Odds on Trump's Impeachment

[texassapper]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

And Bill is no longer an issue. Trump is. Regardless of what is historically convenient for you, their concerns NOW are valid.

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...

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

Are you OK with what's going on NOW?

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?

Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

If not, why are you not addressing that? If so, why are you lambasting anyone, if you're comfortable with it?

Again, if you can define for me the illegal activity that Trump has engaged in I'll address it. If you are simply complaining that the man lacks character I'm gonna have to give you a big "So?"

#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.
#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?
#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...

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.

[grean]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Guess who started the Obama fake birther issue -yep, your favorite Grandma on zanax Hillary.

Dude, where do you get your facts? She at no time made any claim he wasn't a natural US citizen.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by grean

Ok. So the policy may not be racist. However, it's an "ist" or "ism" of some kind. yadda yadda yadda
How then is 1A not written in the very same stone? Why are you not as offended by an infringement of it, even when the infringement is intended to help "secure a free state"?

Just so you know:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

wow...where to start with this silliness....
#1 An Executive order is not a law
#2 The EA was a temporary restriction on immigration from 7 nations.
#3 Indonesia, the worlds most populous moslem nation was not on the list.
#4 Because of 4 you can't argue it's a ban on moslems.
#5 It's Temporary and well within teh rights of what the Exec Branch can do.
#6 The 1A prevents the establishment of a state religion...that has no bearing on religious quotas in immigration which is 100% completely legal.

as for you what would I do if the President wrote an EA on the 2nd Amendment? Well a wise soldier (Patton I believe) said, never make a rule you can't enforce. So assuming that the Prseident was stupid enough to listen to advisers telling him to write such an EA, I would petition the courts to prevent it, barring that I would assemble peacefully to have my reps address it, and if all else fails I would take up arms against a tyrannical and despotic govt. whom it would be my duty to do so. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and Domestic..several times. I will hold that oath valid until I'm dead and buried.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by grean

Dude, where do you get your facts? She at no time made any claim he wasn't a natural US citizen.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...clinton-228304

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...er-fact-check/

if you think that her campaign had zero to do in orchestrating the campaign, then you don't understand what it is that political campaigns do. Of course she never publicly stated it... that's why there are campaign staffers to float those ideas for them.

[grean]

Originally Posted by texassapper

#4 Because of 4 you can't argue it's a ban on moslems.

No I argue it's a ban on Muslims because the dumb fuck and his advisors who are even bigger dumb fucks than he is, if that's even possible, said the travel ban was a Muslim ban.

I won't bother posting sources. You can google.


Even if he was talking out of his ass when he said it during the campaign, and I'll concede that he probably was then, because that's ALL he does with consistency, when he asked a lawyer to help make the wording legal, he istantly made the intent of the law unconstitutional.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

No I argue it's a ban on Muslims because the dumb fuck and his advisors who are even bigger dumb fucks than he is, if that's even possible, said the travel ban was a Muslim ban..

What is it with Liberals and name calling?

If this is a Muslim ban why are so many predominately Muslim country's not included?

Trump’s reform policy only impacts one of every eight Muslims worldwide. The Muslim population in each of these seven countries, estimated by Pew Research as of 2010, is: Iran (74 million), Sudan (33.6 million), Iraq (31.7 million), Yemen (24 million), Syria (20.4 million), Somalia (9.3 million), and Libya (6.4 million).
The 90-day temporary block on new visas does not apply to citizens of the six countries with the largest Muslim populations, as determined by Pew Research— Indonesia (209 million), India (176 million), Pakistan (167 million), Bangladesh (134 million), Nigeria (77 million), and Egypt (76 million).
It does apply citizens of Iran, the country with the seventh largest Muslim population (74 million).
But it does not apply to citizens of the other top ten Muslim population countries: Turkey (71 million), Algeria (35 million), and Morocco (32 million).

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Trump's "legacy" is being absorbed by kids who think it's acceptable to grope a woman, lie, absolve any responsibility for your actions and bullshit people to get what you want. "Hey, if the president can do it, so can I!" Sad.

I wonder if you would feel the same today had the other candidate Hillery won the election.

https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc

https://youtu.be/A09yHufpVlM

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by grean

when he asked a lawyer to help make the wording legal, he istantly made the intent of the law unconstitutional.

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.

[Prolongus]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Well he might think she's a nice piece of ass, but then he's not drilling the interns either is he?

And how do you know this? Are you with Trump 24 hours a day? Do you watch his every move?

Let me ask you this...is it a despicable statement for Trump (or any man) to say you can grab a woman's vagina or force a kiss on her because you're rich and famous and "you can do that"? No more bullshit, dodging the question, Hillary and Bill crap. It's a simple question. YES OR NO?

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by texassapper

No one cares if you want to cut your nuts off and pretend you're a woman. What I and most others object to is the govt. forcing us to pretend along with that mentally unbalanced person that they are now a female.

You can pretend all you like, that's your choice. But when you FORCE the community to PRETEND with you because you don't want your feelings hurt, tough shit, bucko.

You are one serious unbalanced fuck...and I hope u have trans kids and grandkids...karma is a bitch for bigots and punks like you

[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.

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

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by texassapper

No one cares if you want to cut your nuts off and pretend you're a woman. What I and most others object to is the govt. forcing us to pretend along with that mentally unbalanced person that they are now a female.

You can pretend all you like, that's your choice. But when you FORCE the community to PRETEND with you because you don't want your feelings hurt, tough shit, bucko.

Exactly, embracing and normalizing mental illness is wrong. Why don't people with Bulimia and anorexia get treated the same for their" lifestyle choice" as people with Gender dysphoria ?

On another note how is it fair to women athletes to have to compete against intact males who claim that they "self identify" as females? What is it going to take for biological females to beat all the women's records set by men who self identify as women? This is Liberalism run amuck, and another reason for the election results.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Prolongus

Let me ask you this...is it a despicable statement for Trump (or any man) to say you can grab a woman's vagina or force a kiss on her because you're rich and famous and "you can do that"? No more bullshit, dodging the question, Hillary and Bill crap. It's a simple question. YES OR NO?

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.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

You are one serious unbalanced fuck...and I hope u have trans kids and grandkids...karma is a bitch for bigots and punks like you

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.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

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

Because US VS Miller.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

The AR 15 semi automatic rifle is quite possibly the most common rifle in America today used for target shooting, hunting and self defense.