Keep on drinking the KoolAid
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2687868]I have Paulie on ignore, and his comment was typical of his type, but I read his quote because someone else copied it, and that part is right. He made the point you guys are really not helping yourself. Eih, you actually said your wealth was created "solely" by your voting Democrat and not your individual actions. Those are your words.
PVMonger, I do not know a Republican here who has said there is a problem with legal immigration. Maybe there has been someone posting about LGBTQ but I do not recall it.
You are the team that is actually demonizing white men, and I would argue all men in general. Have you read about Deshaun Watson? Can you think about that from a man's POV or does it have to be from that of a Democrat?
Eih, your #1 concern living abroad is the strength of the dollar. Inflation diminishes the value of the dollar. So does sending dollars for goods like oil. And the sanctions on Russia and pushing them to create an alternative to the dollar is not good if you are abroad. I do not think it will work, but it is a risk to the dollar as reserve currency..[/QUOTE]No wonder you guys voted for the Orange Buffoon. You can't tell up from down, back from front or truth from fiction.
You believe that everything good is Republican and everything bad is Democratic and yet you accuse Democrats of the same type of thinking. How weird is that, eh? When Republican politicians, almost to a person, have vowed to block virtually every legislative act proposed by legislators of the Democratic persuasion. Going back to when Obama was President. To them, it doesn't make one iota of difference if the legislation would help the US or its citizens because to your pols, if it is a Democratic proposal, it is BS. Voting rights bill? Blocked. Alternative proposal? None. COVID relief? Blocked. Alternative proposal? None. Capping the price of insulin? Only 12 House Republicans voted in favor of it. Alternative proposal? None, although, to be fair, Matt "Sex before eight or else it's too late" Gaetz suggested that people could lose weight. That's why Democrats say that Republicans don't really want to govern. They want to tell people how bad something is (and you morons believe them every time) and to elect them and they'll fix it but, when the rubber meets the road, all they ever do it roll out the same tired old proposals.
You realize, right, that there are at least hundreds of Ukrainians at the southern border. They don't have the paperwork required for entry. But I'll bet money that Republicans will say "let them in" but keep out all of those brown folks 'cause they're bad.
Demonizing white men? By doing what? By proposing that women should have a voice? But we know that what Republicans really want is for women to be barefoot and pregnant without the right to vote. Because a women [B]would never vote[/B] to force another woman to have her rapist's baby. In reality, though, any Republican who does not protest legislation that demonizes someone else [B]automatically supports it[/B]. After all, that's what you accuse Democrats of doing, right?
You yell and scream about inflation, but where are the Republican proposals? There are none. Why? Reason is that Republicans don't have a plan. But the real reason is that Republicans have no incentive to help fix inflation. Why should they? Republicans would rather see every day Americans suffer for the next 2-1/2 years. Think about that for a second, if you can. If Republicans really wanted to help Americans, they'd come up with a bunch of serious proposals and present them to President Biden. But Republicans won't do anything close to that, will they? If inflation isn't brought under control, they can tell voters that Democrats are to blame but that Republicans can fix it. Then, if Republicans are elected, they'll trot out Rick Scott's plan as well as some form of Trickle-Down. When that fails, America will elect another Democrat and the whole sorry Republican charade will start over again.
Georgia has interviewed 50 witnesses, 30 others have refused to testify
[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2654370]Among the charges Trump himself could be hit with are "criminal solicitation to commit election fraud", or.
Intentional interference with performance of election duties, or.
Conspiracy to commit election fraud, or.
Criminal solicitation, or.
State RICO violations.
And that is only concerning his actions regarding his fighting the correct election results only in the State of Georgia..[/QUOTE]I wrote this post three months ago. Much has happened in Georgia.
All or most of the 30 hack pubs that refused to testify are going to be subpoenaed soon.
The Grand Jury is scheduled to be seated for four weeks in June.
Maybe we'll get to see some criminal charges before the dog days of summer.
Team Trump's latest loss in a non-disclosure case is costly
From Rachel Maddow's show last night or tonight:
The problem for Team Trump is not just that it lost a non-disclosure case. The problem is that it keeps losing non-disclosure cases.
April 21,2022, 5:40 AM PDT.
By Steve Benen.
When Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former aid in Donald Trump's White House, wrote a book about her experiences, the former president was more than disappointed. In fact, the Republican sued his former ally, insisting she'd signed a nondisclosure agreement during the 2016 campaign, and the book violated its terms.
Trump's lawsuit failed, and as The New York Times reported, he also lost a related case yesterday.
A court arbitrator has ordered former President Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign to pay nearly $1. 3 million in legal fees to Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former "Apprentice" star, White House aide and author of the first tell-all book about the Trump White House. The award, handed down on Tuesday, concludes a protracted legal fight.
Manigault Newman's lawyer told the newspaper that the size of the award "hopefully will send a message that weaponized litigation will not be tolerated and empower other lawyers to stand up and fight."
At face value, this is a costly setback for the former president and his political operation. But the problem for Team Trump is not just that it lost a non-disclosure case; the problem is that it keeps losing non-disclosure cases.
Consider the case of former Trump campaign worker Alva Johnson, who alleged a few years ago that in August 2016, the then-candidate grabbed her at a campaign stop and kissed her on the mouth against her will. After she sued, the Republican filed an arbitration complaint against her, claiming Johnson had violated a non-disclosure agreement by making the allegations.
That didn't work: Just last month, the former president's campaign was ordered to pay more than $300,000 in legal fees and expenses to the former employee. Victor Bianchini, the retired federal judge who adjudicated the arbitration complaint, concluded that the Trump campaign "was invested in silencing other employees that were terminated or had somehow criticized the candidate in other ways."
As we discussed soon after, the larger pattern is striking: Team Trump has also lost an effort to enforce a non-disclosure agreement against a different former campaign worker named Jessica Denson. What's more, Team Trump's non-disclosure case against Stephanie Winston-Wolkoff didn't work out well, and neither did the case against Mary Trump.
The message to others seems unmistakable: There may be others holding back because they signed an NDA and fear the consequences of breaking it. The more Team Trump's attempts to enforce these agreements fall short, the less incentive his former employees have to remain silent.
Ignorance thy name is Marquis
[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2688437]Euphemistically in common parlance "impeach" also means convict, and you are wrong since John Roberts was not presiding during sham #2.
There was only 1 impeachment not 2 and zero convictions![/QUOTE]In "common parlance" to impeach is equivalent with to indict. Conviction or acquittal occurs after a trial. I'm sure Civics classes are available in your high-school.
Yes, Marquis, he was impeached twice. The second time he was already an ex-president when the trial began.
Patrick Leahy in a statement released prior to the trial, wrote that the president pro tempore "has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents."
[URL]https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/roberts-will-not-preside-over-impeachment-trial/[/URL]
I wonder when Omarosa will see her money
[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2688489]From Rachel Maddow's show last night or tonight:
The problem for Team Trump is not just that it lost a non-disclosure case. The problem is that it keeps losing non-disclosure cases.
April 21,2022, 5:40 AM PDT.
By Steve Benen.
When Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former aid in Donald Trump's White House, wrote a book about her experiences, the former president was more than disappointed. In fact, the Republican sued his former ally, insisting she'd signed a nondisclosure agreement during the 2016 campaign, and the book violated its terms.
Trump's lawsuit failed, and as The New York Times reported, he also lost a related case yesterday.
A court arbitrator has ordered former President Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign to pay nearly $1. 3 million in legal fees to Omarosa Manigault Newman, the former "Apprentice" star, White House aide and author of the first tell-all book about the Trump White House. The award, handed down on Tuesday, concludes a protracted legal fight..[/QUOTE]When will Omarosa see her money? When any supporter of the one-term, twice-impeached, fake-POTUS former guy grows a brain.