I’m starting to give legitimate consideration to the question, “Are they trying to lose?”
I know, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”, but… Come on! At what point is it no longer an “adequate explanation”?!
Normandy. Launching attacks on fascists for 80 years.
I haven’t had my blood boil like reading that McConnell piece.
I can’t even put the rage into words.
That must be hyperbole, right?
Like… The Enron guys at least, right?
The whiplash when I realized it wasn’t a critique of those ideas but endorsing them.
It literally read like they were outlining those positions as straw men to be torn down, and then was like, “Yep! That scarecrow has the right idea!”
I want to see this variation of a zombie movie.
Patient zero is a prominent politician.
His handlers continue to puppet him, because they already spent so much on his campaign.
Followers literally line up to be bitten and infected.
To confirm what you mean by “I’m a conservative”, which of these commonly held “conservative” beliefs (each which implies a lack of empathy) do you not subscribe to (i.e. “I don’t think like that…”)
Honestly, I put animal abusers in a lower circle of hell, along side child abusers.
It’s about the power differential. The difference between a white adult male and a black adult female (for example) might be considerable, but its not going to be even close to the power differential between either of those adults and a child or a pet.
Hmm, I see, I see… But, pray tell…
The GOP logic seems to go like this.
So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.
Also, fuck off. I’m not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.
Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I’m neither a lawyer nor a judge.
But “collusion” itself isn’t a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.
The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia’s proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is “collusion”.
The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.
And then they turn around and act like, “Well, he didn’t get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax.”
No. It wasn’t a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)
EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here’s the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here’s the conclusion.
IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a “prosecutorial judgment” (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms…
Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. […]
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion […]
Aaaaand I stopped reading.
The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.
And apparently since 2001, there have been fewer than 100 cases (I think somewhere in the area of 50-60 cases) where a non-citizen attempted to vote.
Less than 100 cases. In over 20 years.
It’s an obvious, bald-faced smokescreen, covering their plans to rig the election or commit a coup should they lose.
Also not a lawyer, but as I understand it: impeachment isn’t a criminal prosecution. It’s a political tool to remove a president from office, regardless of reason.
Whenever a Republican is president, GOP acts like Impeachment is a murder trial, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime. When a Democrat is president, GOP acts like Impeachment is just a chance to undermine (and possibly even remove) a powerful political opponent.
It’s the same as their view of the budget deficit/national debt. It’s all performative and entirely disconnected from law or reality.
Why would you post any possible incentive to vote for Trump?
The implication is that if Trump wins, he won’t be leaving in 4 years. He won’t be leaving until death. Because that’s what dictators do.
I can see the argument from a certain perspective of the language, outside of context.
But remember when this amendment was passed. Right after the Civil War.
So, they wanted an amendment to bar traitors from federal office. Then they put in a section saying Congress has to actually make laws enforcing that rule, or it does nothing. And then, they didn’t make any such laws?!
So, what, they went through all the work to make a constitutional amendment, and then it does nothing?
No, they clearly felt that the rule was clear enough as it was, and section 5 is there to allow Congress to make supporting laws built upon that to help enforce that rule. But that rule should have teeth on its own.
Sure, Squeak…
We found the Spiders Georg of liberal women.
But in all seriousness, how could a woman perceive the conservative agenda and NOT become more liberal in response?!
Oppression kink?
Even if the Supreme Court upholds the removal of Trump from the Colorado ballot, it isn’t immediately over for him, unfortunately. He won in 2016 without Colorado.
That said, it would be a precedent, and other Secretaries of State could start removing him with confidence. The question remains: would enough states remove him to make winning impossible? Which is to ask: how many battleground states (or even red states) would remove him?
Holy shit… How can you rightly identify that the US military (and the US government’s use of said military) is evil, and that killing people for their ideas just spreads those ideas, but then somehow come to the conclusion that public health mandates during a pandemic are unconstitutional and “billionaires in this country got rich by actually serving their fellow man”?
Fucking hell, the propaganda machines are in overdrive.
Appreciate a veteran telling kids not to join the military. (Assuming this was written by an actual veteran, and isn’t just fictional propaganda.)
The rest is idiotic corpo bootlicking unrelated to the topic.