I would like to be "fed by ... right wing news outlets". Which ones are considered to be such?

sleeper;1853300 wrote:Good to know. I voted for for Hillary. Sorry you have a guilty conscience about being complicit in the election and sustained support of Donald Trump.

Why would I have a guilty conscience? Hillary won my state.

sleeper;1853197 wrote:I'm a moderate.

I believe that you believe this. I'm curious what it is that makes you call yourself a moderate. Would you mind articulating what puts you in the middle as opposed to on either end?

iclfan2;1853206 wrote:And you clearly don't know what treason is or what laws are.

I do think that, perhaps, the law should be changed, but as it stands, it is technically legal for a president to do this without violating any law, which precludes him from being charged, at least as I understand it.

Give him time, though. Baron Cheeto von Tinyhands will do something that gives enough ammunition to impeach.

CenterBHSFan;1853279 wrote:Gary Johnson is a flaky little biscuit, to be sure. Still better than either Trump or Hillary. I voted for him out of pure distaste for the alternatives. I own it. Would vote the same again if I had to do it all over again.

Same here. Did the same in the last election, too. I don't care for Johnson, and he has a few views that I think are frankly antithetical to the Libertarian platform, but he was the best option, as far as I'm concerned.

isadore;1853288 wrote:gosh a ruddies. you voted for him and elected Donald. Thank you for putting us where we are to today.

This logic is equitable to believing that nominating Clinton, a candidate easily vilified, was the reason Tinyhands won. The people who voted for Trump are the people who put him in office. Not the people who nominated or voted for others.

gut;1853321 wrote:Why would I have a guilty conscience? Hillary won my state.

Ouch.

isadore;1853316 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, obviously I am replying to someone whose opinions are fed by what he consumes from right wing news outlets that play to your prejudices. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, probably already a lost soul even before you started consuming that excrement. And how do I know? Based on what you write. You could look at the careers, actions and statements of Hillary and Donald, then decide Donald was more deserving of your support. You helped elect a man who is an existential threat to the survival of our nation. Our enemies thank you.

Written by a man (two men, considering your always changing alter ego) who gets his opinions from listening to Rachel Madcow, Mean Ed and PMSNBC.

BTW, as written above, I did not vote for Trump.......reading IS fundamental.

wkfan;1853294 wrote:Trouble was, could not vote for Trump either, so I didn't. Wrote in someone else.

So no one here voted for Trump? Right...

I hear they are still looking for people who voted for Nixon.

I believe that you believe this. I'm curious what it is that makes you call yourself a moderate. Would you mind articulating what puts you in the middle as opposed to on either end?

I don't believe the government is a solution to all of our problems. I think we do have a lot of unnecessary regulations that harm businesses. I think our corporate tax rate is too high but horribly written to benefit corporations. I affirm the rights of those to bear arms despite wanting to increase background checks. I think Obama made some mistakes and was not the perfect President. I believe HRC made some mistakes and was not the perfect candidate. I believe we do have a problem with illegal immigration.

The biggest turn off for the GOP is they cater to the delusional religious base and right now they enable and support Donald Trump. I may never vote Republican again because of this and will continue to allocate my money to those who will uphold the constitution and American values; which just happen to be mostly Democrats at this point.

Con_Alma;1853317 wrote:I would like to be "fed by ... right wing news outlets". Which ones are considered to be such?

Fox News. Breitbart. Pretty good place to start if you want to filtered propaganda from the Republican party.

wkfan;1853328 wrote:Written by a man (two men, considering your always changing alter ego) who gets his opinions from listening to Rachel Madcow, Mean Ed and PMSNBC.

BTW, as written above, I did not vote for Trump.......reading IS fundamental.

Gosh a ruddies! Only had 1 persona on the whole time I have been registered at the site.
You should learn to read more carefully.

isadore wrote:And the total of all Hillary's faults comes nowhere near the obvious threat posed by the Donald as revealed in his election campaign.

wkfan wrote: Disagree with this.......if only given two choices, I would have had to pull the lever for Trump.

Which lead me to write

isadore wrote: Based on what you write. You could look at the careers, actions and statements of Hillary and Donald, then decide Donald was more deserving of your support

I never wrote you voted for Trump, but your failure to vote for Hillary helped elect Donald.

sleeper;1853332 wrote:I don't believe the government is a solution to all of our problems. I think we do have a lot of unnecessary regulations that harm businesses. I think our corporate tax rate is too high but horribly written to benefit corporations. I affirm the rights of those to bear arms despite wanting to increase background checks. I think Obama made some mistakes and was not the perfect President. I believe HRC made some mistakes and was not the perfect candidate. I believe we do have a problem with illegal immigration.

The biggest turn off for the GOP is they cater to the delusional religious base and right now they enable and support Donald Trump. I may never vote Republican again because of this and will continue to allocate my money to those who will uphold the constitution and American values; which just happen to be mostly Democrats at this point.

Some of that was a little vague, but that's fair. In the event that this is true, you are certainly not completely toeing the party line. I even agree with a little bit of it.

I'm still not sure I'd call you this moderate, but you're definitely not an extreme liberal or socialist.

isadore;1853336 wrote:I never wrote you voted for Trump, but your failure to vote for Hillary helped elect Donald.

Again, this is like saying the DNC helped elect Tinyhands by nominating Clinton.

It's not sound logic, either way. And no matter how many different election cycles it's used (the Republicans were blaming third-party voters and non-voters during the Romney/Obama election), it won't be.

O-Trap wrote: This logic is equitable to believing that nominating Clinton, a candidate easily vilified, was the reason Tinyhands won. The people who voted for Trump are the people who put him in office. Not the people who nominated or voted for others.

Gosh a ruddies, wrong. Before the nominating conventions people were completely free to select among the candidates completely for their support or even to stay out of the process. But the nomination of Donald Trump to the Presidency of our nation presented such a great existential threat to our representative democracy and even our survival as a nation, citizen were required to act.
Anyone who did not vote for Hillary Clinton failed in their duty to our nation. If they voted for a third party candidate, if they chose not to register or to vote, if they voted for Donald because they hated Hillary, all failed our nation. 65, 853, 516 adult American citizens did our duty.

isadore;1853285 wrote:To claim not to see this, a person must be evil, completely deluded or moronic. Please pick one or more of these 3 choices as is personally applicable.

You can call me evil.

O-Trap;1853338 wrote:Again, this is like saying the DNC helped elect Tinyhands by nominating Clinton.

It's not sound logic, either way. And no matter how many different election cycles it's used (the Republicans were blaming third-party voters and non-voters during the Romney/Obama election), it won't be.

Gosh a ruddies, no. Through his previous career and the election campaign he had revealed himself as the least qualified and most dangerous candidate ever offered by a major political party as a candidate for the Presidency. Voters were offered an alternative in the general election, too many chose not to vote for that alternative.

O-Trap;1853337 wrote:Some of that was a little vague, but that's fair. In the event that this is true, you are certainly not completely toeing the party line. I even agree with a little bit of it.

I'm still not sure I'd call you this moderate, but you're definitely not an extreme liberal or socialist.

???

Vague? I am the only one on here that is able to update my views with new data and I've proven that given my post history. Let me know when you want to be unbiaed and objective rather than circle jerk complicity by voting 3rd party.

CenterBHSFan;1853344 wrote:You can call me evil.

gosh a ruddies, after reading so many of your posts I was betting on a combination of the second and third choices.

[FONT=&quot]Sharing classified information with Russia that risks jeopardizing a key tool in the fight against ISIS would seem to be a uniquely galvanizing event for the pro-impeachment crowd.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And the Lawfare blog recapped the legal case for it late Monday, pointing to the Presidential Oath of Office. This is a lot of info, but it's well worth a read:[/FONT]
[INDENT]If the President gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office. As Quinta and Ben have elaborated on in some detail, in taking the oath President Trump swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to &#8220reserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of President.[/INDENT][INDENT]Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law — just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.[/INDENT][INDENT]Congress has alleged oath violations — albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations — all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents: against Andrew Johnson (“unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office&#8221, Richard Nixon (“contrary to his oath&#8221, and Bill Clinton (“in violation of his constitutional oath&#8221. Further, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President, which, like the President putting the nuclear codes on Twitter, is an offense that can only be committed by the President and has thus never been explicitly prohibited in criminal law.[/INDENT][INDENT]There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the President’s oath as a stand-alone basis for impeachment — a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself. This is particularly plausible in a case like this, where the oath violation involves giving sensitive information to an adversary foreign power. That’s getting relatively close to the “treason” language in the impeachment clauses; it’s pretty easy to imagine a hybrid impeachment article alleging a violation of the oath in service of a hostile foreign power. So legally speaking, the matter could be very grave for Trump even though there is no criminal exposure.[/INDENT][FONT=&quot]It's not hard to imagine Democrats reading that and getting very enthused about impeachment.

I know this is from an article in the Washington Post so it is probably irrelevant. I just thought it was an interesting take on the ramifications of this event.[/FONT]

sleeper;1853332 wrote:The biggest turn off for the GOP is they cater to the delusional religious base and right now they enable and support Donald Trump. I may never vote Republican again because of this and will continue to allocate my money to those who will uphold the constitution and American values; which just happen to be mostly Democrats at this point.

This if funny. Very funny. But let me ask you a few questions...

1.) Is there only one state-sponsored church in this country?
2.) Does US law require you to learn, study and live by the Bible or any other book of faith?
3.) Are you forced by law to tithe?
4.) Which democrat "leader" has very recently supported the idea that free speech should be curtailed or silenced altogether?
5.) Is free speech an American value?
6.) Name me five democrats in DC who uphold American values, while at the same time isn't insane by the fact that Trump is the President?
(I'll help you out with this, you cannot list Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, Waters and Warren)

CenterBHSFan;1853354 wrote:This if funny. Very funny. But let me ask you a few questions...

1.) Is there only one state-sponsored church in this country?
2.) Does US law require you to learn, study and live by the Bible or any other book of faith?
3.) Are you forced by law to tithe?
4.) Which democrat "leader" has very recently supported the idea that free speech should be curtailed or silenced altogether?
5.) Is free speech an American value?
6.) Name me five democrats in DC who uphold American values, while at the same time isn't insane by the fact that Trump is the President?
(I'll help you out with this, you cannot list Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, Waters and Warren)

I'm not interested in playing your curated games. I don't find you to be the least bit intelligent or interesting and I don't value our exchanges on this forum.

You're not as bad as QO; I'll give you that much.

ppaw1999;1853353 wrote:[FONT=&amp]Sharing classified information with Russia that risks jeopardizing a key tool in the fight against ISIS would seem to be a uniquely galvanizing event for the pro-impeachment crowd.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]And the Lawfare blog recapped the legal case for it late Monday, pointing to the Presidential Oath of Office. This is a lot of info, but it's well worth a read:[/FONT][INDENT]If the President gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office. As Quinta and Ben have elaborated on in some detail, in taking the oath President Trump swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to &#8220reserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of President.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law — just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Congress has alleged oath violations — albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations — all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents: against Andrew Johnson (“unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office&#8221, Richard Nixon (“contrary to his oath&#8221, and Bill Clinton (“in violation of his constitutional oath&#8221. Further, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President, which, like the President putting the nuclear codes on Twitter, is an offense that can only be committed by the President and has thus never been explicitly prohibited in criminal law.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]There’s thus no reason why Congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the President’s oath as a stand-alone basis for impeachment — a high crime and misdemeanor in and of itself. This is particularly plausible in a case like this, where the oath violation involves giving sensitive information to an adversary foreign power. That’s getting relatively close to the “treason” language in the impeachment clauses; it’s pretty easy to imagine a hybrid impeachment article alleging a violation of the oath in service of a hostile foreign power. So legally speaking, the matter could be very grave for Trump even though there is no criminal exposure.[/INDENT]
[FONT=&amp]It's not hard to imagine Democrats reading that and getting very enthused about impeachment.

I know this is from an article in the Washington Post so it is probably irrelevant. I just thought it was an interesting take on the ramifications of this event.[/FONT]

It doesn't matter. The GOP is okay with this and they currently own both branches of Congress.

sleeper;1853355 wrote:I'm not interested in playing your curated games. I don't find you to be the least bit intelligent or interesting and I don't value our exchanges on this forum.

You're not as bad as QO; I'll give you that much.

In other words, you can't answer any of those questions with an honest answer that will support your claims.

isadore;1853336 wrote:Gosh a ruddies! Only had 1 persona on the whole time I have been registered at the site.
You should learn to read more carefully.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........

isadore;1853336 wrote:Which lead me to write
[/FONT]
I never wrote you voted for Trump, but your failure to vote for Hillary helped elect Donald.

That line of discourse is really a non-starter as that can be said about both candidates.

CenterBHSFan;1853358 wrote:In other words, you can't answer any of those questions with an honest answer that will support your claims.

Why would I bother? You don't have the intellectual capacity to form independent thoughts and any answer I give you will twist into whatever agenda helps you sleep at night. It doesn't matter; I don't value the conversations with you; you are what we call a "useful idiot". Sorry!

sleeper;1853355 wrote:my fraud act can't come up with a legitimate response to legitimately tough questions that don't fit the narrative of my fraud act

Pretty much.

sleeper;1853333 wrote:Fox News. Breitbart. Pretty good place to start if you want to filtered propaganda from the Republican party.

...more interested in right wing than party filter. Thanks for the direction though.

sleeper;1853362 wrote:Why would I bother? You don't have the intellectual capacity to form independent thoughts and any answer I give you will twist into whatever agenda helps you sleep at night. It doesn't matter; I don't value the conversations with you; you are what we call a "useful idiot". Sorry!

You don't like my answers so you equate your dislike down to 1.) can't form an independent thought 2.) I twist your answers 3.) I'm stupid

Okay!