ILikePie5

Says you and your sock puppet? Your credentials are...

The false equivalence here is pretending that what Biden allegedly did is even worthy of being listed in the same sentence as any of the things Trump did for which you have no issue.

If it’s ok for a president to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent and to incite a mob to attack the US Capitol, then this is fine too. I mean it’s not like he committed the grave sin of lying about a blow job or anything.

So u think if he was guarding property and someone tried something that he wouldn't have done anything provocative enough to instigate an altercation?

If he did anything significant it was a recipe for someone gettin shot.  I guess u acknowledge he's just a stupid kid so maybe u r right he's not complete culpable for his portion of death. But if he's not culpable for being an instigator he's at least culpable for poor judgement

Even if it's self defense y'all r basically just saying it's OK that he went there to shoot people. 

Don't pretend that's not ur position cause its the only plausible position u could argue

one of the main reasons he went there was to protect property. he testified that he knew lethal force isnt allowed to protect property... so what he was intending was if he had to, to wait for an attack on himself and then shoot people. 

It amuses me that you can be so virulently opposed to British colonists but not to the Spanish, Portuguese and other colonists that brutally raped and pillaged while forming what is now the US.

Why does it take 8 years to learn how to use the FBI to destroy your enemies? Biden has done it on day one. And Biden isn't exactly considered a stable genius.

Even from the 37 percenters.

If the hypocrisy wasn’t so bold, so in your face, so shameless, and so ridiculous, I would be happy to engage in the conversation.

You have a man who bragged about invading the dressing rooms of teenagers as your avatar, I’m really not interested.

Who cares?

Lol, remember that the Government got paid by the cereal lobby to push fake science with the "food pyramid."

It's a matter of historical record. Russel Brand has a lot of documentaries about the food pyramid scam that led to a nation of fatties that eventually died from Covid.

Do you trust the government to keep you healthy?

Remind me again which president removed SALT welfare for the rich?

Democrats have been "taxing the rich" for 50 years and haven't managed to do it yet.

It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead - specifically the prescribed constitutional punishment of preventing them from serving in office again doesn’t apply and tarnishing their reputation is not a legally recognized punishment, let alone a constitutional one.  b.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people - which it doesn’t. Dead people can’t be charged or tried in criminal cases: and interpretation of language for impeachment doesn’t suddenly reverse that - any more that the suggestion that extending the insider trading act to include current and former employees of a company - would magically extend to dead people.

The fact that you’re still beating this dead horse is even more absurd: and frankly, I don’t know which is worse at this point - believing it or not believing it.

Seems clear that any former officer is not impeachable, nor triable in a case of impeachment, nor, certainly, anyone who is dead, whether they died in office, or not. If they died in office, they have been removed from office, and are no longer eligible to hold a subsequent office, so all that impeachment and trial can do has been accomplished by other means. This clearly makes impeachment a political, not a legal act.

It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead c.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people. Given that the premise that the person a punitive process is designed to punish must be alive, is so generally obvious that one would not expect it to need to be explicit, no? 

Hence the question - do you believe this absurd straw man, or do you know it’s an absurd straw man, in which case why on earth did you go for something so absurd?

No its not - as I keep explaining; you’re just making this up, and frankly is so stupid I’m trying to figure out for either a.) why you believe something so stupid or b.) why you would troll with something so stupid.

Again, as I have explained (and you have dodged 3 times now) - firstly: the motivation of covering former officials via impeachment is to prevent them serving in public office - which doesn’t apply to dead people. Meaning that arguing this is what he’s saying is absurdly ridiculous.

Secondly: the idea that one must leap to the conclusion that allowing impeachment of former officials must definitely also apply or would encourage people to apply this to dead individuals for which no punishment can be exacted - is also absurdly ridiculous. 

It’s an obvious and colossal straw man which you still haven’t explained other than to reiterate the same straw man.

Specifically, and I’ll repeat again: on what basis do you think extending a legal process to apply to those no longer in office - I would also make it apply to those who are dead; considering that a) dead people don’t fit the rationale and b) no legal process of punishment extends to people who are dead.

Yeah of course these are off year elections with a Dem President but these results are just embarrassing. These were both Biden double digit states. The fact that R’s can win Trumps rural margins without him on the ballot while also clawing back some Dem gains in the suburbs is massive and bodes extremely poorly for Dems. Losing once and barely winning a second time against Donald Trump should have been a giant warning sign as well. People really, really hate the woke freaks

No, not really. The implication is dumb, and I genuinely don't know whether you actually believe it, or whether you don’t believe it and are saying it in order to troll: regardless of which it is, you’re reply is a comprehensive non answer.

Fixed.

Not that I’m surprised I had to, ignoring context is kind of a right wing specialty.

Your avatar is of a man who’s never read it and has demonstrated nothing but contempt for its most basic principals. But go on…

Another respected polling outlet showing Biden posting terrible numbers in deep blue states, this time in New Jersey. 43% approve, 49% disapprove. The state level polls point to a much bleaker picture than the national polls do. Biden needs to find a way to fix this or 2022 is going to be a complete bloodbath