[blackjack21]

I can tell I'm totally not getting under blackjack's very thin boomer skin when he starts posting his favorite police murder videos that I never bother to watch.

Uh... In case the irony is lost on you: it's YOUR neighborhood, run by YOUR favorite political party, directing YOUR police force to kill YOUR neighbors, who also appear to enjoy excessive use of exogenous hallucination-inducing ligands.

Just imagine the kind of person I could be if I had never ate an LSD or smoked a weed.

People who don't do drugs generally aren't the kind of people running around swinging a machete at people. What do you think makes people try to carjack people with a machete other than drugs? Too poor to afford a gun for their carjacking? Or maybe they're just trying to observe gun control regulations while they swing machetes at people? Tell us more about the Los Angeles area SpecialOlympian. Did you know this guy? Or do you think he just got lost in London and ended up on Sunset Blvd in Los Angeles?

Meanwhile, Donald Trump should be in big big trouble because he's looking into Biden abusing power, which the Democrats consider abuse of power itself. Ignoring their subpoenas is obstruction of Congress too! It's really bad! Really, really bad!

[SpecialOlympian]

What made you think looking up videos of black people being murdered would make you look good?

Because lol. Apparently sobriety led you to this cool and smart thing that makes you look totally normal.

[late]

What conclusion?

That Trump is blatantly trying to make himself a king, or more likely, a dictator. (A king has to obey some laws, after all)

[Rich]

I'm not American, so bear with me while I try and get a grip on this situation.

1 So Obama said that as President implementing what would become DACA, would be illegal and unconstitutional. But Obama, rather like a medieval monarch with a troublesome disloyal parliament, gave Congress an ultimatum pass the legislation or I'll ignore the Constitution. Congress didn't so Obama just went ahead with DACA. When Trump tried to obey the Constitution and rescind DACA the deep state in the form of some Liberal activist judge stepped into to protect DACA. Telling Trump he didn't have the power to rescind what Obama never had the power to implement in the first place.

2 Hilary broke America's national security laws. But if she was guilty then so was Obama, as he had communicated with her illegal server. So the prosecution against her was stopped to avoid making Obama look bad.

3 Now Obama supporters lecture Trump supporter on the Constitution and obeying the law.

Am I missing something?

[late]

I'm not American, so bear with me while I try and get a grip on this situation.

1 So Obama said that as President implementing what would become DACA, would be illegal and unconstitutional. But Obama, rather like a medieval monarch with a troublesome disloyal parliament, gave Congress an ultimatum pass the legislation or I'll ignore the Constitution. Congress didn't so Obama just went ahead with DACA. When Trump tried to obey the Constitution and rescind DACA the deep state in the form of some Liberal activist judge stepped into to protect DACA. Telling Trump he didn't have the power to rescind what Obama never had the power to implement in the first place. :?:

2 Hilary broke America's national security laws. But if she was guilty then so was Obama, as he had communicated with her illegal server. So the prosecution against her was stopped to avoid making Obama look bad.

3 Now Obama supporters lecture Trump supporter on the Constitution and obeying the law.

Am I missing something?

1) The Supreme Court will hand down a ruling on DACA in 2020. We'll have to see what it says. The problem will be there, regardless of how the court rules. We have far too many immigrants to throw more than a small fraction out of the country, and we can't let this situation go on forever.

2) Not at all, she was investigated, and there wasn't enough to warrant going to court. I would suggest looking at the relevant documents before Right wing trolls. I do find it interesting that Trump's violations of security procedures are much, much, much, much worse than Hillarys. But the people that were screaming about how awful Hillary was, are saying not a thing about Trump's constant breaches of security.

3) Among the thousands that object to what Trump is doing are thousands of former FBI, Justice, State, White House, Congress people, and more that are REPUBLICAN...

[BigSteve]

2) Not at all, she was investigated, and there wasn't enough to warrant going to court. I would suggest looking at the relevant documents before Right wing trolls. I do find it interesting that Trump's violations of security procedures are much, much, much, much worse than Hillarys. But the people that were screaming about how awful Hillary was, are saying not a thing about Trump's constant breaches of security.

That's such bullshit.

James Comey acknowledged that Clinton broke the law, but he said he wasn't recommending charges because he found no "intent". Well, "intent" isn't a necessary component of a crime.

That haggard bitch should be in prison...

[late]

James Comey acknowledged that Clinton broke the law, but he said he wasn't recommending charges because he found no "intent". Well, "intent" isn't a necessary component of a crime.

Good morning, lala land!

It takes time for a bureaucracy to adapt, Colin Powell did the same thing, and the change had only been partially implemented.

In any case, "the intent makes the crime". Unlike Trump, she wasn't up to no good.

Much ado about not much...

Of course, you should be screaming blue bloody murder about Trumps violations of security procedure, they are thousands of times worse. China and Russia routinely get to listen in on the president.

But then you like that, don't you..

[BigSteve]

Good morning, lala land!

It takes time for a bureaucracy to adapt, Colin Powell did the same thing, and the change had only been partially implemented.

Was Powell transmitting classified material through that server? Because Clinton definitely did that on hers. Comey told us she did...

In any case, "the intent makes the crime". Unlike Trump, she wasn't up to no good.

No, the "intent" does not make the crime.

Much ado about not much...

She swore an oath. She willfully violated well-established security procedures...

Of course, you should be screaming blue bloody murder about Trumps violations of security procedure, they are thousands of times worse. China and Russia routinely get to listen in on the president.

What security violations?

But then you like that, don't you..

An idiotic comment...

[blackjack21]

That Trump is blatantly trying to make himself a king, or more likely, a dictator. (A king has to obey some laws, after all)

He's running for re-election. That's not exactly something kings or dictators do.

I'm not American, so bear with me while I try and get a grip on this situation.

1 So Obama said that as President implementing what would become DACA, would be illegal and unconstitutional. But Obama, rather like a medieval monarch with a troublesome disloyal parliament, gave Congress an ultimatum pass the legislation or I'll ignore the Constitution. Congress didn't so Obama just went ahead with DACA. When Trump tried to obey the Constitution and rescind DACA the deep state in the form of some Liberal activist judge stepped into to protect DACA. Telling Trump he didn't have the power to rescind what Obama never had the power to implement in the first place. :?:

2 Hilary broke America's national security laws. But if she was guilty then so was Obama, as he had communicated with her illegal server. So the prosecution against her was stopped to avoid making Obama look bad.

3 Now Obama supporters lecture Trump supporter on the Constitution and obeying the law.

Am I missing something?

That's about right. Obama holds the record of US presidents to be overturned by unanimous rulings of the Supreme Court--that is, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg disagreed with him--and she'll be dead soon.

2) Not at all, she was investigated, and there wasn't enough to warrant going to court.

There was enough for a conviction and a 30-year prison sentence.

I do find it interesting that Trump's violations of security procedures are much, much, much, much worse than Hillarys.

Show where he has violated the law. Why isn't he being impeached for this?

3) Among the thousands that object to what Trump is doing are thousands of former FBI, Justice, State, White House, Congress people, and more that are REPUBLICAN...

Why does it matter to you that Republicans object to Trump? Do you think Trump supporters say to themselves, "Oh, a Republican disagrees with Trump. Therefore, Trump must be wrong, because Republicans are always right."? Plenty of people who vote Republican hate the Republicans.

It takes time for a bureaucracy to adapt, Colin Powell did the same thing, and the change had only been partially implemented.

He should be in prison too. Don't you agree?

In any case, "the intent makes the crime".

No it doesn't. The act makes the crime. If intent is made a component of a crime, it can mitigate or enhance the crime. For example, running over someone and killing them because your foot slipped off the brake might be considered a negligent homicide; whereas, running over someone with the accelerator on the ground while screaming the n-word is probably a hate crime. By contrast, driving 110 mph on the highway is a violation of the prima facie speed limit in the US.

Of course, you should be screaming blue bloody murder about Trumps violations of security procedure, they are thousands of times worse.

Why should BigSteve be screaming? Why aren't you doing that if you are concerned about Trump's security?

[jimjam]

During a rally in Hershey, Pa., on Tuesday, Donald said his impeachment is “the lightest impeachment in the history of our country.”

“Yeah, it’s impeachment light. America’s going on a diet — we’ve got to lose 239 pounds of dead weight.” — STEPHEN COLBERT

“You’re either impeached or you’re not. There’s no light version. Trump’s like a drunk guy at a bar on his sixth beer going, ‘It’s impeachment light. Now, give me my keys!’” — SETH MEYERS

“He’s moved on to a new phase of his ever-changing defense of the indefensible, and that is, ‘Yes, I’m being impeached, but not like impeached impeached.’” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“Yeah, it’s exactly like an impeachment. It’s an impeachment. It’s not a diet impeachment. It’s a real, you are about to get impeached, O.K.?” — JIMMY KIMMEL

Let's laugh this blowhard/asshole out of office …….

[late]

1) No, the "intent" does not make the crime.



2) She swore an oath. She willfully violated well-established security procedures...



3) What security violations?



4) An idiotic comment...

1) "What makes a crime a crime? In most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing it intended to do something that the state legislature or Congress has determined is wrong, also known as criminal intent."

The other side to that is the results of said action. No harm, no foul...


2) It was a new rule, don't make shit up.

3) Do your homework... it's been constant.

4) That's not a denial.

[jimjam]

The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Defense will investigate a $400 million contract for border wall construction awarded to a North Dakota company after President Trump privately pushed the deal.

Oh! How surprising ……. . Just one more reason to show Fatso the door.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder @SpecialOlympian

People who voted for Trump by and large are racist. I can't see why people see that as a bold statement. People quite easily fall in line with hate and oppression. Did the Nazis come to power against the will of the German electorate or with the support of the German electorate? Was slavery upheld by just only a few rich white men or by a whole society that raised whole armies to defend it? Horrific systems of abuse, violence, tyranny and genocide were upheld by everyday people. You can pay your taxes, volunteer at your local homeless shelter to serve food to the homeless, give to charity and at the same time you can be upholding the oppression of others.

So yeah, half the people in the US can actively be working to uphold violent white supremacy and Trump's campaign certainly was all about it. I mean look at the slogan "Make America Great Again." it's a call to white supremacy. His anti-immigration rhetoric was racist as hell (as his rhetoric was targeting brown people and not white immigrants from Europe or elsewhere). You look at Trump's campaign and it was built on open, gleeful, hate-filled bigotry and his supporters raised their hands in excitement and said, “Sign me up! I like this! I'm all about it!” So yeah, if you support Trump, you are supporting all of that bigotry that was in his campaign.

Yea sure that was well thought out and fact driven.

[late]

Yea sure that was well thought out and fact driven.

Even if you aren't personally racist, you tolerate the racism Trump unleashed, and support him anyway.

Fun fact, Nikki Haley just stepped in that turd. She was talking about the Confederate flag, and tried to finesse the issue, walk both sides of the street, as it were.

It didn't work. The hard core will accept it, but most moderate Republicans won't like it, and it's going to buy her a lot of grief once she starts campaigning...

That's the bind the party finds itself in, it's gone so far off the reservation there doesn't seem to be a way back. And no middle ground between the moderates and the hard core.

[Finfinder]

Even if you aren't personally racist, you tolerate the racism Trump unleashed, and support him anyway.

Fun fact, Nikki Haley just stepped in that turd. She was talking about the Confederate flag, and tried to finesse the issue, walk both sides of the street, as it were.

It didn't work. The hard core will accept it, but most moderate Republicans won't like it, and it's going to buy her a lot of grief once she starts campaigning...

That's the bind the party finds itself in, it's gone so far off the reservation there doesn't seem to be a way back. And no middle ground between the moderates and the hard core.

Nothings says, I'm desperate and have no argument, more than this post.

[late]

Nothings says, I'm desperate and have no argument, more than this post.

And nothing says nothing substantive more than your posts.

You can run, but you can't hide.

"Had President Trump not said there were “very fine people” on both sides of the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, his comment Tuesday comparing the constitutional process of impeachment to a “lynching” would have been the most racist comment uttered by a modern president.

Let’s not pretend the president, who has spent the past four years (starting with that ride down the Trump Tower escalator) stoking racism and trying to convince white Americans that they are the true victims of discrimination, just had a slip of the tongue or made an insulting racial comparison inadvertently.

Lastly, Trump and today’s GOP attack the notion of a multiracial and multiethnic democracy. That needs to be beaten back at every turn. The public must be reminded again and again by those in positions of power and influence that right-wing nativism is a threat to our diverse democracy."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... m-matters/

[BigSteve]

1) "What makes a crime a crime? In most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing it intended to do something that the state legislature or Congress has determined is wrong, also known as criminal intent."

If you get drunk and get behind the wheel and kill a family of four, I don't think anyone would suggest that you "intended" to do that.

But you're still going to go to prison...

2) It was a new rule, don't make shit up.

It wasn't but, even if it was, so what?

Should she get a pass because she was ignorant of the law?

3) Do your homework... it's been constant.

I'll accept that as your unqualified acknowledgement that you're unable to back up your silly comments with actual facts.

Noted...

4) That's not a denial.

The only one in denial here is you...

[late]

1) If you get drunk and get behind the wheel and kill a family of four, I don't think anyone would suggest that you "intended" to do that.

But you're still going to go to prison...



2) It wasn't but, even if it was, so what?

Should she get a pass because she was ignorant of the law?



3) I'll accept that as your unqualified acknowledgement that you're unable to back up your silly comments with actual facts.

1) You deleted the part that made your point before you made your point. Or did you not understand it?

2) It was only partially implemented. There was nothing there worth getting excited over. Trump's numerous security lapses are worth getting excited over, and then some. There is no evidence of a security breach, while Trump's security gets breached on a daily basis. Earth calling, what galaxy are you in? Certainly isn't this one.

3) I'll accept that as your usual avoidance of the obvious.

Being pathetic is one thing, but endlessly repeating debunked idiocy is another.

[BigSteve]

1) You deleted the part that made your point before you made your point. Or did you not understand it?

"Intent" is not required for there to be a crime.

Any first year law student could tell you that...

2) It was only partially implemented.

And how was it "only partially implemented"? What portions were implemented and which ones were not?

You obviously don't know the first thing about handling classified material. You're going to appear far more intelligent if you just sit back and read what others who do know about it have to say...

There was nothing there worth getting excited over. Trump's numerous security lapses are worth getting excited over, and then some. There is no evidence of a security breach, while Trump's security gets breached on a daily basis. Earth calling, what galaxy are you in? Certainly isn't this one.

I asked you what breaches those were, and you've now failed, twice, to name any of them.

There's not a single reason to assign any validity to anything you have to say...

3) I'll accept that as your usual avoidance of the obvious.

Sayeth the king of tail-ticking and running away from questions...

Being pathetic is one thing, but endlessly repeating debunked idiocy is another.

Then why do you do it so often?

[late]

1) "Intent" is not required for there to be a crime.




2) And how was it "only partially implemented"? What portions were implemented and which ones were not?

You obviously don't know the first thing about handling classified material. You're going to appear far more intelligent if you just sit back and read what others who do know about it have to say...



3)I asked you what breaches those were, and you've now failed, twice, to name any of them.

1)As I said before you started babbling, you know, the part you deleted because you didn't know what it meant: "The other side to that is the results of said action. No harm, no foul..."

2) You don't have anything substantive, so you are throwing crap at the wall. Again. Those emails referred to knowledge that was in the public domain. Technically classified, but totally irrelevant as a security risk. And you're telling me I don't know anything. Unbelievable.

3) I have discussed his use of a personal phone many times. We know other countries are listening. There are dozens of other breaches. They've been in the news dozens of times. And once again, you want me to do your homework for you. If you are going to discuss this, you should know a little about it. Which you clearly do not.