Popular Post stevenl Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 12 minutes ago, nausea said: It doesn't really matter what you guys think, the rest of the world looks and says "Banana Republic". Moral high ground lost. Yes, since Trump took office. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 7 minutes ago, stevenl said: Because of standing DoJ policy. Which is a main reason for him running again, trying to escape justice. Perhaps that is correct, and I am not psychic, but certainly not as bad as starting a war to try and keep from an almost certain jail term like someone I've heard about. 1 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danderman123 Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 27 minutes ago, illisdean said: LOL...okay, back up your claims with some evidence of the crimes, convictions, and who was indicted for crimes of Russian collusion. Go ahead, I want to know who colluded with Russia and was convicted of crimes in this treasonous democratic orchestrated deep stage gong show hoax to remove a sitting president. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/muellers-case-against-paul-manafort-explained Mueller convictions 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danderman123 Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Perhaps that is correct, and I am not psychic, but certainly not as bad as starting a war to try and keep from an almost certain jail term like someone I've heard about. Who did that? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 9 minutes ago, stevenl said: Yes, since Trump took office. Nah, long before, probably with Nixon, but surely with the sleepy one. Certainly with the lying one that started really big wars. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danderman123 Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 (edited) 29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: and yet, and yet Trump was not convicted because of it, despite him being the reason for it to be invented. Bob Mueller explained that he could not indict Trump due to DOJ policy. And he explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate Trump. Either you have a poor memory, or you are trolling. Edited January 1 by Danderman123 3 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 Just now, Danderman123 said: Bob Mueller explained that he could not indict Trump due to DOJ policy. And he explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate Trump. Oh you are just too humerous today. I must stop laughing. Had Mueller had anything there have been 3 years while Trump was not POTUS to indict him on that. Trump has not been, ergo Mueller was just full of it. 2 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: Oh you are just too humerous today. I must stop laughing. Had Mueller had anything there have been 3 years while Trump was not POTUS to indict him on that. Trump has not been, ergo Mueller was just full of it. What, you wanted more Trump indictments? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 On 12/28/2023 at 11:41 PM, CharlieH said: Secretary of State Shenna Bellows If you google "Karen Definition" they probably have her picture posted 2 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post stevenl Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 23 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Bob Mueller explained that he could not indict Trump due to DOJ policy. And he explicitly stated that the report did not exonerate Trump. Either you have a poor memory, or you are trolling. Simply dismissing all reasonable thinking due to living in an echo chamber. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokwit Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Lots of people on here seem keen to use the instruments of state to achieve political goals - specifically eliminating any opposition. So you are fine with fascism so long as it is in pursuit of your goals? 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 (edited) 23 minutes ago, mokwit said: Lots of people on here seem keen to use the instruments of state to achieve political goals - specifically eliminating any opposition. So you are fine with fascism so long as it is in pursuit of your goals? Nope. Following the Constitution by barring insurrectionists isn't Fascism. Do you disagree? On a side note, postwar Germany barred Nazis from public office. Was that Fascism? Edited January 1 by Danderman123 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 36 minutes ago, stevenl said: Simply dismissing all reasonable thinking due to living in an echo chamber. What is sad is knowing that there were lots of people in America who claimed that "the South shall rise again" for the rest of their lives. Which indicates, no matter what happens, there will be lots of Trump cultists for life. Probably someone will commission a Trump memorial and grift more money from cultists, including some posters here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prubangboy Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 On 12/30/2023 at 11:03 AM, Danderman123 said: Not proven yet in a court of law. Evidence was presented, insurrection was found. Was there a trial? No. 14th Amendment doesn't specify any need. Repubs LOVE states rights when it comes to their pet issues like abortion and control. This is a states rights issue that is biting them on the ass. Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion years ago affirming that states rights are untouchable. Do states have the right to regulate their elections? The Constitution says yes. In my heart and head, I believe that Trump should be told to pound sand on these issues (immunity too). My pragmatic self tells me that won't happen due to fearfully placating whiny Trump Trash and their always shifting (when he's losing) game posts. We are subverting the constitution as written to assuage the fee-fee's of people who crow about liberal tears -and don't care one whit about what the constitution says -if it doesn't go their way. So even having this conversation about just exactly how much we're going to bend the written in stone rules for a bully who has never given an inch to the other side is proof that Trump has already won. Interesting wrinkle: The Supremes wink at Diaper Boy and give him a pass on insurrection but not on immunity (most likely outcome). Jack Smith then finds him guilty of insurrection. What about all those states who already called it and were disenfranchised if (I mean when) The Supremes overturn them? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prubangboy Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: Given Maine is likely to vote Democrat Just for Laughs: You get a choice of a Red State or a Blue State vacation, all expenses paid. You can pick: Alabama, Texas, Florida -OR: New York, California, Maine. -As a lover of all things Red, you want to go to Alabama instead of New York, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 18 minutes ago, Prubangboy said: Jack Smith then finds him guilty of insurrection. What about all those states who already called it and were disenfranchised if (I mean when) The Supremes overturn them? Jack Smith has not charged Trump with sedition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prubangboy Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Yeah, thanks for that. It will amount to the same thing, but it is indeed not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 19 minutes ago, Prubangboy said: Evidence was presented, insurrection was found. Was there a trial? No. 14th Amendment doesn't specify any need. Repubs LOVE states rights when it comes to their pet issues like abortion and control. This is a states rights issue that is biting them on the ass. Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion years ago affirming that states rights are untouchable. Do states have the right to regulate their elections? The Constitution says yes. The problem is that the 14th Amendment does not define the disqualification process. So, any state could likewise remove Joe Biden from the ballot, if the process is ill defined. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prubangboy Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 He knew he lost the election. He was told 57 times. By lawyers. He knew he inciting an insurrection. He was advised to put in the part about "peacefully march". By lawyers. He now finds himself in a position where "peacefully march" may not be enough. He has since given "aid and comfort" to people who WERE convicted of insurrection -including promising them pardons. As per his advice from lawyers. He knew his phony elector thing was illegal. He was told 57 times. By lawyers. He was asked by Jack Smith: Are you going to use a bad legal advice defense? He says he doesn't know, like his lawyers told him to say. 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 5 minutes ago, Prubangboy said: He knew he lost the election. He was told 57 times. By lawyers. He knew he inciting an insurrection. He was advised to put in the part about "peacefully march". By lawyers. He now finds himself in a position where "peacefully march" may not be enough. He has since given "aid and comfort" to people who WERE convicted of insurrection -including promising them pardons. As per his advice from lawyers. He knew his phony elector thing was illegal. He was told 57 times. By lawyers. He was asked by Jack Smith: Are you going to use a bad legal advice defense? He says he doesn't know, like his lawyers told him to say. That's a lot of factoids. With absolutely nada to back them up. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prubangboy Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: The problem is that the 14th Amendment does not define the disqualification process. So, any state could likewise remove Joe Biden from the ballot, if the process is ill defined. Time for an emergency congress session to amend the amendment. No prob -except for how to make it work only for Fatty but not for a democrat up the road? And constitutional amendment in an election year -no prob again, right? The ball is already and play so the old rules must apply. The old rules are only a problem for Fatty; because of Fatty. I say, tough luck, Fatty. What would Fatty say to you if the rules were going against you? What's the plausible Biden insurrection case? There's no states rights-right to give anyone the heave ho just because they don't like their face. People here are pretending there is -and then hilariously making vacuous and impotent threats against laughing in their faces-Biden. Dream on, losers, your dope failed at his coup. And now he has to pay. Edited January 1 by Prubangboy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 I don't give Maine much credit because they re-elect Susan Collins. She's a joke, a purse-stuffer (she has to be if she's GOP, it's like Serpico: if you don't $$$ you can't be trusted). Worthy of being an LOS politico. Maine's other senator is an independent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prubangboy Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 2 minutes ago, impulse said: That's a lot of factoids. With absolutely nada to back them up. You can't google was Trump told he lost? Is this a paraplegic situation preventing you? Because if so, I want to toss $5 of chump change into your GoFund Me. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 6 minutes ago, impulse said: That's a lot of factoids. With absolutely nada to back them up. These are well established facts. and you are just trolling. If you seriously don't remember, then providing links would prompt you to agrer. But giving you links in reality would simply cause you to change the subject. As it is, your position is that you are unaware of basic facts in the Trump litigation, so why should anyone listen to you? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prubangboy Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 12 minutes ago, impulse said: That's a lot of factoids. Dimwit alert: Only a real Mensa member says factoid. I went down a google hole reading about factoids (because he can't). Factoid means things that are trivial or untrue. Not: Facts I don't liiiiike. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverpool Lou Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 On 12/30/2023 at 9:20 AM, gargamon said: Two down. Forty eight to go. Two down, two to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendejo Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 14 minutes ago, Prubangboy said: I went down a google hole reading about factoids (because he can't). Factoid means things that are trivial or untrue. So they are something like hemorrhoids? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prubangboy Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 As usual: We'll make allowances and blow Fattie (again) He'll feel more emboldened to go even more nuts (again) This will lead to another "only him in the history of the entire world"-problem (again). -Rinse and repeat until he dies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liverpool Lou Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 On 12/30/2023 at 9:14 PM, Tug said: in many countries he would be in prison or taken a slug to the back of the skull for what he has so blatantly obviously done . What is it that he has "so blatantly obviously done" that would put him in prison in the US? Other countries are irrelevant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prubangboy Posted January 1 Popular Post Share Posted January 1 1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said: What is it that he has "so blatantly obviously done" Fake electors and hiding documents are slam dunk felonies. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now