Re: Media Bias
 

When Mueller was finished and Trump felt he had been vindicated is literally the day he invited Ukraine to help him dig up dirt on Biden. So yeah when he is “acquitted “ again he will feel completely invincible. And that is a huge problem. If you guys wanna call someone out for fear mongering try the Donald. Unless of course the caravan has taken your phone away. [emoji849]

Re: Media Bias
 

Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. He actually did commit crimes. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.

Re: Media Bias
 

Remember the good old days when Fox News freaked out about Obama using a selfie stick? Or when he wore a tan suit? Damn those were some hot scandals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=punch it in;1243868]Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. [B]He actually did commit crimes[/B]. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.[/quote]

So if he actually committed crime(s), why didn't your party include it in the impeachment articles?

Many conservatives dislike the man...its safe to say a majority. But guess what? You cant make up bullshit to remove him...

Remember when conservatives disliked Obama, did they make shit up to remove him? The scandals were a plenty.

Re: Media Bias
 

Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=punch it in;1243861]You two are acting like such simpletons. Just because nukes aren’t being launched doesn’t mean irreparable damage isnt being done to the country.[/quote]

You get it, they do not. I prefer to hope they just don't get it becuase if they do and still feel the same way then they aren't real Americans and I feel sorry for them.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243870]So if he actually committed crime(s), why didn't your party include it in the impeachment articles?

Many conservatives dislike the man...its safe to say a majority. But guess what? You cant make up bullshit to remove him...

Remember when conservatives disliked Obama, did they make shit up to remove him? The scandals were a plenty.[/quote]

You need to have some one re-read the Mueller report to you, you seriously haven't a clue.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243874]Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

FOX sure as hell would have ,right?

Re: Media Bias
 

Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. He actually did commit crimes. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1243870]So if he actually committed crime(s), why didn't your party include it in the impeachment articles?



Many conservatives dislike the man...its safe to say a majority. But guess what? You cant make up bullshit to remove him...



Remember when conservatives disliked Obama, did they make shit up to remove him? The scandals were a plenty.[/QUOTE]



They are included in the impeachment articles. I forget what the term is, but what he was impeached for basically encapsulates alot of other stuff.

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1243874]Liberals don't know about Obama scandals because CNN told them everything was fine. They think his worst issue was a selfie stick.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]



Oh for God’s sake man. Can’t you just put your political affiliations aside for one post and admit that this motherfucker tried to play tit for tat with military aid? Obama never did anything that rose to that level. And he was hated by the right from the get go. Didn’t have to ooze shit from his piehole to warrant that hate like Trump has.

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1243884]FOX sure as hell would have ,right?[/QUOTE]



Exactly. Something tells me Cred has graduated to info wars because Fox wasn’t digging deep enough for fresh conspiracies.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=punch it in;1243887]They are included in the impeachment articles. I forget what the term is, but what he was impeached for basically encapsulates alot of other stuff.[/quote]

Lol...basically just make up any shit you want

:laughing-

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=punch it in;1243886]Trump is actually doing shit that nobody agrees with. He actually did commit crimes. He has conned and lied his whole life. He does make racist remarks. It isn’t just that all us snowflakes ears are bleeding from his abrasive mouth. We all don’t just dislike the man - not his policies- but the man. It is such a cop out to say oh stop crying because you hate Trump. I don’t really give a fuck about Trump. Never did before 2016 anyway. He is a wreckless fool in way over his head. It IS a danger to democracy when you alienate your allies and cozy up to the dictators in the world.[/quote]

As Robert Mueller said repeatedly the DOJ has a policy of "not indicting a sitting President" ,.............meaning as long as he is president nothing will happen but when his term ends they can go after him for what ever crimes had been uncovered

[url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3[/url]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Congress using the impeachment process. But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question.


The question looms large with Special Counsel Robert Mueller preparing a report on his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, whether President Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow and whether Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe.

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts.

Here is an explanation of the rationale behind the Justice Department policy and whether it applies to Mueller.


WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY?


In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees, including Mueller, according to many legal experts. Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243892]Lol...basically just make up any shit you want

:laughing-[/quote]

No, it's what the House says they are.......................





Innocent men have nothing to hide

Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1243892]Lol...basically just make up any shit you want



:laughing-[/QUOTE]



No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=SunnySide;1243801]
My bottom line in politics is this and so far I dont think ive been wrong ... whether its a D or an R in control, it never actually effects my day to day life. [/quote]

I was born a couple weeks after JFK took office. Only the last two had an effect on my life. Drafting for the Vietnam war ended when I was 14 and they haven't had a draft since. Obamacare caused my health insurance rates to almost quadruple.

Trump and his tariffs made sourcing "domestic" steel and aluminum a pain in the rear. Mills and wholesalers used the tariffs as excuses to play all kinds of games with pricing and delivery. Some places raised prices up to 60% overnight. Things seemed to have finally settled down a bit and prices are dropping but nowhere near pre-tariff levels. As I mentioned I buy domestic only.

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=punch it in;1243899]No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?[/QUOTE]I think you mean lesser included charges. Those charges are still brought against the person, but the components of the charges are included in the statute that is being charged. So if you charge murder you might include manslaughter so that if the jury doesnt find intent they can find him guilty of the lesser charge.

Not sure it is the same with the impeacment, because although the Democrats alleged bribery in documents, the House chose not to vote to include it either as its own article or as a part of 1 of the 2 articles of impeachment. And their rationale stated in questioning was, well the defense would argue against it.

For every flaw in the impeachment case, the house seemed to argue, well we had to do it that way or the president's team would have found a loophole and tried to use it. That is what defense lawyers do! And you can not deny a sitting president due process just because you don't want to have to close those loopholes so you can rush to the end.

Could you imagine in ANY court in the US a defense attorney agreeing to only present witnesses that the prosecution says the defense needs? Or a defense attorney waving attorney client privilege so that the prosecution can have the trial around their schedule??

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html[/url]

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243966]This is a very good analysis piece on Murkowski's reason for voting against witnesses.

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html[/url]

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.:bs:

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1243974]So to save John Roberts she sacrificed the constitution and the country, brilliant ........fucking brilliant.:bs:[/QUOTE]Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-impeachment-tiebreaker[/url]

[Quote]Schumer began by asking Roberts if he was aware that Chief Justice Samuel Chase cast tie-breaking votes during President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial in the 1860s.
"I have a parliamentary inquiry," Schumer said. "Is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as presiding officer, cast tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?"
Roberts said he was aware of Chase's actions but explained that the issues he sought to resolve were minor. He also said he did not believe Chase's votes were enough to establish a firm precedent for him to act on.
“The one [vote] concerned a motion to adjourn. The other [vote] concerned a motion to close deliberations," Roberts replied. "I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago, as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties." ... "If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion -- the normal rule is that the motion fails," he added.
"I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”[/Quote]

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

[YT]GZCxF7PWmHI&feature=emb_title[/YT]

Veteran journalist suggesting gerrymandering the senate...

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243975]Actually after I read that one I saw this, apparently Roberts had said he would not break a tie in response to a question Schumer posed so even if she had put him in a position to break the tie, Justice Roberts felt it was not his constitutional duty.

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-impeachment-tiebreaker[/url]



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

So either she was lying or wasn't paying attention to Roberts.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Chico23231;1244349]

Veteran journalist suggesting gerrymandering the senate...[/quote]

LOL, it worked for republicans .



chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .


[url]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/11/20857934/republican-gerrymandering-north-carolina-michigan[/url]

[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6[/url]

The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.

The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Yet the data suggest that even if Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, their chances of substantial legislative gains were limited by gerrymandering.

“The outcome was already cooked in, if you will, because of the way the districts were drawn,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Giantone;1244363]LOL, it worked for republicans .



chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .[/quote]

G1, you can’t gerrymander the senate...the point is this journalist is a moron.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Chico23231;1244364]G1, you can’t gerrymander the senate...the point is this journalist is a moron.[/quote]

LOL,........sure chico,sure.:stop:

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1244362]So either she was lying or wasn't paying attention to Roberts.[/QUOTE]Or, since she knew the position he would take, AND his reasons why, she still didnt want to put Roberts in the position of having to take that action and thus risk polarizing the Supreme Court in the media. Him saying his position on the floor, allowed her to make her vote with an eye to the larger good of not dragging the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into an immensely political decision.

Consider the headline if her vote makes it 50-50 and Roberts allows the vote to fail. Roberts decision would be blared across the headlines positively and negatively on a partisan basis. Instead her vote kept the partisan headlines focused where they ought to be, On the Senators.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1244363]LOL, it worked for republicans .







chico , you still don't get it. Everything the republicans have done or are doing is going to come back at them ten fold! Stop the phony outrage .





[url]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/11/20857934/republican-gerrymandering-north-carolina-michigan[/url]



[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6[/url]



The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.



The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.



Yet the data suggest that even if Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, their chances of substantial legislative gains were limited by gerrymandering.



“The outcome was already cooked in, if you will, because of the way the districts were drawn,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in the 1980s.[/QUOTE]G1 you live in Md, a gerrymandered state for the Dems. Both parties have done that on the House level.

As for Gerrymandering the Senate (a fairly impossible thing) we ought to repeal the direct election of senators and move back to the state legislatures appointing them.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Media Bias
 

MD is gerrymandered but I think rational people can agree that the Republicans have abused the trick much more and more often than Democrats.

The census is coming up and new districts will be drawn based on census numbers. That is why Trump and Republicans wanted the "citizenship" question on there, so that minorities would be less likely to respond, thus under reporting in traditionally democratic areas so those areas will have less House Reps. The census is used to determine how many people live in the US per district and is not designed to measure how many voters per district.

District drawing should be non-partisan, using natural land barriers or other objective ways. To allow a R or D state controlled legislature to draw maps for the specific purpose of watering down the other parties votes seems so unconstitutional to me.
------------
The 2012 election provides a number of examples as to how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 out of Pennsylvania's 18 districts.[32]

In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million votes. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those 7 states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.[33] While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant effect on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems to be problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation.

In Michigan, redistricting was constructed by a Republican Legislature in 2011.[34] Federal congressional districts were so designed that cities such as Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and East Lansing were separated into districts with large conservative-leaning hinterlands that essentially diluted the Democratic votes in those cities in Congressional elections.[citation needed] Since 2010 not one of those cities is within a district in which a Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives has a reasonable chance of winning, short of Democratic landslide.[citation needed][clarification needed]

-------
[IMG]https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JGVO3JNKHU4RZLA3TK4WRGF7QE.png&w=767[/IMG]

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244367]Or, since she knew the position he would take, AND his reasons why, she still didnt want to put Roberts in the position of having to take that action and thus risk polarizing the Supreme Court in the media. Him saying his position on the floor, allowed her to make her vote with an eye to the larger good of not dragging the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into an immensely political decision.

Consider the headline if her vote makes it 50-50 and Roberts allows the vote to fail. Roberts decision would be blared across the headlines positively and negatively on a partisan basis. Instead her vote kept the partisan headlines focused where they ought to be, On the Senators.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]
LOL, ...............:funnypost....you're a good story teller.

Re: Media Bias
 

As far as Gerrymandering on a whole, seems to me that at this point we ought to be smart enough to realize that redistricting needs to be taken out of the political arena and done with neutrality in mind. It's not right when done to favor Republicans or Democrats.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244413]As far as Gerrymandering on a whole, seems to me that at this point we ought to be smart enough to realize that redistricting needs to be taken out of the political arena and done with neutrality in mind. It's not right when done to favor Republicans or Democrats.[/quote]

Exactly and for MSNBC to think it’s plausible is 1. Fucking retarded bc she’s an idiot journalist as it’s not an option in the senate2. She Brings it up to circumvent electoral process...exactly what you and ss are criticizing.

But msnbc gonna msnbc

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244413]As far as Gerrymandering on a whole, seems to me that at this point we ought to be smart enough to realize that redistricting needs to be taken out of the political arena and done with neutrality in mind. It's not right when done to favor Republicans or Democrats.[/quote]

I totally agree.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Chico23231;1244416]Exactly and for MSNBC to think it’s plausible is 1. Fucking retarded bc she’s an idiot journalist as it’s not an option in the senate2. She Brings it up to circumvent electoral process...exactly what you and ss are criticizing.

But msnbc gonna msnbc[/quote]

Totally agree but you are basing dems about it when it has been used more as a tool by republicans.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Giantone;1244507]Totally agree but you are basing dems about it when it has been used more as a tool by republicans.[/quote]

Lol g1 I’m not bashing either side...look at the clip, I’m clearly bashing Katy Tur because she’s incompetent liberal hack and her guest cringes when correcting her. Go back and watch.

Re: Media Bias
 

We all agree, Gerrymandering is bad, and a better - nonpartisan way should be developed.

I think that deserves a round of beers!! now, can we agree G1 is buying?:food-smil

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244532]We all agree, Gerrymandering is bad, and a better - nonpartisan way should be developed.

I think that deserves a round of beers!! now, can we agree G1 is buying?:food-smil[/quote]

The G1 and Mooby think the beers should be re-distributed from the top down and in a Free-Beer-for-all model where we have to wait a month out to get our Beer and once we do, its Miller Lite quality.

Re: Media Bias
 

Back to laughing at CNN

Bold Headline : Voters Angry at Trump

Actual data 81% of Democratic voters are angry at Trump.

I bet you the Republican total vote is more than all the Democratic contenders combined. Trump may have more votes than all the dems, and this in a basically uncontested contest.

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=Chico23231;1244534]The G1 and Mooby think the beers should be re-distributed from the top down and in a Free-Beer-for-all model where we have to wait a month out to get our Beer and once we do, its Miller Lite quality.[/quote]

Again chico will lie, have I not talked about my Beer excursions to the Berkshires ? Miller Lite hasn't touch these lips in over 40 years!

Re: Media Bias
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1244557]Back to laughing at CNN

Bold Headline : Voters Angry at Trump

Actual data 81% of Democratic voters are angry at Trump.

I bet you the Republican total vote is more than all the Democratic contenders combined. Trump may have more votes than all the dems, and this in a basically uncontested contest.[/quote]

LOL, ........many republicans saying they would vote for another candidate if they could find one and Bloomberg is starting to grow on people,Dems and republicans .