Omni

I have no authority to get him ousted from anywhere. There is no valid proof that "dead man walking" affected the vote in any way. And as Wilber has already pointed out, if there was 3 million dead people voting, a majority of them would likely have chose Trump. He is just continuing to bitch about the pop. vote because of his narcissistic character.

As I said, it depends on why they didn't pass the screening, and whether or not they have a valid argument for a review.

France didn't want a far right extremest who's anti-Europe policies would likely have led the country to bankruptcy. That's a big part of why she lost.

I fail to see the merits of your post. You certainly can be deported from Canada, depending on why you didn't pass the screening, or, if you commit a criminal offence after passing it. And you can't vote until you become a citizen.

Yes we all recall that, and then he gets appointed to the bench. It somehow doesn't surprise me he has been investigated twice for conflict of interest charges.

Oh yes, we know, they know, the evidence was quite clear. Even BC didn't go beyond saying that the "dead man voting" thing may have possibly included a number of votes you could on your fingers.

It sounds like you are under some kind of illusion that you can vote in this country before you even get to the screening process for entry.

Ok so if you want to play the politics game, I can assume then that conservatives would simply do away with the rights of the accused. The fact is, once you study it a bit, the bill could actually cause more of the danger you speak of, but the bias from the outset would prefer to ignore that, since it doesn't fit the bias.

You don't see the blatant bias in the title?

Well that interpretation caused it to fail. Back to the drawing board I guess.

It's not the judge who is saying it, it's the bill.

The way S-217 is written, evidence of prior arrests and convictions IS required. The time that would take may well amount to denial of a speedy trial and defendant is back on the street.

Ah nope, that's not what we're talking about, and that's the problem with the bill. It's not just faxing a file to a courtroom, it requires evidence to verify the contents of the file and that is where the major slow down would occur, and that's how more bail seekers would end up on the street, rather than less.

Just listened to the proceedings at the 9th circuit. My odds are on the injunction will stand. Any takers?

We do. And I would remind you that hate crimes don't have to be violent to qualify.

That's because they had more time to study the politics.

Oh so if you're impressed by numbers and deeds, look at Christianity.

I think you're good to go.

Correct.

Well perhaps we are getting somewhere, you understand there actually is a sit down and chat. You should have one with Argus.

On a bit of a Germany binge tonight are we?

How about obstruction of justice or treason? You've heard those are impeachable offenses right?

It is amazing how people who seem to be hard core anti immigration, can so blatantly attempt to pretend there is no screening process in place, when a quick google search shows otherwise. Anything for a phony scare tactic among that crowd it seems.

Oh, you didn't like my answer.

Then anyone with any sense will think Trump hired the guy he knew would "find nothing".