Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

Never said that nor condone it. Want to discuss politics, fine. Want to accuse people of things they did not say, not fine.

---

You do not understand what you are condoning. Originalism while ignoring amendments after the Bill of Rights and a thinly veiled theocracy are two of the guiding principles of the current GOP. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or the Constitution in its original form but those twin ideals allowed a racist, sexist and class based society to exist for far too long.

The desire to return to "those days" is usually couched in admiration of the strengths of the ideals, But if we return we forfeit the progress made on race, gender and opportunity. You don't have to be a racist, sexist or robber baron to be guilty of advocating for those ends.

---

You are changing the discussion. It was whether we are a direct or representative democracy, not opinions on which we think is better. The intent of the founding Fathers was for representative.

I understand the difference. Even Lincoln said the Constitution must be protected, that is representative democracy.

You are for direct Democracy, Majority rule?

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

Never said that nor condone it. Want to discuss politics, fine. Want to accuse people of things they did not say, not fine.

---

You do not understand what you are condoning. Originalism while ignoring amendments after the Bill of Rights and a thinly veiled theocracy are two of the guiding principles of the current GOP. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or the Constitution in its original form but those twin ideals allowed a racist, sexist and class based society to exist for far too long.

The desire to return to "those days" is usually couched in admiration of the strengths of the ideals, But if we return we forfeit the progress made on race, gender and opportunity. You don't have to be a racist, sexist or robber baron to be guilty of advocating for those ends.

---

You are changing the discussion. It was whether we are a direct or representative democracy, not opinions on which we think is better. The intent of the founding Fathers was for representative.

I understand the difference. Even Lincoln said the Constitution must be protected, that is representative democracy.

You are for direct Democracy, Majority rule?

---

I think the president should be elected by a direct vote. I am fine with everything else as is.

I certainly never endorsed direct democracy in its pure form. The opposite-my point was that the majority of the American people at one time or another favored evil institutions. I specifically said that being in the majority does not make it right.

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

Never said that nor condone it. Want to discuss politics, fine. Want to accuse people of things they did not say, not fine.

---

You do not understand what you are condoning. Originalism while ignoring amendments after the Bill of Rights and a thinly veiled theocracy are two of the guiding principles of the current GOP. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or the Constitution in its original form but those twin ideals allowed a racist, sexist and class based society to exist for far too long.

The desire to return to "those days" is usually couched in admiration of the strengths of the ideals, But if we return we forfeit the progress made on race, gender and opportunity. You don't have to be a racist, sexist or robber baron to be guilty of advocating for those ends.

---

You are changing the discussion. It was whether we are a direct or representative democracy, not opinions on which we think is better. The intent of the founding Fathers was for representative.

I understand the difference. Even Lincoln said the Constitution must be protected, that is representative democracy.

You are for direct Democracy, Majority rule?

---

I think the president should be elected by a direct vote. I am fine with everything else as is.

I certainly never endorsed direct democracy in its pure form. The opposite-my point was that the majority of the American people at one time or another favored evil institutions. I specifically said that being in the majority does not make it right.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

Never said that nor condone it. Want to discuss politics, fine. Want to accuse people of things they did not say, not fine.

---

You do not understand what you are condoning. Originalism while ignoring amendments after the Bill of Rights and a thinly veiled theocracy are two of the guiding principles of the current GOP. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or the Constitution in its original form but those twin ideals allowed a racist, sexist and class based society to exist for far too long.

The desire to return to "those days" is usually couched in admiration of the strengths of the ideals, But if we return we forfeit the progress made on race, gender and opportunity. You don't have to be a racist, sexist or robber baron to be guilty of advocating for those ends.

---

You are changing the discussion. It was whether we are a direct or representative democracy, not opinions on which we think is better. The intent of the founding Fathers was for representative.

I understand the difference. Even Lincoln said the Constitution must be protected, that is representative democracy.

You are for direct Democracy, Majority rule?

---

I think the president should be elected by a direct vote. I am fine with everything else as is.

I certainly never endorsed direct democracy in its pure form. The opposite-my point was that the majority of the American people at one time or another favored evil institutions. I specifically said that being in the majority does not make it right.

---

Zero percent chance that's true.

---

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

Never said that nor condone it. Want to discuss politics, fine. Want to accuse people of things they did not say, not fine.

---

You do not understand what you are condoning. Originalism while ignoring amendments after the Bill of Rights and a thinly veiled theocracy are two of the guiding principles of the current GOP. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or the Constitution in its original form but those twin ideals allowed a racist, sexist and class based society to exist for far too long.

The desire to return to "those days" is usually couched in admiration of the strengths of the ideals, But if we return we forfeit the progress made on race, gender and opportunity. You don't have to be a racist, sexist or robber baron to be guilty of advocating for those ends.

---

You are changing the discussion. It was whether we are a direct or representative democracy, not opinions on which we think is better. The intent of the founding Fathers was for representative.

I understand the difference. Even Lincoln said the Constitution must be protected, that is representative democracy.

You are for direct Democracy, Majority rule?

---

I think the president should be elected by a direct vote. I am fine with everything else as is.

I certainly never endorsed direct democracy in its pure form. The opposite-my point was that the majority of the American people at one time or another favored evil institutions. I specifically said that being in the majority does not make it right.

---

Zero percent chance that's true.

---

Why do you say that? Psychic powers?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Its not speculation. It was what Mitch McConnell said. There wasn't 60 v0tes for any nominee. Frankly, anyone who does not understand that political reality is not familiar with how things work in Washington.

---

Yeah, that strategy worked well. Don't even try and put pressure on the Senate. Afterall, it is just a SCOTUS seat. You really believe that BS??? There wasn't 60, so don't try? I will stand pat with Garland and hold my breath?

If you agree with that logic and strategy, regardless of whether you "really know the political reality" being so intellectually sophisticated, you really don't know how Politics go. Obama made an enormous political mistake and ended up giving Trump 3 picks putting the Dems in the position of accepting or packing the Court. Anyway you cut it, Obama screwed the pooch.

---

I'm sorry but you really are just flat out wrong. Like 100%.

Mitch McConnell was not going to let Obama nominate anyone to the Supreme Court with an election around the corner. Control of SCOTUS has been McConnell's holy grail for decades. Why do you think he was just going to give that up? Who was the alternate nominee that would have gotten through?

And Obama can only fill vacancies that existed. So he didn't give Trump three of anything.

---

You keep telling me McConnell said no, so why try. i get that. I am telling you that was as boneheaded a strategy as you can get and that Obama is to blame for that loss of a seat. You knew the next President was getting 2, but 3 in 4 years??

How much political capital does it take for Obama to throw out Jackson's name? Of course it would be a "No". That is the point, make him say "No" to 12 candidates. Every time he says "No" McConnell is under heat, not Obama. Every Candidate makes McConnell look unreasonable, not to the public but the Senators he is trying to keep in line. The GOP is not like the Dems, first Collins goes, than Murkowski, then enough to get one through with a real Moderate. Obama literally did the one thing that could allow McConnell to get away with 8 months of tying up a SCOTUS seat.

Face it, Obama screwed up, McConnell outplayed him. May have even played into Clinton losing. Just stomping their feet and saying "You confirm my guy!!!!", real effective. But, it was tyipical of Obama, great speeches no follow through.

---

You are not saying anything new, correct or connected to political reality.

The GOP is not like the Dems-what BS. McConnell has had complete and total control over his caucus for years. Getting to 60 on a SCOTUS nominee over McConnell's objection is just a joke.

Enjoy your life in fantasyland.

---

Man, talk about thick. Must be a Dem...

---

The economy is in freefall and choosing Biden to lead has put them in a position to lose bigger than ever.

All they have is J6 and they're more concerned about it than the economy. They keep pretending like it was a big deal because they think their concern is going to translate to votes against the GOP. It will do the opposite lol

---

Trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

Yes, the economy sucks. Yes, the democrats will pay the price at the polls this November,

That does not change the fact that trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is a big deal.

---

If you have such a strong case then why didn't your dems hold full public hearings? Why aren't they releasing full interviews?

Mass hysteria trying to turn it into 9/11 failed. That's not my opinion. Pull up a Pew survey and see how J6 rates.

---

The GOP was free to participate. It chose not to because it was denied the opportunity to put obvious obstructionists on the panel.

At one time, most of America supported slavery, the denial of the vote to women, and Joseph McCarthy. Public opinion polls do not make policy choices correct.

---

But isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? I mean, if the goal is democracy why not follow what the people want?

---

We are a direct democracy that goes by what people want? Huh? Go figure. I thought we were a Constitutional Republic.

---

I agree. But democracy! is all the robots keep shouting.

---

Funny isn't it. Founding Fathers were not big fans of Democracy. Liberty, yes. Democracy, no. Here are some tid-bits

• "Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments," Alexander Hamilton wrote. "If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

• Thomas Jefferson lamented that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

• James Madison argued that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

• John Adams concluded that democracy "never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Sure doesn't sound like the US is based on democracy...

---

We are a republican democracy, which is a subset of all democracies. We elect our government rather than being ruled by royalty. Its not that difficult of a concept.

Yes our founders were fearful of a broad democracy. Over time, however, society has changed. As it did, our Constitution allowed the country to adapt. It was part of the founder's genius.

I know that this particular forum would like to go back to a time when white, property-owning males were the only people who mattered, but it is not going to happen.

---

Just because you disagree does not give you the right to make racist innuendos. There is nothing in any of this conversation supporting what you insinuate. Please take it down.

---

Truth stings.

Interesting you picked out race. Gender and class were also included in my critique.

Are you denying that white, property owning males held all of the power in this country at the time of its founding?

---

Never said that nor condone it. Want to discuss politics, fine. Want to accuse people of things they did not say, not fine.

---

You do not understand what you are condoning. Originalism while ignoring amendments after the Bill of Rights and a thinly veiled theocracy are two of the guiding principles of the current GOP. There is nothing inherently wrong with religion or the Constitution in its original form but those twin ideals allowed a racist, sexist and class based society to exist for far too long.

The desire to return to "those days" is usually couched in admiration of the strengths of the ideals, But if we return we forfeit the progress made on race, gender and opportunity. You don't have to be a racist, sexist or robber baron to be guilty of advocating for those ends.

---

You are changing the discussion. It was whether we are a direct or representative democracy, not opinions on which we think is better. The intent of the founding Fathers was for representative.

I understand the difference. Even Lincoln said the Constitution must be protected, that is representative democracy.

You are for direct Democracy, Majority rule?

---

I think the president should be elected by a direct vote. I am fine with everything else as is.

I certainly never endorsed direct democracy in its pure form. The opposite-my point was that the majority of the American people at one time or another favored evil institutions. I specifically said that being in the majority does not make it right.

---

Zero percent chance that's true.

---

Why do you say that? Psychic powers?

---

You're like picking the lonely, chronic masturbator at Hooter's ... catching him in the act is more disconcerting than helpful but the chaffing is obvious regardless.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trumpth Devotion Syndrome Attribute
Your devotion to The Donald Truth is HUGE

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

In case any of you boys want to donate:

I honestly just threw up in my mouth a little🤢🤮 pic.twitter.com/b5gFwmiyoR

— Rob Bon Vivant 🇺🇸🌊🇺🇦🌻 (@77SunnyAndClear) June 14, 2022

---

You do realize that is a parody, do you not?

Duped by a fake press release. It figures.

---

I did.

But I don't think some posters on this site, including some who support Trump, did, because some of that message sounds entirely plausible.

Which is hilarious.

Satire for the (m)asses...

---

So you posted it because you thought Trump supporters would fall for it?

---

---

My question is if Trump or anyone in Government was guilty, why not charge them before the made for TV drama?? As I have said numerous times, not a Trump fan. Just don't understand why the theatrics if he is guilty, prosecute? Geez, the DOJ is being led by what many believe is a SC Justice-quality lawyer.

---

The short answer: Republicans wouldn't do it.

If it was that simple, it would have happened.

Even though it was clear what Trump had done and Republicans were threatened in their workplace by the mob he sicced on the Capitol AND everyone knew what Mike Pence's role in Trump's plot was supposed to be, Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham "read the room" of Trump's supporters, and tjhey would not cooperate with an independent investigation that would have led to prosecution.

Barr worked tirelessly early in his tenure to protect Trump from the Mueller investigation. Mueller wimped out.

Barr obviously viewed his boss with contempt. But he worked tirelessly to insulate Trump and obfuscate his total lack of respect for the rule of law until things reached a point where Barr was going to have to violate his oath to protect and defend the constitution, and then he quit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-undercuts-mueller-investigation-as-trump-cheers-him-on/2020/05/09/dc15316e-9169-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/william-barr-donald-trump-mueller-report-1295273

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Nice try, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is already baked in.

You'd be better off coming up with something new like TLS (Trump Love Syndrom) or TIS (Trump Infatuation Syndrome) or TAS (Trump admiration Syndrome) or TCM (Trump Cult Member), etc...

But then again, we'd just come back and you say have TOS (Trump Obsession Syndrome)

Then the alphabet insults would by fly back and forth and back and forth.

It could be fun. I could read the posts while I SMH and LOLin' at people telling each other to STFU.

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Nice try, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is already baked in.

You'd be better off coming up with something new like TLS (Trump Love Syndrom) or TIS (Trump Infatuation Syndrome) or TAS (Trump admiration Syndrome) or TCM (Trump Cult Member), etc...

But then again, we'd just come back and you say have TOS (Trump Obsession Syndrome)

Then the alphabet insults would by fly back and forth and back and forth.

It could be fun. I could read the posts while I SMH and LOLin' at people telling each other to STFU.

---

TSS/Trump Scrote Suckers seems appropriate. Or just plain old Cultists.

---

Mothra said:

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Nice try, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is already baked in.

You'd be better off coming up with something new like TLS (Trump Love Syndrom) or TIS (Trump Infatuation Syndrome) or TAS (Trump admiration Syndrome) or TCM (Trump Cult Member), etc...

But then again, we'd just come back and you say have TOS (Trump Obsession Syndrome)

Then the alphabet insults would by fly back and forth and back and forth.

It could be fun. I could read the posts while I SMH and LOLin' at people telling each other to STFU.

---

TSS/Trump Scrote Suckers seems appropriate. Or just plain old Cultists.

---

What is it with you and the gay sexual innuendo that permeates all your posts. You know, it's pride month. Do you have something to tell us?

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Nice try, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is already baked in.

You'd be better off coming up with something new like TLS (Trump Love Syndrom) or TIS (Trump Infatuation Syndrome) or TAS (Trump admiration Syndrome) or TCM (Trump Cult Member), etc...

But then again, we'd just come back and you say have TOS (Trump Obsession Syndrome)

Then the alphabet insults would by fly back and forth and back and forth.

It could be fun. I could read the posts while I SMH and LOLin' at people telling each other to STFU.

---

TSS/Trump Scrote Suckers seems appropriate. Or just plain old Cultists.

---

What is it with you and the gay sexual innuendo that permeates all your posts. You know, it's pride month. Do you have something to tell us?

---

what if a female has TSS? you have way more gay posts than i do, so the question should be volleyed right back to you.

---

Mothra said:

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Nice try, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is already baked in.

You'd be better off coming up with something new like TLS (Trump Love Syndrom) or TIS (Trump Infatuation Syndrome) or TAS (Trump admiration Syndrome) or TCM (Trump Cult Member), etc...

But then again, we'd just come back and you say have TOS (Trump Obsession Syndrome)

Then the alphabet insults would by fly back and forth and back and forth.

It could be fun. I could read the posts while I SMH and LOLin' at people telling each other to STFU.

---

TSS/Trump Scrote Suckers seems appropriate. Or just plain old Cultists.

---

What is it with you and the gay sexual innuendo that permeates all your posts. You know, it's pride month. Do you have something to tell us?

---

what if a female has TSS? you have way more gay posts than i do, so the question should be volleyed right back to you.

---

So it's just a preoccupation with the male anatomy then? I'd say at least half of your posts talk about the scrotum and blow jobs.

You sure you don't have something you need to let out of the closet?

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Curious again, how is this all a devotion to Trump if you don't think he planned, caused or is responsible for the idiots that stormed the Capitol?

---

Good question. But I think the Never Trumpers are too triggered by the man to understand that kind of nuance. You can dislike and be critical of Trump and even believe he should never be president again, but if you offer an opinion that could in any way be described as critical of their narrative, people like Oso, Sam, and Booray will accuse you of being a Trump supporter who favors Trump over democracy. It's fascinating.

---

If Trump and Biden end up in a rematch, I assume you will support Trump. Despite his now well documented attempts to override election results.

You would be a supporter of Trump over democracy.

---

whitetrash said:

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Curious again, how is this all a devotion to Trump if you don't think he planned, caused or is responsible for the idiots that stormed the Capitol?

---

Good question. But I think the Never Trumpers are too triggered by the man to understand that kind of nuance. You can dislike and be critical of Trump and even believe he should never be president again, but if you offer an opinion that could in any way be described as critical of their narrative, people like Oso, Sam, and Booray will accuse you of being a Trump supporter who favors Trump over democracy. It's fascinating.

---

If Trump and Biden end up in a rematch, I assume you will support Trump. Despite his now well documented attempts to override election results.

You would be a supporter of Trump over incompentency.

---

FIFY

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Curious again, how is this all a devotion to Trump if you don't think he planned, caused or is responsible for the idiots that stormed the Capitol?

---

Good question. But I think the Never Trumpers are too triggered by the man to understand that kind of nuance. You can dislike and be critical of Trump and even believe he should never be president again, but if you offer an opinion that could in any way be described as critical of their narrative, people like Oso, Sam, and Booray will accuse you of being a Trump supporter who favors Trump over democracy. It's fascinating.

---

If Trump and Biden end up in a rematch, I assume you will support Trump. Despite his now well documented attempts to override election results.

You would be a supporter of Trump over democracy.

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Curious again, how is this all a devotion to Trump if you don't think he planned, caused or is responsible for the idiots that stormed the Capitol?

---

Good question. But I think the Never Trumpers are too triggered by the man to understand that kind of nuance. You can dislike and be critical of Trump and even believe he should never be president again, but if you offer an opinion that could in any way be described as critical of their narrative, people like Oso, Sam, and Booray will accuse you of being a Trump supporter who favors Trump over democracy. It's fascinating.

---

If Trump and Biden end up in a rematch, I assume you will support Trump. Despite his now well documented attempts to override election results.

You would be a supporter of Trump over democracy.

---

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to your absurd rhetoric. Saying a vote for Trump is a vote against democracy is just stupid.

Anyone who would vote for Biden - a president who has made the quality of all our lives much worse and literally has us close to war with Russia - needs to have their heads examined.

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

If the Dems run Biden, or Harris for the matter, many will choose Trump over incompetency. Trump only won the first time because he was matched against the worst Candidate known to mankind - Hillary Clinton. Biden is actually giving her a run for her money.

I truly hope the GOP runs DeSantis, Pompeo, Halley or Hogan over Trump. I really do not want to be in the position to have to vote for him, but against Biden or Harris I will go Trump. His policies are at least sound.

---

Biden has done a fair job under really difficult circumstances.

---

LateSteak69 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm sure the committee is doing its best to lay the foundation for criminal charges against Trump."

Again Sam, please show me where Congress has law enforcement/judicial authority aside from impeaching a federal official to remove that official from office.

This is a very dangerous precedent, and you seem oblivious to that threat.

---

That's not what I said. They're conducting the investigation as part of their legislative power. If it yields evidence for prosecutions, others will handle that.

---

Quite the wiggle there,

And you are still wrong.

The legislative authority of Congress is to create laws which will apply to future conditions and actions, and as such cannot be used to punish prior actions or situations.

Come on, Sam, even you can't have forgotten that Ex Post Facto laws are unacceptable in a free republic.

The Attorney General has the authority to order an investigation into possible criminal conduct, on laws in p[lace at the time. The Party in control of Congress cannot use its power to go after the leading individual of the opposing party, without becoming something just as evil as you pretend was present on January 6.

It's truly scary that you want to blur those lines, Sam.

---

What in the world are you talking about? No one's making any ex post facto laws. Congress has investigative power in aid of its legislative power.

---

What legislative process does this aid?

---

"Getting" Trump, obviously.

---

much like we don't have a way to undo an election, we don't have a way to do "get Trump" through Congress. If I am wrong, I am genuinely interested in what mechanisms would apply.

---

Frankly, I think the Democrats have figured out Trump will either be the nominee or the force behind the GOP nominee, so they are doing everything they can to smear him.

I don't think it will sway many on the Right, but Democrats may well be in panic mode, desperately trying to shore up a united front which is falling apart because Democrats hate high gas prices and missing baby formula, too.

After more than half a decade of trying to find something they can use against Trump, it's no shock that the Democrats cannot let go of their favorite crack pipe.

---

TDS - Trump Devotion Syndrome
You devotion to The Donald is HUGE

---

Nice try, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is already baked in.

You'd be better off coming up with something new like TLS (Trump Love Syndrom) or TIS (Trump Infatuation Syndrome) or TAS (Trump admiration Syndrome) or TCM (Trump Cult Member), etc...

But then again, we'd just come back and you say have TOS (Trump Obsession Syndrome)

Then the alphabet insults would by fly back and forth and back and forth.

It could be fun. I could read the posts while I SMH and LOLin' at people telling each other to STFU.

---

TSS/Trump Scrote Suckers seems appropriate. Or just plain old Cultists.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

If the Dems run Biden, or Harris for the matter, many will choose Trump over incompetency. Trump only won the first time because he was matched against the worst Candidate known to mankind - Hillary Clinton. Biden is actually giving her a run for her money.

I truly hope the GOP runs DeSantis, Pompeo, Halley or Hogan over Trump. I really do not want to be in the position to have to vote for him, but against Biden or Harris I will go Trump. His policies are at least sound.

---

Trump was the least competent president we've ever had.

Biden has done a fair job under really difficult circumstances.

He took office during a raging pandemic. Despite RW propaganda to the contrary, Warp Speed did not "create" any vaccines, and there was no pipeline in place when Biden took office. A peaceful and orderly transition of power would have saved lives during the pandemic. Trump fomented insurrection instead and left chaos in his wake. Chaos is what he does.

You don't like Biden's policies. You like the mean, bombastic brand of conservative Trump represents.

That doesn't mean Biden's incompetent. Or that Trump is competent. Those 2 months he spent pouting and tantrumming on the golf course while trying to overturn my vote made it clear that for Trump, the presidency was never about anything but increasing his own personal power and wealth. We should never, ever elect a president like him again, and I believe that's why Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are serving on the 1-6 committee:They are willing to sacrifice their careers to try to ensure Trump can't ever hold office in America again.

Biden is not responsible for a global pandemic.

He did not cause a global recession.

He did not spur Putin to invade Ukraine.

He didn't cause climate change.

I don't think American democracy can survive another Trump term. That may be your aim.

I'm also concerned about the planet. Trump isn't a guy who should have the codes to nukes. In fact, he should be on the "no buy" list for the kinds of guns you fellas want to keep selling to troubled 18-yr-olds.

Things are going to get worse before they get better because we haven't dealt with climate change and we still have an ongoing pandemic. We need a leader who cares about the country and its people. Trump isn't that guy.

---

Biden has been a disaster.

1 - Executive Orders basically killing the Petro Industry
2 - Afghanistan
3 - Ukraine
4 - Russia-China Allies on his watch
5 - Inflation
6 - Shootings Up
7 - Crime Up
8 - Border a disaster (his Executive Orders again)
9 - Fuel Costs (see #1)
10 - Supply Chain has gotten worse
11 - North Korea is firing missiles again

The only positives I have seen is that he is given Ukraine weapons to fight Russia and if Sweden & Finland join NATO.
SCOTUS Justice I give a neutral (I would not select, but I can see how some would be happy with selection)

I really cannot see how anyone could vote for more of this and not be against the US! I am sure China, Iran, N Korea and Russia are loving it.

---