President Joe Biden

Glitterhater said:
I know it happened- but what other facts do I need to check? All I'm saying is bombing is wrong- how is that debatable? I'm not touching anything else. You can debate the granular, feel free.
Click to expand...

2. How would a bomb be planted to specifically "assassinate Republican Senators"?

3. She was pardoned after serving 16 years for a crime for which the average sentence for first-time offenders was 5 years.

4. I could find no such entity as Black Lives Matter Network, Inc. The closest might be Black Lives Matter Global Network, a charitable corporation that seems to be the overall governing body of local BLM chapters.

5. Ms. Rosenberg is a board member of a different non-profit, Thousand Currents, a highly rated charity (4 out of 4 stars from Charity Navigator). TC was contracted by BLMGN to handle their fundraising activities since they grew so rapidly this year and were overwhelmed with the regulatory paperwork.

Mike Yoder purports to be a lawyer, so one might suppose he is interested in fine details like those. I will not propose an opinion on why he was so sloppy on that tweet.

www.charitynavigator.org

Charity Ratings and Donor Resources | Charity Navigator

Use Charity Navigator's ratings and resources to find and support highly rated charities that align with your passions and values. Whether you're looking to give toward international relief, the environment, animal welfare, or something else, we empower you to donate and volunteer with confidence.
www.charitynavigator.org www.charitynavigator.org
 
happy9 said:
I get it, you hate trump - your choice, free country, continue to froth over the idea - doesn't bother me. He will get what he deserves.

Part dos of your statement is utter BS. There are more than 3 black trump supporters in this country. Your little world consists of your keyboard and the usual social media platforms. Go ahead and pivot on your backfoot and tell me what I should think. It's a racist term. Tell you what, walk down the street, in your hood or another hood, find a black man or woman who supports trump, and call them a trumpanzee. Tell me exactly what them black folk do.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe there are six or seven. If I single one out because they are black, I’ll make sure to use a different term because, otherwise, that would be wrong.

Enjoy the impeachment process! I can’t wait for Karen Grace to start posting how holding people accountable for sedition and insurrection is worse than the sedition itself. Today is such a dark day in America for Mrs. Neville Chamberlain and the rest of her appeaser friends.
 
Yet another reason Grace Karen is so wrong in her full-throated support of appeasement is that there will be no more obstruction now that Dems control both the House and Senate. No more opposition to subpoenas for docs to the WH or executive branches, virtually every ‘publican in office will need to keep their head down, and there will be plenty of people chomping at the bit to testify against the patina piece of s**t. Tech companies will be thrilled to taking down the patina-ed piece of shit and his mostly toothless, unemployed loser followers, and guess who’s got all the Parler dms for Nunes, Clarence the magat Thomas’ wife, coke fiend Donny boy jr, Hawley, Pompeo, all of those traitors? That would be Jeff Bezos.

There will be a constant drip, drip, drip of new awful information every day to embarrass and humiliate ‘publicans. It will destroy the re-election chances of one trumpanzee after the next. And when Donny Depends pardons himself and his family, they can’t even rely on the 5th anymore. This is going to be great.
 
EOTL said:
Yet another reason Grace Karen is so wrong in her full-throated support of appeasement is that there will be no more obstruction now that Dems control both the House and Senate. No more opposition to subpoenas for docs to the WH or executive branches, virtually every ‘publican in office will need to keep their head down, and there will be plenty of people chomping at the bit to testify against the patina piece of s**t. Tech companies will be thrilled to taking down the patina-ed piece of shit and his mostly toothless, unemployed loser followers, and guess who’s got all the Parler dms for Nunes, Clarence the magat Thomas’ wife, coke fiend Donny boy jr, Hawley, Pompeo, all of those traitors? That would be Jeff Bezos.

There will be a constant drip, drip, drip of new awful information every day to embarrass and humiliate ‘publicans. It will destroy the re-election chances of one trumpanzee after the next. And when Donny Depends pardons himself and his family, they can’t even rely on the 5th anymore. This is going to be great.
Click to expand...
Did you just have a juice box?
 
The D's have moved from just censuring the House ringleaders challenging the election results to actively seeking their expulsion. They only need a majority to do it, but will weaponize the expulsion process. A. several African American congressmen challenged the 2016 election and are currently serving in Congress...they lacked Senate support so it didn't go anywhere...but for the record this idea of challenging election results in Congress we don't like was originally a D fringe idea. B. it's undemocratic...seeking to overturn the will of the voters in those congressional districts, and C. does anybody doubt in 2022 if the Rs take the House (they only need a handful of votes) and Nancy Pelosi is still around that the Rs won't retaliate by expelling her. The Republic's election system is already creeking close to breaking and now they want to do this. We spent the spring and summer normalizing political violence and it was that normalization (as much as Trump's awful behavior) that made the takeover of the Capitol a possibility. If people feel elections are no longer working and the majority party can expel those of the minority they think have gone over the line, it's a bad combination with the normalization of political violence.
 
Grace T. said:
The D's have moved from just censuring the House ringleaders challenging the election results to actively seeking their expulsion. They only need a majority to do it, but will weaponize the expulsion process.
Click to expand...

Dear Ms. Constitutional Lawyer --

Guess where I got this from --

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
 
Grace T. said:
The D's have moved from just censuring the House ringleaders challenging the election results to actively seeking their expulsion. They only need a majority to do it, but will weaponize the expulsion process. A. several African American congressmen challenged the 2016 election and are currently serving in Congress...they lacked Senate support so it didn't go anywhere...but for the record this idea of challenging election results in Congress we don't like was originally a D fringe idea. B. it's undemocratic...seeking to overturn the will of the voters in those congressional districts, and C. does anybody doubt in 2022 if the Rs take the House (they only need a handful of votes) and Nancy Pelosi is still around that the Rs won't retaliate by expelling her. The Republic's election system is already creeking close to breaking and now they want to do this. We spent the spring and summer normalizing political violence and it was that normalization (as much as Trump's awful behavior) that made the takeover of the Capitol a possibility. If people feel elections are no longer working and the majority party can expel those of the minority they think have gone over the line, it's a bad combination with the normalization of political violence.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the Dems to do anything controversial as that's their MO. They're all bark no bite.

I don't think Dems ever intended to use the objection process as a method to overturn an election result. I don't think that was the case with the repubs on 1/6. Most of the times Dems have objected is to highlight voter suppression, which is a real thing -- as opposed to this bogus narrative Trump put together. Anyway, more here:

www.npr.org

Objecting To Electoral Votes In Congress Recalls Bitter Moments In History

Vice President Pence is far from being the first vice president caught in an awkward position when presiding over the counting of electoral votes and being obligated to announce his own defeat.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
 
the D's knives out continue. The NY Bar now has begun an inquiry to disbar Rudy Guiliani

The D's have filed impeachment articles (vote Wednesday, earliest they can be taken up by the Senate is the day before the inauguration but Ds still talking about maybe filing after first 100 days) on the grounds on inciting an insurrection (they have the obvious problem there that Trump did not command his people to engage in violence of seize the Capitol, and he told them to go home...which leads to the curious question that (if they cared) how the Ds are going to make this case).
 
Grace T. said:
The D's have moved from just censuring the House ringleaders challenging the election results to actively seeking their expulsion. They only need a majority to do it, but will weaponize the expulsion process. A. several African American congressmen challenged the 2016 election and are currently serving in Congress...they lacked Senate support so it didn't go anywhere...but for the record this idea of challenging election results in Congress we don't like was originally a D fringe idea. B. it's undemocratic...seeking to overturn the will of the voters in those congressional districts, and C. does anybody doubt in 2022 if the Rs take the House (they only need a handful of votes) and Nancy Pelosi is still around that the Rs won't retaliate by expelling her. The Republic's election system is already creeking close to breaking and now they want to do this. We spent the spring and summer normalizing political violence and it was that normalization (as much as Trump's awful behavior) that made the takeover of the Capitol a possibility. If people feel elections are no longer working and the majority party can expel those of the minority they think have gone over the line, it's a bad combination with the normalization of political violence.
Click to expand...

Like clockwork, Ms. Appeaser is back and whatabout-ing in defense of seditionists.

Claiming this the fault of black people is especially f**ked up. Do you know why they made legitimate objections to the election results in 2016? For the exact same obstructionist, threatening dis-enfranchising racist bs that Grace Karen and her magat friends love so much and tried again this time, only it didn’t work.

Don’t let the Frau Grace of the OC fool you. All she is doing is rationalizing fraud, racism and insurrection because real Americans fight it.
 
espola said:
Dear Ms. Constitutional Lawyer --

Guess where I got this from --

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
Click to expand...

Given how much she detests the 1st Amendment, are you the least bit surprised?
 
NorCalDad said:
I don't think Dems ever intended to use the objection process as a method to overturn an election result. I don't think that was the case with the repubs on 1/6. Most of the times Dems have objected is to highlight voter suppression, which is a real thing -- as opposed to this bogus narrative Trump put together. Anyway, more here:
Click to expand...

You can say the thing then with the Rs since voter fraud is also a thing. There's plenty of recorded cases of suspected dead people voting or felons or noncitizens voting. The issue for Trump was that there's no proof it was in the numbers necessary to make a difference in the elections. The Ds have the same problem with voter suppression in the 2016 elections...there's no proof voter suppression would have changed the outcome. You can't condemn the conduct of one side, without condemning the conduct of the other side, without being nakedly partisan.
 
espola said:
Dear Ms. Constitutional Lawyer --

Guess where I got this from --

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
Click to expand...

You are quite correct. I was an error on the percent (see another example of graciousness which you don't tend to see from extremists on the left). It's a majority for censure.

BTW, I've never claimed to be a Constitutional Lawyer and have said specifically it's not my forte....I know the basics. Doubt we'll see the same graciousness from you.
 
Grace T. said:
You can say the thing then with the Rs since voter fraud is also a thing. There's plenty of recorded cases of suspected dead people voting or felons or noncitizens voting. The issue for Trump was that there's no proof it was in the numbers necessary to make a difference in the elections. The Ds have the same problem with voter suppression in the 2016 elections...there's no proof voter suppression would have changed the outcome. You can't condemn the conduct of one side, without condemning the conduct of the other side, without being nakedly partisan.
Click to expand...

My point is the goal is different. The Dems use it more for posturing -- and highlighting voter suppression. The repubs actually wanted the election results overturned. They're different. Both Biden and Gore when they were VPs handled these situations with grace....as did Pence on 1/6.
 
NorCalDad said:
My point is the goal is different. The Dems use it more for posturing -- and highlighting voter suppression. The repubs actually wanted the election results overturned. They're different. Both Biden and Gore when they were VPs handled these situations with grace....as did Pence on 1/6.
Click to expand...

They knew going in they didn't have the votes (and if they did have the votes or they were reasonably close the mob wouldn't have stormed the Capitol). It was all for show, which is why the President was trying to pressure the Vice-President to act unconstitionally (which would be a far more solid foundation on which to impeach, but it would require the cooperation of Pence).
 
NorCalDad said:
Looks like Trump has an unlikely supporter:

www.cnbc.com

Germany's Merkel hits out at Twitter over 'problematic' Trump ban

German Chancellor Angela Merkel blasted Twitter's decision to ban U.S. President Donald Trump.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...

Yes, unlikely...the fact that the Europeans and Mexicans can see the danger of this should tell us how far gone some on the left are that they can't (and yes, I hold the Trumpkins to the same standard for their thought they could get a court or congress or the VP or a coup to overturn a democratic election). Both sides in the US have gone insane.
 
Grace T. said:
the D's knives out continue. The NY Bar now has begun an inquiry to disbar Rudy Guiliani

The D's have filed impeachment articles (vote Wednesday, earliest they can be taken up by the Senate is the day before the inauguration but Ds still talking about maybe filing after first 100 days) on the grounds on inciting an insurrection (they have the obvious problem there that Trump did not command his people to engage in violence of seize the Capitol, and he told them to go home...which leads to the curious question that (if they cared) how the Ds are going to make this case).
Click to expand...
The D's are overreaching again. They are what they accuse the R's of...ie breaking norms, being dictatorial, taking away rights, etc.

If it were not so sad, I get a kick out of the jungle primary system in CA. The end result is you have races in the general where the voters get to pick between 2 Dems. Stalin is mad he didn't think of creating a system like that were you could either vote for him or vote for him. Great concept.

Restrictions on free speech? Over the past decade or more these come largely from the left...either in actual rules (campuses for instance) or proposals.

The fact that so many on the left applaud pushing conservatives off Twitter, FB, Instagram etc. Terrible precedent and thought process.

When the said conservatives say ok we go to Parler, then they attempt to de-platform Parler. Not good.

Ideas today are mainly discussed/propagated through Social media. The fact that one line of thought can just be shut down is very chilling. Youtube is taking down videos questioning the election results. And yet 10s of thousands of vids can be seen questioning 2016 and the debunked Russian angle. Etc, etc.

What the Congress is trying to do both with another impeachment and talking about kicking out members is rather shall we say authoritarian. Those very same Ds talking about this, have for the past 4 yrs talked about T being illegitimate. Remember the Bernie Bro shooting up the House softball game and targeting Rs? Steve Scalise? Rand Paul getting attacked? By the Ds own standard today, they themselves should be held to account right? But of course they are not. They passively and actively encouraged the summer riots. Today they are now all about law an order? Please.

And it goes on.

Not a good thing.
 
NorCalDad said:
Gore when they were VPs handled these situations with grace...
Click to expand...
Gore didn't handle it with grace in 2000. Far from it.

He wanted to pick and choose what counties in FL to use a certain standard (the one he liked) while leaving the rest of the counties to use a different standard as just one main example.

And even after it was decided he was not gracious in the years after. Nor was the Dem party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top