ILikePie5

lol so the difference between your ancestors and the current illegal immigrants is your ancestors murdered the people who already lived here and stole the land. The current illegal immigrants just want a chance to live here with the current inhabitants. I guess it is a false equivalency, your ancestors are much worse. 

those 2 things have nothing to do with each other. Immigrants increase the tax base, increasing tax revenue and making it easier to take care of homeless and the veterans. 

I have no idea why people on the right argue we can't spend money doing something good because there is some other good thing we could do. The answer is really simple, put taxes at a reasonable level and then do both. 

virtually everyone is descended from immigrants means that I support slavery. 

Basically, both republicans and establishment democrats actively screw over the poor because they are bought and paid for corporatists. 

So you are fine with large sectors of the american economy collapsing?

It certainly doenst roll off the tongue yeah, but it still seems like it would work better than a Biden/Sanders ticket or a Biden/Clinton ticket XD 

Liar. You can twist it any way you want, it is a lie. Democrats will always care for the poor infinitely more than Republicans, it's an absolute fact.

Standing OLC opinion and practice dictates that presidents may not be indicted.

it's that Mueller *did* find crimes contrary to what ethang5 claims.

The Constitution—not Congress—created the Office of the President. Congress, accordingly, cannot require the President to disclose his finances or otherwise expand or alter the office's qualifications. Yet the D.C. Circuit never should have reached these issues because the Committee lacks express statutory authorization to subpoena the President. 

An express statement from the Court should be required given the separation-of-powers issues that are raised by unleashing every committee to subpoena every president for his personal records. This Court traditionally grants certiorari when the President has been subjected to novel legal process and seeks review. The Court has recognized that the President’s objections merit “respectful and deliberate consideration.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 689-90(1997). This approach is not out of concern for any“particular President,” but for the sake of “the Presidency itself.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392,2418 (2018). This case should be no exception.

No normal person refuses to uses the 2nd person in a typical back and forth dialogue.

I think Schumer meant "pay the price" literally, in it's actual dictionary sense rather than one of it's many possible figurative senses.  Just as sometimes (most times) when the Boss says he has to terminate an employee, he does not mean he intends to kill that employee, Schumer meant that Republicans would incur the negative consequences of overturning abortion (and in the next sentence identified those consequences as electoral failure in November) and did not mean that he intends to kill Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

On the plus side, we can lay that "money controls politics" myth to bed.

why would that happen?

I meant that if Bernie loses legitimately, does that kill the progressive movement in your party off? Because getting robbed just pissed you guys off and probably strengthened that movement. Seems like this would take off momentum.

What do you think will happen if:

a) Sanders gets robbed again

b) Sanders loses legitimately

(in terms of the future of the party)