Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 1,861 to 1,875 of 14392
-
06-17-23 20:53 #12532
Posts: 1956Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
-
06-17-23 20:21 #12531
Posts: 746Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]
-
06-17-23 20:06 #12530
Posts: 1604Interesting
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
This is an interesting thought, considering that you have personally said that "guilty" needs to be something a trial decides. Evidently you believe that "guilty" is only reserved for Democrats and the one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former-guy is "innocent". But we all knew that anyway.
Your rants about the FBI and the DOJ are getting old. Almost as old as "Chinese thermostats changed votes in the 2020 election" or "Jewish space lasers cause forest fires" or "There's a pedophile ring operating out of the basement of a basementless pizza parlor building in DC" or any of the other thousands of ridiculous conspiracytheories that most Repubs believe.
If Repubs actually had "audio" of Joe and Hunter Biden, they'd release it. If they had video of a whistleblower repeating his claims under oath, they'd release it. And you know they would. What they have is nothing. Comer even said that he had no direct evidence linking Joe Biden to any crime. What he said was, basically, "Hey, we've got theories but no evidence and what you need to do is trust us that we're going to come up with evidence before Hell freezes over. " Sounds sorta like Guiliani when he was asked about the 2020 election being stolen.
This whole thing is eerily parallel to the one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former-guy's first impeachment trial. Repubs wanted first hand evidence but wouldn't allow anybody to testify who had first hand evidence. And then, at the end, they said "Hey, the President is not guilty because the other side didn't provide any first hand evidence. " A real "Catch 22", right?.
Democrats actually want the one-term, twice-impeached, adjudicated-sexual-assaulter, former-guy run in 2024. Repubs are scared spitless that he actually will.
-
06-17-23 17:10 #12529
Posts: 1680Lol
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
06-17-23 06:02 #12528
Posts: 5450Of course, that is utterly irrelevant
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
06-17-23 05:32 #12527
Posts: 5450Lol
Originally Posted by JohnClayton [View Original Post]
-
06-17-23 05:30 #12526
Posts: 5450Pantiesgate
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
Really, after your great victory in the Mueller "Russiagate" investigation you should be basking in the glory of victory that the Florida Grand Jury found no evidence of Trump wearing his wife's panties. You know, "Pantiesgate"!
Of course, like Team Trump's indisputable extraordinary collusion with Russia, there is no law against Trump wearing his wife's panties and the Florida Grand Jury wasn't really looking for evidence of it.
But that shouldn't put a damper on your celebration over Trump not being "convicted" of wearing his wife's panties. Since that one flukey Electoral College award despite losing the vote by millions in 2016, you, Trump and the Repub Party could use a resounding victory to celebrate. Don't squander this rare opportunity by messin' with Joe. You know that never turns out well for your side.
-
06-17-23 05:16 #12525
Posts: 746Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
-
06-17-23 05:06 #12524
Posts: 5450So what?
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
The Party of the POTUS is the common denominator of all of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Job Losses vs all of the Great Recoveries, Great Expansions and Historic Jobs Creation since the late 1920's.
Yes, the House holds the purse strings but the POTUS proposes the budget, guides and directs it, proposes and guides significant economic legislation, runs for office on those issues, lobbies for the proposals he or she wants them to loosen or tighten the purse strings on and can veto whatever has not gotten the minimum required veto-proof majority support in the Senate. The POTUS has immeasurably more input and control over the direction of the economy than either the House or the Senate. And it is most certainly in the POTUS' hands to respond to gathering clouds of looming potential economic disaster. Or not. Nobody looks to or waits for the House to see and act on it first without the POTUS recognizing and directing the need for it. Sure, a House or Senate move can improve or lessen the results the POTUS' proposals intended. But not so much as to totally reverse them.
BTW, you do recall I am talking about Great Depressions, Great Recessions, Massive Job Losses, Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and the like, right? Not just every piddling -1 or -2 percent in GDP Growth for a couple of quarters and a momentary uptick in the unemployment rate to oh, 7% or so, right? Those latter are the ones than can reasonably be written off as business cycle results. But not every Great Recession vs every Great Expansion for almost the past 100 years.
-
06-17-23 02:35 #12523
Posts: 1680?
Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
I myself am on track for retirement in October. Thanks in advance for any congratulations. For the first five years I'll be seeing many different countries, and they'll be no bickering in online forums. Zero.
-
06-16-23 23:44 #12522
Posts: 3224Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted...bribery-scheme
After this and Russiagate, I do not give a fuck what the FBI thinks about anything. They may as well be a wing of the Democratic party.
And as bad as it is for Biden, it gets worse and worse. This is what came out today. It is horribly bad. Watch the video here too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ayments-bidens.
The Democratic douches will make fun of the sources as they always do but that is not going to work here. There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records. If they are what the Republicans say they are, and they may not be, Biden is fucked.
And that is why you indict all or none. It is looking to me like indicting Trump was just a stunt to distract.
If you look at the New York Times website, it is what you expect. There are four stories on the cover about Trump. There is nothing on the Biden bribe story. But then there is this one little op ed piece about how Democrats do not want Biden to run in 2024. That is what the NY Times does when something stinks with a Democrat. Give themselves an out for not totally being on Team Biden.
That is why you indict everyone. The justice system should be apolitical. When you only indict Trump, the question is, "Was Trump really that bad or do you guys just not want the Biden bribe scandal on the front page?
-
06-16-23 23:19 #12521
Posts: 3224Originally Posted by PVMonger [View Original Post]
I would vote to indict all of them or none of them especially given the timing. If you indict, there are negotiations. At this point, prosecutors can cut a deal and maybe you can get the accused to pay a fine if the law was broken and no one was hurt. That actually is probably what SHOULD happen if no one was hurt by the mishandling of classified documents.
Now when it comes to innocence or guilt it gets tricky. "A trial jury is supposed to serve only as a "fact finder": that is, to evaluate the veracity of witnesses and the strength of evidence presented at trial, then apply the law to that evidence in order to reach a verdict. The jury isn't supposed to decide what the law isor what it should be. ".
That is what lawyers want us to do. They make all the judgment calls and want us to follow them like sheep and expect us to be okay with it. That is bullshit.
There is a reality lawyers do not want us to know: "In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case. ".
I am guided by morals not laws, and I am not putting someone in jail for breaking the law when the average American breaks like three laws a day. Jail should be for people who harmed others. So I do not give a fuck how the law reads. What I want to know is if there was actual harm done.
As of now, there is no evidence of any harm so I am not going to find ANY of them guilty even though as of now, I think they all broke the law. If there is evidence that says there was harm, I would change my mind and found those who caused actual harm guilty.
And if you ever want to not sit on a jury, you just say, "I know what jury nullification is, and I believe in it. " LOL.
-
06-16-23 19:23 #12520
Posts: 1956Originally Posted by PVMonger [View Original Post]
1. Center-left.
2. I believe he's guilty of all that and then some.
3. Yes, I would consider them guilty under the same or similar circumstances.
-
06-16-23 19:00 #12519
Posts: 1807Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
06-16-23 18:40 #12518
Posts: 3224Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
Tooms, why don't you move to China and become a citizen there? You would love it. One party rule. Government says you are guilty and you are despite whatever the facts may be. It is nirvana for you.