News: Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) was arrested and indicted on federal insider trading charges Wednesday. Looks like a pretty open and shut case. Easy to prove.
Collins was the first U.S. congressman to endorse Trump.
Trump attracts the best people.
News: Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) was arrested and indicted on federal insider trading charges Wednesday. Looks like a pretty open and shut case. Easy to prove.
Collins was the first U.S. congressman to endorse Trump.
Trump attracts the best people.
Fat hurts wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
There is no argument on this topic. I agree 100% with Flagpole. Get on board liberals, you must defend free speech & the First Amendment for EVERYONE not just for those you agree with.
Like Flagpole said, liberals have long been champions of free speech. We are already on board.
Anyone who thinks we should limit "hate speech" is not on board.
Flagpole wrote:
Here are some things we need to keep in mind:
Trump is a criminal and will be exposed as such.
Yeah, that's pretty much the main thing.
Mueller is coming. BELIEVE it, for it is true.
The clown is done.
Even though I'd prefer you to be right, you can keep chanting the same stupid sh17 as much as you'd like and it's never going to be true.
Mueller will write a report or reports outlining any actions by Trump and others in his immediate aura and the report will likely label them criminal or unethical. The SC isn't going to bring charges. He could, depending on the level of any violation, even go as far as recommend an impeachment although I think this unlikely. He will pass the report(s) to Rosenstein who may or may not make the report public and he'd also hold within his grasp how timely he will release said report. The report will be passed on to Congress who will form committee's which will take little to no action.
At the same time, the WH will have it's rebuttal written. It will be released to the public before Mueller's report comes out. It will remove the "sting" of the report....if the assumption is that the Mueller report will be significantly negative. This will keep the base of Trump and FoxNews happily singing it's ignorant songs about the Salesman in Chief.
If the House doesn't move to Blue in November which I think is a lot more up in the air than others seem to, he's not going to be impeached. Even if he's impeached, he's not going to be convicted. Thus, he's not going anywhere until 2020 at the earliest and, more than likely, 2024.
So all of the outrage by the Democrats and the squirming in their seats to protect the Liar in Chief by the Republicans really amounts to nothing and the Democrats would do themselves a whole lot of good by coming up with a few issues to run on nationally other than raging against the administration 24/7.
DiscoGary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Like Flagpole said, liberals have long been champions of free speech. We are already on board.
Anyone who thinks we should limit "hate speech" is not on board.
You would need to define "hate speech", but you are probably right. You also need to differentiate between those who advocate for hate speech laws and those who seek to limit hate speech by legal means that fall short of outlawing such speech.
Most liberals strongly support freedom of speech as currently defined in the Constitution and upheld by the courts. It's part of the liberal DNA.
Fat hurts wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
Anyone who thinks we should limit "hate speech" is not on board.
You would need to define "hate speech", but you are probably right. You also need to differentiate between those who advocate for hate speech laws and those who seek to limit hate speech by legal means that fall short of outlawing such speech.
Most liberals strongly support freedom of speech as currently defined in the Constitution and upheld by the courts. It's part of the liberal DNA.
Gary seems to be very confused. Nobody here has said they are against free speech but he keeps posting about it as if that’s the case. Trying to put worlds in our mouths. He is obsessed with race and “hate” issues.
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You would need to define "hate speech", but you are probably right. You also need to differentiate between those who advocate for hate speech laws and those who seek to limit hate speech by legal means that fall short of outlawing such speech.
Most liberals strongly support freedom of speech as currently defined in the Constitution and upheld by the courts. It's part of the liberal DNA.
Gary seems to be very confused. Nobody here has said they are against free speech but he keeps posting about it as if that’s the case. Trying to put worlds in our mouths. He is obsessed with race and “hate” issues.
That's part of Gary's modus operandi.
1) Make up absurd positions
2) Assign these positions to THEM
3) "Win" the argument
4) When THEY point out that these are not their positions, go find someone, somewhere who does hold the absurd position. Proclaim that the one nut job is representative of all of THEM
5) Claim Victory!
Part and Parcel wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Gary seems to be very confused. Nobody here has said they are against free speech but he keeps posting about it as if that’s the case. Trying to put worlds in our mouths. He is obsessed with race and “hate” issues.
That's part of Gary's modus operandi.
1) Make up absurd positions
2) Assign these positions to THEM
3) "Win" the argument
4) When THEY point out that these are not their positions, go find someone, somewhere who does hold the absurd position. Proclaim that the one nut job is representative of all of THEM
5) Claim Victory!
That is pretty good, page getting bookmarked. I can apply this to pretty much every argument he’s tried to make, although he often fails out at step 2.
Part and Parcel wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Gary seems to be very confused. Nobody here has said they are against free speech but he keeps posting about it as if that’s the case. Trying to put worlds in our mouths. He is obsessed with race and “hate” issues.
That's part of Gary's modus operandi.
1) Make up absurd positions
2) Assign these positions to THEM
3) "Win" the argument
4) When THEY point out that these are not their positions, go find someone, somewhere who does hold the absurd position. Proclaim that the one nut job is representative of all of THEM
5) Claim Victory!
See handle
Perhaps your are protecting yourself from potential disappointment by thinking this will not go anywhere. IT WILL. I understand that need to protect yourself as I have some friends who are doing the same thing (my wife too to some degree), and they admit that's why they are doing it.
While I maintain that Trump will have to resign or will be impeached and convicted before the end of this first term, at the very least, he will not be reelected in 2020. I agree that Mueller likely will not indict him while he is still President. He will give his report to Rosenstein, and Rosenstein WILL make it public. This is likely to happen after the midterms, meaning after the Democrats have taken over the House. The Democrats WILL take over the House. This would have been a real possibility even if Trump were just a normal run of the mill Republican and not the horrible criminal that he is because it is a midterm election, and too many Trumpers will just stay home while Democrats are very motivated.
The crimes he will be found guilty of are not small crimes. Here they are in order of severity from most severe to least:
1) Conspiracy with Russia. He has already thrown Don Jr. under the bus with regard to this meaning that he has also thrown Kushner and Manafort under the bus too. Mueller knows that Trump knew of the meeting beforehand, and he has evidence to show it...for sure. This is a HUGE deal regardless of what Trump says about it. Shows that the "no collusion" mantra was crap the whole time. So, conspiring with an enemy foreign power to help win an election?! Absolutely illegal, and absolutely NOT done all the time as Trump said. What we know publicly shows this. There is more that we don't know too. This is why the investigation was started, and lo and behold, Trump has admitted to it -- well admitted that Don Jr. did it. So, NOT a hoax or a witch hunt and definitely not "no collusion".
2) Obstruction of Justice. This is what stuck with Clinton, and what he was obstructing wasn't anywhere NEAR as bad as what Trump is obstructing. What we know publicly shows this. There is more that we don't know too.
3) Money Laundering. They will get him for this. Will very likely be the reason that Trump has rolled over for Putin. Just too much smoke with regard to this for too long, and Mueller has Money Laundering experts on his team.
4) Bank Fraud and/or Wire Fraud. Going down the line here, but this will just be one more thing.
5) Felony Campaign Finance Law Violation. Not as big a deal as the others, but note that we are down to crime #5 on the severity list, and it is STILL a felony!
6) Computer Hacking Law Violation. You don't have to have been the one to do the hacking to be charged with this, and he will be.
7) Emoluments Clause Violation. Clear that he has done this.
8) Witness Tampering. I'm actually not even sure where this goes on the list, but it belongs on the list. He'd better have a good answer for why Hope Hicks was on Air Force One the other day. Hope Hicks is very stupid for staying connected to Trump.
9) More stuff we don't know yet. He's a crime tornado. His associates are all criminals. Felix Sater is described as a "former mobster", and he has a long criminal past with connections to the mob.
The stuff that is going to come out will turn even Trump-leaning Republican senators to vote to convict. I think he will resign before that, perhaps as part of a plea deal.
The impeachment process was created to protect Americans from a criminal President. If it can't be effectively used on Trump, then who the hell ever could it be used on? He has so clearly (as Mueller's report will show) broken laws that are at least "high crimes and misdemeanors". I refuse to believe we are no longer The United States of America where we are governed by the Rule of Law. Americans, both the electorate and our elected officials will stand up and say we will not tolerate such a criminal in the White House.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Can someone explain how you get the urge to follow politics with such a strong passion? Just curious
Political politician politics wrote:
Can someone explain how you get the urge to follow politics with such a strong passion? Just curious
If you can explain to me the urge to NOT follow it when we have a disaster criminal of a President in the White House. This is not just typical Democrat vs. Republican stuff, stuff I usually stay out of. This is about a criminal, corrupt, traitor President who is threatening our national security, pissing off our allies and giving legitimacy to multiple dictators around the world.
If Trump had his way, he would be a dictator, and we would not be a free nation any more. That is worth being passionate about.
When he is ousted and Pence (if he survives this) is President, I still won't what Pence stands for, but assuming he's not also a proven criminal by then, I won't care that much even if he is a religious nutjob. The maybe I'll take up clog dancing.
Isn't it in the government's hands to control what happens within its borders? Does internal affairs deal with presidential issues?
Political politician politics wrote:
Can someone explain how you get the urge to follow politics with such a strong passion? Just curious
Because it affects almost everything about your daily life. It's important to form opinions based on facts and be aware of what policy is being established by the representatives for which you vote.
Left or Right, it doesn't matter. It matters that as many voters as possible are involved in what policy is being set.
I mean... wrote:
Isn't it in the government's hands to control what happens within its borders? Does internal affairs deal with presidential issues?
What are you getting at?
PIO! wrote:
There has to be limits wrote:
I’m sorry, but there has to be limits on free speech. Hate speech has to be one of them. We live in different times than 250 years ago.
Yes, there DO have to be limits on free speech. And Flagpole clearly and concisely enumerated them.
Next.
Hi Flagpole!
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You would need to define "hate speech", but you are probably right. You also need to differentiate between those who advocate for hate speech laws and those who seek to limit hate speech by legal means that fall short of outlawing such speech.
Most liberals strongly support freedom of speech as currently defined in the Constitution and upheld by the courts. It's part of the liberal DNA.
Gary seems to be very confused. Nobody here has said they are against free speech but he keeps posting about it as if that’s the case. Trying to put worlds in our mouths. He is obsessed with race and “hate” issues.
He who protests;) You've been on rate and "hate" issues for months now you dingleberry! It's no wonder with a handle that starts with troll...fits you well old man!
Flagpole wrote:
I mean... wrote:
Isn't it in the government's hands to control what happens within its borders? Does internal affairs deal with presidential issues?
What are you getting at?
Think you old fart, think.
Oh, and by the way, I've spent more time playing my piano and some Tower Defense games today than I have spent thinking about Trump.
Flagpole wrote:
The crimes he will be found guilty of are not small crimes. Here they are in order of severity from most severe to least:
All of that stuff you posted and more would be thrown at a poor, powerless defendant. This however, is the President of a Republic and that office of President has many privileges that the rest of us do not, including the power to pardon as Nixon was by Ford.
Given Trump has caved on a number of stupid things he's done, he could resign without any action from Congress, then Pence pardons him. The clown will not be done in that scenario. In fact, the clown walks away and is replaced by perhaps a more effective Theocrat.
You had best reconsider your very limited opinions.
What a bloody blowhard you are Buckeye Boy! I wouldn't even care where your sources are or take the time to read whatever you just posted, they are laughable on all levels.
I think just you and your Family are the only ones who read your biased boring dissertations on a subject that you know little about.
November 8th will be 2 years. You claimed it would be soon in February, yet here we are on August 8th.
You're the biggest pretender on this entire thread!
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures