Hello:
Don't laugh..
Trump HAS the courts. He HAS the feckless congress. He HAS an armed and angry base. If he declares himself President For Life, who's gonna STOP him?
excon
|
Hello:
Don't laugh..
Trump HAS the courts. He HAS the feckless congress. He HAS an armed and angry base. If he declares himself President For Life, who's gonna STOP him?
excon
He already floated this issue several months ago when he congratulated the Chinese guy for declaring himself president for life (or whatever title he used). Not quite tongue-in-cheek he wondered whether that would be a thing for him, asked in a semi-joking way, but he was CLEARLY testing the waters to get a reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I have no doubt whatsoever he would try to do this if he believed there was any chance of succeeding.
The mid-terms loom more and more important every day.
I wouldn't put it past a congress controlled by the Dufus's sycophants to try and extend the terms of a president. It took an act of congress to limit the terms of service AFTER Roosevelt died. What you didn't know a congress could do that?
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-presid...-terms-3367979
Quote:
Why the Number of Presidential Terms Is LimitedCongressional Republicans proposed the constitutional amendment banning presidents from serving more than two terms in response to Roosevelt's four election victories. Histories have written that the party felt such a move was the best way to invalidate the popular Democrat's legacy.
"At the time, an amendment limiting presidents to two terms in office seemed an effective way to invalidate Roosevelt's legacy, to discredit this most progressive of presidents," wrote professors James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn in The New York Times.
Now getting enough states to pass such a thing is something I doubt but you never know.
Elections have consequences in case the dufus and his sycophants haven't depressed you enough.
If he tries then I will join the resistence . Any other fantasy questions ?
It's called an amendment …. 2/3 od both houses of Congress proposed it and 3/4 of the states ratified it .Clearly THE PEOPLE did not want a President for life.Quote:
It took an act of congress to limit the terms of service AFTER Roosevelt died.
Your facts are a bit off .
The measure passed 285–121, with support from 47 Democrats in the House . In the Senate the amended proposal was passed 59–23, with 16 Democrats in favor. The States ratification ? 41 States ratified .Two states:Oklahoma and Massachusetts rejected the amendment, and five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) took no action . So to imply that this was solely a Republican amendment does not jive with history .
You're nit picking Tom. Are you and JL colluding?
nitpicking ? It was overwheming bi-partisan results and the correct call. FDR was tired and worn out after 8 years . Had war not broken out in 1942 he would've been soundly defeated . The next 4 years killed him He was a shell of himself at Yalta and Stalin played him like a fiddle ; and the people of Central Europe paid the price for 40 years .
Depends on what he promises the leaders of government (or if he merely throws them in prison, well at least all the Democrats.
If he brings back ecomony, brings in troops to stop the crime crime ( and use them to control the people)
It has worked before. They did it, just last year in China. But he would have find other Supreme Court members quilty of brides, or something and have them put in prison. Along with all of the opposing party. And if any one protests, they are quietly put in jail also (or re-education camps)
I lived this first hand in China, it is actually easy to do.
Depends on what he promises the leaders of government (or if he merely throws them in prison, well at least all the Democrats.
If he brings back ecomony, brings in troops to stop the crime crime ( and use them to control the people)
It has worked before. They did it, just last year in China. But he would have find other Supreme Court members quilty of brides, or something and have them put in prison. Along with all of the opposing party. And if any one protests, they are quietly put in jail also (or re-education camps)
I lived this first hand in China, it is actually easy to do.
Developed a bad stutter in China Chuck?
You can't blame FDR for the Cold War, Churchhill was as much to blame as anyone, and you can't blame the Russians for a paranoid response, wanting to gut Germany for all time. The big mistake was to use the atomic bomb, it made sure the Russians would develop the bomb and have a stand off with the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well then, I feel better..
excon
Trump can't be President for life for the same reason Obama couldn't. Constitutional changes put in place after Truman. Changing that is well beyond what Obama could do, same as Trump. Besides not even Trump claims to WANT to do that... Besides that, there is this pesky little thing called voters.
Why would anyone want the stress for life, the job is obviously aging
Tom, anytime you actually present facts and evidence, you are accused of nitpicking. Some here don't like the truth. They much prefer their own extreme fantasy world of collusion and lifetime presidents.Quote:
You're nit picking Tom. Are you and JL colluding?
I have no problem with Toms FACTS, just his presumption that I implied it was repubs alone who pushed for presidential term limits... after Truman I might add, but I specifically said the CONGRESS, which is repubs and dems.
I just threw your name into the mix JL to get you riled up. 8) Plus let's face it, you never know what this whack-o-doodle in the white house will do next, especially with his sycophant trumpsters behind him. With heroes like Kim, Vlad, Chi, and Rodrigo as role models all it would take is a bunch of loony right wingers holding their nose at such a power grab... AGAIN.
Or a WAR!
I think you've missed your calling. With your vivid imagination, you need to become a writer of fiction. Come to think of it, you already are! (<:Quote:
With heroes like Kim, Vlad, Chi, and Rodrigo as role models all it would take is a bunch of loony right wingers holding their nose at such a power grab... AGAIN.
Or a WAR!
Think I should stick with cartoons?
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/166/16678/1667803.gif
Think they have enough evidence for you?
I'm glad you used the word "evidence". Now if you could just find some of it. So far that has proven to be a problem.
You don't believe the intelligence community of your government? You may be able to make a case that DIRECT evidence of colluding with the Russians against the dufus does not exist yet, but not against VLAD. Why would HIS intelligence operatives and hacker be sanctioned and under criminal indictment?
Because they are guilty of something. And why is it that there are not even charges being brought against the Trump campaign? Because there is no evidence. Just because you want him to be guilty does not make him guilty.
Not just Russians at the behest of Vlad, but;
Flynn
Gates
Manafort
Papadopoulos
Cohen
That's a lot of TOP guys guilty of something so far. But of course you knew that. Some coincidence huh? Are we seeing a real investigation at work? Or another one about to start?
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-...harges-2018-10
Or could we look into that Saudi journalist disappearing in Turkey? I think the evidence is mounting to prove MY longstanding claim that Trump is a lying, cheating, dufus. Take you pick of what he is guilty of already.
What a pity it is difficult to be guilty of treason these days, in earlier times it was much easier
Now which of those guys have been accused of collusion with the Russians? Answer of course is none. In the meantime it is a certainty that CNN colluded with the Clinton campaign to try and get her elected, but I suppose that is of no consequence.Quote:
Flynn
Gates
Manafort
Papadopoulos
Cohen
Is it possible that the Trump campaign received information from Russians that proved to be useful in the campaign? I imagine that is quite possible, just like the Clinton campaign likely did the same thing, and if not with Russians, then with other foreign individuals. If you believe these things don't happen, then you need to re-read the old classic Polly Anna Runs for President. So far as I am aware, it is not illegal to do any of that.
Well maybe this will explain the mess, and save me a lot of typing, and while I am aware of the allegations against Hillary and the dems by the dufus sycophants and hold your nosers, I figure, at least hope Mueller will thoroughly investigate the role that everybody played in the Russian election interference case.
So far we just have Russians and dufus campaign workers, and though they have not been charged with anything other than lying to investigators, except Manafort who has numerous convictions in one of his trials for criminal activities, they all are cooperating with Mueller. Too soon to say who knew what and did what, as the investigation continues.
Just the other day they got some young guy from California for selling stolen bank account numbers and a few of his buyers were Russians funneling money to fund operations here in the US. He pleaded guilty and is cooperating with law enforcement. I'm just going to say since it's ongoing we will see what happens next... and to whom.
I'm satisfied to let the investigation, and the process of law take it's course and go wherever are you?
I absolutely am, and I'm glad to hear that you are as well. Remember, I'm the one who actually believes in following the trail of evidence.Quote:
I'm satisfied to let the investigation, and the process of law take it's course and go wherever are you?
To be clear, evidence has to be submitted in a court of law, until then it's just a lead to follow and verify. Is that also your understanding?
Just a lead to follow? No, evidence is what we look at when we are trying to establish the truth. It doesn't matter if it's a court of law or the court of public opinion. If a person is genuinely interested in the truth, then he/she will look first at the evidence.
Just a lead to follow? No, evidence is what we look at when we are trying to establish the truth. It doesn't matter if it's a court of law or the court of public opinion. If a person is genuinely interested in the truth, then he/she will look first at the evidence.
seriously ? The biggest growth industry in the US at the end of the war was the production of body bags in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese islands . Okinawa showed us the price that would be paid in US casualties. Never 2nd guess the use of nukes. It was the right call.Quote:
The big mistake was to use the atomic bomb,
Yep. It's always easy to second guess when it's not your rear end on the line.Quote:
It was the right call.
thank meQuote:
Hello tom:
Well then, I feel better..
excon
yeah these days you have to provide evidence . Maybe we should just throw Trump in a lake and see if he floats .Quote:
What a pity it is difficult to be guilty of treason these days, in earlier times it was much easier
What a brilliant idea but don't throw Hilliary in, you know she would sink, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Think there is enough evidence to accuse the Saudis of murdering a journalist?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Hello:
You'd think I wouldn't have to explain what an investigation is to the law and order party.. But things is up side down.. We investigate to find the truth.. We don't have truth and then investigate.. Clearly, an investigation in progress, is an investigation that hasn't yet determined the truth..
Now, it's also true that in the course of investigating, other law breakers might turn up. Should they look the other way??
When it's over, we'll know the truth.. That is unless Trump convinces people that the deep state Democrats, the FBI and the Justice Department are ENEMY'S.
Dude!
excon
Perhaps you should explain that to all of the folks who had Kavanaugh guilty as charged when the evidence made that conclusion ridiculous.
There was no follow-up investigation by the naysayers. "We say it didn't happen, so Kavanaugh is not guilty."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No doubt just look at previous presidents when they start, and when they leave... they all have shown considerable aging after only 4 years.
There is this pesky legal standard in the USA... called Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Nobody ever HAS to prove they are innocent, but the ACCUSERS, ALWAYS have to prove you did it. They couldn't find a single witness to back up the delusional claims Ford made for pay. And there is no doubt she was paid to do it. He wasn't the first.. its been a regular Democrat Tactic for a number of elections so far. They did it to Herman Caine too. Then crawled back under their respective rocks never to be heard from again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
No one proved Kavanaugh guilty because there was no investigation -- nor was there time made to investigate. (I've been a Republican since I registered to vote at age 21.)Quote:
There is this pesky legal standard in the USA... called Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Nobody ever HAS to prove they are innocent, but the ACCUSERS, ALWAYS have to prove you did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Precisely!! It was not a question of guilt or innocence. It was a question of a proper investigation which the Republicans sabotaged by the WH refusal to allow the FBI to do their full and complete investigation.
I'm always amazed at how the right-wing simply ignores this crucial point and blames the opposition for dishonest dealing when it is the Republicans themselves who are guilty of dishonest dealing.
The "evidence" of 40+ witnesses was not allowed to see the light of day. HEIL, boys!
Forty witnesses? OK, list them. Tell us who they are, and especially note those who have anything even approaching first hand testimony of the alleged incident. (Hint, that would be zero.) Make sure you list the name of the witness who would have driven CBF home.Quote:
The "evidence" of 40+ witnesses was not allowed to see the light of day. HEIL, boys
Time for this insanity to stop. First the liberals, in their desperate attempt to keep a Supreme Court that will subvert the democratic process by finding unlisted and unsupported "rights" in the Constitution, bring up a ridiculous charge against BK that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, and then complain when the FBI's investigation reveals zero substantiation. Dr. Ford's own witnesses did not support her. It is complete and stupid nonsense. It makes me glad beyond belief not to be a part of this political clown show. It only serves to illustrate everything that is sick and ignorant in American politics.
Here's what the three witnesses named by Dr. Ford had to say. If you have forty more like these, then we'll be able to nominate BK for saint.
(1)Simply put, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said (2) Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.
(3) Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement: “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.
Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”
Due diligence requires you take EVERYBODYS statement, and you sure left a bunch of people out. They have come forward and are public, yet have not been questioned. That sounds half a$$ed to me no matter how you cut it, but probably better for repubs to get what they want. It worked, which is typical of the whole dufus presidency and it's no wonder you have to hold your nose to vote for him and keep holding it after two years of the dufus.
Trust me my friend you are going to have one sore nose by 2020 if it's not hurting like heck now, or some really NUMB fingers frozen on your face. You probably want Mueller to go away too. Now that's what a REAL investigation looks like! Too bad all you want is the right to refuse baking a cake for gay weddings or outlaw abortions for poor women, or make the institute of marriage controlled exclusively by the clergy.
Name the ones that have any knowledge whatsoever of the alleged incident. Name them. List them. If they can even say, "I was across the street at the time," or "I came by and worked on the phone." Anyone at all who has any first hand knowledge of this party and has come forward in willingness to testify. Name them. Anyone! If you can't, and you can't, then why do you continue this charade? Once again, it is all a political circus, and a vain effort to maintain political control of the Supreme Court. Liberals don't care one ounce about Dr. Ford, and certainly have no interest in justice. They just want to maintain their grip on the SCOTUS. It is an embarrassment for the entire liberal community, and the real tragedy is that they have become so power hungry that they evidently can't even see it.Quote:
Due diligence requires you take EVERYBODYS statement, and you sure left a bunch of people out.
One thing I have noticed about some of you guys. You love generalities, but you're short on specifics. Name them! Who are the forty? Who is even one?
Hello j:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Couple things.. Direct testimony under oath IS evidence. And, it seemed that Republicans BELIEVED her. Of course, that put the Kavanaugh appointment in jeopardy, so the talking points shifted dramatically.. I see you picked 'em up. The ONLY way the previously believable testimony can be obliterated is to demonize ALL the women who're VICTIMS and taking to the streets.. And, they did. They're called an ANGRY mob. They're accused of being PAID.. They're called TOXIC.
Trump WON.. But, at what cost? The nation is FURTHER divided.. Trump thinks that works for him. Let's hope not.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 PM. |