Cuda2020

I do believe you're the girl, you sure act like one.

trashbaum

wow You sure have bad eyesight. LOLOL

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

It is immaterial, for no one ever has had the Senate in "their back pocket". To make your comment material then you would have to prove that it is highly possible that 100 senators would agree on anything with out abstaining. That is impossible. When the Continental Congress v**ed to go to independence there were many abstains. And that was merely the only time the congress had a near to unanimous v**e. So the comment is immaterial. Thus the sign you gave me is no sign at all and therefore, is a comment against both the president and the senate. That comment is also argumentative. My statement stands.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Okay fine let's for a moment judge our political officials. Adam Schiff is guilty of obstruction of Congress, leaking classified information and pursuing a cause that is unfounded and without merit, not to mention being guilty of treason. Let's hang him!

Okay continuing with your premise, Nancy Pelosi is an accomplice to Adam Schiff and so is Jerry Nadler. Therefore, they all should be hung for treason. Not to mention the treasonous acts of Joe Biden and others like James Comey, Peter Strok and company.

So do you think we need courts? Don't you think that this needs to be fully investigated by a court? Or would you rather me (or anyone else) make a prejudical comment and declare that comment as true?

Of course you would ask for a trial in court. Funny thing about a trial, whether or not it is a Senate court or a justice court, the results are the same, wh**ever the courts decide we the people have to live with it. The Senate Court deemed that president Trump was acquitted of all charges of impeachment, therefore the judgement stands and we all have to live by it.

Now you stated, "you actually think the courts are impervious?" No they are not impervious, just ask Al Capone or OJ Simpson. Of course they are not impervious.

According to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary impervious means "1a: not allowing entrance or passage : IMPENETRABLE, a coat impervious to rain; 1b: not capable of being damaged or harmed;
a carpet impervious to rough treatment; 2: not capable of being affected or disturbed." I believe in context of your statement you are using definition 2.

In doing so, nothing on earth that is created by man or a human is impervious. With that being said, in the course of human events it is obvious that human beings can be fooled, duped, or persuaded, one way or another. Therefore, to make it hard for the con man to convince the jury of a lie, certain rules are given to the prosecution, defense, judge and jury; in order to present their cases, and for the later to judge with the intent of justice.

If our courts were impervious, then there would not be a tombstone with the words, "Hung by mistake" written above the grave of the unlucky soul.

With that being said, our system of justice puts the burden of proof on the accuser and not the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has to have overwhelming beyond a shadow of doubt evidence, in order to convict the accused. And that is why impeached presidents are allowed to run for a second term. Because the impeached is not acquitted.

For example in Nixon's case, he resigns and Ford after becoming president, immediately pardons Nixon. So Congress cannot charge Nixon. Once accusations have been made and an attempt to prove them was completed, and once the defense had a chance to contradict the conclusions of the accuser in a reasonable way, the opinion of the jury or judge then is the judgement. Again in Trumps case the accusers had no evidence. Therefore the senate did not convict him. He is set free. Which means he is allowed to run for a second term. The question of the topic has been answered and thus the topic is dead.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Correctly analyzed, nicely explained, and clearly presented. Well done. It really should do some good, but I doubt if it will. The belief that 'impeached' means 'convicted' and 'guilty' is necessary to their narrative, and they will not be swayed by the facts. Of course, this particular belief applies to Trump only, not to any past or future democrat presidents.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

"...Trump only" and anyone who agrees with him.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Here's a perfect example. No room for friendly disagreement. No space for other opinions. No chance to work towards commonalities. You are either with us or against us. If you support him, you are condemned as well, because you 'empower' him. If you ever EVER made a mistake that we don't like, you are cancelled. If you do not conform to our politically correct speech, we will destroy you. The list goes on.

I think it's pretty obvious who has legitimately inherited the title of N**i.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

In your mind.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Cuda2020

You just proved my case,with your comment, "And that was merely the only time the congress had a near to unanimous v**e. " The v**e from the senate to be 99%, was and unjust and fully a partisan manipulation. Never has this happened save the one other time, thank you. I rest my case.

Cuda2020

Yes the GOP. Because the words that fell from your mouth... No room for friendly disagreement. No space for other opinions. No chance to work towards commonalities. You are either with us or against us.
And if you DON'T support him, you are the enemy. If you are not of our party, or Christian, you are the enemy. We want a one party, one religion...Christian, one supreme leader,ism. and w***e s*******y to be in control.
Hmm sounds like N**ism to me.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

Go for a hearing exam.
Really tough living in the USA.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I would agree with you....if anything you said were true. Let's run through them, shall we?
'No room for friendly disagreement'. Political correctness, the cancel culture, harass and attack political opponents and their families, demonstrate at their homes, you must fire that man for what he said....these are l*****t and democrat ideas and policies. 'No space for other opinions.' Conservatives welcome other opinions, and freely discuss them with you or anybody else. That's what I am doing now. Which side is it that calls anyone who disagrees POS, or stupid, or other derogatory terms? Yes, the occasional person on the right might do that, but you guys on the left make a daily habit of it. 'No chance to work on commonalities.' Your group assigns everything conservatives believe in to one or another of a few categories: it's stupid. Or it's propaganda. Or you are brainwashed bye the #%#^& in the white house, etc. Well, you get the idea. 'and if you don't support him you are the enemy'. Nope. I have no enemies. I have loads of friends, and am both well liked and respected. I give you every right to believe what you choose, and to support whichever party you prefer. But I claim the freedom to do the same, and the freedom to discuss when and where I believe you are wrong. Disagreeing with you does not make us enemies, except in the mind of a l*****t. "if you are not of our party, or a Christian, you are the enemy." If you knew anything about Christianity, you would realize what a complete fallacy that statement is. Christianity is the only religion that advocates universal love and acceptance. A Christian will not approve of, or condone sin, but they will accept the person for who he/she is. "H**e the sin but love the sinner" is something we live by every day. An example: Being gay is not a sin. But living a gay lifestyle, IS a sin, and I will stand by God's word on that fact. I have known gay people, men and women, my whole life, and have been friends with most of them. They are welcome in my church and in my home. But I will not say that what they do is NOT a sin, and I will not condone it as being natural and normal, nor will I 'celebrate' it. It is sin. But I'm not perfect either, and I do not judge. That will be done by God alone. And last but not least, 'We want a one party, one religion...Christian, one supreme leader,ism. and w***e s*******y to be in control.' Most conservatives do not want a one party system. We want to discuss issues, debate ideas, and implement policies that actually work, and don't just sound nice but actually do more harm than good. One religion? Not exactly. We would like to see every man and woman become Christians, because that is what is right and good, and the key to eternal life with God. But it MUST be the individuals choice. No Christian will ever force his beliefs on you, nor will he require you to follow his faith. If someone tries to do so, he is NOT a Christian. And there are some f**e ones out there. And who wants a supreme leader? Not me. Nor does any conservative or republican that I have ever heard of. The President, whoever he might be, is severely limited by the Constitution. He is not, repeat not, a dictator. If Obama, or Trump, or any other president extended his control beyond what the Constitution allows, ALL of Congress would stand against him, and would be fully supported by every one on the right. Because we believe in the Constitution. We believe that it is not the "living" document that the left claims it is. It can be modified, of course. The process is called Amendments. But the left can't get their dream policies enacted that way, because the majority of Americans oppose them. So they manipulate the courts, and appoint evil men who think the Constitution means what they say it means, and not what is actually says. And as for w***e s*******y....it does not exist except in the minds of small minded, insecure, perpetual victims. If it makes you feel better to believe others are better than you, well, that too is your right.
The folks on the right criticize ideas, policies, and wrong headed goals.
The folks on the left attack people and try to destroy them politically and personally if they do not toe the l*****t line. After all, "the end justifies the means" to a l*****t. And to a n**i.

Cuda2020

Let's pursuing and an unfounded cause without merit, are you serious? If the man wasn't president, he'd have been arrested and gone to court and sentenced already. This whole messed was shistered since Mueller handed his report to Barr first.

Okay continuing with your premise, Nancy Pelosi is an accomplice to Adam Schiff and so is Jerry Nadler. Therefore, they all should be hung for treason. Not to mention the treasonous acts of Joe Biden and others like James Comey, Peter Strok and company.

So do you think we need courts? Don't you think that this needs to be fully investigated by a court? Or would you rather me (or anyone else) make a prejudical comment and declare that comment as true?

Of course you would ask for a trial in court. Funny thing about a trial, whether or not it is a Senate court or a justice court, the results are the same, wh**ever the courts decide we the people have to live with it. The Senate Court deemed that president Trump was acquitted of all charges of impeachment, therefore the judgement stands and we all have to live by it.

Now you stated, "you actually think the courts are impervious?" No they are not impervious, just ask Al Capone or OJ Simpson. Of course they are not impervious.

According to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary impervious means "1a: not allowing entrance or passage : IMPENETRABLE, a coat impervious to rain; 1b: not capable of being damaged or harmed;
a carpet impervious to rough treatment; 2: not capable of being affected or disturbed." I believe in context of your statement you are using definition 2.

In doing so, nothing on earth that is created by man or a human is impervious. With that being said, in the course of human events it is obvious that human beings can be fooled, duped, or persuaded, one way or another. Therefore, to make it hard for the con man to convince the jury of a lie, certain rules are given to the prosecution, defense, judge and jury; in order to present their cases, and for the later to judge with the intent of justice.

If our courts were impervious, then there would not be a tombstone with the words, "Hung by mistake" written above the grave of the unlucky soul.

With that being said, our system of justice puts the burden of proof on the accuser and not the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has to have overwhelming beyond a shadow of doubt evidence, in order to convict the accused. And that is why impeached presidents are allowed to run for a second term. Because the impeached is not acquitted.

For example in Nixon's case, he resigns and Ford after becoming president, immediately pardons Nixon. So Congress cannot charge Nixon. Once accusations have been made and an attempt to prove them was completed, and once the defense had a chance to contradict the conclusions of the accuser in a reasonable way, the opinion of the jury or judge then is the judgement. Again in Trumps case the accusers had no evidence. Therefore the senate did not convict him. He is set free. Which means he is allowed to run for a second term. The question of the topic has been answered and thus the topic is dead.[/quote]

Cuda2020

Adam Schiff guilty? Based on what, opinion from right radicals? You seem to think this is simply a tit-for-tat thang. There's no reasoning here, just your party's agenda to over throw this country to a one party dictatorship, you just want that control over us, wanting that suppression. Well over our bodies.



Well what good are our courts if they're corrupt? We have finally arrived here under Trump. This is how we fall into a dictatorship.



Thanks to our unprincipled senate that is correct.



Do you know how many times that would be completely apros?



Please tell me when that has ever happened, never and certainly not now should it be appropriate after that sham from the senate. All in order to keep control of the seat in the white house, what a disgraceful and deplorable act, a complete travesty of justice pure and simple. If Trump had any modicum of decorum and morality, as at least Nixon did, he should have resigned, but he is used to getting away with what he does and his greed knows no morality or bounds. Wake up man to who he is and why he is so disliked.

As far as court, any eye witness can say what they saw, and any juror can simply say ,we do not believe him and decide for themselves it was not credible, even though it was, that is exactly what the senate did, in order to keep Trump in office, and by that action the senate has done our country a total disservice. The disgrace is on them and will go down in history as such.

Let me tell you how the courts really work, no the burden of *Proof* is certainly not alone on the prosecutor, but it actuality it is on you, the accused to prove your innocence. If you don't have a good lawyer, you are basically screwed and can plan on jail time.

The prosecutor has allegations and you have to prove to them that they are false, that's the reality.



Let's back up you've gotten confused in the dialog,
Ranger7374 wrote:
Yep you are not convicted unless the charges are proven in a court of law.

I then said:
You actually think the courts are impervious? Ha How many innocents go to jail or worse, the death sentence, or how many with good lawyers are freed or better yet freed by their partner in crime, say the president. Yeah let's all remember OJ the epitome of the perfect example, well, aside from Trump. If you read the posts correctly, anyone can see that I was stating they are NOT impervious, just the opposite.

I used the word impervious because you seem to think the courts do not make mistakes and the "Onlypeople found guilty are guilty. Here is your quote again:

"You are "not convicted" unless the charges are proven in a court of law". Now you agree, OK very good.