As Arranged, Trump Has Been Acquitted

[Revoltingest]

Im sure if I look I'll find examples of Libertarians behaving poorly and out to get the 1st.

Behaving poorly, very likely.
Out to get the 1st Amendment, good luck with that.

 

[Shad]

If only it were that simple. When the Administration refused to cooperate with the investigation, an investigation couldn't be completed.

Wrong. The issue of subpoenas goes to the courts. Dems didn't want to bother, that is on them.

Congress basically went "yup, we're going to help this con-artist engage in a cover-up" and rigged the entire thing from day one instead of taking their Congressional duties seriously with respect to the separation of powers and checks-and-balances system.

Wrong. Dems didn't want to take the time to build their case to win they just wanted optics, nothing more.

So I suppose in a bizarre, roundabout way, the President isn't guilty of obstruction of Congress when Congress itself is complicit in the cover-up?

The charge is made up as Congress (House) didn't bother to take issues to court which the courts are designed to resolve. Dems problem

But that's not how the checks-and-balances system is supposed to work.

Ergo the courts resolve the dispute over subpoenas. Dems didn't bother. Dems problem

On the upshot, democracy has spectacularly failed over the last several decades in addressing the most significant issue in all of human history. A dictator could very well succeed where democracy has failed. Personally, I prefer the grassroots solution, but... eh, I try to be the optimist.

Democracy was never a great system to begin with as morons can vote these days.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Behaving poorly, very likely.
Out to get the 1st Amendment, good luck with that.

It's politics and power. The only reason I can see it not being there is they don't win very often. They are humans in positions of power. It's probably there somewhere.

 

[Shad]

Well, they did pass the USMCA.

So? USMCA is just a modification of NAFTA which Dems never opposed in mass to begin with.

Also, they passed something like 200 bills that have since been rotting on Mitch McConnell's desk so ...

Which shows that the House can waste time passing bills it knows has zero chance of passing the Senate. A lot of people in Congress are lawyers. They are completely capable of seeing the outcome of their proposals. The Senate is not subservient to the House

 

[Shad]

Nope. Dems and Reps, Cons and Libs, they have a well established history of being anti-free speech when the speech is something they don't like.

Nope what? Read my post again.

 

[Shad]

The abortion issue was only half the article. There's a lot more to it.

I edited the post. Read it again when you can.

With that you're also including all the hundreds if not thousands of Chinese Americans and other countries fleeing socialist and communist countries essentially saying the same exact thing as being

You can not use an article that has 3 people as representation people that said nothing in that article.

[A) stupid
B) getting a pay check
c) A and B

Like I said , we'll just agree to disagree.

No. You have issues reading what you link and comprehending it. Nothing more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Understandable. I was in a rush yesterday and did not make clear my request. I was just curious who, if anyone, was saying they are overall unreliable.

I myself see the New York Times as somewhat uneven when it comes to reliability. For instance -- so far as I know -- they are nowhere near as good as the Associated Press or Reuters. NPR certainly appears more reliable than them, and the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg most likely edge them. But I would not characterize them as wholly unreliable. Only partly so, if I am not mistaken. About mid-level of the outlets I consider worth bothering with.

NYT, I've even seen ti here, sometimes gets accused of being Left/Liberal biased, Conservative/Right biased, untrustable, and other terms that reveal just how dire the partisanship of some people is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope what? Read my post again.

Nope as in you don't really need to have to align with anything specific or look in one general direction to find those who have opposed things such as free speech.

 

[Shad]

Nope as in you don't really need to have to align with anything specific or look in one general direction to find those who have opposed things such as free speech.

Gotcha. Heck one only need be religious at times regardless of politics to be against free speech.

 

[tytlyf]

Ya, we knew the Senate wouldn't remove him from office months ago. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's politics and power. The only reason I can see it not being there is they don't win very often. They are humans in positions of power. It's probably there somewhere.

Why on Earth would anyone want to join a losing party
which favors free speech more than any other only to
oppose free speech? No wonder you've no example.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why on Earth would anyone want to join a losing party
which favors free speech more than any other only to
oppose free speech? No wonder you've no example.

Because they are humans. Similar claims get made elsewhere, such as infallible priests, or Mormon leaders, or goodly good organizations that have good purposes and goals, whatever it is, people are people, humans are humans, and politics and power attracts the obsolete worst of us.
And I don't have examples because I've never looked. I just see humans and know there are those who are vile people or have vile intents walking among them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because they are humans. Similar claims get made elsewhere, such as infallible priests, or Mormon leaders, or goodly good organizations that have good purposes and goals, whatever it is, people are people, humans are humans, and politics and power attracts the obsolete worst of us.
And I don't have examples because I've never looked. I just see humans and know there are those who are vile people or have vile intents walking among them.

Being human wouldn't explain joining a party with no political power
with the intent of opposing a fundamental agenda, ie, free speech.
I can see becoming a Dem or a Pub though. They don't have consistent
values, but they do have political power. Fighting free speech fits
well with either party as we've seen....especially with Dems.

You can expect that if Libertarians ever get into power, they'd
more likely have other human failings, eg, lascivious behavior.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Being human wouldn't explain joining a party with no political power
with the intent of opposing a fundamental agenda, ie, free speech.

Hence why I said if there are none of they are hard to find it's because they don't often win. But that doesn't give them any protections against it, and the do align themselves with Reps.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hence why I said if there are none of they are hard to find it's because they don't often win. But that doesn't give them any protections against it, and the do align themselves with Reps.

We align with other parties based upon a particular issue.
It would be impossible to disagree with Pubs & Dems on
everything.

 

[Riders]

As arranged in advance of the trial by Mr. Trump, Mr. Mitch McConnell, and the Republican majority, Mr. Trump has been acquitted in the Senate of both charges on which he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

Senator Mitt Romney was the only Republican to cross party lines and vote to convict, which he did on the abuse of power charge, but not on the obstruction of justice charge.

The acquittal has the potential to give Mr. Trump unprecedented powers for someone occupying the office of president. It will be interesting to observe if he returns to his efforts to illegally throw the November election in his favor.

[Source, New York Times]

The only way to remove this president is to vote him out. I say we all vote..............

 

[Twilight Hue]

I edited the post. Read it again when you can.




You can not use an article that has 3 people as representation people that said nothing in that article.




No. You have issues reading what you link and comprehending it. Nothing more.

Well I'll just add on a few more people.....

Venezuelans Warn Against Bringing Socialism to the United States

I comprehend just fine.

 

[Spartan]

The only way to remove this president is to vote him out. I say we all vote..............

We're going to vote alright - for Trump. You liberals don't even have a decent candidate this time around (not that you had one last time either). Here's your top three losers:

1. Pete Buttigieg – an unrepentant Sodomite who wants to make HIS HUSBAND the First Lady / Man in the White House. Yuck.
2. Bernie Sanders – the resident, pie-in-the-sky, math-challenged Socialist / Communist.
3. Elizabeth Warren – Pocahontas. Painful to watch and listen to. Probably won't last too much longer.

And then there's unrepentant fornicator "Little Mike" Bloomberg, who is in an incestuous relationship with his shack-up girlfriend. Interesting that he spent $200 million and came in at less than 1% of the voting in Iowa, LOL.

That’s the current “brain trust” of the Democratic Party, LOL.

 

[pearl]

What a glaring difference in character!

Trump following his acquittal
“They took a phone call that was a totally appropriate call. I call it a perfect call, because it was. And they brought me to the final stages of impeachment. But now we have that gorgeous word, I never thought a word would sound so good. It's called total acquittal. Total acquittal,” Trump said.

Bill Clinton
“I want to say again to the American people, how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people,” Mr Clinton said in his press briefing at the White House following his acquittal by the Senate in 1999 following impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're going to vote alright - for Trump. You liberals don't even have a decent candidate this time around (not that you had one last time either). Here's your top three losers:

1. Pete Buttigieg – an unrepentant Sodomite who wants to make HIS HUSBAND the First Lady / Man in the White House. Yuck.
2. Bernie Sanders – the resident, pie-in-the-sky, math-challenged Socialist / Communist.
3. Elizabeth Warren – Pocahontas. Painful to watch and listen to. Probably won't last too much longer.

And then there's unrepentant fornicator "Little Mike" Bloomberg, who is in an incestuous relationship with his shack-up girlfriend. Interesting that he spent $200 million and came in at less than 1% of the voting in Iowa, LOL.

That’s the current “brain trust” of the Democratic Party, LOL.

You left out an important civil liberty problem with Bloomberg....
Bloomberg’s 'stop-and-frisk' legacy would complicate presidential bid