« First « Previous Comments 538 - 577 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
That is a procedural ruling, not one on the merits of the case.
What is the next worse thing Trump has done?
The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.
"you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..."
Onvacation says
What is the next worse thing Trump has done?
There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.
My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.
The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.
If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump whe...
You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump
Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more
And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.
My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence,
It's good that you are digging down into the "facts". Many who claim to be Democrats or progressives eventually leave this site because the cognitive dissonance is too great.
No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.
(besides myself)
mell says
You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump
No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.
That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"
I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.
Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?
DeficitHawk says
(besides myself)
Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)
Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)
There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.
keeprubbersidedown says
Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?
If you have facts and evidence that establish a crime, I'd gladly look at it and offer an opinion.
Names of controversies are not facts or crimes.
Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer!
But what is the criminal allegation against the president?
why do you think that so many people fall into one of two tribes with their opinions on these cases?
Did you vote for Hillary?
Bullshit. THAT was the reason they gave.
mell says
Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer!
Really? He just literally typed "Burisma". That's not evidence of a crime.
I think the pres has a druggie son... I bet you could find some evidence that his druggie son committed some crimes related to drugs along with other indiscretions. And thats a pretty good reason not to elect his son.
But what is the criminal allegation against the president? Just saying the name of a controversy is not the same thing as providing evidence of a crime. It reminds me of 'Benghazi'... what was the crime there either? Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.
In truth, I am a moderate democrat
Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.
DeficitHawk says
It reminds me of 'Benghazi'
Did you vote for Hillary?
Either you are profoundly ignorant, or you have very low morality.
They passed a law allowing mail in ballots with republican majority.... then they had an election with mail in ballots... no one complained.
What state is this? What LAW is this? Name the bill.
When ACT 77 passed in 2019, it was the result of a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. In addition to enabling “No-Fault” Mail-in voting in Pennsylvania (what Democrats got in the compromise), ACT 77 also did away with straight-party voting (what Republicans got in the compromise).
richwicks says
What state is this? What LAW is this? Name the bill.
Pennsylvania Act 77, passed in 2019. Details here:
https://thisislowermerion.com/11-pa-republicans-who-voted-for-act-77-have-filed-suit-claiming-it-violates-state-constitution/
When the Senate passed Act 77, critical election security safeguards were in place to prevent mass fraud. All mail-in ballots were to be signature verified and turned in by Election Day to count. “Defective” absentee mail-in ballots were not to be counted and poll watchers were expected to be permitted to observe the counting of all mail-in ballots at every location.
However, using the pretext of COVID, Pennsylvania Democrats made their move to hijack Act 77 and transform it into something NO Republican voted for.
The Democrat majority Supreme Court, Governor Wolf, and Wolf’s disgraced Secretary of State Boockvar unconstitutionally rewrote Act 77.
I need to read the law itself and see who voted how. Where is that?
Timing thing was 100% procedural, too. Always is.
The Hunter laptop shows evidence that Hunter was trading on his fathers name and Joe, the big guy, was getting a cut of the action.
You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.
BUT, the discussion around Benghazi was NOT about questioning judgement on security details, who made those decisions, what information was available, etc.... it was an accusation and conspiracy that a crime had been committed.... "Lock Her Up", etc.
But bad judgement, even incompetence, is not a crime!
I am not up to speed
keeprubbersidedown says
You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.
Oh yes, certainly people died. Questioning whether the security detail was appropriate or not is totally valid. If you think people were making bad judgements about how to run security, that's a good reason to want someone else to be making those decisions. of course hindsight is 20/20, and decisions reviewed in light of bad outcomes can always be cast as bad decisions even if the information available at the time may be more grey.
BUT, the discussion around Benghazi was NOT about questioning judgement on security details, who made those decisions, what information was available, etc.... it was an accusation and conspiracy that a crime had been committed.... "Lock Her Up", etc.
But bad judgement, even incompetence, is not a crime! w...
« First « Previous Comments 538 - 577 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.