.

For instance -- I'm sure that you'd agree that in a criminal case, the defendant has a right against self incrimination, right? They don't have to testify, lest their testimony be used against them. But that's not the case at all in civil cases. Remember the perjury trap that the Paula Jones lawyers set for Clinton? He got caught in it because he was ordered to testify because the case was civil.

I don't see why constitutional rights which apply when a person is going to be jailed would apply to what is essentially a termination proceeding.

It's an interesting question tho, but pretty much a deadly one for SCOTUS to weigh in on. Whether or not the President is entitled to mount a defense, and what the scope of that defense will be, is going to be completely up to the rules the Senate adopts, not some constitutional principle.

The constitution in very plain language says the Senate has the Sole Power to try ALL impeachments. IF there was an impeachment, then they would have to try it. It does not say the president can be impeached and the Senate can not try it and let the house vote rubber stamp the impeachment. The Senate with their sole power to try has to get the charge. No change no trial. No trial, then there was no impeachment.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The constitution in very plain language says the Senate has the Sole Power to try ALL impeachments. IF there was an impeachment, then they would have to try it. It does not say the president can be impeached and the Senate can not try it and let the house vote rubber stamp the impeachment. The Senate with their sole power to try has to get the charge. No change no trial. No trial, then there was no impeachment.

Right. So at this point the House holds all the cards on when the process begins in the Senate. We agree.

But that doesn't give the President a "constitutional right" to a defense.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Yep, and they are in moderate to conservative states. They happen to be dems surrounded by Republican state policies that don't let them destroy their people. Just like California used to be. Now that the dems have cheated, imported and gamed the system there is no long Republican policies keeping the democrat from subjegating the people.

But so what is your argument about the NFL cities then? I'm not following it.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Right. So at this point the House holds all the cards on when the process begins in the Senate. We agree.

But that doesn't give the President a "constitutional right" to a defense.

Sure it does. He is being Charged with impeachment. He has the right to mount a defense. The purpose of impeachment is to lead to the removal of the president. The impeachment IS the formal charge. If there is a formal charge the Senate has to take the case and work on nothing but that case until it concludes. Basically you are arguing that the prosecutors voted to charge someone, but never charge them then what does that really mean? So some people made up some charges, had an internal one sided vote that someone is guilty and then nothing happens with it. That is not how that works. If a charge is never formally processed then it is not a charge. An impeachment is a charge. A charge needs to be filled or it is simply just words and an opinion.

Are you saying that he can be impeached and removed without him being able to give his side of the story? I would love to see that.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So you think the House's vote might somehow be undone?

No & it's a moot point. What good does the vote do if they don't send it to the senate? What did you / they accomplish? Nothing

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

But so what is your argument about the NFL cities then? I'm not following it.

You said no one lives in those areas where people are not out protesting and belly aching all the time. Just putting it in simple terms. There a millions and millions of people in fly over states that are out doing what they are supposed to be doing to the best of their abilities and they are not out trying to bring down the system and loot burn and steal other people stuff. You only see this stuff where leftist politics has an iron fist. Every where there is a high population density where they cities has control of the state via numbers, the people suffer because the leftist are in bed with the internationalists and central control people.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Really, Now there is no right for an accused to defend themselves? Is this along the continued lines that if you defend yourself, you must be guilty? You guys are dangerous to humanity man.

I think we've established 200 pages ago they don't give a rats about due process if it means getting the bad orange man.

I feel sorry for the left. The left keeps getting their hopes up, playing with their emotions banking on their low IQ's & no idea how government works to keep them riled up while knowing none of this going anywhere.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I don't know what conservative media outlet is selling you guys this dumb argument, but it's dumb.

EDIT: BTW, where is this "constitutional right to defend themselves"? Can you cite me the clause?

thank you for exposing how dumbed down the left is from their media, start here:

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 6

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You said no one lives in those areas where people are not out protesting and belly aching all the time. Just putting it in simple terms. There a millions and millions of people in fly over states that are out doing what they are supposed to be doing to the best of their abilities and they are not out trying to bring down the system and loot burn and steal other people stuff. You only see this stuff where leftist politics has an iron fist. Every where there is a high population density where they cities has control of the state via numbers, the people suffer because the leftist are in bed with the internationalists and central control people.

The more densely people live, the more dems. The more sparsely, the more republicans. So it stands to reason that if you want to get a protest going (something that takes a critical mass of people) that those folks will come from a place where population is dense and thus more likely to be dems.

It’s demographics not a liberal conspiracy.

Why no protests in Wyoming? Too hard to find someone to protest with.

Are you saying that he can be impeached and removed without him being able to give his side of the story? I would love to see that.

There should be a trial.
How is it a "trial" if the accused and the jurors are openly admitting they are on the same team? Moscow Mitch needs to allow trump to be able to give his side of the story, show his innocence and to call witnesses. The optics wont be too good if they open and vote without hearing testimony.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

The more densely people live, the more dems. The more sparsely, the more republicans. So it stands to reason that if you want to get a protest going (something that takes a critical mass of people) that those folks will come from a place where population is dense and thus more likely to be dems.

It’s demographics not a liberal conspiracy.

Why no protests in Wyoming? Too hard to find someone to protest with.

Why no protests in all those NFL cities other than the ones I listed? Millions of people there. No protests and no riots.

Originally Posted by 95sn

There should be a trial.
How is it a "trial" if the accused and the jurors are openly admitting they are on the same team? Moscow Mitch needs to allow trump to be able to give his side of the story, show his innocence and to call witnesses. The optics wont be too good if they open and vote without hearing testimony.

How is it a fair prosecution when the prosecutors have said since your very existence that they are going to get you? The public understand the basics of fairness and this was the very definition of an unfair process. Optics will be just fine if they choose vote not guilty without even hearing the arguments. They are made up charges and no merit. Most of the public understands what happened.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Why no protests in all those NFL cities other than the ones I listed? Millions of people there. No protests and no riots.

c'mon man don't make me dig up the news reports from every local paper in the country.

Let's just stick to one recent movement that we can probably all consider on the liberal side of the spectrum... the Pu$$yhat womens marches.

Here's the list of cities and number attendees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...arch_locations

Why didn't you hear about all of those bellyachers? Probably because they didn't "fit the narrative" of any peaceful assertion of the right to free assembly turning into a tire burning ANTIFA free for all.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

How is it a fair prosecution when the prosecutors have said since your very existence that they are going to get you? The public understand the basics of fairness and this was the very definition of an unfair process. Optics will be just fine if they choose vote not guilty without even hearing the arguments. They are made up charges and no merit. Most of the public understands what happened.

Ask the founders man, they wrote it.

I guess we could get back to it being a political remedy.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

The more densely people live, the more dems. The more sparsely, the more republicans. So it stands to reason that if you want to get a protest going (something that takes a critical mass of people) that those folks will come from a place where population is dense and thus more likely to be dems.

It’s demographics not a liberal conspiracy.

Why no protests in Wyoming? Too hard to find someone to protest with.

Besides. What does having a high population have to do with finding people to riot with? Don't they have all the jobs, all the money, all the culture, all the fun stuff to do? Why would they ever need to riot. I am sure their middle class is doing all so, so well with their iron fisted leftist policies.

Here's the March for Science list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ence_locations

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Ask the founders man, they wrote it.

I guess we could get back to it being a political remedy.

It is a political remedy that is actually a charge that has to be heard by the Senate and voted on (well assuming there is a actual charge filed). No charges, no impeachment from my point of view. If impeachment is simply as one stop political remedy, then why would anyone ever care and why do all your leftist buddies think Trump will be thrown out of office? Why is Pelosi trying to game the system?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

It Why is Pelosi trying to game the system?

She's not. She's appeasing her base & knows it goes nowhere

Brony Conventions. Bold is the attendance. Dwarfs in many years of your whole country combined "protest" in fly over states. Reminder, this are dudes who love to dress up as my little pony:

June 25, 2011 NYC Seminar and Conference Center, Midtown Manhattan 100[18] Cabal, founder of RainbowDash.net
September 24, 2011 Chinatown, Manhattan 300[9] Shaun "Sethisto" Scotellaro, Jayson Thiessen[9]
January 7, 2012 Hotel Pennsylvania,[30] New York City 650[31] Ashleigh Ball, Andrea Libman, Nicole Oliver, Daniel Ingram, My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic development team, Alex S., Shaun "Sethisto" Scotellaro, fan artists John Joseco, Pixelkitties, and Egophiliac[citation needed]
June 30, 2012 – July 1, 2012 Meadowlands Exposition Center, Secaucus, New Jersey 4,000[18] Lauren Faust, John de Lancie, Tara Strong, Peter New, Nicole Oliver, Andrea Libman, Meghan McCarthy, Cathy Weseluck, Lee Tockar, Amy Keating Rogers[citation needed]
August 2–4, 2013 Baltimore Convention Center and Hilton Baltimore Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 8,407[32] Andy Price, Katie Cook, Heather Breckel, Nicole Oliver, Lee Tockar, Cathy Weseluck, Michelle Creber, Madeleine Peters, Amy Keating Rogers, M.A. Larson, Brenda Crichlow, G.M. Berrow[33]
August 1–3, 2014 Baltimore Convention Center, Baltimore, Maryland 9,607[21] Daniel Ingram, Kazumi Evans, Tabitha St. Germain, Andrea Libman, Heather Breckel, Tony Fleecs, Katie Cook, Andy Price, Terry Klassen, Rebecca Shoichet, Sabrina "Sibsy" Alberghetti, Josh Haber, Claire Corlett, Ian James Corlett, Peter New, G.M. Berrow, "Big" Jim Miller, Brent Hodge[34]
August 7–9, 2015 Baltimore Convention Center, Baltimore, Maryland 10,011[35] Tony Fleecs, Nicole Oliver, Agnes Garbowska, Andrea Libman, Heather Nuhfer, Kazumi Evans, Amy Keating Rogers, Michael Dobson, G.M. Berrow, Charlotte Fullerton, Andy Price, M.A. Larson, John de Lancie, Kelly Sheridan, Cathy Weseluck[36]
July 8–10, 2016[37] Baltimore Convention Center and Hilton Baltimore Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 7,609[38] Tony Fleecs, Michelle Creber, Gabriel Brown, Andrea Libman, Sara Richard, G.M. Berrow, Tara Strong, Andy Price, Tabitha St. Germain, Ingrid Nilson, M.A. Larson, Ashleigh Ball, Dave Polsky, Jeremy Whitley, Chiara Zanni, Jenn Blake[39]
August 11–13, 2017[40] Baltimore Convention Center and Hilton Baltimore Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 6,319[25] Michelle Creber, Daniel Ingram, Claire Corlett, Gabriel Brown, Madeleine Peters, Brynna Drummond, Cathy Weseluck, Ian James Corlett, Brian Drummond, Kyle Rideout, Vincent Tong, Kelly Sheridan, Blair Peters, Tony Fleecs, Andy Price[41]
July 27–29, 2018[42] Baltimore Convention Center and Hilton Baltimore Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 5,465[43] Jay Fosgitt, Tony Fleecs, Sara Richard, Tabitha St. Germain, Michelle Creber, Gabriel Brown, Nick Confalone, Peter New, Ingrid Nilson, Amy Keating Rogers, M.A. Larson, Lena Hall, Bill Newton, community guests[44]
August 1–4, 2019[2] Baltimore Convention Center and Hilton Baltimore Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 10,215[45] Andrea Libman, Britt McKillip, Jayson Thiessen, Nicole Oliver, Cathy Weseluck, Tony Fleecs, Andy Price, Sara Richard, Michelle Creber, Gabriel Brown, Rebecca Shoichet, Lauren Faust, M.A. Larson, Bonnie Zacherle, community guests[46]

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

She's not. She's appeasing her base & knows it goes nowhere

You stop answering. I know you already know the answer. I don't care if you keep bringing apples up front, please don't raise your hand anymore. I wont call on you.

Man I never saw the violent brony fallout. Do you have video of the mayhem they wrought trying to impose their iron fisted leftists policies through violence?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Man I never saw the violent brony fallout. Do you have video of the mayhem they wrought trying to impose their iron fisted leftists policies through violence?

Not sure. You guys tried to say we had a white supremist problem when in fact we have more of a brony problem than we do a white supremist problem by turn out. I would say that your country wide science day is not much of country wide protest in fly over country as compared to the brony population. however you did get me. There are enough people to get together in fly over country to protest after all. Who knew... Oh that's right. I knew. It was you that was saying there were not enough people to protest, though they are more into protesting for more leftist policies than protesting their ill fated government imposed lifestyle.



The Rise of Oakland’s Riot Culture

When the Bay Area’s Futureless Generation Found Each Other

http://www.maskmagazine.com/the-grea...ulture-reprise

Funny. The Bay Area's Futureless Generation Found Each other???? Freaking hilarious. They have to import people from all around the world to fill the jobs here, yet they feel like have no future only to strike in violence? Sounds to me like they have been brain washed and beaten down. If one could only imagine what the overall policies of the Bay Area are and now the state.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Man I never saw the violent brony fallout. Do you have video of the mayhem they wrought trying to impose their iron fisted leftists policies through violence?

You almost make the argument that the right should get violent AF just so we can say we're equal with violent city burning leftist twats

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You stop answering. I know you already know the answer. I don't care if you keep bringing apples up front, please don't raise your hand anymore. I wont call on you.

But I haven't had a chance to explain what a "Hanging Chad" is to brainwashed commies here. Nor have we touched on the lefts desperation to change the subject from how damaging the Horiowitz report was. Lastly, teacher, if you don't let me finish the left won't figure out they've shot their load with this gambit & they have nothing left now.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

But I haven't had a chance to explain what a "Hanging Chad" is to brainwashed commies here. Nor have we touched on the lefts desperation to change the subject from how damaging the Horiowitz report was. Lastly, teacher, if you don't let me finish the left won't figure out they've shot their load with this gambit & they have nothing left now.

Horse.... Water.....Water...... Horse. Now that everyone has been properly introduced, to use a term I had the non pleasure of hearing all week..... The Gentleman is Recognized....

Wall Street Journal
1.84M subscribers
Officials at the University of California, Berkeley canceled the appearance of a right-wing provocateur, Breitbart News Network writer Milo Yiannopoulos, on Wednesday after protesters swarmed the campus, lighted fires and smashed windows. Photo: Associated Press

Violent UC Berkeley Protests Force Cancellation of Breitbart Writer's Talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwFzOW2tZf0


USA: At least nine arrested at Ben Shapiro protest in Berkeley

There is more. This is just to DARE to speak an opposing idea in California in public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoPhoVd5rC4

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

You almost make the argument that the right should get violent AF just so we can say we're equal with violent city burning leftist twats

My bad. Wasn't trying to pass judgment on you guys. Different strokes man. Live and let live. If you wanna Brony on the weekend, who am I to stop you.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

There is more. This is just to DARE to speak an opposing idea in California in public.

Isn't Devin Nunes from CA?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Isn't Devin Nunes from CA?

Isnt cali controlled by a bunch of mouth breathing hate spewing leftists?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Isn't Devin Nunes from CA?

He represents an area out in the Valley down by Fresno. Every bit of the people in the vast land mass of California is dominated by the population of the two big rich city areas. Just like Chicago dominates Illinois. Nunes has seen what happens to the state when the leftist take over. I can see why he is so passionate.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

My bad. Wasn't trying to pass judgment on you guys. Different strokes man. Live and let live. If you wanna Brony on the weekend, who am I to stop you.

Pretty sure it is not our crowd over at the brony bins. We have our bibles and guns to cling to keep us warm.....

I guess I’ll suffer a few brony bins if coming over to your side means pardoning kiddie rapists

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9254821.html

Originally Posted by pesos

I guess I’ll suffer a few brony bins if coming over to your side means pardoning kiddie rapists

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9254821.html

So you agree when one does it labels them all?

On the fourth day of Christmas Pelosi gave to me,

4 Squad-Clowns tweeting, 3 Lawyers lying, 2 Dentures failing, 1 Fake Impeachment

and a Trump Victory now a guarantee!

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

So you agree when one does it labels them all?

Thanks for emphasizing the point others have been making about Delta and his broad brush.

Originally Posted by pesos

Thanks for emphasizing the point others have been making about Delta and his broad brush.

You guys use your broad brush all day long as well. Perhaps both should stop painting from the same can

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Your money goes into sponsoring those people who do those things.

Another lie. Just keep saying random stupid sh*t.

I just had to lookup what a Brony is. Good Lord! What the heck??? Total libtards in action there, I tell ya. Guarantee you can’t find a single conservative in those circles.

yup

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/203...vative-bronies

https://www.facebook.com/conservativebroniesofamerica

Another clue. White House halted Ukraine aid 2 hours after the Perfect Call.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...-perfect-call/

Originally Posted by 95sn

yup

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/203...vative-bronies

https://www.facebook.com/conservativebroniesofamerica

Yikes! That just ain’t right. Who the hell are these people??? Never mind. I don’t want to know.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Another clue. White House halted Ukraine aid 2 hours after the Perfect Call.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...-perfect-call/

Irrelevant! Trumpist's will just pretzel logic themselves from no quid pro quo to, Trump is foreign policy or if the president does it it's not illegal. On the plus side it illuminates the illusion that rightist are all principalled, black and white, right and wrong types of people. They are hypocrits, just like the majority of the left.

Originally Posted by ralph

Irrelevant! Trumpist's will just pretzel logic themselves from no quid pro quo to, Trump is foreign policy or if the president does it it's not illegal. On the plus side it illuminates the illusion that rightist are all principalled, black and white, right and wrong types of people. They are hypocrits, just like the majority of the left.

Your argument then clearly indicates Biden broke the law, yet he is running for president with zero calls for him to resign over his actions in Ukraine. You can't have it both ways. Likewise, if the evidence is there to support your claim, the house would have used it. They didn't. Meanwhile Biden is on tape bragging about it. Either it's illegal or just slimy politics. So far, based on what's going on, it is simply the latter.

Hell, by the logic here Pelois is engaged in Quid Pro Quo. Where are the screams? The house has no power to demand anything in the senate for a "fair" trial. Should have done their homework before racing through this farce.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Your argument then clearly indicates Biden broke the law, yet he is running for president with zero calls for him to resign over his actions in Ukraine. You can't have it both ways. Likewise, if the evidence is there to support your claim, the house would have used it. They didn't. Meanwhile Biden is on tape bragging about it. Either it's illegal or just slimy politics. So far, based on what's going on, it is simply the latter.

Nope, I'm happy for Biden to face the music, as I am Trump but your argument seems to be oh if Biden has done it so can trump. Thats my point, all of a sudden trump had turned the right from absolutists to relativists, something they supposedly hate.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The constitution in very plain language says the Senate has the Sole Power to try ALL impeachments.

So, the president was, in fact, Impeached! If the Senate is going to try an Impeachment, doesn't he have to be Impeached, first? The Senate doesn't try an Almost Impeached president, they try an Impeached president, how can they try a Not Impeached president?
This is Trumps election to lose(shutting down the government or More tariffs would do the trick)

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Hell, by the logic here Pelois is engaged in Quid Pro Quo. Where are the screams? The house has no power to demand anything in the senate for a "fair" trial. Should have done their homework before racing through this farce.

Bargaining is the nature of politics. The issue isn’t whether politicians bargain (they can, they will, they should) it’s whether the bargaining is done in the interest of the people or in the politician’s own political interest.

“I’ll push your project if you give me (personally) money,” clearly BAD bargaining.

“I’ll push your project, but you’ve got to drop this and that requirement,” probably OK bargaining.

In our current situation, the question is whether trump was bargaining for political dirt on a rival (I.e. impermissible personal gain), or whether he was bargaining in the interest of the American people to root out corruption and it just happens to be a political rival involved in this particular case.

Not sure how one could argue that Pelosi is getting something out of withholding the Articles which is to benefit her personally? Open to hear the argument tho.

Originally Posted by ralph

Nope, I'm happy for Biden to face the music, as I am Trump but your argument seems to be oh if Biden has done it so can trump. Thats my point, all of a sudden trump had turned the right from absolutists to relativists, something they supposedly hate.

What came first? Chicken or the egg? Answer: None of this would be a topic of discussion if Biden and his son weren’t crooked. That’s where this all started. Honestly, I wouldn’t even care if there WAS a quid pro quo from Trump.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Bargaining is the nature of politics. The issue isn’t whether politicians bargain (they can, they will, they should) it’s whether the bargaining is done in the interest of the people or in the politician’s own political interest.

“I’ll push your project if you give me (personally) money,” clearly BAD bargaining.

“I’ll push your project, but you’ve got to drop this and that requirement,” probably OK bargaining.

In our current situation, the question is whether trump was bargaining for political dirt on a rival (I.e. impermissible personal gain), or whether he was bargaining in the interest of the American people to root out corruption and it just happens to be a political rival involved in this particular case.

Not sure how one could argue that Pelosi is getting something out of withholding the Articles which is to benefit her personally? Open to hear the argument tho.

Trump was just draining the swamp. It benefits Pelosi personally if/when her party benefits.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Bargaining is the nature of politics. The issue isn’t whether politicians bargain (they can, they will, they should) it’s whether the bargaining is done in the interest of the people or in the politician’s own political interest.

“I’ll push your project if you give me (personally) money,” clearly BAD bargaining.

“I’ll push your project, but you’ve got to drop this and that requirement,” probably OK bargaining.

In our current situation, the question is whether trump was bargaining for political dirt on a rival (I.e. impermissible personal gain), or whether he was bargaining in the interest of the American people to root out corruption and it just happens to be a political rival involved in this particular case.

Not sure how one could argue that Pelosi is getting something out of withholding the Articles which is to benefit her personally? Open to hear the argument tho.

She has zero, none, zilch say or influence what so ever what happens in the senate. Queen Nancy was the investigative body who pushed this through with while denying due process or for the pubes to call anyone during the sham investigation. Her argument for obstruction of congress was in the middle of the courts decisions, they should have waited. Now she's holding impeachment hostage unless she gets her way? That isn't how it works especially after you played peek-a-bo politics & shut the right out completely. Pay backs suck, but it's legitimate & she is most certainly holding it hostage unless she gets her way.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

She has zero, none, zilch say or influence what so ever what happens in the senate. Queen Nancy was the investigative body who pushed this through with while denying due process or for the pubes to call anyone during the sham investigation. Her argument for obstruction of congress was in the middle of the courts decisions, they should have waited. Now she's holding impeachment hostage unless she gets her way? That isn't how it works especially after you played peek-a-bo politics & shut the right out completely. Pay backs suck, but it's legitimate & she is most certainly holding it hostage unless she gets her way.

But if you are saying that if her gambit works, her esteem as speaker grows, that's really a political (and not illegitimate personal) benefit. Not much different than Trump taking a flier and meeting with North Korea.... it was an inadvisable long shot, and probably a bad idea in hindsight (and foresight if you ask Bolton), but had it worked out, Trump's stature as a statesman would have been enhanced. That's OK, that's how politics works.

Originally Posted by ralph

Nope, I'm happy for Biden to face the music, as I am Trump but your argument seems to be oh if Biden has done it so can trump. Thats my point, all of a sudden trump had turned the right from absolutists to relativists, something they supposedly hate.

No Ralph, the point is what Biden did was slimy, not illegal. Same with Trump

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

But if you are saying that if her gambit works, her esteem as speaker grows, that's really a political (and not illegitimate personal) benefit. Not much different than Trump taking a flier and meeting with North Korea.... it was an inadvisable long shot, and probably a bad idea in hindsight (and foresight if you ask Bolton), but had it worked out, Trump's stature as a statesman would have been enhanced. That's OK, that's how politics works.

Ask Bolton? His response is & has always been war. He's not exactly wrong when it comes to North Korea & Iran but none the less, his answer is always war & he's been rather open his disagreement with Trump is Trumps refusal to bomb everyone. Pelosi's esteem doesn't grow, she knows good & well it's not her call & it's more political bukkake theatre for the masses. They have no case & they know it. You can't obstruct congress when all the things they're claiming he's obstructing are hung up waiting for the courts to decide. If they would have simply waited till after the rulings they might have a case. You can't do a hatchet s**t show of a job then walk it back. My money says they'll fold anyway

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/u...gtype=Homepage

The new face of the Republican Party. Make no mistake - this is the end goal of markj’s dominionism and rod’s normalization/justification of violence.

Unfortunately, it requires me to sign in and create an account to read it. Not gonna happen. Maybe you can post screen shots if it’s not too long. Or you can give us the cliff notes and then we can laugh and mock you for your crazy opinion.

PS the only violence we see comes from the left and the only ones trying to claim any dominion is also the left. That’s strike one and two for you. Make your next swing count or you’re out of here again! For the record, you’re batting like .003