Was the election stolen from Trump?

I guess you turned a blind eye toward the left wing rioters who tried to burn down Federal Court Houses and thew fire bombs over the White House fence last summer. All of that was okay because it was the left after all, they are always in the right.

As I post to your friend, Mr. Brown, Trump is done politically. You don’t have him to kick around any more, but you can keep his flame alive and keep the civil strife going, which your real goal.

If that’s true, why do republicans have such a hard time holding him to account?

Because the public deserves to know what happened without trying to sweep it under the rug.

Was the attack on the capital planned? Or was it spontaneous?

There’s evidence that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers had plans.

Did they act alone? Were they given help material or otherwise?

Hmmm…I wonder why this was necessary?

Andd please, please spare me the “its because BLM complained when they were attacked by Capitol Police” BS.

And let’s not forget Marjory Taylor Green…

Executing Pelosi
‘Islamic invasion’
Rothschild laser beam
And much, much more…

I summarized almost everything crazy/offensive/bigoted that GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has said in the span of 60 seconds.

Trump may be gone, but his legacy is far from over and it’s much more threatening to the US than the “socialism” boogieman that you drone on about.

How did I “turn a blind eye” exactly?

No, there are lots of republicans’, like MTG that are more than willing to do it.

Firstly, a quick search showed nothing that you indicated. Which Federal Court Houses? Do you have a link about the White House incident?

But assuming that is all true and not some QAnon fantasy - yes I condemn those actions and hope the people responsible are in jail. A couple of discrepancies at your rather sad attempt at manufacturing a false equivalence however:

  1. I seriously doubt that at any of the events you’re alluding to that prominent elected Democrats were present making speeches about “Trial by combat”, “stay strong” or some other idiocy.

  2. The instigators of the burning down court houses were a handful of disorganized morons, weren’t ex military, retired law enforcement officers using sophisticated software like Zello to organise their criminal acts. What happened on January 6 was orders of magnitude more serious

  3. The imaginary left wing criminals weren’t given guided tours around key targets of opportunity, unlike the Capitol terrorists

Basically, your whataboutism is comparing a very tiny apple to a huge orange.

Trump is a symptom, not a disease. Nothing his did as President was unprecedented. Other Presidents have had extra marital affairs. Other Presidents have walked out of international agreements. Other Presidents have constructed internment camps in the name of national security. He isn’t even the first President to not show up to their successor’s inauguration. What made Trump so vile and dangerous is that he did all this with the dial turned up to 11. And as sure as I am water is wet and the sky is up, there are Trump wannabees currently working in an elected capacity. If Trump suffers no consequences, then within 5-10 years I’m certain someone like Lauren Boebert or Josh Hawley will be Trump 2.0 except go out and out fascist and dial it up to 50.

That’s how politics works around the world throughout all of humanity’s history. Trump suffering no consequences will lead to every Republican politician to think, “What else can I get away with?” and every Democrat thinking, “Well, if he can get away with it, so can I” The country that is supposedly the bastion of Democracy will essentially devolve into Thunderdome. Hyperbole on my part to be sure, but not as much as you would think…

I’m already asking the right question; both of those incumbents lost during the worst recessions of the last 100 years (2008 aside), yet neither saw their popular vote go up.

Both instead lost basically a 1/3.

Trump went up by by 11 million, making him the most popular loser in history, and he increased his performance among blacks and Hispanics as he did so.


More likely they stayed home and voted via mail. Which is half the reason Democrats won.

The other half was recession backlash.

Trump increased his vote through electoral fundamentals, while Democrats rode a wave they did nothing to produce.

They’ll get outmaneuvered again. Next time, it’ll likely shatter their party, and it’ll be due to their own complacency.

Because he is a cult of personality that lied about others, bragged about his accomplishments (often falsely) and was enabled by Republicans to afraid to oppose him.

That’s why.

That doesn’t explain why support grew.

People wanted something like Trump, before Trump himself showed up.

He represents a latent viewpoint of people who were tired of the same old pomp & circumstance of an political class they knew didn’t represent their interests.

Democrats were too busy doing symbolism, Republicans were too busy either advocating wars, the war on drugs, or defending why Boeing was getting subsidies.

No one was paying attention to the quiet desperation of Rural folk amidst an economic collapse and a surge in drug addiction.

Post 2016- Democrats still weren’t paying attention to this, doubling down on Trumps support as a “it’s all just racism” theory.

Sorry, but I’m not buying that we have 74 million racists. Many of these were the same people who voted for Obama twice. That’s a crap explanation for people who are too lazy to engage, and lack all capability for introspection.

Or, y’know, can’t read a ******* economic report that points out "Gee, is it strange none of the rural counties had experienced economic growth for the last 15 years? ".

1 Speaking for myself, I already answered that one: Media bias. And don’t tell me that Trump’s unlikability was an excuse for rarely saying anything good about him and rarely saying anything bad about Obama (they said enough bad about the Bushes and Reagan).

2 Abortion, green to the max, announcing that illegal aliens wouldn’t be deported (released instead for a hundred days), just to name a few.

3 Then why is he talking about it?

4 The “unity” rhetoric is Biden’s. And his EOs make a colossal lie of it.

5 I seem to recall something about letting the FBI investigate.

1 “Through their lawyer.” Doesn’t that even suggest to you the possibility that they’re picking up on it as a way to pass the buck of responsibility for their actions?

2 Yet the Fed and State level Dems were late to the condemnation (largely after the election, if I’m not mistaken).

3 Then why are they going after the symptom? Well, actually, the left is going after the “disease,” when they talked about “deprogramming” Trump supporters. I’m curious. What do you think of that “deprogramming” line?

My positions on the issues are more of a “disease” than yours are. Cut the crap.

Sorry you don’t like the answer, but you nailed it. He was a terrible person of low character. You don’t need to go back that far into his past to see it and despite what people where want to believe, that he some how became a different person when he became President is a joke. He has been a slime ball for a long time. The rape accusations weren’t all made up. The stories of him walking though locker rooms of under age half naked girls isn’t made up (something you seem quite sensitive about), his history of not delivering on promises is legendary. The man is a walking talking POS.

I always said it was a shame that the left tried to lionize Michael Brown. He wasn’t a good person and people like you knew it. I’m telling you, Trump was the wrong person to lionize. Because desipte good intentions and righteous intentions, underneath, he’s still a POS and that’s why people hate him.

You mean, the right to choose…

Looking at the problem of climate change…

And making citizens out of people who’ve been here a long time, some of them through no fault of their own, citizens.

Are there real issues to wrestle with here? Sure. Are they any worse than the damage tariffs cause? Not by a long shot.

He is?

Sure, Biden was calling for unity before the attack on the capital. Now that the political right is responsible for one of the most egregious attacks (albeit a largely symbolic one), now Republicans want to cash in on it. lol

As they should. I’m reading every day how this attack was coordinated by groups on the right and was at the very least encouraged if not supported by those very closely connected to Trump. Trump, who is, always smart enough to insulate himself from crimes in any direct manner by working though others.

Sure that’s possible, but given the rhetoric coming from Trump, Giuliani, Don Jr and others, it’s not a leap for me to believe these people believed that Trump wanted them to do it.

Lots of Trump flags being held by those people storming the capitol.

That’s crap, lots of Dems condemned the violence, including Biden. Did they do it in a forceful enough manner? That’s a fair question.

Did the media condemn it? We know the left and right media are biased. If there’s a riot in Portland Oregon and you want to see what’s happening, its probably best to tune into a right-leaning source, if it’s Trump’s impeachment, well you’ll probably want to tune into a left-leaning source.

If you want to get ideas on both sides, well, you better listen to ideas from both sides and then do more research and draw your own conclusions.

I’ve mentioned it hear already, but my wife and I have an acquaintance we met through our kid’s school and sports activities. Really nice woman with a daughter the same age as our girls. They’ve spent the night, gone on trips to the beach, but then last year she began posting on Facebook bazaar conspiracy theories about people that have been killed and replaced with clones. The idea that Trump was going to seize the military and hold a tribunal on the Capitol steps, devil baby eating cults, vaccines are filled with “nano” stuff to not only track you but control you…This is all Q crap. These people need deprogramming for sure.

Problem is that what they believe and you believe crossover in some areas and I understand how you might find that offensive. But the right has EXACTLY the same problems the left has. Extremists. But your extremists have been emboldened by Trump. They listen to his lies and they are begining to act on them.

It won’t be long before a governor or house member or even the President is killed and the left has the political support to take this to the next level (god forbid!).

The right is also feeling the pinch of being lumped in with wingnuts you have very little in common with.

I hope you learn something from this.

I am 99.99% certain that is most definitely the case. It can also be true. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but the onus is certainly on the defense to prove it. I think an argument can be made if one quotes Trump at his press conferences, public appearances and comments on social media. Whether it is going to be an effective argument is something I’m not going to touch with a fourty foot pole because I have no idea.

They also didn’t ask rioters to “Stay strong”, “Fight hard” and “We love you” either. It could also be because the media didn’t report politicians condemning violence as that isn’t newsworthy. That happens more often than you think and that type of journalistic laziness transcends politics, race or religion. Muslims condemning terrorism, conservatives condemning gay bashing, liberals condemning communist regimes just isn’t sexy enough to be news. Finally, I’d add your description of “late to the condemnation” is pretty subjective. Being constantly asked about it and replying with no comment would qualify. Waiting for the facts to come out and refusing to comment as it may prejudice a criminal investigation is a legitimate response in my opinion.

A- Because all analogies are imperfect. Calling Trump a symptom is shorthand for all the vileness he represented and orchestrated won’t go away now that he is politically irrelevant. Holding him accountable is a way of making him a deterrent. Trump is already suffering the greatest punishment a fascistic narcissist can imagine - he’s not on TV anymore. Holding Trump accountable is a method of making sure processes are in place to insure such a thing won’t happen again. It’s not about him; it’s about ensuring no one else can do the damage he has done.
B- I haven’t heard any prominent politicians say that line. A quick google search implies talking heads who have no real power outside of their echo chamber are advocating this.
C- I’m trying to think of something equally moronic as stating “deprogramming people is a solution”, but nothing springs to mind. It’s of no surprise to me Bill Maher would air such an opinion on his show. Firstly it’s pretty obvious what the parallels are between “deprogramming” and re-education camps so it’s stupid from an optics viewpoint right off the bat. Secondly, the easy counter argument is the tired “Liberals want a nanny state, they think they are smarter than us” trope; which has been extremely effective over the years.

In my opinion, Trump supporters don’t need to be “deprogrammed”. They need to be proven inconsequential. When Pete Buttigieg did numerous Town Hall meetings on FOX and quoted chapter and verse the Mueller Report, members of the audience admitted they weren’t aware that the investigation didn’t exonerate Trump in any way shape or form. I’m going to cast a huge generalization here. The typical Trump supporter favours feelings over facts, supports people politically rather than endorsing ideas and believes politics is some elaborate tribal sports match where you support your team without thought or question. These sort of people should not influence how a government is formed and the way to make that happen is education so the majority of people can make an informed accurate decision on election day. The reason why you have people believing in election fraud, jewish space lasers and pedophile rings run in pizza shops is because a big enough effort of providing facts hasn’t been made. I’m not sure what to do about that, but I know that’s the problem.

1 And that’s the “justification” for not covering the news objectively?

2 Evidence? And I mean something more than “I’ll bet that-” etc.

3 Where’s the baby’s right to choose? This link is to a page of prenatal ultrasounds.

4 …even if it destroys what’s left of our nation and economy (and whether or not it’s sound science)…

5 What does this have to do with a hundred day hiatus on deportations? He’s also stopping the wall. This is a votes grab for the left.

6 This one’s a little less firm. Here are some snippets from an October NPR article:

Which seems to suggest he’s not. But:

That’s singing a different tune. Here’s the link:

7 Hello, he was calling for unity after the storming in his inauguration speech.

8 Then why not leave it with the FBI, when this stupid impeachment had just about zero chance of removing him from office, and a poor chance of a conviction in the Senate? Why something that could accomplish next to nothing where Trump is concerned, yet is virtually guaranteed to throw napalm on the fire of division?

9 How many of high rank, and of what timing?

10 Good grief. People aren’t computers. That whole “deprogramming” line smacks of indoctrination.

1 Fair enough.

2 I’m aware that it happens. I simply don’t agree that it’s an adequate explanation for what we’re being shown (or not).

Why bother? It won’t change how you feel about him. Or you’ll just claim it’s skewed media coverage.

There is no such thing as objective news. What the news shouldn’t do, and I think we can agree is fabricate lies. But the idea that there will ever be, or should be “objective news” is like asking for a unicorn. It doesn’t exist and never will. The responsibility is on each person to look at different sources and look to people who have developed a reputation outside of the MSM for collecting and sharing information accurately.

The baby is still part of the mother, it’s the mother’s choice. Now, we’ve talked about this many times, I along with many others on the left, dare I say the majority, who believe there is a point before birth where the mother has forfeited her right to chose (for a healthy pregnancy) and must carry to term. Even the Catholics believed this for a long time (166 days IIRC?).

And yet China, our biggest rival is going to capitalize on it (and I mean as in capitalism) and make money providing solutions to the world to reduce carbon emissions while growing there economy, while the capitalist bastion of the world can’t get its collective head screwed on straight and wants to argue it can’t figure out how to walk and chew gum (create solutions for carbon and make money doing it).

I can’t be sure, but people being deported that shouldn’t be. For example, there was a person who was a witness to a crime and was asked to stay but was deported anyway. So I’d guess issues like that are going to be looked at. ICE or the system that’s in place isn’t working like it’s supposed to.

I’m not a fan of the court-packing option, but there’s nothing illegal or unethical about it. I think it’s just another salvo in the war between the parties…And I still hold that the Republicans have fired the biggest “gun” in that fight.

Sure, for anyone that didn’t storm the capitol.

For the love of all that is good, they are indoctrinated!

Look, if the words “trigger” you, pick some others, but people who think that JFK Jr. Is still alive and running things behind the scenes and that Dems are a secret devil-worshiping, pedophilic, baby-eating cult, many of whom have been replaced with clones, those people are F’ed up and they need help. Remember when you believe that your advisories are committing unspeakable crimes (eating babies), then there isn’t any crime you could commit against someone like that, that isn’t justified. That leads to Norther Ireland style violence where innocent people riding a bus are blown up on the justification that if it prevents people from eating babies it was all worth it.

So call it what you want, but we have a problem.

1 Let me make this more clear: I don’t like Trump. I never voted for him. I don’t for a second deny that he has character flaws. Which doesn’t alter the fact that I see real problems with how the media have skewed their presentation of him. The fact that his character flaws makes him an easy target is no excuse. Further, as I’ve pointed out, they’ve done the same (to a lesser degree) to Reagan and both Bushes. And gave a pass to both Obama and Biden (a point you still haven’t addressed).

If you show me reasonably compelling evidence of the things you’re claiming, I’ll give it serious consideration. I in no way rule out the possibility that he’s guilty of the things you say.

2 That’s no excuse for them not to try. And the things I cited weren’t even point of view issues. They used phrasing, context, and other factors to spin their “reports” to the left. I’ll cite some again: Peter Jennings referring to “certain late-term abortions,” and said: "…called partial-birth abortions by those who hate them." Asserting that of violent crime in another report (I think this was on the NBC Nightly News) was because of guns (no attempt to provide evidence) is another. I believe I also mentioned a report about the environment (I think this was also NBC) in which they cited a list of “reasons.” They mentioned poaching early in the list, but the next to the last item they slipped in was hunting. I’ve seen plenty others that I can’t recall (either off the top of my head, or at all). Go ahead and convince me that these examples weren’t deliberate propaganda.

3 So you acknowledge it’s a baby, then? An infant person?
4 Maybe the mother is part of the baby. The baby’s choice?
5 Where do you draw the line, and why? At what point does the baby have the right to life?

6 They are? As in they have the technology to do this? If so, why aren’t they employing it in their own country?

7 I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t share your faith in Biden’s altruism (on this or a myriad of other issues)…

8 So all Republicans and Trump voters stormed the capitol? That’s why he’s not interested in unity with them? Just who the crap was he calling for unity with, other than those in his own camp?

First of all, I was talking about “deprogramming” as being indoctrination. It’s a distasteful concept straight out of totalitarian regimes. Second, I just want to tear what’s left of my hair out when I hear this in spite of the fact that the hard left insists that chromosomes don’t define male and female.

As to there being a problem, yeah. But I’ll sharply disagree with you on the relative size of which problems.

And I’d still like to know what good the impeachment is supposed to be doing that couldn’t more cleanly be done with an FBI investigation, seeing as how THERE WAS NO REALISIC CHANCE OF REMOVING TRUMP FROM OFFICE BEFORE HIS TERM WAS OVER ANYWAY (and they’re still pursuing this crap).

How can this NOT make things worse?

Character flaws? That’s one way to put it. Being a terrible President is another way. Vilifying fellow Americans for political gain, consistently lying, dividing and failing in his response to the pandemic (as the Biden administration begins to put in place what should have been being done already). And again to be clear, it’s one thing to do it in the context of some big policy initiative, but Trump literally lied all the time, sometimes just to serve his vanity.

At his trial, he’s going to continue to claim he won the election in every swing state he lost by millions of votes. Lies, pure and simple.

How do we know? All court cases that weren’t solved by the end of his term, somewhere evidence could have been produced, dropped?

Why? So he could grift…He’s spent less than $20 million of the $175 million he collected for his “legal defense fund”. Please don’t make me laugh.

It’s propaganda meant to incite people, not for conservative causes. Trump doesn’t care about your causes. He likes the fact that there are people willing to carry flags with his name on them and pledge to give their lives defending who knows what. Just ask Marjory Taylor Green.

They are…


This graph shows that China isn’t just deploying solar and other renewables, they are developing the technology.

Of course not.

What makes you say he isn’t?

Whelp, you got me, I called it a “baby”.

Come on, it starts out as a few cells, within a month it’s visibly indistinguishable from a chicken:

Maybe you’ve seen this before?

In a few more months it looks like a person and it can touch, feel, taste, think and interact like you and me. I’d say the point is when it begins to experience life as more than just a collection of cells and where we ought to draw a line for healthy pregnancies and I’d be willing to bet most democrats (people not representatives) agree that late-term abortions of healthy fetuses are not something they’d not support.

What I believe is that period, where the fetus begins to accumulate experiences, not at conception is the so-called line I’d draw.

Holding people to account is making things worse? For who?

Just because Republicans have proven they cannot hold the worst of their members to account, doesn’t mean that Democrats shouldn’t do the right thing.

I give you Qanon conspiracy theorist Marjory Taylor Green. Who thinks the Parkland shooting was a false flag operation, she likes to harass survivors of school shootings. She thinks California wildfires were started by “space lasers”. I could go on. But Republicans can’t even vote to remove this piece of trash from committees, so the fact that Republicans won’t hold Trump to account is no surprise, but the Democrats will go down in history as having done so. The fact that Republicans will stand against it is the point.

1 I said: "Evidence? And I mean something more than “I’ll bet that-” etc. And: “If you show me reasonably compelling evidence of the things you’re claiming, I’ll give it serious consideration. I in no way rule out the possibility that he’s guilty of the things you say.” And your response is a rant about Trump’s character flaws and no evidence of the “rape accusations (that) weren’t all made up,” and the “stories of him walking through locker rooms of under-age half naked girls?” Those were the things you claimed. Evidence, please.

Then why is Beijing the smog capital of the world?

3 And yet you seem to be assigning responsibility to them for it, as an excuse for Biden not honoring his own post Capitol mobbing call for unity:

4 Then why were you defending his EOs (actions that spoke louder than the word “unity”) on that basis?

5 I also asked you why you draw the line where you do.

And I don’t care what the fetus looks like. The DNA is human from the moment of conception. And again: What about the baby’s choice?


And you STILL haven’t addressed how this process of a Mach-3 impeachment with NO TIME TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE when it couldn’t realistically get Trump out of office before he was out anyway (go ahead and convince me that the Founding Fathers intended for the impeachment process was intended for “accountability” AFTER the target was OUT OF OFFICE) could possibly be anything OTHER than DEVISIVE. I’m used to more straightforward answers from you than this.

By the way: Not that I’m a fan of conspiracy theories, but what crime did Marjory Taylor Green commit?

7 This is from an earlier post, but: Increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices never showed its ugly head out of any Republican push. I’ll argue to the death that this is a bigger gun.

Because they are going though the same pains we went though as a nation, but we did it in the 1970’s (when CA had huge smog problems), When the population was less than 200 million, where as they have over 1 billion people. As far as BeJing, for reference, take the country of Los Angeles in about the same land area and double it and that’s Bejing. Beijing as more people than the state of New York including the nations largest city, New York City.

But again, you asked why weren’t they using green technologies and I want to point out again…They are.

Why do you say that? I mean, in your head, what does unity look like? If you’re talking about the Impeachment, he has no control over that.

Now maybe you think he should berate the Dems on TV, but again, the trial for his impeachment will make a case for his conviction, or it wont.

Sorry, getting a little lost here… What EO did I defend?

We’re now moving into philosophical/ religious ground and we’re not going to make any headway here. Everything I offer you from this point is based on my subjective observation and yours, though you might try to claim you’re is grounded in objectivity, that being god. Which, you already know my position on god and telling you what I think will probably insult god or your belief in god.

That said, if you want to know my philosophical beliefs from here because you think you can point out how they are flawed without resorting to “god said so” I’m happy to further indulge this conversation, otherwise I can’t see the point.


What does it mean to be human?

Choice? It’s the mother’s choice until the fetus becomes something that we all recognize shares our capacity to experience the world. It is at that point I consider it separate from the mother, not before.
Someday in the distant future, I’d be willing to bet that babies will be gestated outside the human body. I wonder how people will feel about it then?

Trump isn’t being charged with a crime. If the House wants to impeach and hold a trial that is their call. My guess is that they believe they have the evidence they need to convict and will present that evidence at the trial.

If they fire it, which I still highly doubt. Manchin of WV will NEVER, EVER vote for it and they know it. The idea is dead even before it’s written on paper.

Now would the Dems do it if they had a 4 seat majority? That’s a good question and one I won’t speculate on because that’s all it would be.

People have been impeached after leaving office. I’d also argue that the fact that voting on removal is separate from conviction tells us that it was indeed intended to be used after a person left office. Otherwise, all a person would have to do is leave their office the day before the Senate was to take it up.

As far as evidence, you’re still treating this like a crime. Impeachment, as Republicans pointed out so many times during the Russia investigation isn’t a criminal proceeding, it’s a political one. Now they’ve all forgotten what they said 2 years ago.

I think the House managers think they have all the evidence they need.

So, let me start by asking…Does a politician have to commit a crime in your eyes to be removed from their office?

For example, is it against the law for 50 something-year-old married man to be shown having sex with multiple early 20-year-olds if they content?

Now, obviously, I’m not accusing MTG of this, but simply asking, does a person have to commit a crime to be removed from office? Aren’t there outrageous behaviors that could warrant that?

1 Then where’s the evidence that it’s working in Beijing?

2 You’re shifting the question. Why does Biden not have a responsibility to show the unity that he preached after the storming of the Capitol?

3 You de facto defended his EOs on the basis that he doesn’t owe the right unity after he preached it. That was part of my whole argument on the unity issue.

4 Mine is based in science as surely as it is in my religious faith. Human life begins at the moment of conception. The only people I see denying this appear to do so for political reasons. Even people (in large numbers; and in spite of this, Biden doubled down on abortion (in spite of his claimed Catholic faith; ditto Pelosi)) who are generally liberal are starting to realize this is true, and are abandoning support for abortion.

Since you say your position is subjective, let me ask you this: Since you do indeed believe there is a point when a baby in the womb becomes a person and deserves all the moral protections that go with personhood, how, from your admittedly subjective position, do you be sure that you’re on the right side of the division between personhood and not?

To put it another way: If you see an issue that you consider to be a fundamental rights issue (as you do for woman regarding early-pregnancy abortion) and if to support that right you have to take a 2.8% chance (approximately the chance of rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice; 1 in 36) that people will die as a direct result, do you take that chance?

5 In essence, he is. The only valid constitutional reason for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors.
6 In previous posts, you were pretty heavily supporting that “call.” And you still haven’t answered why that call should be made when it couldn’t and can’t accomplish anything that an FBI investigation and (if they successfully obtain the necessary evidence) criminal trial in a court couldn’t accomplish better and a LOT less divisively.

5 That’s what I thought about this last $1.9 trillion “stimulus” package in regard to that same Senator, who was insisting that it needed to be done in a bipartisan way, instead of rammed through by the Dems. Which is what happened. And he voted for it.
6 I’m not sure what you mean by “four seat majority,” when it takes at least five to have a majority at all.

7 I’m curious as to examples, and what happened in regard to them.
8 Leaving office before being impeached is exactly what Nixon did. And no impeachment was felt to be necessary.
9 So were you. You were talking “insurrection;” and again, impeachment of the President is for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
10 Then why the Mach 3 railroad and nothing but “Trump is guilty!” to the people?

11 So far as I can tell: Yes; they do have to commit a crime (which, by the way, is why Clinton was impeached; not for illicit sex, but for lying under oath about it).

In the example of the adulterous fifty-year-old man, he should resign. Which is exactly what Clinton did not do.

For speaking crackpot beliefs? No. If that were the case, then Alexandria Ocasio Cortez should have been run out of Congress on a rail.

You’re moving the goalpost. Your original question

They are employing it in their own country. More than any other country.

Why isn’t it working?

They are a nation of 1.3 billion people about 4 times as many people as the US. They are at least a generation or more behind the US socially and were as little as 30 years ago widely considered a third world country. The measure of their success will be in 20-40 years compared to the US. Given their advancement as a nation (despite how we feel about their government) they have come farther and faster than any other nation of their size in the modern era.

Can you say you are aware of the entirety of what he has said and done? Do you look for stories of Biden talking about unity?

Why are you only focused on the negative? Hmmmm?

That said, how exactly would you quantify something like this? I mean, in his interviews is he calling members of the Republican party childish names? Is he making baseless allegations of Republicans conspiring with foreign nations to undermine America? Is he telling people that Republicans will destroy America?

Oh, wait, that’s stuff the former President did, but you’re upset because this President isn’t working harder to undo the disgusting rhetoric of the last one? Pretty hard for me to be hard on Biden at this point given the free pass Trump got from people like you, who, I know won’t claim to like him, but looked the other way while he did some of the pretty awful crap that he did.

And that means at the moment the sperm and the egg fertilize if it’s stopped, that’s murder?

I don’t agree. “Life” may begin at conception, but experience begins later and that’s the line I’d draw when considering abortion.

If an intruder broke into the home of a hypothetical person and stabbed a child to death, we’d call that murder and potentially give that person the death penalty.

Now let’s say a person were to intentionally destroy a week after inception against the mother’s wishes (if such a thing were possible).

Should they get the death penalty in your eyes? Is the tiny pea size embryo no different in your eyes a 12-year-old child?

I want to point out that your position is also subjective, despite your claims to the contrary. At least until you can verifiably prove the God of Christianity exists and he makes the claims you say.

As far as the division between personhood or not, those are choices. For that matter, how do we make any of the choices we make?

The decision to accept an edict like “thou shalt not steal”, is a choice. you either accept it or you don’t. If you don’t you’ll find that others around you will either harm you, incarcerate you or remove you from the “group” (whatever the group is).

See, if I understand you, you think that your rights are god-given. I don’t, I think your rights are extended to you by those around you.

Let’s say that you and I belonged to a group that thought stealing was ok.

I would try to convince the group that stealing is bad and I’d list all of the social consequences for stealing and how they are bad for the individual and for the group.

You might agree, but, again if I may, you might cite god and his commandments.

Now, what’s more, compelling a god we can’t see taste touch or feel who will deal consequences, consequences that a person can avoid if they repent, after death. Or the consequences that arise from our everyday experience?

So I make the choice grounded in the real tangible experience of humans. Once a baby begins to experience the world and can perceive suffering, then killing the baby causes real, quantifiable harm. And btw, I think there is also harm that can come to a mother who makes the choice to abort which is why I’d support both before and after counseling for anyone considering or having had an abortion. The twist is that counseling would have to come from a neutral party whose interest was in the mother. I think that some abortions could be avoided as many are based in fear of money and a lack of knowledge of resources available to people who lack the means to care for a child.

Mopving on…Lets say a woman is murdered who is trying to get pregnant, by your description, isn’t the murdered guilty of killing the unborn would-be child? After all, if he hadn’t killed her she would have had children? If killing a collection of cells that will become a human as we recognize it is murder, can’t you go back even further?

How is that different than any other elective surgery? They all come with risks, right?

We can agree to disagree here, but “Crimes and Misdemeanors” does not mean a federal crime.


There was no federal statute under which to prosecute people when that line was written into the Constitution.

And again, I can think of many egregious and distasteful examples you’d have to admit weren’t impeachable because while being awful and disgusting, aren’t crimes. Clearly a morally reprehensible act that isn’t illegal can still be acted on by Congress.

Again, the investigation into what? Most of what we know is public. For the rest, we call people before Congress and swear under the penalty of perjury to answer questions about events that lead up to the event.

Why do you need an investigation for that?

That said, how do we know there aren’t investigations ongoing? Has this question been asked and confirmed? Do you know there aren’t any FBI or other Federal agencies investigating?

When Newsmax anchor walks out on you, you’ve hit a new low.