On 02-12-21 17:20, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to All about Dems Gain What? <=-
This impeachment #2 is wrong because Trump's no longer in office. Now
it's just Democrats telling 49% of America who they can't vote for in 2024.
Who are they to ban our candidate? We should ban Bill Clinton from
running in 2024. His lack of professionalism and lack of compassion for 1/2 of Rwanda would be 2 very good reasons, plus the repeat visits to Epstein Island.
When we're done messing with the old man, we'll have to figure out a
way to take a whack at Obama's eligibility too ;)
This impeachment #2 is wrong because Trump's no longer in office.
Now it's just Democrats telling 49% of America who they can't vote for in 2024.
He was impeached while still in office. He cannot escape trial because
he is no longer in office. There are multiple previous cases where
former officials were tried.
DUH -- Clinton cannot run for President in 2024.
Now it's just Democrats telling 49% of America who they can't vote fo 2024.
That is just not so. Republicans and democrats can vote for the person
of their choosing. But you know that.
Who are they to ban our candidate? We should ban Bill Clinton from running in 2024. His lack of professionalism and lack of compassion for 1/2 of Rwanda would be 2 very good reasons, plus the repeat visits to Epstein Island.
When we're done messing with the old man, we'll have to figure out a way to take a whack at Obama's eligibility too ;)
Democrats are fighting this impeachment simply to deligitimize a 2024 Trump campaign. That's all they stand to gain
but they already lost the battle before they started.
Who are they to ban our candidate? We should ban Bill Clinton from running
in 2024. His lack of professionalism and lack of compassion for 1/2 of
Rwanda would be 2 very good reasons, plus the repeat visits to Epstein
Island.
When we're done messing with the old man, we'll have to figure out a way to >>take a whack at Obama's eligibility too ;)
I sometimes get this confused but since they already served 2 terms I don't
think they are eligible now.
He was impeached while still in office. He cannot escape trial because >DS>he is no longer in office. There are multiple previous cases where >DS>former officials were tried.
Impeachment is reserved for removing elected officials from office.
If an offender has 5 days left of their administration, impeachment is not
viable.
We'll see how good Democrats are at "upholding the law" by the end of today.
DUH -- Clinton cannot run for President in 2024.
We don't know if Biden is going to make an executive order to change term
limits or not. He is already opposed to term limits in Congress.
vote fo AI> AT> 2024.Now it's just Democrats telling 49% of America who they can't
personThat is just not so. Republicans and democrats can vote for the
of their choosing. But you know that.
Democrats are fighting this impeachment simply to deligitimize a 2024 Trump >campaign. That's all they stand to gain, but they already lost the battle >before they started.
On 02-13-21 11:11, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Dems Gain What? <=-
He was impeached while still in office. He cannot escape trial because
he is no longer in office. There are multiple previous cases where
former officials were tried.
Impeachment is reserved for removing elected officials from office. If
an offender has 5 days left of their administration, impeachment is not viable. We'll see how good Democrats are at "upholding the law" by the
end of today.
DUH -- Clinton cannot run for President in 2024.
We don't know if Biden is going to make an executive order to change
term limits or not. He is already opposed to term limits in Congress.
On 02-14-21 04:12, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Dems Gain What? <=-
The 22nd Amendment was intended to limit a president to serving
two *consecutive* terms, but return after sitting out the next term.
Which would make it another first term, with the possibility of
serving another second term.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Impeachment is reserved for removing elected officials from office. I
not allowed to hold federal office again.
The 22nd Amendment was intended to limit a president to serving
two *consecutive* terms, but return after sitting out the next term. Which would make it another first term, with the possibility of serving another second term.
Go back and read it again. It simply says "no person shall be elected
to the office of the President more than twice". Nothing there about
"two consecutive terms".
The republican party is not standing up for America, law and order or the constitution. That will prove to be a problem for them.
Let's say Biden decides to call it a day at the end of his term,
and not to run for re-election. So Obama decides to run for another
first term, which he would easily win in a landslide. He is still
a young guy, and could serve another two terms without any problem.
President Biden is Catholic. Carries a rosary in his pocket.
Every day. Says his prayers. Every night. His most fervent wish
Actually, what you saw was how bad the Republican Senators are at upholding the law. Even McConnell admited that the House managers had proven the facts of their case -- but still voted to not convict.
The republican party is not standing up for America, law and order
or the constitution. That will prove to be a problem for them.
Yea, everybody is a sore loser when they lose in court.
The 22nd Amendment was intended to limit a president to serving
two *consecutive* terms, but return after sitting out the next term.
Which would make it another first term, with the possibility of
serving another second term.
Go back and read it again. It simply says "no person shall be elected
to the office of the President more than twice". Nothing there about
"two consecutive terms".
Yea, everybody is a sore loser when they lose in court.
America lost in this case.
America lost in this case.
1/2 of America is happy with the outcome.
On 02-14-21 10:22, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Dems Gain What? <=-
It was said that the Democrats tried to create evidence as they would quote Trump "up to a certain point" and then deliberately cut off the
rest of what Trump said.
Why? This was done to prove their case and to use Trumps abbreviated
words to try to prove to a totally different meaning. What a Schiff show... Indeed!
This was instantly realized by listening or by reading the entire
sentence or paragraph of what Trump actually said or indicated within
his Jan. 6th speech.
On 02-14-21 11:10, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Dems Gain What? <=-
The 22nd Amendment was intended to limit a president to serving
two *consecutive* terms, but return after sitting out the next term. Which would make it another first term, with the possibility of serving another second term.
Go back and read it again. It simply says "no person shall be elected
to the office of the President more than twice". Nothing there about
"two consecutive terms".
Nice Try.
But here is what it actually says.
This means that DJT can run & if elected he shall be President Elect
in 2024.
term.The 22nd Amendment was intended to limit a president to serving
two *consecutive* terms, but return after sitting out the next
Which would make it another first term, with the possibility of
serving another second term.
Go back and read it again. It simply says "no person shall beelected
to the office of the President more than twice". Nothing there about
"two consecutive terms".
Nice Try.
But here is what it actually says.
22nd Amendment
Primary tabs
Amendment XXII
Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But
this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the
office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
This means that DJT can run & if elected he shall be President Elect in 2024.
It was said that the Democrats tried to create evidence as they would quote Trump "up to a certain point" and then deliberately cut off the rest of what Trump said.
So? They quoted the relevant part where he was getting his audience primed up -- and then deleted the back pedaling part? What they quoted was what he said.
This was done to prove their case and to use Trumps abbreviatedWhy?
words to try to prove to a totally different meaning. What a Schiff show... Indeed!
Words are words, and they mean what was said.
Why do you think that the Jan 6 speech was all there was? He had been
He praised them when plotted to kill the governor.
It should be no surprise to anyone that mob was doing exactly what hewanted and encouraged them to do. They said they were there following Trump's orders, and when he told them to withdraw they did that also.
He was in control of that mob from the get go.
A major part of the case was about what he did not do. After the attack started, he could have called them back or he could have called in reinforcements -- he did neither.
When he finally did tell the mob to back off, he did not condemn their actions -- but praised them.
This means that DJT can run & if elected he shall be President Elect in 2024.
That is true, and I did not say otherwise.
America lost in this case.
1/2 of America is happy with the outcome.
Not according to the number I looked at.
The GOP would be careless if they nominated Trump in 2024. We need someone who is a true philanthropist, like Trump, but just not Trump because his
The GOP would be careless if they nominated Trump in 2024.
We need someone who is a true philanthropist, like Trump, but just not Trump because his aura gives off a bad vibe to the most corrupt Democrats.
I'd prefer to nominate Ivanka or some other member of the Trump family, because they all seem to have really good values.
On 02-15-21 14:30, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Dems Gain What? <=-
It should be no surprise to anyone that mob was doing exactly what he wanted and encouraged them to do. They said they were there following Trump's orders, and when he told them to withdraw they did that also.
He was in control of that mob from the get go.
What happened on January 6 was planned long before President Trump
gave his speech.
A major part of the case was about what he did not do. After the attack started, he could have called them back or he could have called in reinforcements -- he did neither.
He was President of the United States of America, he was not the Mayor
and he was not chief of police of the Capital Police force.
On 02-15-21 14:52, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Dems Gain What? <=-
This means that DJT can run & if elected he shall be President Elect in 2024.
That is true, and I did not say otherwise.
It will be his choice and he wants to run. He will not be
restricted as was the
Plan by Nasty Nancy and Cryin Chuck.
He praised them when plotted to kill the governor.
Trump is/was no philanthropist. His "charities" were just another money grab
The whole Trump family and brand (whatever that is) has a bad stink now.
Really, what values are those? ;)
Trump is/was no philanthropist. His "charities" were just another
money grab
Like the Clinton Foundation?
Really, what values are those? ;)
Ivanka & Jared brought children with cancer to the white house for a special tour and to bowl with the Kushners.
The Eric Trump Foundation is trying to raise $2 million dollars per year for St Jude Research hospital (for childhood cancer.)
Your favorite, Donald J. Trump Sr, donated his presidential salary for 4 straight years to various charities.
But something's still telling you to dislike all Trumps?
Exactly. It was the Capital of the United States of America that was being attacked by his mob. He could have called them off in the first
few minutes. Instead he sat in the Whitehouse watching what they were doing with pleasure. Even when he called them off after several hours, and deaths -- he still did not condemn them. Instead he praised them.
Re: Re: Dems Gain What?
By: Aaron Thomas to Alan Ianson on Sat Feb 13 2021 11:15 am
Democrats are fighting this impeachment simply to deligitimize a 2024
Trump campaign. That's all they stand to gain
The house impeached Donald Trump because he incited a seditious AI>insurrection on the capitol.
Trump probably would have been barred from
holding office again. That would be a good thing.
but they already lost the battle before they started.
Yes, that's what republican senators had to say, and that is what they AI>did. The republican party is not standing up for America, law and order or AI>the constitution. That will prove to be a problem for them.
President Biden is Catholic. Carries a rosary in his pocket.
Every day. Says his prayers. Every night. His most fervent wish
Mr Biden carrying a rosary is a gimmick. A real Catholic can pray the AT>rosary without having a gimmick in their pocket for show and tell.
Trump is/was no philanthropist. His "charities" were just another
money grab
Like the Clinton Foundation?
I don't know anything about the Clinton foundation.
The house impeached Donald Trump because he incited a seditious
insurrection on the capitol.
He did no such thing. That is an outright lie fomented by democrats and other Trump haters.
Neither is Pelosi or any other person who was a `baptized' Catholic allowed to claim the Catholic faith who signs on to abortion.
TIM RICHARDSON wrote to ALAN IANSON <=-
@MSGID: <6031F064.555.fidonet_politics@20xd6>
On 02-13-21, ALAN IANSON said to AARON THOMAS:
Re: Re: Dems Gain What?
By: Aaron Thomas to Alan Ianson on Sat Feb 13 2021 11:15 am
Democrats are fighting this impeachment simply to deligitimize a 2024 Trump campaign. That's all they stand to gain
The house impeached Donald Trump because he incited a seditious
insurrection on the capitol.
He did no such thing. That is an outright lie fomented by democrats and other Trump haters.
Trump probably would have been barred from
holding office again. That would be a good thing.
The fact is the left is terrified of Trump. They are doing their level best to
utterly destroy him. They are afraid he will run again, and they will
do everything in their power to alter election laws and voting
procedures in order to see to it that;
1. No republican ever again wins the White House
2. The Senate and House remain in democrat hands
but they already lost the battle before they started.
Yes, that's what republican senators had to say, and that is what they
did. The republican party is not standing up for America, law and order or
the constitution. That will prove to be a problem for them.
It has been many decades (probably prior to FDR) since either party has really
been `for' the American taxpayer in any meaningful way.
They (both senator and congress-person) make a good case of `being for those who elected them' during their campaign for office right up till election day.
Once they get to DC something happens to cause them to become just
another member of whichever body they were elected to, who
rubber-stamps the same `loser' legislation they've been foisting on us
for 80 or more years.
There are people who've been in federal government forty years or more (Joe Biden is a great example) who have done nothing but make a llot of noise about
`bucking the system'....being `for the taxpayers'...yadida yadida....
But the same old BS goes on and on.
Trump came along and started to change all that. He exposed what I and many others saw decades ago. I even spoke of it here in Fido a few
times, but got either ignored or called a conspiracy theorist.
There are people in the national (and many state) government who have
been there for decades. Many (but not all) are not subject to election.
A good example of that would be the IRS woman who screwed over many conservative organizations (Lois Lerner?).
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of `Lois Lerner's' in government.
`The deep state' is a very apt title for it. Presidents and their administrations come and go. The `deep state' endures forever. One
after the other they go and are replaced by yet another `deep stater' who's been there for many years, and will carry on the same policies of perpetuating themselves
and their political structure-department-agency-whatever.
An example:
An individual gets into a bind with the IRS. How long do you think it takes from start of investigation to indictment?
The FBI investigates `you' for bank fraud or some fraudulent statement
to a bankruptcy referee. How long do you think it would take for an indictment to be handed down?
From start of investigation to your first appearence in court would probably be around four to six months (typically).
Do you REALLY think it has taken over four years for Hillary's emails
to be checked for classified material before being released?
Do you REALLY think it has taken the FBI over four years to gather
emails of McCabe, Strok, Rosenstein, etc ....and send them to the US Attorney? REALLY?
They were running out the clock. The deep state simply has to play a waiting game from an unfriendly administration to a friendly one, at
which time the `investigation' just quietly goes away!
They are terrified of Trump and someone like him. They have to utterly destroy him in every way they can so as to greatly discourage anyone
from ever doing a `Trump administration' again.
TIM RICHARDSON wrote to ALAN IANSON <=-
@MSGID: <6031F064.555.fidonet_politics@20xd6>
On 02-13-21, ALAN IANSON said to AARON THOMAS:
The house impeached Donald Trump because he incited a seditious AI>insurrection on the capitol.
He did no such thing. That is an outright lie fomented by democrats and other Trump haters.
Nope. We watching it live. The whole world watched it.
TIM RICHARDSON wrote to VAGUE <=-
@MSGID: <603A649E.887.fidonet_politics@20xd6>
On 02-21-21, VAGUE said to TIM RICHARDSON:
TIM RICHARDSON wrote to ALAN IANSON <=-
@MSGID: <6031F064.555.fidonet_politics@20xd6>
On 02-13-21, ALAN IANSON said to AARON THOMAS:
The house impeached Donald Trump because he incited a seditious
insurrection on the capitol.
He did no such thing. That is an outright lie fomented by democrats and other Trump haters.
Nope. We watching it live. The whole world watched it.
I didn't want you to get the notion I was deliberately not adressing
this false statement of yours. I just didn't take the time to respond
to it last night because of how false it is I decided not to waste my time.
I'm responding now because of an incident that occured here in my area recently that is a great example of what happened on Jan 6, 2021 in DC. (I'll get to that in a moment)
The absolute lies the left have vomited over the Jan 6th DC incndent
are almost laughable if they weren't such obviously outright lies.
The leftie `Antifa' and `BLM' thugs were out in force in DC.
They hijacked the whole day. They planned the entire hijacking
operation around the conservative gathering already publicly planned in advance for that day. It was no more Donald Trump's fault than it was mine.
Donald Trump did not incite violence or destruction or trespass...he publicly called for *peaceful* marching to the Capitol building.
You are as bad or worse than that oily leftie attorney who prattled at
the impeachment about Trump `inciting people to violence'.
Firstly....I want to point out the similarity I saw immediately both in that shyster leftie who lied (by omission) at the impeachment, and in
this false notion in your reply to me:
Both you and that low-life democrat puke omit the words Trump spoke to
the crowd he spoke to included the word *PEACEFUL*, and/or
*PEACEFULLY*!
He urged them to march there and to protest *PEACEFULLY*!
That disgusting democrat shyster qouted Trump's words....but
deliberately left out the rest of his sentence by cutting off the
ending of his sentence.
Very clever of you (and the shyster) but a lie none-the-less.
It is a lie by omission! But still a lie.
Secondly....it is becoming more and more well known that the part of
the protest that turned evil was well-planned by ANTIFA activist John Sullivan early on, and also at the Washington Memorial, on Jan 6th
2021.
He and ANTIFA also organized a BLM rally at some plaza in DC on that
same day, just prior to what has come to be described as `the DC riot'.
Thirdly....it is now becoming known that some Antifa people are openly bragging about their pre-planning and involvement in the Jan 6, 2021 DC riots.
There were in fact three Antifa-BLM protests organized prior to the Capitol riot.
Isn't it funny how the FBI is either slow-walking any investigation
into this...or ignoring it altogether?
As for what occured locally....there was a pre-planned
conservative/Trump supporters rally at a local beach area.
At the time and place of the rally, as conservatives and Trump
supporters gathered, suddenly a large group of black-mask wearing individuals appeared and began shouting curses and attacking the conservative Trump-supporting group. Several were assaulted and
injured. Even elderly people were assaulted and one was hospitalized.
The San Diego police were there in force but did NOTHING!!!!!
So much for fair treatment under the law.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 165:46:36 |
| Calls: | 9,280 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (3,201K bytes) |
| Messages: | 467,342 |