American Politics

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2826996]You are reading far too much into my question and attributing to me things I did not say. I used the word [B]consider[/B] in my question, which was "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. "..[/QUOTE]No, you and Tooms are brain dead when it comes to the law. I do not know what Obama did but vote to indict Hilary and Biden? Fuck yeah! Find them guilty before a trial? No, I am not a douche. Unlike you and Tooms, I do not consider people guilty before a trial.

As far as all your other dumb ranting on what Trump may have done, that has NOTHING to do with an indictment. If he is found guilty and if what he does is worse than the others, then you sentence him more harshly.

But what else is new? The only thing you Democratic douches think is anyone who votes Republican should be locked up.

Superb discussion on why Ivermectin and natural immunity do not work.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLgGcmm7ac[/URL]

Answer. Bcos they do work but they are not owned by Big Pharma.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2827250]Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your [B]opinion[/B] of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your [B]opinion[/B] be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your [B]opinion[/B].

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.[/QUOTE]1. My political leaning is to vote for the member of the Party that legislated and produced every major economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Losses since at least the late 1920's and avoid voting in any way that might help a member of the party that has legislated and produced the exact opposite of those positive results during the same timeframe. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.

2. My opinion is Trump is quilty of what he has proudly and repeatedly admitted he did while lying about his having the "right" to do it. That would be most or all of every count of every crime for which he has been indicted.

3. If anyone else on the planet had as proudly and repeatedly admitted to committing the crimes for which Trump has been indicted as Trump has over the past several months, there is no way anyone with at least 2 working brain cells wouldn't hold the opinion that they were guilty.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2827441]1. My political leaning is to vote for the member of the Party that legislated and produced every major economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions, Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Losses since at least the late 1920's and avoid voting in any way that might help a member of the party that has legislated and produced the exact opposite of those positive results during the same timeframe. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.[/QUOTE]

All revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The House has as much power over the economy as the President. While it's difficult to define periods of "major economic expansion and historic job gains", recessions are easy to spot. Here's a list of all recessions since the Great Depression and the party that controlled the House.

1937 Democratic Party
1945 Democratic Party
1949 Democratic Party
1953 Republican Party. The recession started in July, 1953, and Democrats controlled the House for the four years prior to January, 1953.
1958 Democrats
1960 Democrats
1969 Democrats
1973 Democrats
1980 Democrats
1981 Democrats
1990 Democrats
2001 Republican Party
2008 Democrats
2020 Democrats

This is a spurious relationship. If you do not stop continually presenting your spurious relationship between the party of the president and recessions and GDP growth, I'll trot out mine again showing the huge number of young Americans who died in foreign wars under the rule of bloodthirsty Democratic Presidents. Like the one with Russia that Trump tried to avert, and that you, Xpartan and Paulie want to start. (Sarcasm alert)

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States[/URL]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses[/URL]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2827297] I do not consider people guilty before a trial.[/QUOTE]Agreed, 100%. There was an interesting article in the New York Times the other day. Reading it, you'd believe the reason all this happened is because Trump's a hoarder. He liked to keep "newspaper clippings, documents and other mementos, according to more than a half dozen people who have worked for him over the years. " More information about that will come out in a trial. Also perhaps whether any of the info in the documents was leaked. My suspicion is that it was not.

Like as many as 5% of American adults, Trump may suffer from a mental disorder, called Plyushkin's disorder, also known as compulsive hoarding. If that's the case and the info didn't get out to anyone who mattered, like Putin, then there's a strong argument he shouldn't go to jail.

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/trump-documents-boxes.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2827472]...My suspicion is that it was not...

[/QUOTE]I am waiting for Putin to leave / die and the FSB archives to be opened.

[QUOTE=JohnClayton;2827499]I am waiting for Putin to leave / die and the FSB archives to be opened.[/QUOTE]Putin owned Trump. That is what the Steele Dossier said. Oops, that was all bullshit. Putin is a bad guy because he invaded Ukraine. Would the war end if Putin dropped dead of a heartache? No, the war has supported among a majority of Russians because they were feeling surrounded by NATO. The people feel this is a war for survival.

So what is all this Putin is evil BS really about? Let's just blow off the disgusting Steele Dossier because Putin is evil. And let's just blow off the alleged $5 million bribe Joe Biden was given by Burisma because Zelensky is a hero, Ukraine is pure as the driven snow, and Putin is evil. Hell, Ukraine is so damned good that even if they gave Biden a bribe it is no big deal. But even the hint that Trump took a payout from Putin, even if it is totally false and it was, is way worse because Putin is so evil.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2827441]1. Consequently, I have voted for Dems and NO Repubs in every election since I knew what the fuck I was doing with my vote, essentially since the middle of Reagan's 1st term as so-called potus.

2. My opinion is Trump is quilty of what he has proudly and repeatedly admitted he did while lying about his having the "right" to do it. That would be most or all of every count of every crime for which he has been indicted.
[/QUOTE]Knew what the fuck you were doing? You Democratic douches believed Russiagate was all true. Hell, YOU probably still do. And let's be clear, Russiagate originated with Hiliary Clinton and her attempt to rig an election. And now even after Russiagate, you think Trump is guilty without a trial. I wish that was a surprise.

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.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2827467] Here's a list of all recessions [b]since[/b] the Great Depression and the party that controlled the House.

1937 Democratic Party
1945 Democratic Party
1949 Democratic Party
1953 Republican Party. The recession started in July, 1953, and Democrats controlled the House for the four years prior to January, 1953.
1958 Democrats
1960 Democrats
1969 Democrats
1973 Democrats
1980 Democrats
1981 Democrats
1990 Democrats
2001 Republican Party
2008 Democrats
2020 Democrats

[/QUOTE]Sorry, I should have written "[b]after[/b] the great depression" of 1929. The Republican Party controlled the House then.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2827250]Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your [B]opinion[/B] of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your [B]opinion[/B] be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your [B]opinion[/B].

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.[/QUOTE]OK, let's play.

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.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2827250]Since everybody has an opinion on the recent indictment of the former guy, let's take a vote.

The vote has three parts. The first part is for you to state your political leanings. The second part is your [B]opinion[/B] of the former guy's guilt or innocence of the charges against him The third part is actually in three parts also. If Hilary, Obama or Biden had been indicted with the same charges that the Feds indicted the former guy with, would your [B]opinion[/B] be that they were guilty or innocent.

Yes, I realize that "guilt" or "innocence" is what is decided during a trial. This is about your [B]opinion[/B].

Ill go first. 1. I am a Democrat; 2. My opinion is that the former guy is guilty of some or all of the charges; 3 a. Hilary: She would be guilty; 3 b. Obama: he would be guilty; 3 c. Biden: he would be guilty.[/QUOTE]Wow PVM! Sometimes you post stuff like this and I am speechless. Maybe there is hope for you yet. Since I voted in 2008 for Obama and actually like the concept of "free" junior colleges and the public option for health care, I am an independent with Republican leanings but vehemently anti deep state.

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.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2826621]I'm a Libertarian Elvis. I don't like prosecuting or putting people in jail unless they really deserve it.

Trump is guilty of stupidity. Like I said, you don't fuck with the deep state even if you are an ex president. In our system, when you hide documents from and make false statements to the Feds, and they find out about it, they will fuck you over. That's what Trump did, that Hillary, Pence and Biden did not.
[/QUOTE]Tiny, the Feds are restricting the release of a non-classified document horribly detrimental to Biden. Watch this video of Cruz crucifying the Deputy Director of the FBI about this issue.

[URL]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted-cruz-accuses-fbi-deputy-director-covering-up-details-alleged-5m-biden-bribery-scheme[/URL]

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: [URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/political/house-oversight-chairman-says-there-evidence-20-30-million-illegal-payments-bidens[/URL].

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?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2827467] Like the one with Russia that Trump tried to avert, and that you, Xpartan and Paulie want to start. [/QUOTE]Little Vlad started it by invading Ukraine. In fact he'd been arguing for ages through various spurious historical arguments that Ukraine has no right to exist. He wanted to rebuild empire and made his move. Trump is irrelevant as he's a career criminal and traitor that likewise was a tool of Russia. The American people wisely removed him from office. The same and even most Republican lawmakers support Ukraine's right to defend itself while favoring weapon's support. But like I told you, you need to get out of your computer chair, give up chasing your tail in repetitive, and all too predictable competing talking points and get some fresh air and sunlight. The ancient Greeks ages ago had the recipe for good health.

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.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2827514]Sorry, I should have written "[b]after[/b] the great depression" of 1929. The Republican Party controlled the House then.[/QUOTE]What, no list of which party controlled the House during all the Great Recoveries from the Great Repub Depressions and Great Repyb Recessions?

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.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2827568]...There is audio of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. There are bank records...[/QUOTE]Okay, where?