***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***
Comments
-
hes asking which stalker you like better following YOU.ikiT said:
I don't follow him, so...Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do you enjoy him or I following you the most?ikiT said:by the way
jcornyn (or someone on his staff) is the one US Senator that follows my own meager personal instagram feed.
He literally posts pictures of his cat, and office visits from his constituents.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
2018
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.0 -
2018
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.0 -
2018So if the votes weren’t there than what don’t bother with trial or impeachment at all? Just let this administration keep on their mob tactics in other words no rules/laws and fuck the constitution fuck it ...jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution wasn't established to provide you your desired outcome.josevolution said:So if the votes weren’t there than what don’t bother with trial or impeachment at all? Just let this administration keep on their mob tactics in other words no rules/laws and fuck the constitution fuck it ...
Pelosi (and everyone) knew going on there was about zero chance for a conviction. Anyone who thought otherwise was woefully misinformed. About zero isn't zero... but damn close.0 -
2018
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
2018
But your not offering an answer on what should of happened? Please tell us ..mrussel1 said:
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution wasn't established to provide you your desired outcome.josevolution said:So if the votes weren’t there than what don’t bother with trial or impeachment at all? Just let this administration keep on their mob tactics in other words no rules/laws and fuck the constitution fuck it ...
Pelosi (and everyone) knew going on there was about zero chance for a conviction. Anyone who thought otherwise was woefully misinformed. About zero isn't zero... but damn close.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.0 -
2018
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).josevolution said:
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.0 -
2018
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a passmrussel1 said:
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).josevolution said:
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.josevolution said:
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a passmrussel1 said:
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).josevolution said:
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.0 -
2018
Ok That’s your view it doesn’t make it true .mrussel1 said:
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.josevolution said:
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a passmrussel1 said:
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).josevolution said:
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
would have made subpoenas during inquiry a requirement. but in so doing, had the courts ruled FOR the house that would contrain a future Dem President in the same way.josevolution said:
Ok That’s your view it doesn’t make it true .mrussel1 said:
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.josevolution said:
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a passmrussel1 said:
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).josevolution said:
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
I already said I agreed with her strategy. And it's not my opinion until someone can describe what Mitch is doing to make it rigged, that couldn't be changed with 51 votes.josevolution said:
Ok That’s your view it doesn’t make it true .mrussel1 said:
No, the difference is that im not calling it rigged, fixed, etc. It isn't.josevolution said:
Off course I felt the same way! The difference is that your giving McConnell a passmrussel1 said:
I said from there beginning that he had to be impeached even though removal was unlikely. This situation had to be marked in our annals of history. Second, it inoculated Biden a bit from these attacks, and third hopefully it dissuades him from doing this again (I know... unlikely).josevolution said:
Tell us what the correct course of action should of been by Pelosi..mrussel1 said:
How did those statements alter the potential votes of the senators? Every single rule of the trial is subject to a majority vote. He's representing his caucus, he doesn't have some extra constitutional authority in this process.josevolution said:
Just look at his statements before the trial he was telegraphing his intentions that this trial was just for show , like I said it’s the way I see it! So tell us what the answer to this would of been just let him get away and wait till November?mrussel1 said:
Explain how Mitch fixed it and has manipulated the votes of 20 some Republican senators that would have convicted if say...Grassley was majority leader instead.josevolution said:
The votes are not there because midnight Mitch made sure of it! That’s the fix it was never to be a fair trial the outcome has already been determinedmrussel1 said:
1. It’s not Roberts place to be in controljosevolution said:
Puff Roberts is not in control it’s Midnight Mitch and the fix is already in , he will never be convicted it’s all a farce and so is the Constitution ...mrussel1 said:
I said it was premature to call the proceedings rigged based on Roberts being the justice, and there was nothing in his justice record that could lead one to call him an overt partisan hack. You also asked if I knew Roberts voting record, I assume you mean election, not judicial and of course I don't, like neither of us knows Sotomayor..at least I don't.Halifax2TheMax said:
Then what did you mean by “overt partisan hack?” We deconstructed it to “partisan” and it seems you believe otherwise. I’m assuming on his case voting record. I disagree with you. And you characterized the concern of Roberts and his potential judgements to be nothing but “Trump/Bernie bitching.” And when asked who you trusted more, Roberts or Sotomayor, you didnt answer.mrussel1 said:
Nope.. read the thread again. R.I.F. Nowhere did I say that. Your cartoonish bias disables you from processing rational arguments.Halifax2TheMax said:
Do you? You seem to believe that Roberts is some unbiased arbitar of truth, justice and the American way rather than a partisan. Fancy that.mrussel1 said:
You know Roberts record? I don't care about the voting record. We're discussing jurisprudence. You're so team oriented that you can't process the same arguments from the other side.Halifax2TheMax said:
Didn’t answer the question. You know her voting record outside of the decisions she’s made?mrussel1 said:
Sotomayor is closer to me politically. She's also not a-political.Halifax2TheMax said:
Defeatist. Who do you trust more, Sotomayor or Roberts?mrussel1 said:
That's an unattainable bar.Halifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” or a “hack” to be partisan. Do you think Roberts is an independent thinker, devoid of politics when deciding?mrussel1 said:
True, but just because you don't like his judicial philosophy also doesn't render him a hackHalifax2TheMax said:
He doesn’t have to be “overt” to be a partisan hack.mrussel1 said:
Yes, I agree with it. My 14k posts all indicate the same.Halifax2TheMax said:
I dont think anyone’s bitching makes a difference unless it’s directed at your elected representatives and believe me, I’m sure mine are sick of hearing from me. I know they’re on my side and are doing what they can. You’re dismissing of what is happening as “Trump/Bernie bitching” and waiting for it to be too late before speaking up is what is concerning. Unless you tend to agree with what is happening right under your nose?mrussel1 said:
Your pre-bitching makes a difference?Halifax2TheMax said:
So wait until it’s too late. Gotcha.mrussel1 said:
1. Bitch when Roberts rules for unlimited executive privilegeHalifax2TheMax said:
Ruling that executive privilege Trumps house subpoenas, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court. Once this trial farce has concluded, the house should go to court over the witness testimony and documents to compel them to be provided. See where that goes because it will reach the Supreme Court. See how that turns out. “The fix is in,” is not a Bernie talking point but a distinct possibility, particularly now that there have been life time appointments to the federal bench of folks who have never presided over a trial and owe their loyalty to a party and an ideology. Impartiality is being systemically eroded. On purpose.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ... anytime someone doesn't agree with someone else or things don't go someone's way "the fix is in".. what's he fixing precisely? I'm so tired of Bernie/Trump talking points infiltrating every discussion.gimmesometruth27 said:i think he is as much of a partisan as the rest of them. trump gave him gorsuch and kavanaugh, which gives roberts a conservative majority for propably 25 years. this is probably one of the reasons roberts is acting the way he is. the fix is in.
2. Bitch when Roberts makes a binding ruling that materially affects the course of the trial.
Until then, it's Trump/Sanders complaining of "rigged".
There's nothing in Roberts judicial record to indicate that he's an overtly partisan hack.
My “cartoonish” bias? I wish I could draw. Thanks for the laugh.
The point I made and continue to make, is that it's silly to act like the trial is rigged because Roberts presides. He has done zero to lead one to that conclusion. Save the bitching for when something happens. Otherwise it's like Sanders and Trump supporters who claim everything that doesn't go their way is "rigged".
2. He won’t be convicted because the votes aren’t there. Earl Warren could be the justice and the outcome would be the same.
3. It’s a farce because your desired outcome isn’t achieved? This is what I’m talking about...right there. No one with a brain ever thought the votes were there.You literally made every one of my points.
I support the current path even though I never had any illusions to the outcome. The House exercised its responsibility even if the Senate doesn't.
i ask you again tell us what you would of done in pelosi’s shoes?
Second, how is Roberts rigging this, which was the point from the beginning.0 -
2018https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/mcconnell-white-house-impeachment-trial.amp.html
He pretty much says nothing will happen to the president, so yeah he had already made up his mind ..
jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
2018Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
Where are you seeing that it would take years?josevolution said:Schiff pointed out exactly why they didn’t go to the courts to get the unwilling witnesses to testify! Time time time it would take yrs to go through the whole process , just to get to the SCOTUS.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help