Trump's Second and Third year in office

Quote: ams288

Apparently they’re only worried about due process for men who are credibly accused of sexual assault.

Quote: RonC

There is no difference between all of the unproven allegations (so far) about Trump regarding "collusion" and threats of impeachment and the calls to lock her up...both are used as political rally cries and not much more. Both Trump and Feinstein may be found to have done something wrong but that has not happened yet.

I think both groups just want to get to the bottom of what they think may have happened...which side will let go when it is found that the things that supposedly happened did not happen in the way it has been presented so far? For example, no collusion or other crimes are found or someone else ends up being the leaker?

Quote: ams288

This reads like a bunch of word salad to me.

Notice how my post had nothing to do with collusion.... It was about how your side always seems to go out of their way to defend the white men accused of sexual assault while in the same breath immediately calling to lock up the old white ladies they don't like for nonexistent crimes...

Quote: RonC

That is because you only want to see it that way...collusion is not a crime, though there are crimes that could be found that have something to do with the issue of collusion. I believe that I have said that it is okay to investigate the President, but no investigation should last forever. Comey denied the right of the people to see what happened in that one lady's case by making an announcement that was highly unusual for an FBI Director...the FBI investigates; they send info to DOJ for a decision on prosecution That's okay; at least that lady is not President. I don't have to like it.

The other lady was a party in some way to something wretched--outing a victim who did not want to be outed in order to try and take advantage of it politically. Did she do it? I don't think so, but it was a leak of information that her office, among others, had and others did not. Perhaps it was someone in her office. Someone mentioned Chuckie. I want them to find WHOEVER did it and have them punished or shamed in the manner prescribed--ethics violation, etc.

You see this, I hope...I am not singling out "old white ladies"...

Kavanaugh? You can run that into the ground but an allegation without corroboration should not ruin someone. If we accepted the allegation as enough to keep him off the court, then it would have been enough to make him resign form his position. All based on an unproven allegation. NO ONE should be ruined in that way.

Quote: darkoz

But isnt Kavanaugh being put up for an ethics investigation for lying under oath? Which will ruin his life if proven?

Quote: darkoz

As for the leak of Ford there is no crime of leaking unless info is classified by the government. Collusion is not a crime. Neither is leaking letters sent by constituents (although collusion leads right into conspiracy charges)

Quote: RonC

I guess being black and supporting the President gets you called a "token" by fellow blacks on cable news.

Why can't you just say that you disagree with the guy and go from there?

Quote: RonC

The other lady was a party in some way to something wretched--outing a victim who did not want to be outed in order to try and take advantage of it politically. Did she do it? I don't think so, but it was a leak of information that her office, among others, had and others did not. Perhaps it was someone in her office. Someone mentioned Chuckie. I want them to find WHOEVER did it and have them punished or shamed in the manner prescribed--ethics violation, etc.

Quote: RonC

There is some bipartisan stuff going on in the White House today. I wonder how it will be reported????

Quote: terapined

Cool
Ignore the reporters
Give us your report
:-)

Quote: RonC

There is some bipartisan stuff going on in the White House today. I wonder how it will be reported????

Quote: Steverinos

Please, please, please tell me you're not referring to the Kanye lunch meeting today?

Quote: RonC

That may be what the comments that sounder rather racist on CNN referred to, but it is not what I am talking about at this point.

Quote: RonC

Signing bills...

Quote: terapined

Bipartisan bills?

Quote: darkoz

But isnt Kavanaugh being put up for an ethics investigation for lying under oath? Which will ruin his life if proven?

As for the leak of Ford there is no crime of leaking unless info is classified by the government. Collusion is not a crime. Neither is leaking letters sent by constituents (although collusion leads right into conspiracy charges)

Quote: beachbumbabs

FWIW, the first decision to come out of the new court was a partisan 5-4 decision. ND has requirements for permanent, government-issued residence proof in their voter law. This law was upheld, which disenfranchises (on purpose ) 10s of thousands of ND residents: anyone who's homeless, and anyone who lives on Native American reservations in that state.

The law was crafted by Republicans there, in trying to stifle the protests about the pipeline and keep those people from voting on initiatives that would prohibit their being built.

No surprise they held that case for a ninth justice. Who knows what else is coming.

Quote: RonC

Yes, I believe so.

Quote: beachbumbabs

It's misdirection to claim this was a he said-she said, and that he was found innocent.

There was no finding.

Quote: RonC

If PROVEN. PROVEN is an important word.



I've already said all that at least once.

Quote: RonC

There was not enough credible evidence presented to make the allegation meet even the lowest standard regarding actual proof something happened.

Not innocent, but not even close to guilty.

Everyone will say what they want, pretty much, in order to support of their side of the argument.

Quote: terapined

You questioned how the media will report
Yet
You yourself are not showing confidence in the bills being bipartisan.
"I believe" only counts in in religion :-)
Now I am curious because I could care less who is in the room when he is signing.
Anybody know what bill was signed? Kanye sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Lol

Quote: ams288

How's everyone's 401k doing this week?

MAGA!

Quote: terapined

Regardless
Listening to his Yale roommate and others that lived in his dorm. There is no doubt he lied under oath
How can you be a judge if you lie under oath

Quote: darkoz

They are gonna have to start calling it a 200 1/2k soon

Quote: ams288

How's everyone's 401k doing this week?

MAGA!

Quote: SanchoPanza

Not if they invested with half a brain.

Quote: ams288

How's everyone's 401k doing this week?

MAGA!

Quote: TomG

When it goes up I get all the credit for it. When it goes down I blame everyone else. I support any politician who agrees that this is the correct way to address the issues of accountability and responsibility.

Quote: RonC

Some said the recovery and rising market was due to President Obama's work as President. I guess taking credit will end if there is a downturn.

Too much credit and too much blame are given to the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania...but I don't blame them for taking credit; they will be blamed for any shortcomings.

It is just how things are...

Quote: Dalex64

I think it is a lot easier for a president to do harm to the economy than cause growth.

Quote: RonC

Please provide links to claims like this, if you can. thanks!

Based on what I found, this is what happened in that case:

"The challengers therefore submitted an urgent request to the Supreme Court asking the justices to toss out the law, but the Court denied it without explanation—with the exception of Justice Ginsburg, who wrote a dissent to which Justice Kagan joined. Newly-minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not join in the decision."

http://fortune.com/2018/10/10/supreme-court-north-dakota-voter-id-laws/

"The high court on Tuesday, responding to an emergency appeal, released a decision on a 6-2 vote that will allow the state to require a residential address on a driver’s license or ID card to vote and won’t accept a post office box except with supplemental proof of a residential address.'

https://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/supreme-court-rules---in-favor-of-nd-s/article_b34c5550-d084-5b56-8288-d7efca3ef2fe.html

Please save paranoia over what MAY happen with Kavanaugh on the court until something actually does.

Quote: RonC

Some said the recovery and rising market was due to President Obama's work as President. I guess taking credit will end if there is a downturn.

Too much credit and too much blame are given to the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania...but I don't blame them for taking credit; they will be blamed for any shortcomings.

It is just how things are...

Quote: RS

Not sure if Indians are considered US citizens or not. But IMO they should neither be citizens nor be able to vote. If they’re going to be protected by “Native American status”, then they should be Native American, not USA American. If they want citizenship, then they should be able to “immigrate” and and become citizens like any other non-citizen.

Quote: beachbumbabs

FWIW, the first decision to come out of the new court was a partisan 5-4 decision. ND has requirements for permanent, government-issued residence proof in their voter law. This law was upheld, which disenfranchises (on purpose ) 10s of thousands of ND residents: anyone who's homeless, and anyone who lives on Native American reservations in that state.

The law was crafted by Republicans there, in trying to stifle the protests about the pipeline and keep those people from voting on initiatives that would prohibit their being built.

No surprise they held that case for a ninth justice. Who knows what else is coming.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The article I read about it was wrong. It seems to have been taken down. It was from TheHill, which is a leaning-right DC publication.

But the facts I read were as I stated, and I see, googling another half-dozen that report it as you have it, it was inaccurate - not about the decision, which reaffirmed a targeted, discriminatory voter law, but that Kavanaugh was not part of the decision, and that it went 6-2. So, to whatever extent I am responsible for reading news that turned out to be incorrect in the details, my apologies to the board.

The NA residents of the reservations there do not have street addresses recognized by the state. So they're being disenfranchised on a technicality by the dominant cadre. US citizens denied their most basic right.

Yeah. No need to be paranoid when they're actually out to get you. This is the garbage you're supporting with your derision and sarcasm. Death by a thousand cuts to democracy.

Quote: petroglyph

Over 80 members of congress are dual citizens.

Quote: RonC

Including Warren?

J/K

Quote: petroglyph

She may be a triple?

Quote: petroglyph

She may be a triple?

Quote: darkoz

That means her vote is 3x more important than yours

J/k

Quote: petroglyph

It's all in the delivery

Quote: RonC

BBB, I did not state my position on the case in question at all in my post. You don't get to assign positions to me based on how you think I feel...I have already stated that I believe in voter ID laws, citizens voting, and in providing free ID's to help those who can't get one otherwise. I want the people who are eligible to vote to be able to vote, no matter what the outcome.

The actual "facts" are simple--you took the opportunity, without checking sources carefully to say, in basic terms, that the Supreme Court somehow held a case in order to get a Conservative justice seated and vote 5-4 to take the right to vote away from US Citizens who might vote Democrat instead of Republican.

On the face of the issue the case dealt with. we may even agree--all US Citizens should be allowed to vote. Your diatribe about Kavanaugh wasn't about that at all...you were in full attack mode against someone you think should not be on the Supreme Court. That is your right, but you don't get the right to alter the facts and I would expect most of us to understand that it is good to at least Google a couple of sources before stating something as a "fact."

The decision, if we actually look at that, was 6-2. The court actually acted properly most likely (I have not read the case, nor has my mail-order law degree arrived yet)--there may be someone (or more than one) among the six votes who agrees with my position but, based on the Constitution and the actual way the law was written, may have felt that there was no way to strike down the law as not being "Constitutional"...or that no case or argument presented was sufficient to provide that option.

Derision and sarcasm? I simply stated that Kavanaugh was not involved in this decision and that we should see some decisions of his before judging how he will act as a Justice. It wasn't me who raced to attribute a decision to him--but I did ask for proof if you had it...just in case I was wrong.

Quote: RS

Not sure if Indians are considered US citizens or not. But IMO they should neither be citizens nor be able to vote. If they’re going to be protected by “Native American status”, then they should be Native American, not USA American. If they want citizenship, then they should be able to “immigrate” and and become citizens like any other non-citizen.

Quote: wiki

The text of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (43 U.S. Stats. At Large, Ch. 233, p. 253 (1924)) reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.]

Quote: RS

Not sure if Indians are considered US citizens or not. But IMO they should neither be citizens nor be able to vote. If they’re going to be protected by “Native American status”, then they should be Native American, not USA American. If they want citizenship, then they should be able to “immigrate” and and become citizens like any other non-citizen.

Quote:

"The people who are citizens of the U.S., these are your treaties. They aren't just the Indians' treaties. No one gave us anything! No one was dragging any land behind them when they came here. This was our land!"

Quote: beachbumbabs

Neither were people 100 years ago. There were enough illiterates that where the Constitution said all people born in the US are citizens, that they still had to pass a law to clarify their status.

Quote: wiki

The text of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act (43 U.S. Stats. At Large, Ch. 233, p. 253 (1924)) reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.

Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.]

Now you know. You might ask Face what it's like to be NA in this country. I had hoped, though, that guys of your generation had learned more about indigenous cultures than you seem to show here.

Columbus didn't discover America. There were people here for thousands of years before they sailed here. But, you know, with typical white man humility, they were just an impediment. Animals to be exterminated, removed from their lands, agrarians forced onto the least habitable parcels in the country.

It was good PR that the Indians fought back. Gave the whites excuses to slaughter the savages. So they took it all by force, killed the people, planted the flags, parceled out the land. Happy Columbus Day.