Jump to content

This isn’t good.


CardinalBacker

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Easy, now.... don't go making too much sense.

 

Trump has been deranged since the vote totals came in.  Nothing has changed.  It's why he needs to be convicted in the Senate and then disqualified from ever running for office again.  

Mark Levine, another constitutional lawyer, says the Government has no impeachment jurisdiction over a private citizen.  Ken Starr, another constitutional lawyer, says the same thing here.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Reagan said:

Mark Levine, another constitutional lawyer, says the Government has no impeachment jurisdiction over a private citizen.  Ken Starr, another constitutional lawyer, says the same thing here.

This is the hidden content, please

There are plenty of constitutional scholars saying the exact opposite... just like any issue.  

I think it's kinda funny because the same people who were yelling that Pence had the right to thrown out any electoral votes he didn't like and saying "where does it say that he can't" are now arguing that the impeachment trial can't be held when there's no clear admonition that it can't.

For the record, I think that it shouldn't but my opinion doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

There are plenty of constitutional scholars saying the exact opposite... just like any issue.  

I think it's kinda funny because the same people who were yelling that Pence had the right to thrown out any electoral votes he didn't like and saying "where does it say that he can't" are now arguing that the impeachment trial can't be held when there's no clear admonition that it can't.

For the record, I think that it shouldn't but my opinion doesn't matter.

On a side note, doesn't the Constitution say that in order for a President to be impeached, that said President has to be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?  What "high crimes and misdemeanors" was Trump guilty of the first and second time?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

There are plenty of constitutional scholars saying the exact opposite... just like any issue.  

I think it's kinda funny because the same people who were yelling that Pence had the right to thrown out any electoral votes he didn't like and saying "where does it say that he can't" are now arguing that the impeachment trial can't be held when there's no clear admonition that it can't.

For the record, I think that it shouldn't but my opinion doesn't matter.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Reagan said:

On a side note, doesn't the Constitution say that in order for a President to be impeached, that said President has to be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?  What "high crimes and misdemeanors" was Trump guilty of the first and second time?   

I felt like there weren’t grounds for the first one. I feel like there are grounds for this one, and I think he would be the first president convicted and removed if he were still in office.  
 

Sending a mob to the capitol and telling them to “fight like you’ve never fought before” right before they overrun the Capitol and halt our election process is the work of a would-be despot.  We don’t need that ever again, and the fact that he’s remorseless is a problem to everyone except Trump’s blindly loyal followers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

It looks like Georgia has finally identified someone that’s being investigated for election fraud in November. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

It appears that Trump’s attorney Lin Wood voted illegally in Georgia... too funny. 

Admission by accusation , projection, whatever you wanna call it.. 

 

Its like your old buddies crazy ex who was always accusing him of cheating in the relationship, when it was her cheating the entire time.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Admission by accusation , projection, whatever you wanna call it.. 

 

Its like your old buddies crazy ex who was always accusing him of cheating in the relationship, when it was her cheating the entire time.. 

I've said all along that the main reason the Rs believe there was cheating is because they were cheating themselves and can't believe that got out-done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I've said all along that the main reason the Rs believe there was cheating is because they were cheating themselves and can't believe that got out-done. 

Spot on, and to be fair.. I’d be super pissed as well if I got outsmarted by Sleepy Joe of all people 😂😂

 

and this isn’t even accounting for the traditional voter suppression efforts like shutting down polling locations, making it more difficult than necessary to register to vote, taking control of USPS to slow down mail in ballots, etc.. I think team (R) knows the demographics aren’t on their side, but rather than attempt to “move to the middle” like normal people, they go full Qanon conspiracy mode

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Spot on, and to be fair.. I’d be super pissed as well if I got outsmarted by Sleepy Joe of all people 😂😂

 

and this isn’t even accounting for the traditional voter suppression efforts like shutting down polling locations, making it more difficult than necessary to register to vote, taking control of USPS to slow down mail in ballots, etc.. I think team (R) knows the demographics aren’t on their side, but rather than attempt to “move to the middle” like normal people, they go full Qanon conspiracy mode

Tell us why only the swing states stopped the vote count? Trump was up in all the swing states.  Then 3-4 days later he loses all the swing states that vote count was stopped.  What was really impressive was how sleepy Joebama overcame a 700,000 vote deficit in Penn to a 40,000 win 3-4 days later.  All legit?  Yeah -- right!!  SMH!  But, just obama did -- they'll over reach and we'll gain control of the house and senate!  They never learn!  Just wait for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Tell us why only the swing states stopped the vote count? Trump was up in all the swing states.  Then 3-4 days later he loses all the swing states that vote count was stopped.  What was really impressive was how sleepy Joebama overcame a 700,000 vote deficit in Penn to a 40,000 win 3-4 days later.  All legit?  Yeah -- right!!  SMH!  But, just obama did -- they'll over reach and we'll gain control of the house and senate!  They never learn!  Just wait for it!

Seek help brother 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Seek help brother 

Yes, when you have no answer, claim the party you disagree with has mental issues. Beats the hell out of an answer any day. 
 

Here’s another liberal ploy: “So what you’re saying is”..... you believe people voting for Biden wanted to put 10s of 1000s of people out of work by killing the Keystone XL, want kindergarteners to have gender lessons, let millions of illegals into this country to live off the working man, join the Paris accord, sleep with XI, hate Israel, convert to electric cars, grease Warren Buffett, take our guns....etc.... Really? I don’t believe that any of the people who did actually vote for Biden know anything about over half the stuff I just listed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reagan said:

Tell us why only the swing states stopped the vote count? Trump was up in all the swing states.  Then 3-4 days later he loses all the swing states that vote count was stopped.  What was really impressive was how sleepy Joebama overcame a 700,000 vote deficit in Penn to a 40,000 win 3-4 days later.  All legit?  Yeah -- right!!  SMH!  But, just obama did -- they'll over reach and we'll gain control of the house and senate!  They never learn!  Just wait for it!

Why do you keep asking the same question and then ignoring the obvious correct answer?  I've told you no less than five times.  There were way more mail-in ballots than were ever received before.   Some states didn't allow them to be counted until the polls closed.  There were no provisions for 24 vote counting until the massive number of ballots were counted, so they had to stop at some point to rest.  Also, in some states they were allowed to count votes that were received several days later, assuming that they were postmarked no later than election day.  How do you suggest they "don't stop counting" votes that hadn't even arrived yet?

 

Your guy lost, fair and square.  Move on.  It's just pathetic listening to the whining at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Why do you keep asking the same question and then ignoring the obvious correct answer?  I've told you no less than five times.  There were way more mail-in ballots than were ever received before.   Some states didn't allow them to be counted until the polls closed.  There were no provisions for 24 vote counting until the massive number of ballots were counted, so they had to stop at some point to rest.  Also, in some states they were allowed to count votes that were received several days later, assuming that they were postmarked no later than election day.  How do you suggest they "don't stop counting" votes that hadn't even arrived yet?

 

Your guy lost, fair and square.  Move on.  It's just pathetic listening to the whining at this point.

Only the swing states?  I think that tells it all!  This is the ONLY reason why/how sleepy Joebama got 80 Million votes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Why do you keep asking the same question and then ignoring the obvious correct answer?  I've told you no less than five times.  There were way more mail-in ballots than were ever received before.   Some states didn't allow them to be counted until the polls closed.  There were no provisions for 24 vote counting until the massive number of ballots were counted, so they had to stop at some point to rest.  Also, in some states they were allowed to count votes that were received several days later, assuming that they were postmarked no later than election day.  How do you suggest they "don't stop counting" votes that hadn't even arrived yet?

 

Your guy lost, fair and square.  Move on.  It's just pathetic listening to the whining at this point.

I've moved on but to claim the loss was "fair and square"...nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I felt like there weren’t grounds for the first one. I feel like there are grounds for this one, and I think he would be the first president convicted and removed if he were still in office.  
 

Sending a mob to the capitol and telling them to “fight like you’ve never fought before” right before they overrun the Capitol and halt our election process is the work of a would-be despot.  We don’t need that ever again, and the fact that he’s remorseless is a problem to everyone except Trump’s blindly loyal followers. 

This is all total BS and simply your opinion. Some people think their opinion in print somehow gives it validity. You know that Trump didn’t incite this riot, but the left and the haters have to have something to throw out there.

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

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...