Rigged for Hillary wrote:
It will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Nope.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
It will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
Nope.
Kamala learned the hard way that she isn’t ready for Primetime. She was so angry and came across as "black Hillary" super bitchy-just like Cankles.
Gotta give some props to Creepy Uncle Joe, he came out slinging tonight.
KAG2020
groupofseals wrote:
Conundrum and others - Mueller DID NOT say Trump was innocent of conspiracy. Here's what he actually said to Peter Welch (D-VT) via the transcript:
WELCH:
... And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation where unless it was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt you wouldn't make a charge, correct?
MUELLER:
Generally that's the case.
WELCH:
But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy.
MUELLER:
Absolutely correct.
As Mueller says here, they conspiracy evidence they turned up did not rise to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" but could've been impacted by the second part (obstruction). After all, the government was only able to get Al Capone on tax fraud, not any of the other stuff he was guilty of.
That was a good correction.
Kamala Harris:
"Blah, blah, blah.... I'm an angry b!tch"
She will NOT be the dem nominee, stick a fork in it.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Kamala learned the hard way that she isn’t ready for Primetime. She was so angry and came across as "black Hillary" super bitchy-just like Cankles.
Gotta give some props to Creepy Uncle Joe, he came out slinging tonight.
KAG2020
Spoken like a true Jerry Springer loving trumper... sorry you can only communicate in fart and penis language
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
It will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
On what do you base that--anything besides wishin' and hopin'?
-
Not that it matters, really--as has been observed, it could end up being a net plus for President Trump. And he's sure to win the California primary regardless.
Found this on another page. It's got some errors; still interesting.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Whenever a Trump supporter asks you to "name one time Trump was racist," feel free to show them this....
1973: The Nixon administration sued Trump for refusing to rent to black people.
1980s: Trump's casinos were accused of hiding the black staff when Trump visited.
1989: Trump took out a full-page ad, arguing for the death penalty for a group of black men (The 'Central Park Five'), effectively putting a bounty on their heads, and plaguing them with a lifetime of death threats. He was sued by the Justice Department for discrimination.
Trump said this in1991: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kinds of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day… I think that the [black] guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is.”
1992: Trump's casino was fined $200,000 for transferring black dealers off certain tables to appease racist patrons.
1993: Trump said Native American casinos shouldn’t be allowed because “they don’t look like Indians to me.”
2000: Trump ran a series of attack ads against Native American casinos alleging (with no proof) that they were guilty of crimes.
2004: Trump fired a black contestant from 'The Apprentice' for being over-educated.
2010: Trump argued in favor of segregating Muslims in Lower Manhattan.
2011: Birtherism. Trump alleged that Obama was Kenyan based on nothing but skin color. He never apologized nor renounced that claim.
2015: Trump called Mexican immigrants "rapists" who are "bringing crime and drugs" to the U.S.
2015: Trump called for "a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S."
2016: Trump called for a [Mexican-American] judge to recuse himself based on nothing other than his race. Paul Ryan said this was “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
2016: Trump regularly retweeted material from white supremacists and neo-Nazis during his campaign.
2016: Trump tweeted a picture alleging that Hillary was Jewish, or controlled by Jewish people.
2016: The Trump campaign adopted Nixon's "Law and Order" rhetoric which was based in racial fearmongering.
2016: Trump told black voters "What do you have to lose?"
2017: Trump asked a reporter to set up a meeting with the black caucus simply because she was black.
2017: ...some very fine people on both sides" said Trump of a violent Nazi rally.
2017: Trump said people from Haiti "all have AIDS" and people from Nigeria would never “go back to their huts” after seeing America.
2018 Trump called Haiti and African countries shitholes.
2018: Trump referenced the trail of tears to mock Elizabeth Warren.
2019: Trump tweeted that four black and brown congresswomen should go back where they came from. Then attacked Elijah Cummings. Then Baltimore. Then Al Sharpton.
There. That ought to about cover it.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Nobody mention this here, but I found it interesting.
California just passed and signed into law a requirement that all candidates for president and governor release their tax returns. The law is in effect starting with the 2020 primary.
If you don't release your returns, you don't get on the ballot.
California can’t exclude Trump from the ballot. It’s unconstitutional. Even the liberal LA Times is against this bill.
The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own.
California will claim that states have a right to hold their elections any way they see fit. There is no constitutional requirement for states to hold a popular election at all. In fact, the Federal Register gave these instructions to the states for the 2016 election:
The United States Constitution and Federal law do not prescribe the method of appointment other than requiring that electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 8, 2016). In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the citizens of each State appoint the electors by popular vote in the state-wide general election. However, State laws on the appointment of electors may vary.
Under the Constitution, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, with one exception: Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that “no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”may be appointed as an elector.It is not settled as to whether this restriction extends to all Federal officials regardless of their level of authority or the capacity in which they serve, but we advise the States that the restriction could disqualify any person who holds a Federal government job from serving as an elector.
Your argument that California is adding additional requirements for someone to serve as president is very weak because of the way the electoral college system works.
When you cast your ballot, you are not selecting a president. You are selecting an elector who can actually vote for anyone he chooses.
He who lives by the electoral college dies by the electoral college.
Sally Vix wrote:
Mueller would never say that Trump was innocent of conspiracy. Our judicial system does not work that way. You have a presumption of innocence. Trump is innocent already. He has no duty to prove his innocence. The judicial system can indict him of a crime and attempt to prove his guilt. But Trump is PRESUMED INNOCENT. Enough with this nonsense of him having to prove his innocence. HE IS INNOCENT unless proved otherwise.
Again, there is a big difference between INNOCENT and PRESUMED INNOCENT.
Tiny is guilty. That is obvious from the evidence in the Mueller report. It just hasn't been proven in a court of law.
Russian Rakes wrote:
Trump Offers Russia Help With Their Wildfires
Recall that Trump attacked California for not raking their forest clean before fire season started.
Maybe Trump will offer to sell them overpriced Trump branded rakes.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/31/trump-russia-forest-fire-help-1442821
I have no problem with offering Russia assistance.
Of course, the best way to fight forest fires would be to stay in the Paris agreement and stop burning fossil fuels.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You should look at the actual positions of the candidates who support free college. I know that at least some of them address your concerns head on by implementing your #2.
Yes. They are right with #2...wrong and wasteful with #1.
I'm not sure that making college free will change things much. We already have the ability for students to access cheap money for college. And everyone knows (or thinks) that it's a great investment as long as you can get your degree.
So "free college" vs. "cheap money for college" probably won't change the number of people who attempt a degree.
But overall, you are right about #1. It's a real problem that we have today. How do we solve it?
Fat hurts wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
California can’t exclude Trump from the ballot. It’s unconstitutional. Even the liberal LA Times is against this bill.
The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own.
California will claim that states have a right to hold their elections any way they see fit. There is no constitutional requirement for states to hold a popular election at all. In fact, the Federal Register gave these instructions to the states for the 2016 election:
The United States Constitution and Federal law do not prescribe the method of appointment other than requiring that electors must be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 8, 2016). In most States, the political parties nominate slates of electors at State conventions or central committee meetings. Then the citizens of each State appoint the electors by popular vote in the state-wide general election. However, State laws on the appointment of electors may vary.
Under the Constitution, State legislatures have broad powers to direct the process for selecting electors, with one exception: Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that “no Senator, Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”may be appointed as an elector.It is not settled as to whether this restriction extends to all Federal officials regardless of their level of authority or the capacity in which they serve, but we advise the States that the restriction could disqualify any person who holds a Federal government job from serving as an elector.
Your argument that California is adding additional requirements for someone to serve as president is very weak because of the way the electoral college system works.
When you cast your ballot, you are not selecting a president. You are selecting an elector who can actually vote for anyone he chooses.
He who lives by the electoral college dies by the electoral college.
Like the attorney who responded before me, I didn't realize that the law only applies to the primaries. That changes the argument a bit, but the result is the same. California can choose their electors any way they see fit.
Biden will be the nominee as America continues its love affair with septuagenarians.
The angry black woman vibe doesn't work with a lot of voters.
Obama is still a beloved figure and the candidates do them no good by attacking his/Biden's policies.
The fact that Biden should have ran but didn't in 2016 plays a factor here.
Alan
As a point of fact, this was a lawsuit submitted by the DNC. It has nothing to do with cases referred to the the SDNY by Mueller.
Sally Vix wrote:
Southern district of New York judge appointed by Clinton makes ruling highly in favor of Trump.
Flagpole said Mueller farmed out much of his work to SDNY and other outlets but that now appears to be falling flat.
Mueller is NEVER going to be coming.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/30/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-email-hack-1441166
True. It's a rare loss for Democrats. Most suits against the president have been allowed to move forward. Many of these were cases that were thought to be super long-shots. But they are doing better than expected in the courts.
Monkeys typing wrote:
As a point of fact, this was a lawsuit submitted by the DNC. It has nothing to do with cases referred to the the SDNY by Mueller.
Sally Vix wrote:
Southern district of New York judge appointed by Clinton makes ruling highly in favor of Trump.
Flagpole said Mueller farmed out much of his work to SDNY and other outlets but that now appears to be falling flat.
Mueller is NEVER going to be coming.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/30/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-email-hack-1441166
Runningart2004 wrote:
Biden will be the nominee as America continues its love affair with septuagenarians.
The angry black woman vibe doesn't work with a lot of voters.
Obama is still a beloved figure and the candidates do them no good by attacking his/Biden's policies.
The fact that Biden should have ran but didn't in 2016 plays a factor here.
Alan
Warren seems to be breaking out even further. I've been saying all along that she is quite formidable. It has always been the case that the more people get to know her the more they liker her. And it's not just among progressives. She has really broad appeal.
It looks like things could come down to Warren vs. Biden.
Hannity's soft balls wrote:
Mueller Never, Flagpole???? wrote:
Let's cherry pick what questions that I want to make myself feel good.
That is exactly what Hannity does when he "interviews" Trump.
But to be truthful, unlike Flagpole my leader, CNN and MSNBC did the same thing with Hillary Clinton...but she still lost.
Pisses me off to this day as I had to drive over an hour one way to vote and an hour back home.
I guess we needed a better candidate who lost due to her own doings and her husbands atrocious lies.
Those were totally bs and distorted claims. I made them up. But here's some stuff on Hillary, whom I wanted to win so I voted for a known liar. She lost, but us liberals have to admit, we knew she was awful and we voted for her.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/hillary-new-lies-lies-lies-list-grows-longer/
And flagpole claims she was the most qualified Democratic candidate. I voted for another candidate who was more qualified but he didn't win. Lesson learned, never listen to flagpole.
Monkeys typing wrote:
As a point of me lying and proving false claims, this was a lawsuit submitted by the DNC. It has EVERYTHING to do with cases referred to the the SDNY by Mueller.
Sally Vix wrote:
Southern district of New York judge appointed by Clinton makes ruling highly in favor of Trump.
Flagpole said Mueller farmed out much of his work to SDNY and other outlets but that now appears to be falling flat.
Mueller is NEVER going to be coming.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/30/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-email-hack-1441166
\
Yeah, that's because Flagpole lies more than any poster on here.
And as you can see in the post above, I fixed my own errors. Please reread my post as I wasn't being honest.