Jump to content

Marxist Rep. Maxine Waters Encourages Riots to Continue Unless Chauvin Convicted of Murder!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Hagar said:

I’m so sick of this Media bias.  Had a Republican did this every one of the MSM would be on them unmercifully.  But it’s okay.  She checks three boxes - woman - Black- and Democrat.  Believe this, there’s nothing she can do or say that would get negative press.  Nothing!

 

She should be removed from office. This isn’t the first time for her spewing that hateful rhetoric. Remember she told people to get up in Trump supporters faces an tell them they’re not wanted around here. What an absolute embarrassment she is. The world is laughing at our country. The double standard and hypocrisy when dealing with these Anti American Democrat Idiots  is nauseating. 
Dems impeached Trump for saying, “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” What do we make of Maxine Waters’ “be more confrontational?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been vocal about feeling that Trump was partially responsible for inciting the riot at the Capitol back in January. 
 

What Maxine Waters is doing here is wrong, too, and it has nothing to do with her race. The media should report anc condemn this behavior regardless of the party affiliation of the speaker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I’ve been vocal about feeling that Trump was partially responsible for inciting the riot at the Capitol back in January. 
 

What Maxine Waters is doing here is wrong, too, and it has nothing to do with her race. The media should report anc condemn this behavior regardless of the party affiliation of the speaker. 

But they won’t utter a peep about it.  The Demoncrats are a far worse bunch than Trump ever was.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Would really love to hear what big girl thinks of the actions of her party.  With Waters being a black woman, I’m sure she is ok with.  Waters definitely needs to be impeached, and it should be done in just a few days!!

Did she really say this? I have never heard of your source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Would really love to hear what big girl thinks of the actions of her party.  With Waters being a black woman, I’m sure she is ok with.  Waters definitely needs to be impeached, and it should be done in just a few days!!

She encouraged protests, not riots. There is a difference.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Big girl said:

She encouraged protests, not riots. There is a difference.

This is the hidden content, please

She went to the area where they've been looting and rioting for a week and told them that if they don't like the verdict, they need to be even more confrontational (than the rioting that they've already been doing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • 3 yrs ago LCM and Vidor played in Vidor for a play in game.  Game was on a Saturday and started around 1 or 2p.
    • It would shock me beyond belief if he tried to. Now, I hope and pray he appoints people that will investigate, charge, and imprison anyone found guilty of the crimes against him...including treason. I would be all for a special task force charged solely with the task of investigating crimes against Trump. Of course the Democrats will be screaming bloody murder that Trump is weaponizing the government against them. We all know the story. From a cursory standpoint, there seems to be a plethora of evidence to lock up many Democrats for a long time. Unless this is done, I see no end to destruction of our political system...and this country.
    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...