Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



Politics and General Debates Thread

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,332
Points
113
Amazes me how close to soul Trump is for so many people, those who love him as well as those who hate him are closely coupled to the man.
 



Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
5,594
Points
113
LOL
Justice Roberts Sternly Admonishes Impeachment Participants To Remember They’re At Complete Farce Of A Trial

Justice Roberts.jpg


WASHINGTON—After he gaveled the Senate to order Wednesday afternoon, Chief Justice John Roberts sternly admonished both President Trump’s counsel and House impeachment managers to remember they were participating in a complete farce of a trial. “As you address members of this deliberative body, please bear in mind that nothing you say or do will have any effect on the completely predetermined outcome of these proceedings,” said Roberts, exhorting the two sides to go ahead and establish facts, promulgate lies, cite the Constitution, or engage in purely cynical bad-faith arguments, because none of it really mattered anyway. “I wish to remind you this trial is a hollow exercise of decorum with no possibility of achieving productive results of any kind. We’re just going through the motions here, we all know how it is going to end, so let’s at least try to keep it brief.” At press time, the chief justice had commended both sides for heeding his admonition and working to keep the monumental miscarriage of justice running smoothly. ~ The Onion


 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
17,467
Points
113
Yes, Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that Congress passed to keep Nixon from doing what Trump did without the Congress' knowledge or consent. It was illegal and his legal team knows it even if he was too ignorant to. That is why the articles of impeachment were worded the way they were. He absolutely violated the law. Roberts did not say that the outcome was perdetermined. The "Onion" misquoted Roberts by doing so. He admonished both sides equally and did NOT say anything like the "Onion" had said that he did. If you had watched the actual trial instead of just Fox News you would have known that.
 
Last edited:

Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
5,594
Points
113
ROFL
WASHINGTON—Over the objections of Democrats who decried the measure as not receiving sufficient debate on the congressional floor, Senate Republicans forced through a resolution Wednesday establishing Wingstop as the official sponsor of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. “Resolved that effective immediately, all questions, witness statements, and other utterances must include a recommendation to eat at Wingstop, and the Wingstop logo must be clearly visible on all name placards, subpoenaed documents, and other written material,” read Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from the resolution on the Senate floor, adding that Wingstop’s $25 million deal to sponsor the impeachment trial was the best offer Congress received and ignoring pleas from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to wait for Panera Bread to finalize its proposal. “This resolution also stipulates that each senator must be photographed with Wingstop’s lemon pepper wings on each day of the trial as part of our promotion, all social media posts about the impeachment must be accompanied with the #RightWingstop hashtag, and that the only food permitted in the chamber will be Wingstop wing combos with fries or veggie sticks and a 20-ounce soft drink. This is in order to ensure the impeachment trial remains a place where flavor gets its wings. Democracy works best when we’re full of chicken.” The resolution did make an exception, however, for Chief Justice John Roberts, who informed the Senate that the Wingstop contract could not apply to him, as he has an exclusive sponsorship with Buffalo Wild Wings.
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
17,467
Points
113
Looks to me that they are trying to address the use of people's naked photos for use against women. They have also introduced legislation to relax abortion regulations in Virginia. Good for them.

I saw that Fox News today started carrying live, some of the time, updates of the impeachment trial in the Senate. They also show a "go to FOXNEWS.COM" for people who have been tuning them out in order to get live updates. :ROFLMAO: I guess they can deal with anything except for bad ratings. That became obvious when Trump early in his administration told his voters to boycott Fox. That got them right in line with this lying guy.
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,241
Points
113
The newly elected democratic controlled Virginia legislature is now attacking the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd Amendment.

In the wake of public outcry over proposed unconstitutional laws the Virginia tyrants have proposed outlawing criticism of themselves and are attacking freedom of speech directly. This is naked tyranny and it's tyranny that's the reason for the 2nd amendment, these tyrants are proving the case against themselves and creating a dangerous situation that can not be ignored, if this passes or not the mere fact that it's been written in a house bill is a profound warning to all of how dangerous these radical democrats have become.

This bill is so loosely worded that anything obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent would be a crime based on their opinion.


§18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Entire Bill here: https://legiscan.com/VA/text/HB1627/id/2100325
 

Encap

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
5,594
Points
113
The newly elected democratic controlled Virginia legislature is now attacking the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd Amendment.

In the wake of public outcry over proposed unconstitutional laws the Virginia tyrants have proposed outlawing criticism of themselves and are attacking freedom of speech directly. This is naked tyranny and it's tyranny that's the reason for the 2nd amendment, these tyrants are proving the case against themselves and creating a dangerous situation that can not be ignored, if this passes or not the mere fact that it's been written in a house bill is a profound warning to all of how dangerous these radical democrats have become.

This bill is so loosely worded that anything obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent would be a crime based on their opinion.


§18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Entire Bill here: https://legiscan.com/VA/text/HB1627/id/2100325

Next stop for Virginia would be to proclaim the State of Virginia a Religion and the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Supreme Theocratic Leaders of the new Religion that no mere mortal resident or citizen has the Standing to say anything negative in a public place nor communicate via computer network to any obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature,---really that is what they seem to be attempting to accomplish--maybe they all need new Titles as well --Imam and Mullahs---Virginia could be nicknamed Little Iran or perhaps Little Thailand where it is a crime to say anything negative about the Leader of Thailand or Any Leader of any Country.

Yikes!
The retarded nitwit left that lives in a sea daydreams of it's on design, disconnected from reality and doing nothing of any value to other human beings who perpetually whine about and wallow in one meaningless and worthless emotional puddle after another emotional puddle preaching to the choir will get elected.

Inmates really will have taken over the asylum at that point.

Is what can happen when people with no skin in the or any game get to vote for who runs the show and what the show does or doesn't consist of.
 
Last edited:

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,241
Points
113
It's worse than that, Bloomberg is the pimp and Northerm is his diseased whore and we the people are getting screwed against our will.

The baby killer blackface wearing racist tyrant Northern was bought and paid for by Bloomberg who likely spent the money to have the voting machines hacked because most of Virginia at least by land mass is against everything they have proposed, Bloomberg spent over 6 million on the Virginia election and he's not a resident, but he likely spent more under the table and what's proposed is patently unconstitutional, when passed will be challenged in court and in time will be overturned however it's my opinion that things could get ugly in the interim.

 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
17,467
Points
113
The fact is that Virginia voters, tired of the gun nonsense going on in their state, turned the whole state Democratic in the 2019 election. They were elected with a mandate to take on the lax gun laws in Virginia and that is exactly what they are doing. Many people from outside Virginia came armed and ready to protest, but the legislature and governor were ready and outlawed open carry in the capital building and the square outside the capital building. I personally think it's nuts to allow anyone to open carry firearms and several of these armed people threatened violence there. Many citizens in Virginia are sick and tired of their state being used as a gun nut sanctuary and the voters spoke loudly in November, 2019. Now, they are turning back many of the laws that republicans passed in the years previous. Limiting gun purchases to one per month and outlawing purchases of high capacity magazines, AR/AK weapons, etc. This was what voters expected of their Democratic majorities and closing background check loopholes. These are the kinds of common sense legislation that I support in my own state.

The fact of the matter is women, mothers actually, held a grassroots effort to turn out voters last year in order to gain the majorities to enable this legislation and republicans obviously don't like it. But, there is little that they can do about it as the SC has said that you have a right to own a gun to defend your home, period. You don't have a right to open carry and good for them for getting out the votes to get a handle on an out-of-control state where people were buying huge numbers of weapons to take to neighboring states to sell to people who wouldn't pass background checks. I support their efforts completely.
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,241
Points
113
I personally think it's nuts to allow anyone to open carry firearms and several of these armed people threatened violence there.
That's a lie, nobody who showed up armed at the open carry had threatened anything, there was no violence at lobby day in Richmond and nobody there was threatening any violence.


the legislature and governor were ready and outlawed open carry in the capital building and the square outside the capital building
No they issued a temporary ban claiming the need to do so on threats of violence, however many people open carried outside the square and there was no violence, it's amazing how well everybody behaves when people are armed, no surprise the murder rate in Virginia is 5 per 100k but in Maryland it's 8 per 100k.


----------------------------------------
You may support banning common target rifles and next pistols and then slingshots but there is this obstacle called the Constitution.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

In other words " Shall not be infringed " is the law and AR's are in common use because there are millions of AR's and AR owners.

The SCOTUS failed to take up a case on the gun ban in New York and there were 2 separate federal cases about what guns are common use that are split, that for the moment has been interpreted by some states to mean they can ban anything they like other than pistols in contrast to other rulings which is wrong but currently being contested and as this progresses citizens will force the issue, it's ironic as pistols used to be the object of the anti gun liberals, it's really all guns they want to ban and we know it, you won't get it.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/supreme-court-confirms-second-amendment-applies-bearable-arms-common-use/#ixzz6ByS0RXQO
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


There is strong language in this opinion. If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are “common”, it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are “unusual”.
If stun guns are common and protected by the Second Amendment, then so are knives, clubs, and future weaponry.

The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are “uncommon” or “unusual” and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections





The Supreme Court ruled that it had the power to overturn and/or control laws of Congress with the ruling written by the great Chief Justice John Marshall, which simply said: "All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury v. Madison, 1803 5 US 137
The Supreme Court decided that a slave could not be a citizen because if he were a citizen, he would be entitled to enjoy all the rights which American citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights which the "courts would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the rights "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705

"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." This ruling also upheld that all able bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general government."
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

In 1897 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to arms is an "ancient" and "fundamental" right, a right which was "inherited from our English ancestors" and has existed "from time Immemorial."
Robertson v. Baldwin, 1897 165 US 275

The Supreme Court ruled that that by implication even resident aliens have the right to possess "weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defense."
Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 1914 232 US 138

The Supreme Court decided that a person facing a deadly attack may use lethal force in his self-defense, adding "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presense of an uplifted knife."
U.S. v. Brown, 1921 256 US 335

The Supreme Court stated that, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as against executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by constitutions paramount to laws." (Chief Justice Hughes quoting James Madison).
Near v. Minnesota, 1931 283 US 697, 714

"The militia is comprised of all able bodied males ... ordinarily when called these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common (military) use at the time."
U.S. v. Miller, 1939 307 US 174

In a first amendment case involving freedom of the press and religion, the Supreme Court ruled "The power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right ... a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943 319 US 105

The Supreme Court ruled that "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."
Reid v. Covert, 1957 354 US 1

Strangely, the Supreme Court has ruled that a convicted felon is exempt from obeying gun registration laws, that a "proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm."
U.S. v. Hayes, 1968 390 US 85

The Supreme Court has twice ruled that a federal official who deprives a citizen of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution may be held personally liable for damages.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1971
403 US 388 / Carlson v. Green, 1980 446 US 14

The Supreme Court ruled that a person enjoys a fundamental right to possess arms until his first conviction for a felony offense.
U.S. v. Lewis, 1980 445 US 95

"Police have no duty to protect any individual, but only a general duty to protect society, and cannot be held personally liable for failure to protect an individual."
South v. Maryland, 1855 / Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981

"The term "the people" as explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a term chosen by the Founding Fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community." U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez, 1990 No. 88-1353

The Supreme Court has ruled that a state official who, "under color of state law," deprives a citizen of a right guaranteed by the federal Constitution may be held personally liable for damages.
Hafer v. Melo, 1991 No. 90-681

And so that none can be mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled seven times in this century (plus one concurring opinion) that the first eight amendments express fundamental personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Twining v. New Jersey, 1908 211 US 78
Powell v. Alabama, 1932 287 US 45
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 1936 297 US 233
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 372 US 335
Duncan v. Louisiana, 1968 391 US 166
Moore v. East Cleveland, 1976 431 US 494
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 No. 91-744
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (concurring) 381 US 479


The Supreme Court ruled that public housing tenants in Maine cannot be barred from keeping guns in their homes. 10/2/1995

The United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. It was the first Supreme Court case in U.S. history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975"
District of Columbia v Heller, 2008 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
 
Last edited:

Alaskan

Well-known member
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,332
Points
113
Ya know, I am one of those people who don't give a rats ass if Trump did this or that wrong, I am just happy he is POTUS!
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,241
Points
113
Impeachment was meant for very serious " High crimes " not anything Trump said in a phone call asking for the truth about Bidens abuse of office, this entire travesty is a disgusting abuse of power by the democrats in the house and they know Trump will not be removed from office, it's just a big Trump bashing festival and most people are sick of it, this impeachment will end soon although the next may start right after.

All the nonsense about quid pro quo yet no articles of impeachment for quid pro quo.
Bribery........no just another big lie by house democrats.

So they invent some fluff just to keep the bashing festival going, now they want more time to bash and lie about our President, more time on TV to slander and outright lie, I don't see how anyone can ever trust anything these democrats say ever again.

Democrats keep changing rules and passing laws at state level even when they are wrong making the people sue for correction, there should be a penalty for intentional slander and for throwing bills at the wall encompassing anything and everything hoping something will stick that the people will have to sue to correct.

It's democrats that are destroying our country and liberals empowering them to do so, as animosity builds.........I am not even going to say what I fear because it's not masses of people marching waving flags and beating drums, it's angry individuals and small groups doing horrible things to " the other side " in the cities and population centers where people live and shop........all this divisiveness driven by politicians to garner power is dangerous and needs to stop, we need religion back in peoples lives and hearts to hold us all together, but I'm afraid the pressure is building and crap like this sham impeachment is just stoking the fires on both sides because of all the lies.

 
Last edited:

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
17,467
Points
113
Anybody who thinks Trump's impeachment is only about that single phone call on 7/25 has not been paying attention to any of this. It was a months long conspiracy to compel a foreign country to intervene in the 2020 elections to the benefit of Donald Trump as he became aware that Joe Biden had been beating him in even the Fox News polls by double digits. Trump's concern for Joe Biden came about last April when he announce his candidacy for president in 2020. It was only then that he started retweeting conspiracy theories that Joe Biden was corrupt, and through his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, advanced these theories and started applying pressure to the new Ukrainian president Zelensky, and finally illegally holding up the $391 million in aid to Ukraine in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. You really should get your news anywhere except for Fox News as they limit all news that is perceived as harmful to Trump and you will never get the full story of what is actually happening around you on a daily basis. The impeachment trial is going on as I post this. Fox News only edits snippets of phrases used in these hearings so they can display a "gotcha moment". Once you see it all in its complete version you see how their "gotcha moment" is total nonsense and almost always taken completely out of context. Think for yourself.

It is funny how the SC rulings on carrying arms are all from the 19th century. Yes, the SC did rule that you can use deadly force in defense of your own life, but that is not limited to armed defense. I expect the Virginia legislature to keep their campaign promises on limiting guns in general in Virginia no matter how much you dislike it. Elections have consequences and these are those consequences.
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
9,241
Points
113
Attacking freedom of speech is not an election consequence neither is making laws that circumvent our constitution or threatening the use of force against citizens who express opposition to aforementioned unconstitutional laws submitted for consideration, it boarders on state sponsored terrorism used to suppress the voice of the citizens, the wrongs committed by Northam and his conspirators will be corrected in time and the actions being taken today have invigorated patriots both republican and democrat.

Trump was within his authority to ask for the truth about Bidens abuse of office and exerting executive privilege is not obstruction, all the democrats are doing is repeating the same opinions.
 

Shakenawake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2013
Messages
1,945
Points
83
Ya know, I am one of those people who don't give a rats ass if Trump did this or that wrong, I am just happy he is POTUS!
Spoken like a true sycophantic fanboy. Thanks for this admission

The reason the impeaching dems dont go after Trump for emoluments is because they aren't principled and are just as invested in our corrupt relationship with Saudi Arabia as Trump, it's not because Trump is is not guilty of violating emoluments clause. Trump going after an insider elite though? No, cant stand for that. Them elites, they gotta stick together and fight the common enemy, the working American. Not that Trump cares much for them either
 

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
17,467
Points
113
Lets be clear here. Joe Biden did not become an issue for Donald Trump until he was seen to be beating Trump in every poll, including the Fox News polls, by double digits. There is no credible evidence that Biden did anything wrong, much less illegal. I believe it was Bannon who first conflated a video of Biden taking credit for getting Viktor Shokin fired in Ukraine with the fact that his son, Hunter, had held a position on the board of Burisma as being evidence of Biden somehow removing Shokin to protect his son from prosecution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor in the Poroshenko regime that was living far beyond his means by NOT prosecuting, or even investigating, anyone at Burisma. On top of that, Hunter Biden was NEVER under suspicion of doing ANYTHING illegal ever. This is a right wing conspiracy theory to dirty up Biden's candidacy for president in 2020. Trump has never heard a good conspiracy theory that he didn't love or latch onto if it could further his chances of getting what he wants. The guy has now lied more than 16,000 times just since becoming president. I get updates daily on all of his lies courtesy of the Washington Post, by my subscription to that newspaper.

I might have impeached Trump for his conflict with the emoluments clause, but that is currently getting taken care of in federal court as there are many suits winding their way through the courts as we speak. It was that this shakedown of president Zelensky was so egregious in its contempt for his constitutional oath of office and that he admitted it so casually that House members had no choice but to impeach Trump. There is little doubt that there won't be 67 votes to convict.......but Trump has now been quoted as saying that any republican Senator that votes against his wishes will find their head on a pike. There is little doubt that Trump will continue to fail in his duty to the Constitution until he is removed from office. That will likely have to be in November.

It is noteworthy to remember that when Clinton was impeached his approval rating never dipped below 67% while Trump's has never gone above 44% ever. It isn't even that high now. I thought we were divided along party lines back then. Jesus Tits! We can't even get one republican to vote in favor of compelling witnesses or documents. Back in 1998 everyone, from both parties wanted to get to the truth. Republicans don't want the truth any longer. Who can blame them. There is no defense of the indefensible.
 




Top