Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[facilitatorn]

Would be an interesting statement from the late Senator Alexander if he hadn’t penned his name in the trial’s oath book in front of the world. He probably should have read the constitution and the text of the oath and thought about it for a spell before taking that oath, as should a number of his republican colleagues. Now he and his party are the picture of lickspittle cowardice, incoherent dissembling, corruption, and stupid cruelty.

[josh]

Lamar Alexander joins Marco Rubio in explaining that he needed no further witneses to know that the President was guilty. "

That is not what LaMar Alexander said.

You may not agree, but at least get the statement correct from Senator Alexander.

"I don't need to hear any more evidence to decide that the president did what he's charged with doing," Alexander told NPR's Steve Inskeep on Friday. "So if you've got eight witnesses saying that you left the scene of an accident, you don't need nine."

That's exactly what he said, Ward.

As for his line about letting the People decide, that's bullshit.

(a) It's HIS job to decide and he did. He just chose to punt on acting.

(b) The GOP only says "let the people decide" when they do not want to do their job. See also: McConnell's lies about the Merrick Garland nomination.

[Yankguy1]

“Abuse of Power and obstruction of Congress” neither of which come close to the constitutional definitions of “ high crimes and misdemeanors”.

As our resident Constitutional scholar, I'm sure you can point to exactly where in the Constitution "high crimes and misdemeanors" is defined as you're defining it.

Maybe take a day, a Sunday when the Wall Street Journal isn't published, to read some writings by Alexander Hamilton.

[josh]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/automatic-weapons-nra-gun-control-kentucky_n_5e36477ac5b6f262332a9f38?fbclid=IwAR18Si3945BCfdFr7U_KIMhcmPPN2k0X4Gl2mfyF0EheBPzFr4FD89qO_Q0

I've been surprised not to have seen news about this fine group of defenders of their 2nd Amendment rights, as well as their being allowed to step around the metal detector.

Just imagine a group of African-Americans showing up with that kind of fire power...

[Yankguy1]

Those folks are "good guys with guns."

[bankshot1]

I absolutely do not understand the logic that QPQ/trading/negotiating/extorting/bribing a foreign govrnment's help in our election by investigating a politcal rival in exchange for  military assistant already approved, is anything but a high crime and impeachable. Even if there were no QPQ etc, wouldn't the receiver of such help then be beholden to that foreign power for a future favor, that may be in direct conflict with our national interests?

How would our founding father's not consider tampering with our elections by a foreign power not to be an impeachable offense?

I mean shit it was like yesterday they had fought a war to get from underneath the influence of Britain. And to be independent. Would they be open so to a President horse-trading the country's independence for his personal gain?

[Yankguy1]

I absolutely do not understand the logic that QPQ/trading/negotiating/extorting/bribing a foreign govrnment's help in our election by investigating a politcal rival in exchange for  military assistant already approved, is anything but a high crime and impeachable. Even if there were no QPQ etc, wouldn't the receiver of such help then be beholden to that foreign power for a future favor, that may be in direct conflict with our national interests?

How would our founding father's not consider tampering with our elections by a foreign power not to be an impeachable offense?

I mean shit it was like yesterday they had fought a war to get from underneath the influence of Britain. And to be independent. Would they be open so to a President horse-trading the country's independence for his personal gain?

As a Constitutional scholar, Red can help all of us gain perspective and provide answers to your questions.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Lamar Alexander joins Marco Rubio in explaining that he needed no further witneses to know that the President was guilty. "

That is not what LaMar Alexander said.

You may not agree, but at least get the statement correct from Senator Alexander.

"I don't need to hear any more evidence to decide that the president did what he's charged with doing," Alexander told NPR's Steve Inskeep on Friday. "So if you've got eight witnesses saying that you left the scene of an accident, you don't need nine."

That's exactly what he said, Ward.

Then your argument is with the democrats who failed to charge Trump with an impeachable offense.

As for his line about letting the People decide, that's bullshit.

(a) It's HIS job to decide and he did. He just chose to punt on acting.
 

Alexander and the GOP DID make a decision.  You just didn’t agree with it.

(b) The GOP only says "let the people decide" when they do not want to do their job. See also: McConnell's lies about the Merrick Garland nomination.

Another decision left to the voters. Might  be time to let that one go.

[bambu.]

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/trump-brags-ivanka-alone-created-15-million-jobs-double-the-6-7-million-jobs-added-since-2017/?fbclid=IwAR07d24II964VQt-r956m8y3XJz1IMP3NOrkO0nCIp6EbCoP6GQDBNukTyo

Nice tits, too.

Best money can buy...

At least they're covered up...and she put on respectable clothes before leaving home.

[REDSTATEWARD]

“Abuse of Power and obstruction of Congress” neither of which come close to the constitutional definitions of “ high crimes and misdemeanors”.

As our resident Constitutional scholar, I'm sure you can point to exactly where in the Constitution "high crimes and misdemeanors" is defined as you're defining it.

You mean like in section 4 four of Article Two of the actual US Constitution ?

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."

If you followed the arguments of Adam Shiff  remember he maintained before the Senate that Trump did commit Treason and Bribery. Yet the Impeachment never mentions either, just the nebulous contentions of “ abuse of power” and “ obstruction of Congress”.  The Senate considered both to be nowhere close to impeachable. Indeed, democrat Senator Joe Manchin just argued that there was never any path to conviction of Trump on those charges. Instead Manchin said it would have been better to censure the President.

[Yankguy1]

I guess you chose not to answer my question.  That's fine.  You're not a very good teacher.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I guess you chose not to answer my question.  That's fine.  You're not a very good teacher.

You chose not to read the Constitution nor follow the trial nor read much written about it.

[Yankguy1]

So you're still choosing not to answer my question.   Where are the "other" high crimes and misdemeanors defined in the Constitution? That's fine.  I'll look for a better teacher.

[facilitatorn]

Red’s party has a sucking chest wound. It make it hard for him to express his ideas coherently.

[bambu.]

New MAFS reality show started on my mainstream tv last night;

One young lady;

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/mafs-cathy-was-a-bodybuilder-back-in-the-day/ar-BBZAmDD?li=AAgfLCP&OCID=AVRES000#image=BBZAmDD_1|1

"I can't get an organic date, and when I say organic I mean someone just coming up to me off the street or approaching me at a bar, because I think I must intimidate some men," she said.

#####

More like, in the era of "MeToo", men who go to bars looking for conversation, love, etc are called "predators".
Ditto, men approaching women in the street looking for a date.
And what man wants to be labelled as a 'predator'.