Republicans are quite simply un-American

[icanhelp1]

Precious. ICan't talks about "Your brain dead" and within those three words misuses "your." Wonderful example of ICan't being what he accuses others of being.

That's your complaint, a grammatical error, you're all talk no substance, crawl back under your rock! You've had so many grammar errors they're too numerous to mention.

 

[icanhelp1]

It is if it's aimed squarely (and "with almost surgical precision", as one court said about a North Carolina law) at disenfranchising groups that vote Democratic: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...can-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

That doesn't prove voter suppression. The voter ID laws are applied to all voters but dems have to play race card because that's all you have. You can't open a bank account without an ID but you would allow a person to vote without one.

You dems constantly cry the Russians hacked voting machines and yet to insist a person prove they are who they claim to be is voter suppression.

Voter ID issues will be back before the high courts.

Our brain dead what? Our brain dead opponents? Our brain dead president? Our brain dead mainstream media? Agreed on all accounts, but what about them?

A grammatical error, you and KeithD are such cheap shot artist.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Just by the way, Norway is in the majority of countries that require photo id in order to vote.

They also have borders and immigration policies!! Fucking Nazis I tell ya.

You can repeat that all you want, but it simply isn't true. Elderly African-Americans are substantially less likely to have a photo ID or to be able to get one (how good do you think record keeping was in the rural South 70 or 80 years ago?). Native Americans living on reservations often don't have street addresses to put on their IDs, and North Dakota passed a law two years ago stipulating that a street address was necessary for voting. I could go on, but you either get the point by now or you're going to continue refusing to.

You think black and native American people are too stupid to get ID's...we got it.

le. But more to the point, "most countries" do not have a history of systemic oppression within living memory of many of their citizens to the degree we do.

So what? That doesn't make voter ID voter suppression.....you just wan't (D)'s to have free reign to cheat and you're too chicken shit to own it.

The rest of your nonsense is just that. Nonsense, intended to distract from the point. That someone not a citizen and qualified to vote, should not vote.

BOOM...head shot.

YDB95 just wants all the illegal migrants voting.

 

[icanhelp1]

You can repeat that all you want, but it simply isn't true. Elderly African-Americans are substantially less likely to have a photo ID or to be able to get one (how good do you think record keeping was in the rural South 70 or 80 years ago?). If you clicked on my link in my last post (and I'm nearly certain you didn't), you know the NC law - just for ONE example - was aimed squarely at them. Native Americans living on reservations often don't have street addresses to put on their IDs, and North Dakota passed a law two years ago stipulating that a street address was necessary for voting. I could go on, but you either get the point by now or you're going to continue refusing to.


Those items can be fixed if they haven't been amended already. I don't recall anyone saying a photo ID, just you moving the goal post again

I notice you say "identification", so already it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Some US states accept non-photo ID such as a utility bill, for example. But more to the point, "most countries" (or at least the ones you're most likely referring to) do not have a history of systemic oppression within living memory of many of their citizens to the degree we do. The only one I can think of that does is South Africa. To pretend we didn't only just do away with poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. one generation ago is...well, it's immensely beneficial to the Republicans, for one thing!

Who's arguing that? An ID is an ID, an item to prove you are who you say are. The Dems want illegals to vote.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Who's arguing that? An ID is an ID, an item to prove you are who you say are. The Dems want illegals to vote.

That's the truth none of them will admit.

Just like they want ICE/CBP abolished and an end to all deportations.....but they are NOT supporting open borders.

They just KNOW the totalitarian god state owning and controling the means of production and distribution of all goods and services is progress...nothing more American than Soviet States of America. But they aren't "socialist", that's just a scare monger word Nazis use!!!

The KeithD/YDB types are just wildly dishonest leftist that fucking HATE the USA.

 

[YDB95]

The rest of your nonsense is just that. Nonsense, intended to distract from the point. That someone not a citizen and qualified to vote, should not vote.

In the other thread where this issue has come up, you accused me of not providing any support for my arguments. In this thread, I did provide a link and you clearly haven't even looked at it. I think that sums up your attitude beautifully.

 

[gunthernehmen]

In the other thread where this issue has come up, you accused me of not providing any support for my arguments. In this thread, I did provide a link and you clearly haven't even looked at it. I think that sums up your attitude beautifully.

As thoroughly as you investigated my link to a report showing how the Democrat Party was caught bussing elderly people from polling station to polling station in order to vote as various, deceased people.

Your friend Keith admitted wanting to turn this country into Norway. A county with secure borders, socialist economy, gun running culture AND REQUIRES PHOTO ID IN ORDER TO VOTE.

 

[phrodeau]

Exactly.

Oh, the Black Panther thing, I get it. Everybody you don't agree with is racist. The topic was instances of voter disenfranchisement. That was one. They committed a crime, were prosecuted for it and ultimately found not guilty. Sounds familiar somehow, but I can't seem to remember where I've heard that, lately.

Charges were dropped. No prosecution. No trial. Just like Trump.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Charges were dropped. No prosecution. No trial. Just like Trump.

Doesn't change the fact that they were guilty. That australian dude said so.

 

[YDB95]

As thoroughly as you investigated my link to a report showing how the Democrat Party was caught bussing elderly people from polling station to polling station in order to vote as various, deceased people.

I did address that: it was nonsense. They were bussing a load of senior citizens to vote once, at a location where they were legally entitled to vote. There was a dispute over the legality of political activity on public property, and because the voters were black, they understandably suspected racial bias. The other side, as usual, invented something nefarious out of whole cloth, and people like you fell for it as usual. And this was in Georgia in 2018, where it isn't even really in dispute that voter suppression cost Stacey Abrams the election.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I did address that: it was nonsense. They were bussing a load of senior citizens to vote once, at a location where they were legally entitled to vote. There was a dispute over the legality of political activity on public property, and because the voters were black, they understandably suspected racial bias. The other side, as usual, invented something nefarious out of whole cloth, and people like you fell for it as usual. And this was in Georgia in 2018, where it isn't even really in dispute that voter suppression cost Stacey Abrams the election.

Oh, it's happened other times too? LOL

 

[SecretSapphic]

Statistics show that the violence of right-wing extremists goes up when Republicans control at least one house of Congress. The reason, according to an analytical report conducted for West Point, might be "relative deprivation, which occurs when the high expectations of far-right activists during a conservative Legislature are not fulfilled." In other words, these radicals expect to be ignored when Democrats are in charge, but when Republicans in power fail to champion the extremist cause, attacking the government strikes them as the only remaining option.

If true, the deprivation must be monstrous now. Think back: How many times have Republican politicians told their followers Obama could be impeached? How many times did they suggest he was a Muslim or wasn't born in this country? How many times did they say he lied to cover something up in Benghazi? How many times did they say his health care policy included death panels? How many times did they say he was committing crimes or shoving through policies that would kill people?

Then, in 2009, the Republicans directly identified themselves as aligned with the dangerous radicals. The Department of Homeland Security produced an analysis saying that violent right-wing extremists posed the greatest terrorist threat to the country—a report since proved true. But Republicans used this to feed into another conspiracy theory, proclaiming that the Obama administration had just deemed conservatives as a terrorist threat. To those unaware of what the report actually said, it was more evidence of a coming ideological war. To those radicals who knew, it meant establishment Republicans agreed that conservatives and violent right-wing extremists meant the same thing. Congressional hearings ensued, and terrified bureaucrats shut down the Homeland Security division that conducted the analysis of right-wing extremism, just when their knowledge was most needed.

Republicans continued their drumbeat of conspiracy theories to bring out the base, capturing the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2012. And imagine what these right-wing extremists thought. Where were the impeachment proceedings? Why wasn't Obama under arrest? The man was a murderer, a tyrant spitting on the Constitution, a fraud holding the presidency unlawfully. There were only two possible answers for the extremists: accepting that the Republicans had been lying to them, or deciding that these politicians had sold out the minute they won control.

And so, the far-right wing—including the violent militants—has turned on the Republican Party. The establishment Republicans now fumble about, trying to understand why their preferred candidates are being kicked aside in favor of Donald Trump, who rages about sellout politicians and makes promises to do things that radicals adore. Forums like Stormfront fulminate with praise and devotion to Trump, while all but spitting on the more traditional candidates.

The Republicans played a dangerous game by giving credence to all those conspiracy theories about Obama, a game that made them a target of the right-wing rage they engendered. They have been the author of the rise of the radicals, peaceful and violent, that in turn is tearing the party apart.

https://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12...02FWezzKY8JKQwhz3_h1ir5TX0STrjwjFUTDpjz9_3KbM

 

[gunthernehmen]

Exactly! Like the Democrat that shot up the baseball game of Republican congressmen.

Oh never mind.

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly! Like the Democrat that shot up the baseball game of Republican congressmen.

Oh never mind.

I don't have the interest nor energy to answer these nitwits anymore. It's just a toxic political environment where most of the incoherent rhetoric is not worth responding to. Probably time to take a break from this total bullshit.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I don't have the interest nor energy to answer these nitwits anymore. It's just a toxic political environment where most of the incoherent rhetoric is not worth responding to. Probably time to take a break from this total bullshit.

They quieted down anyway. I can only assume their checks are on hold for some reason.

 

[icanhelp1]

They quieted down anyway. I can only assume their checks are on hold for some reason.

I'll check back 4/2 when the 'DOW 30' will most likely be back at 29,000 and see what new negative talking points the idjits switched over to. I predict the loons will next blame Trump for solar flares knocking out satellite communications or maybe blame the current administration for not being prepared for the next Mt. Saint Helens eruption, or even, perhaps blame Trump for not being prepared for a future GAMMA RAY burst! Well, I'm off, going to the hills to build a lead shelter, got to prepare myself for doomsday!

 

[needit700]

And your mother is a whore

true as your statement you dumb ass cock sucker

 

[gunthernehmen]

I'll check back 4/2 when the 'DOW 30' will most likely be back at 29,000 and see what new negative talking points the idjits switched over to. I predict the loons will next blame Trump for solar flares knocking out satellite communications or maybe blame the current administration for not being prepared for the next Mt. Saint Helens eruption, or even, perhaps blame Trump for not being prepared for a future GAMMA RAY burst! Well, I'm off, going to the hills to build a lead shelter, got to prepare myself for doomsday!

They're already blaming him for the covid-19 virus. They'll find something as we edge closer the the election.

 

[Ireadforpleasure]

The US Constitution reflected the best of Eighteenth Century enlightenment thinking about separation and limitation of powers, as well as a strong declaration of the rights of individuals against the power of the state. Life-tenured judges interpreted and applied that Constitution, which no president or Congress could undo absent a cumbersome, super-majoritarian amendment process. Our president had significant powers in foreign affairs, but his function was to execute the laws enacted by Congress, which held the pursestrings and the power to remove the president for wrongdoing. Every branch had its independent role to play with a reasonable consensus about the limits and guardrails that governed that role.

The Constitution is by no means a perfect document — it contemplated slavery, for one thing. But it provided an excellent framework for stable, limited government.


As we have learned, the written Constitution is not self-executing. It relies on the good faith of each branch to uphold the integrity of the basic structure of the system. It requires the commitment of the individuals who operate within the constitutional system to preserve its republican structure, even if honoring the rules does not serve a short-term political or policy goal. Without that commitment, we are at grave risk.

The thugocracy in the current White House poses such risk, just as the Nixon presidency did. But under Nixon, the House and the Senate stood up for the basic structure of democracy and the rule of law, Republicans and Democrats alike. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon was required to turn over all tapes and evidence, rejecting the proposition Nixon famously articulated that: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."


Nixon turned over the tapes and resigned. Gerald Ford, the accidental president, put a fitting coda on the Nixon scandal when he said: “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over ... Our Constitution works; our great republic is a government of laws and not of men.”

Today, it appears that our long national nightmare will continue and our Constitution has become just another political football. To a significant degree that is a function of having a president who floridly embraces the values of the mob rather than of the Framers. But Trump’s actions could not have had nearly the same impact without the Constitution being hollowed out from below by the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. McConnell tried to cultivate a reputation as an institutionalist, but he emerges instead as an anarchist of the radical right, perhaps the greatest enemy to Constitutional democracy since the Civil War.

Four years ago, McConnell showed his willingness to tear down the institutions of the United States for partisan gain when he refused to hold a hearing on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.


The Constitution specifies that the Senate has the power and the duty of “advice and consent” on the appointment of federal judges. That includes the power to give negative advice and to withhold consent. McConnell had a majority; he could have held hearings, rounded up votes and defeated the nomination. He didn’t want to take the risk, because Garland was a mainstream nominee with a long record; McConnell himself had pointed to Garland years before as the kind of nominee that deserved bipartisan support.

So McConnell simply chose to ignore the Constitution and abdicate the Senate’s institutional duty. He invented a new principle — that there should be no confirmations during an election year; the new president should have that prerogative. He pointed to a newly minted “longstanding tradition” that suspends the Constitutional rights and duties in an election year. The right to nominate and the correlative duty to advise and consent was only operative three-quarters of the time, he said. Yet asked last May what he would do if there was a vacancy in the last year of Trump’s presidency, he answered, “Oh, we’ll fill it.”


Indeed, the Senate has done little else during Trump’s presidency other than confirm an unprecedented number of marginally qualified Trumpites to lifetime appointments on the federal courts. McConnell has not only used his power to defeat the Constitutional obligations of the Senate — he has been trying to turn the federal judiciary into just another vote-counting, completely politicized body.

Then we come to the squalid saga of impeachment, where the Constitution prescribes a role for the House of Representatives to decide whether there is probable cause for concluding that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors; if so, the Constitution is then required to try these charges. Mirroring our grand jury and trial system, the House considers whether there is a sufficient basis to charge and the Senate considers whether there is a basis to convict. The standards are quite different and as with trials, there is nearly always more and different evidence. That is especially the case here, when the endlessly litigious president tried to block the evidence
and run out the clock. John Bolton wants to testify about Giuliani's "drug deal" in Ukraine, as do Giuliani's henchmen.
But once again, McConnell is reading the room, not the Constitution. The Senate, like the president, is afraid of John Bolton and others and so rather than have a trial, he simply rewrites the rules and articulates newly minted principles to support the outcome. Had McConnell been the majority leader in 1974, I assume he would have stood by while Nixon burned the tapes and said there is nothing to see here.

Obstruction is not a crime; cover-ups are just politics as usual. Under McConnell, impeachment trials can occur without firsthand witnesses or documents; presidents can extort foreign leaders to hurt their political enemies and it is all just so tedious and irrelevant. McConnell and Trump may declare victory, but it is a pyrrhic victory indeed for the republic. A written Constitution is not much value when it is just a piece of paper to those who decline to administer it.


https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...al-mitch-mcconnell-constitution-a9311596.html

 

[gunthernehmen]

TLDR

There is medication you can get for TDS.

 

[YDB95]

There is medication you can get for TDS.

But there is no medication for judging something you haven't read.

 

[gunthernehmen]

But there is no medication for judging something you haven't read.

;TLDR;

 

[YDB95]

;TLDR;

;21CDS;

 

[phrodeau]

They're already blaming him for the covid-19 virus. They'll find something as we edge closer the the election.

Damn, is misinformation all you ever learn?

 

[KeithD]

Cite who is blaming Trump for the existence of the Covid-19 virus, Grunternaymen, or just stop your constant lying.