Odds on Trump's Impeachment

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by grean

Why is a ban on ar-15s considered to be overstepping his powers?

Because the legislation regarding immigration has given the President the ability to regulate the process. That is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. There is no legislation that would give the President the ability to outlaw the possession of personal arms. Any attempt to pass such legislation would obviously run afoul of legal challenges from 2A supporters.

They are simply NOT equivalent EA's. One EA on immigration is EXACTLY the job of the Executive branch the other is strictly prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

[grean]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Says you...the issue hasn't been visited by SCOTUS... which will rule in Trumps favor. The law is clear on this. He can regulate as he sees fit in this area.

It's headed there now.

Well, I'd almost be willing to bet SCOTUS will not. Gorsuch has said religious tests are illegal.

[Vivienne Rey]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Let's start with the National Organization for Women, Betty Frieden, Gloria Steinem, they all ran Lewinsky down as a liar and supported Bubba. Not a single Democrat voted against Bubba in the impeachment proceedings. Those are irrefutable FACTS. You may not know any liberals that were OK with what Bubba did, but I never met a liberal that still wouldn't vote for him in spite of it.

Stay with me, hun. None of that up there supports this...

I would be apt to listen to those complaining about Trumps character had they lined up against a guy that lied UNDER oath about shtupping the hired help. For Liberals, character doesn't matter.

Take it up with NOW, Betty, Gloria and the guys up on the hill who didn't line up against him. Because many other liberals have. They exist despite your claim that you've never met one. Dismissing them doesn't mean they don't exist.

See this is the hypocritical part. It was OK, in fact, mandatory to see the Character of the man as separate from his policies when it was the liberal playing hidsey seeksey with the cigars. NOW it's all different isn't it?... as you said...how convenient for you...

Me? I haven't said what I am or am not OK wrt Lewinsky.

What exactly is going on NOW? I've seen zero evidence of illegal activity, I've seen zero evidence of obstruction of justice. What exactly is the issue NOW? Again, if you can define for me the illegal activity that Trump has engaged in I'll address it.

I never said anything about illegal activity. We don't need a conviction to know that OJ did it.

If you are simply complaining that the man lacks character I'm gonna have to give you a big "So?"

OK then, character is not a big motivator for you. So be it. You don't have to defend it with
"BUT BILL/HILLARY/OBAMA!!!" You don't need them to bolster your position if you actually have one that's worth a fig.

#1 He's a politician..expecting character in a politician is as naive as thinking the provider loves you after having spent an hour with you.

It's defective to think you shouldn't expect it, in either case. Don't be surprised if you don't get it, but if you don't require it, that is completely your choice. You don't make that decision for millions of others who do.

#2 Isn't it really what his policies are that matter? I mean that's what we Republicans should have learned from Bubba's tenure, right?

I don't care about Bill. I care about Trump. And beyond building a wall and a Muslim ban, his policies are kinda foggy.

#3 And if 2 isn't true, why should I care now when Liberals didn't before? Why is it different this time? Because you care? Cry me a river...

Actually, a lot of them cared. So, liberals are to blame for your apathy. But...

If you are simply complaining that the man lacks character I'm gonna have to give you a big "So?"

Own it. It's OK. You have plenty of company.

My point under all of this is, when your guys is shitting on the system Obama -illegal surveillance, illegal gun running, weaponizing the IRS, politicizing the Justice dept. you ought to give a f*ck. Because when the tables turn..and they will turn, don't expect me to care when your hobby horse takes a hit. Liberals looked away when it was convenient...now... I'm not looking away, I'm looking on and laughing.

You think it's funny too. I'd say this was enlightening, but it actually went as expected.

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by texassapper

bahaha.. yeah. I'm unbalanced as opposed to the people lopping off the genitals and dressing up like women. Again... for you to CLEARLY READ. I. DO. NOT. CARE. IF. FOLKS. WANT. TO. DO. THAT.

What I object to is the govt. FORCING everyone else to pretend along with those deluded folks that two XX chromosomes does not equal female.

There is a reason that the suicide rate for Transgendered people that post-op is 20x higher than for everyone else. It's because you CANNOT deny biology.Hormones and clothes do not change DNA.

**Believing that I shouldn't be forced to join the charade does not make me a bigot. In fact, If you want to lop off your genitals and pretend you're a girl, it doesn't bother me in the least. I support your right to do so. I would view you as no less a person despite your obvious mental issues. You are still a person and have all the same rights as I have. period. Perhaps you ought to think about that before calling someone a bigot, asshole.

Their suicide rate has more to due with dealing with assholes like you than denying any biology

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

Their suicide rate has more to due with dealing with assholes like you than denying any biology

Really, then why is the suicide rate so AFTER they get their dream come true surgery and not before? Because it's only after all the effort that they realize the problem isn't their gender but their head.

Dream on however you want, you aren't going to change reality anymore than the poor deluded souls whose new religion is dick chopping and vag building.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

yadda yadda yadda We don't need a conviction to know that OJ did it.yadda yadda yadda

I'm sorry I thought this thread was about odds of an impeachment. If it's just about who we don't like regardless of any actual activity... then what was the point?

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by grean

It's headed there now.

Well, I'd almost be willing to bet SCOTUS will not. Gorsuch has said religious tests are illegal.

Well Since Trumps EA is clearly not a religious ban since it only bans certain nations..that's good news... and it's especially good news if you're a Christian Baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay couple.

[grean]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Well Since Trumps EA is clearly not a religious ban since it only bans certain nations..that's good news... and it's especially good news if you're a Christian Baker that doesn't want to make a cake for a gay couple.

Intentions. Its about intentions.

He intended originally to ban all muslims. He couldn't so he said well let's get as many as we can. In fact, he has gone on to say the new order is just a watered down version to pass legal muster and that it was essentially the same as the first.

Let me be clear. Had he learned to STFU and rolled out the initial order with the language the 2ND order has, then I doubt the lower courts would have ruled against it in the first place.

However, because there isn't a bag of dicks big enough to stuff in his mouth to get him to shut up, he fucked himself when he said he wanted to ban Muslims.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by grean

However, because there isn't a bag of dicks big enough to stuff in his mouth to get him to shut up, he fucked himself when he said he wanted to ban Muslims.

Well see the court can't really take into account what the candidate said (ignoring it's the 9th we're talking about)... but let's assume they can... does that mean RBG has to recuse herself based on comments about candidate Trump? This could get really interesting. But really, intentions mean nothing in these EA's... his will be upheld and then we'll get some street theater from the SJW's. Hopefully they'll be in the same street when a Muslim driving a garbage truck decides to mow everyone down... kind of a two fer.

[Vivienne Rey]

Originally Posted by texassapper

I'm sorry I thought this thread was about odds of an impeachment. If it's just about who we don't like regardless of any actual activity... then what was the point?

The odds of an impeachment.....and Bill and Hillary and all the liberals monsters under your beds.

I see you.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

Intentions. Its about intentions.

He intended originally to ban all muslims. He couldn't so he said well let's get as many as we can. In fact, he has gone on to say the new order is just a watered down version to pass legal muster and that it was essentially the same as the first.

Let me be clear. Had he learned to STFU and rolled out the initial order with the language the 2ND order has, then I doubt the lower courts would have ruled against it in the first place..

Based on your logic, then Obamacare could not be ruled legal. The Obama administration insisted the mandate to buy health insurance or pay a fine was NOT a tax. That changed when the supreme court told them it would be unconstitutional unless it WAS a tax. Obama's attorneys quickly followed suit and called the mandate a tax. Obviously Obama's "intent" was that it was NOT a tax. Video of Obama saying that very thing. https://youtu.be/tQMkOScXctY?t=42s


"The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory"

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

The odds of an impeachment.....and Bill and Hillary and all the liberals monsters under your beds.

I see you.

I doubt that very much. If you saw me, you'd know I think they were all scoundrels (and that's being way more polite than necessary). The majority are just greedy a-holes... America can survive that... it's the ones that want to control everyone else that scare the shit out of me. They, like the Hezbollah folks I met in Lebanon, are true f*cking Believers... with a big B.
They won't stop until every last liberty in America is extinguished in their pursuit of "what's best for all of us". Trump may be a douche, clueless, a big mouth, all that and more.... but he is not a true believer. He's too big on himself to be a slave to an ideology like Obama and Hillary. Those two are Alinsky acolytes...

Disarm the nation, put all their medical needs under govt. control, pretty much assures that Orwell was right about the future.

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by texassapper

And the answer is given that it was a private conversation.... no.

If you haven't heard far worse in a locker room or in a barracks, you're full of shit. You're on a site devoted to men paying for pussy... and you think that's a despicable thing to say. It is to laugh.

Uhhh...you're on here, too...dumbass...with 10 reviews. And it IS NOT the same as forcing unwanted activities on a woman. And thanks for saying "no". Says a lot about you.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Uhhh...you're on here, too...dumbass...with 10 reviews. And it IS NOT the same as forcing unwanted activities on a woman. And thanks for saying "no". Says a lot about you.

Yeah..and talking shit is different than doing it. So what we have is Trump talking shit and Clinton f*cking the 19 year old intern. But you think the former is worse than the latter. Genius.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

I don't know any liberals who are OK with what Bill did. Not one. And I've come across plenty of others who have condemned it. It's safe to say there are plenty more. So, your claim is simply not true. And Bill is no longer an issue. Trump is. Regardless of what is historically convenient for you, their concerns NOW are valid. Are you OK with what's going on NOW? If not, why are you not addressing that? If so, why are you lambasting anyone, if you're comfortable with it?

I wasn't OK with it. He burned our hard earned political capital on strange pussy. He can fuck half the interns in the world flat when he's on his own time. But when we worked for damned hard to get him elected, he basically pissed away most of his last term because of his stray dick. That's perfectly OK when you're a civilian. But when you're riding for the brand, that's burning company money.

But what the fuck does that have to do with Hillary? I don't think just because he was a loos cannon with his dick, all of sudden she's going to start fucking half the White House staff flat. His wasting of our scarce political resources to fight for our shared political beliefs has no bearing on her likelihood to do the same.