Leaderboard

The left loses their sh1t today. The Jack Smith trial re:J6 is effectively over. Now, we just need some reasonable court to throw out the b.s. lawsuit in NY and the b.s. conviction in NY and we are back to a democratic republic again. For now, tyranny lives. But it's taken a severe blow.

I find it hard to believe that his man, that has been tossed to obscurity, suddenly had the biggest scoop of the 21st century

Jack Smith is just another low life criminal from a Dickens novel.

Only totally uneducated retards quote Politifact. It is NOT factual. It's just far left political, kinda like PMSNBC, CNN, The View or any other far left Nazi rag.

You perverts will say anything to protect that babbling pedophile, won't ya? lol

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Oh how the left lies. Headline: "Teachers who won't teach the Bible will lose their license." Reality, the curriculum calls for teaching how the Bible influenced the founding of the nation. And I'm sure the curriculum also calls for teaching about John Locke and his Natural Rights writings. The headline is designed to feed off the prejudices of the left. This author wants the left to get mad that the right would force teachers to teach the Bible. And they should be mad, if that actually happened. But it won't. Because that isn't how we think.

The fall out from the debate is delicious.

Oh no!!!?? Pride is not sexual! What is the matter with you to suggest otherwise??? LOL The lgbtqrls++ only do themselves harm. Lose credibility and then whine when they do not get it. 100 stabs of indecency... one of the worst cases of sexual suicide LOL

High crimes and misdemeanors means high crimes and misdemeanors, as it always has. Impeachment is now, and has always been, a political process. Literally nothing changed with this ruling, except the wackadoodle left can't be tyrants any more.

I see you've quit being a fish monger to become a fear monger.

It is vastly important. You can't win an election with just money, but not having money can lose you one real fast. Sure, the TV and talk shows that are liberal friendly will be out spreading the word about how great the democrats are and how evil trump is, but that simply just does not replace a powerful and effective media campaign. And those cost money and lots of it. In a tight race it makes all the difference. And there are a lot of swing states where the race is going to be somewhat tight. Not having the cash to flood the airwaves is going to be a major blow. On a side note, I suspect trump's chances of actually going to jail just shot up meteorically.

Fixed it for ya.

No a sitting president cannot just order the assassination of a US citizen

Yet again, you are a victim of your own purposeful ignorance. Read the ruling. Nowhere did any of it allow for the President to order the military to assassinate someone...

Robo-season!

Biggest issue for the DNC is time and money. Unless they choose Kamala Harris they lose all of Bidens campaign funds and have to start from scratch with everything.

Biden lied constantly during the debate. Sometimes he has just being disingenuous, like when he talked about "all the jobs that he created", when it was just jobs coming back after covid, or when he cited the job losses from covid as being directly attributable to basic Trump policies. Then he told bald faced lies like "He just told people to inject a bit of bleach", he told his his lies about Trump's tax cuts, his lies about the border, and when he said [paraphrasing] "Trump referred to people who served in the military as "idi10ts and losers" or whatever the actual quote was. Biden was his own vile, repugnant, brain-addled self, but leftards still like to think of him as capable, honest and caring.

You have no care for being truthful here at all, do you? I mean, none. Just thread after thread, you push lies and then run away.

Didn't robosimp get mad at Trump for listening to Russia/Putin? Now he's listening to Russian propaganda and touting it as the truth.

Somebody forgot to tell CNN and the rest of the schmucks that vote democrat. lol

No other tribe is forcing their s--- down my throat with a funnel, if/when they do it will be time for another cleanup crew. Easy eh? Might be more me's out there than you think, I sure hope so. France is on the verge of a hard right turn, I'm now up for that too and I fear the conservatives aren't going to be conservative enough. Woke has become a four letter word, and the purveyors of it are on the verge of political collapse. Hoping for that to come about is a major change of heart for me, it took a lot of effort to force that change and I still think it was a tactical blunder when all it took to avoid it was nothing. Yes, I can see that. In fact it explains my change of heart. In the absence of a common centre with reasonable parameters (key word being REASONABLE) only voting em down and sending em packing is likely to halt the current levels of stratospheric lunacy. It's a shame to see democracy weaponized and it didn't have to be that way either, but I see no other way to halt the madness. As an aside, I also recognize the down side of that and normally would call it a bad idea, it's why reasonable parameters, tolerance and goodwill are so important. When you see the absence of these values (as you do here) it causes people to fear the outcome of elections that go against them. That fear, in and of itself is bad for democracy IMO. It serves as an inducement to strife, lasting resentments and I would argue that it's relatively easy to avoid simply by returning tolerance and goodwill in like manner.

You are melting down today there bot boy. Maybe it's time to update your programming? Thomas wrote: "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone authorized to do so by the American people."

It's not a good idea to take onions into court, also minions only appear in movies.

Donnie declassified the docs. Jack Smith is illegitimate as he wasn't approved by congress therefore he's probably gonna end up in jail

If Presidents or other cabinet members could be held accountable legally for their decisions, the whole business of government would fall apart. Think about Pearl Harbour, for instance: should Roosevelt have been charged with lying to the public and death of 3500 or so in the attack? (worth remembering that US could and DID translate almost every encoded transmission by the Japanese Navy for many months before Dec 42), For that matter decisions by other Presidents to send troops into Vietnam where the US had no real business in being there? I would love to see the entire cabinet accountable for the incredible level of greed and criminality involved in the whole system of money coming and going via favour and privilege granted by government, and think that SHOULD be done, but hard to draw the line on where doing things by cabinet decree becomes criminal vs. expedient politics. Above all else: the US Constitution was upheld, and that is very much the duty of the SCOTUS to support. Wish we actually had such a piece of legislation.

In the end, your extreme exaggerations here, make you worse than anything Trump says.

Perhaps what you call push, I call noise. I want quiet in all aspects of public life for awhile. So we can focus on making things better for individuals and families.

Ok...prove he lied to win an election. Go ahead.

I don't know how many different ways to point out that the measure used is inadequate to understanding the growth of the public service. But I will point out that the baseline year chosen was deliberate since it was as the Conservatives were reducing the size of the public service. In 2015 when Trudeau took over there were 257k public servants There are now 357k public servants Here's the official statistics. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service.html

I said the Elections Act didn't exist!?! 🤣 Oooookay. Everyone knows CdnFox knows, the best and most convincing lies are the ones that are too shockingly stupid for anyone to possibly believe. Take a clown-bow. You really outdid yourself here.

Fine I will go back and continue to repeat facts while you continue to pretend Bush V Gore is the exact sam as trumps ongoing attempt to steal the election. I have to tell you I have limited appetite to spend my preconceived free time on endless internet arguments with strangers that just go around and around The problem isn’t you quoting the RULING the problem is your claim that the existing law says things that it doesn’t say. To be clear Kavanaugh didn’t simply look up ehat the existing law clearly says. He applies his own novel interpretation of it. This is the interpretation that Kavanaugh has created. It’s not written in any existing law as your previous post seem to suggest. Since you want quotes here is the dissenting opinion: We took this case to resolve “[w]hether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.” Pet. for Cert. I. The majority today answers no, when the answer to that question should be an unequivocal yes. To reach the right conclusion we need not march through various auxiliary analyses: We can begin—and end—with only the text. See National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, 127 (2018). We “understan[d] that Congress says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). By its plain terms, §666 imposes criminal penalties on state, local, and tribal officials who “corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded.” §666(a)(1)(B). Use of the term “influenced” captures quid pro quo bargains struck before an official act is taken—and therefore bribes—as everyone agrees. Brief for Petitioner 17; Brief for United States 21; cf. Sun-Diamond, 526 U. S., at 404–405. The term “rewarded” easily covers the concept of gratuities paid to corrupt officials after the fact—no upfront agreement necessary. Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells us about what it means to be rewarded. A “reward” is “[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or received,” including “that which is offered or given for some service or attainment.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957). The verb form of the word is no different. To “reward” means “to . . . recompense.” Ibid. (defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a reward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recompense; repay”). Both definitions thus encompass payment in recognition of an action that an official has already taken or committed to taking. And neither requires there to be some beforehand agreement about that exchange, i.e., a quid pro quo…..See Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U. S. 142, 150 (2023) (“ ‘[W]e cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent’ ”). … Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” Crucially, no one disputes that when it was initially enacted, §666 prohibited both bribes and gratuities. Ante, at 4. Similarly significant (though unmentioned by the majority), Congress imposed the same 10-year maximum term of imprisonment for a violation then as it does now. See §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II); cf. ante, at 14 (describing it as “unfathomable that Congress would authorize a 10-year criminal sentence for gifts to 19 million state and local officials” without federal guidance).  Starting with this historical disadvantage regarding the scope of the statute, the majority must show that Congress made major changes to §666 that might account for the sans-gratuity interpretation the majority adopts today. But several features of the statutory and legislative history convince me of the opposite.  For one, Congress said that it was not making major changes to the statute. The 1986 revisions to §666 were part of a package of changes that Congress specifically deemed “technical and minor.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 16 (1986); see also Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3592. And the revisions themselves are largely in keeping with this characterization. Relevant here, Congress teased out a “corruptly” mens rea requirement and swapped the previous “for or because of ” language for the current “intending to be influenced or rewarded” phrasing. Id., at 3613. None of this, on its face, evinces clear congressional intent to extract an entire category of previously covered illicit payments from §666. … I could go on, but let’s recap: 1) Your insinuation that the Kavanaugh was simply looking up and then relaying existing written law without providing any opinion or interpretation as if he was a co-op student is incorrect amd not what Supreme Court cases are about . His ruling was his interpretation of the existing law not his recitation of that. 2) The reasoning he provided for his interpretation of the law is easily dismantled by the dissenting opinion. The idea that congress intentionally decided not to limit the amount of rewards that federally-funded officials could receive from people and interests they have authority over even if in the millions is absurd 3) Everyone know that quid pro quo arrangements are are easily circumvented with a wink amd a nod and indirect communications and to suggest lawmakers didn’t limit that is also absurd 4) Does anyone believe that America is better off with these cash rewards now legally payable to public officials? Who other than republicans like Thomas who are constantly on the take suports that? I bet that makes you giggle. Being a brownshirt thug is your fantasy

Back to the original question, I remembered a few more. He lied when he said that no soldiers died on his watch. It's like he completely forgot about Afghanistan. Trump was also right that Biden was completely wrong when he said that Israel wanted a ceasefire. Trump said no they don't want a ceasefire, they want to get the job done and we should let them. And you're getting in the way. And that is very true.

So...about the same as our msm. Got it.

I have more credibility than your uneducated Nazi ass. There are downs syndrome kids who would score higher on college SATs than you would. And OBAMA is the one who created and armed ISIS. Crawl back under your rock, TROLL.

Is this real? What the F*ck. I think it is time to treat all citizens equal now. If these bunch were heterosexual march then there would have been lots of arrests.

LOL, do you really believe this stuff or is it just a game for you to come on here and try to spread such obvious BS?

The later for sure. Lying about extra marital sex is a given. Lying about whether or not someone died as a result of your command is disgraceful.

There is no PROOF that Trump banged that skanky porn star. EVERYTHING Trump said about UNELECTED JOE is a fact. The only LIAR was Joe.

Says the guy who goes on for 10 pages trying to demand that 100 - 50 isn't 50 or something similar every time we talk, and then chases me all over the forum desperately trying to pick a fight he thinks he can win. You are so obsessed that you just tried to declare a huge moral victory over a typo Kiddo. The only person here who finds our talks a 'mortal conflict' is you Your ego absolutely shatters every time you wind up being wrong, which is every time we talk. Trying to declare victory over a typo pretty much proves that

ROFLMAO - that's all you've got? I typed 2020 instead of 2021 and you feel all proud of yourself now? LOLOL!!! Sure kid - there you go. There's your big victory you've been shooting for! You managed to outwit me into making a minor typo LOLOLOL Now you can look at yourself in the mirror again after all those beatings LOL - what a broken little person you are. But i have to admit i actually laughed out loud for a bit at that one

As a Canadian (no dog in this fight), I have noted the same.

The main difference is god doesn't think he's a prophet

Does anyone in here NOT think that it's Obama and his team that's really in charge? It isn't Joe making the big policy decisions.

On the subject of lies: AP: False claims made during the debate

I kinda feel bad for Joe just because dementia is a terrible disease for the person and everyone around them. Normally in that case the family would step in and get them some help. Take away the keys and unplug the stove for the safety of them and others. Democrats, however, have given him access to the nuclear codes. Wild times

No - I think the point stands that the person who started this publication is involved in this group and the group originates from China out of a health cult. They used to (probably still do) hand out leaflets on the street. They are indeed persecuted by China's government but two wrongs doesn't make a right. I maintain that if people feel it's ok to try to associate individual crimes with immigration without mooring it to statistics, trends or what not then it's more than ok to examine who is behind foreign influence in the media, the type of people they are, and who they're supporting.

2016 Democrats losing their shit because Trump won: I mean, it goes on and on and on. ‘Not Our President’: Protests Spread After Donald Trump’s Election And some of those protests got violent. But that doesn't matter because they are on your side, right? Its only when the right does it that it becomes reprehensible.