SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 11 of 400 « First 78910 11 121314152161111 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   US Politics Thread 2021-24 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=248184)

Catfish 01-27-21 10:06 AM
^ Again: Stop making sense. This the US politics thread!! :D:O:

Read his morning that an impeachment is unlikely – while some republicans supported it, the majority did not.
Argument is that a president can only be impeached as long as he is president, and Trump is not anymore.
Since a call for armed rebellion is something also a civilian can be accused for, most judges of the constitution see this differently, but whatever.

Now that "he who must not be named" obviously founds a new "patriot" party i guess the republicans will lose a lot of votes to him.

Skybird 01-27-21 10:20 AM
Stupid Republicans will pay a high price for their shortsighted opportunism thta makes them rejecting to breakl with Biden'S predecssor . It will lead to the division of the party, with the former Republicans loosing it to the newly dominating orange legion.

Good for the Democrats and their left wing. Divide et impera.

And the US' once dominance in the world? Will go the way of the British empire. With respectability and trustworthiness gone, nobody will dare to invest his complete future into it anymnore.

The next major defeat probably could be delivered via the US dollar. Europe and the Euro will suffer dearly from that, too, the Euro will go the way of the Dodo, too.

3catcircus 01-27-21 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981 (Post 2725081)
Re election fraud:

There have been a couple dozen lawsuits , all leading nowhere because Guiliani, Powell and the like failed to present evidence of fraud. If they had it and did not present it... well, I believe in your culture you also have the freedom to choose your own lawyer. If the courts chose to ignore it, because all bought by liberals (?) - where is the evidence now?
Where is the huge pile of evidence that Kayleigh McEnany waved into Fox News' Camera? All she would have had to do is open the file and present a page or five. But it was just a huge stack of paper.
How come Guiliani never used the word "fraud" inside a courtroom?

Do you really think it's plausible that there's a whistleblower in Bidens Campaign team to tell us about the earpiece, the dementia, the diapers, while on the other hand democrats are able to suppress evidence of "biblical proportions"? Suppress it not only in leftwing us-media like cnn, etc, not only in all of US Media (including, I believe, OAN, because even they failed to back these claims) - but in all of world press, from Argentina to Switzerland, Australia to Nepal? They even suppressed in on Parler? Even suppressed it on every private homepage of every QAnonConspiracy theorist?

Is that plausible? Not even Tucker Carlson believes this, and he wants to believe... Or would it not be more plausible to repeat *baseless* claims in the hopes to find some thousands gullible enough to believe it? If those are armed and violent (which often goes hand in hand - even better.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - the pro-Trump DoJ could not find anything
Evidence was not allowed to be presented due to *procedural* issues - not the quality of the evidence itself.

By that - I mean that a judge can say "we aren't allowing this to go to a trial because you filed your case too late." Or ... you filed your case too soon," or "You can't file a lawsuit because only this one particular official in that state can file it."

The issue here is that no evidence was allowed to be presented in almost every case - because it opens up such a pandora's box of exposing shenanigans, errors, mistakes, or defects within the voting system itself.

u crank 01-27-21 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2725083)
Since a call for armed rebellion is something also a civilian can be accused for, most judges of the constitution see this differently, but whatever.
To convict someone in a court of law, not the Senate, you need evidence. Everything that Trump said in public as President has been recorded. Can you find any instance where Trump called for armed rebellion? Or for his followers to storm the Capital, damage property and fight with security? Without conclusive evidence, in other words, his actual words saying it, there wouldn't be much of a case.

Sonicfire1981 01-27-21 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3catcircus (Post 2725093)
The issue here is that no evidence was allowed to be presented in almost every case - because it opens up such a pandora's box of exposing shenanigans, errors, mistakes, or defects within the voting system itself.
Hence my question: where is it then?

Buddahaid 01-27-21 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3catcircus (Post 2725093)
Evidence was not allowed to be presented due to *procedural* issues - not the quality of the evidence itself.

By that - I mean that a judge can say "we aren't allowing this to go to a trial because you filed your case too late." Or ... you filed your case too soon," or "You can't file a lawsuit because only this one particular official in that state can file it."

The issue here is that no evidence was allowed to be presented in almost every case - because it opens up such a pandora's box of exposing shenanigans, errors, mistakes, or defects within the voting system itself.
That looks to be the case in general terms but due process still needs to be followed hence the results. I don't see any reference to the contents of Pandora's box but it's just Wikipedia and I'm not going to become a lawyer and try to slog through all the proceedings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-e...ntial_election

Sonicfire1981 01-27-21 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u crank (Post 2725097)
To convict someone in a court of law, not the Senate, you need evidence. Everything that Trump said in public as President has been recorded. Can you find any instance where Trump called for armed rebellion? Or for his followers to storm the Capital, damage property and fight with security? Without conclusive evidence, in other words, his actual words saying it, there wouldn't be much of a case.
Yes you can. read my post, if you may. I'll repeat the important parts: "We'll march to the capital, I'll be there with you...", "these people here are not taking it any longer...", "you have to show strength...", "our country has had enough..." "you have to get your people to fight" SIC! "We have to get rid of the weak congress-people..." "it is time that somebody did something about it...", "we have it deep in our souls, and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell you won't have a country anymore." That was some quotes of the (n/sh)ameless.
For giggles: "Lets have trial by combat!" (R. Guliani on the same stage)
“We’re coming for you,” (Don Jr. towards republicans that we're not supporting the now-ex-president.

Rockstar 01-27-21 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981 (Post 2725113)
Yes you can. read my post, if you may. I'll repeat the important parts: "We'll march to the capital, I'll be there with you...", "these people here are not taking it any longer...", "you have to show strength...", "our country has had enough..." "you have to get your people to fight" SIC! "We have to get rid of the weak congress-people..." "it is time that somebody did something about it...", "we have it deep in our souls, and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell you won't have a country anymore." That was some quotes of the (n/sh)ameless.
For giggles: "Lets have trial by combat!" (R. Guliani on the same stage)
“We’re coming for you,” (Don Jr. towards republicans that we're not supporting the now-ex-president.

Here's the problem you have pushing that as a reason why a handful of people did what they did. First, as someone living in this country those words did not in any way influence me and a tremendous number of others in this country to even think about becoming destructive. Second you have not identified nor interrogated anyone involved therefore its impossible for you too know why they did what they did. You can only assume and your assumptions are based on what your favorite media source feeds you that gets regurgitated here.

Sonicfire1981 01-27-21 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2725124)
Here's the problem you have pushing that as a reason why a handful of people did what they did. First, as someone living in this country those words did not in any way influence me and a tremendous number of others in this country to even think about becoming destructive. Second you have not identified nor interrogated anyone involved therefore its impossible for you too know why they did what they did. You can only assume and your assumptions are based on what your favorite media source feeds you that gets regurgitated here.
i wrote about that already, too

mapuc 01-27-21 12:17 PM
It's your country= your laws

As an outsider - It is weird to see an elected person can go free-because s/he has party friends in the Congress or Senate.

It looks like the former President will not get a verdict after all-Seems there's not enough Rep. to support this.

From what I have read and heard in the news here after Jan. 6. The Former President has encouraged his followers to demonstrate near Capitol Hill.

I can't say if he has said-that they should directly or indirectly "invade" the Capitol

Markus

u crank 01-27-21 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonicfire1981 (Post 2725113)
"We'll march to the capital, I'll be there with you...", "these people here are not taking it any longer...", "you have to show strength...", "our country has had enough..." "you have to get your people to fight" SIC! "We have to get rid of the weak congress-people..." "it is time that somebody did something about it...", "we have it deep in our souls, and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell you won't have a country anymore."
Sorry but there is not a word in those quotes about a specific call for violence. Not a word about armed rebellion or a call to damage property. A first year law student could get Trump acquitted if the charges were not thrown out in the preliminary hearing. Politicians say things like that and worse all the time.

Buddahaid 01-27-21 12:27 PM
The US uses the word "fight" for everything so in and of itself it can't be taken literally. Help fight cancer. Help fight poverty, etc. Personally I wish that was changed to more positive wording like help cure cancer or help overcome poverty but it is very ingrained now. Everything seems to be a fight rather than a constructive effort.

Rockstar 01-27-21 12:38 PM
Lets not forget the WAR on poverty, the WAR on drugs, the WAR on gangs, the WAR on terror, the WAR on decaf coffee.

Aktungbby 01-27-21 02:07 PM
submitted without comment
 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...lation/617827/ :hmmm:

Torvald Von Mansee 01-27-21 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 2724678)
Torvald,

The Torsk Restoration folks basically disbanded 10 years ago. The people who oversee the inner harbor never liked the Torsk and was opposed to having people onboard restoring her on any given Saturday morning. Money and politics, etc. I have not crossed the Torsk's deck for close a decade now. I have no idea how she is fairing. At any rate, behind the scene bilge water drinking is no longer.
O....M....G

Has it really been that long?

Buddahaid 01-27-21 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aktungbby (Post 2725190)
The concluding paragraphs are worth posting.

"All of which is to say that the debate about free speech on social media should not be viewed primarily as a debate about whether the social-media companies violated Trump’s freedom of speech when they banned him, or whether they violate anyone else’s freedom of speech when they make thousands of similar decisions every day. Instead, it should be viewed primarily as a debate about what freedom of speech means on social media, and, perhaps most importantly, about who gets to decide—courts, corporations, or legislatures. That liberals and conservatives have switched perspectives on these questions in recent years reflects the extraordinary political fluidity, and perhaps possibility, of the current moment.

However the political alignments work out, Trump’s deplatforming illuminated a basic insight worth keeping in mind: Private companies not only participate in the marketplace of ideas but also determine to a significant extent who else can participate in it. We should not take comfort in the fact that the speech-regulating decisions by Big Tech companies do not and cannot violate the First Amendment as it is currently understood. Conservatives are correct to be worried about the threat that the private platforms pose to freedom of speech, even if this makes them more like big-government liberals than they might be willing to acknowledge. Those big-government liberals should realize as much, and act accordingly."

bstanko6 01-27-21 04:05 PM
For all of you who believe that no evidence was brought forward about re-election fraud...

We don’t need evidence brought up for anything! This is a problem that you’re not seeing. I am an American citizen can use the freedom of information act to gain access to anything my governor or police or state executives file or write up. I don’t need evidence to examine or investigate anything. If I want investigation into my election I should have it no questions asked.

Rockstar 01-27-21 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstanko6 (Post 2725207)
For all of you who believe that no evidence was brought forward about re-election fraud...

We don’t need evidence brought up for anything! This is a problem that you’re not seeing. I am an American citizen can use the freedom of information act to gain access to anything my governor or police or state executives file or write up. I don’t need evidence to examine or investigate anything. If I want investigation into my election I should have it no questions asked.

You have every right to inquire. Might I suggest starting with Hillary Clinton and those like her who jumped on the bandwagon believing Russia altered the outcome of the 2016 election. After millions of dollars, abuse of power, and a global embarrassment caused by a politically motivated government boondoggle. I'm sure there has to be something. I heard Michael Cohen is ready to turn any day now.


Then ask the Trump campaign for the details of the evidence they have. So we can see it for ourselves. Should be easy. https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-...t-as-filed.pdf. After a brief glossing over I didn't see evidence. Just plenty of alleged issues concerning procedure.

bstanko6 01-27-21 05:17 PM
Rockstar...

Totally on your band wagon!

If the Dems can investigate fraud with no evidence, We can too. Until then Biden will be seated as a fraudulent president. if the Dems want to unify and heal, then answer to the other half of the country that hates them right now.

And we will not take a “c’mon man” as an answer.

Rockstar 01-27-21 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstanko6 (Post 2725228)
Rockstar...

Totally on your band wagon!

If the Dems can investigate fraud with no evidence, We can too. Until then Biden will be seated as a fraudulent president. if the Dems want to unify and heal, then answer to the other half of the country that hates them right now.

And we will not take a “c’mon man” as an answer.



No, he is not seated as fraudulent president. Biden is the duly elected President of the United States of America. Just as Trump was in 2016.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.
Page 11 of 400 « First 78910 11 121314152161111 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.