All_Pro_Bills

One truth is there's just no political middle-ground at this point in time. Regardless of how we might all view ourselves individually as "moderates" that might agree on most things. In the aggregate, the current political and social environment has forced everyone to choose one extreme or the other. There is no middle. There is no representation for the middle choice. Which extreme you gravitate towards depends on how your views align with a couple points below (I've listed 4 but I could probably generate 40): You think big government is the answer or you think big government is the problem. You think the election in 2016 was fraudulent and the 2020 election was clean or you think the 2016 election was clean and the 2020 election was fraudulent. You think the DOJ is enforcing the rule of law or you think the DOJ has become a tool of political oppression which runs a protection racket for the political establishment. You think the government is defending our system of democracy or you think the government is the threat to democracy.

I'm certain those Ukrainian Nazi militia fighters, the MSM will never mention exist, those that wern't KIA to this point, which form the core of the countries most experienced and battle hardened troops love trans people. Just know, for blind, deaf and dumb war supporters. In Ukraine, Nazi good. In America, Nazi bad

They're running circles around the Republicans although they're starting to catch on to the game the "traditionalist" among them are slow thinkers. Look at how they managed to minimize the damage in the 2022 mid-terms. Absolute genius. By all rights they should have lost the House by 25 to 30 seats. But they focused on the races they expected to be most competitive and won most of them. I always find it prudent to have a healthy respect for your competitors whether in sports, business, and I guess politics. When you're all full of yourself that's the moment you get your ass handed to you.

The J6 case presided over by judge Chutkan is assigned to the District of Columbia Federal court. So no risk there of an impartial judge or jury. The documents case is assigned to Florida because of the venue of the actions pertaining to the indictment. Suggesting a conspiracy, as if the very word dismisses all reason and logic to question or be skeptical of how perfectly scripted events appear to stack the deck in the government's favor, does no justice nor gives proper credit to the planning and execution expertise and proficiency of the Democrats. If I was planning to screw somebody over they'd be the first people I'd contact for advice.

Another fun fact: U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing the Trump J6 trial being prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department, previously worked at a law firm that represented Fusion GPS, the company that helped orchestrate the Russia collusion hoax targeting former President Donald Trump. The same law firm also represented Burisma. This is not to suggest this person had any direct involvement with either situation. But consider there are some 670 Federal District Court judges serving in 94 districts, how this particular attorney shows up, appointed to a particular district, assigned to a particular case out of 15 potential judges, trying a particular defendant, must be a mind-boggling coincidence. But if you have any sense of curiosity, which automatically excludes leftist non-thinkers, you might wonder why all the same characters keep showing up at the scene of all the mischief? One might generate some suspicion there might a connection is quite possible with the exception of the buffoons supporting the administration who prefer to remain oblivious to the obvious.

Saudi Arabia "pegs" its currency to the US dollar.

You're alleging Trump personally hacked voting machines? Is that what CNN told you?

The funny part will be when Jack Smith adds charges of conspiracy to commit arson and obstruction to Trump's indictment! Because while he said the fires were tragic, in his mind he really didn't care, so he was lying and as his thoughts don't match his words he is therefore guilty of conspiracy and obstruction. All the regressive talking heads nod everywhere simultaneously in approval as they support the flimsy argument that lying is a crime and exempt from first amendment protections. But seriously, whatever anyone's political or social views I expect everyone here has nothing but compassion and sympathy for the people of Maui.

I'm waiting for that moment of honesty from you. I'll ask for the last time. What are the grounds for banning somebody from office using 14A if they haven't committed the crime of either insurrection or rebellion? Neither of which anyone running for any office currently is charged with or tried on those charges. This is a simple question and a simple answer. Otherwise, you might consider you've got nothing rather than me.

So playing the "proof" card? I've stated much. Such as suspects are being held without bail on minor misdemeanor charges without bail for over 1 & 1/2 years. This is absolutely true and a widely accepted fact. And I believe my other points are an accurate description of events. But here's my problem. I could go to a lot of effort in answering your request but I believe regardless of what I present you'll reject it. So I deny your request and counter by suggesting you refute a couple points you find most egregious.

That's hardly a rebuttal. For example, are you saying leftist anarchists didn't attack the WH? SS agents were not injured? The Speakers office denied requests for more security? They did.

But it apparently it says the Speakers office should deny multiple requests for reinforcements for Capitol Police so protesters can be allowed to attack the Capitol to create an incident to milk for political purposes and hold hearings that cite extremists, arrest hundreds to conduct "show trials" with predudiced judges and juries, deny bail for minor offense to hold suspects for 1 and 1/2 years in maximum securty as political prisioners, and avoid any questions and God forbid, answers, about how leadership let it happen? Or attack the White House, engage in hand-to-hand combat with the secret service, see anarchists arrested, and mysteriuosly all charges get dropped? But no biggie, right?

DeSantis needs to express the view that Trump is not electable in a 2024 general election. Both his views and his personality are polarizing. Democrats definitely won't cross over and most Independents find him objectionable. As do many "traditional" Republicans. Voting for Trump in the primaries just ensures Democratic control of the White House for another 4 years. The country can't survive that outcome.

Horseshit. Answer the question. If there is no conviction what is the justification for banning a person from office under the amendment? Let's see what you've thought through.

If conviction of insurrection or rebellion is not a requirement to be banned from office you're arguing all citizens are eligible to be banned from running for or holding office at the whim of government. The is America, a Constitutional Republic. Not Pakistan or Ecuador. Or is that a hoax too?

The central issue is this. If there's no need to legally establish an actual insurrection or rebellion took place and there's no need to legally establish the person targeted participated in and is guilty of participating in the previously noted insurrection or a rebellion, then what's to keep from using the Amendment and section to disqualify anyone they simply don't "like" from running for or holding office? No proof, no evidence, no trial, judge or jury needed. Just an accusation logged with the Committee for Public Safety and off with your head! I know its a difficult concept for people that believe in "legal" arguments such as those presented by the likes of Jack Smith but you really do have to prove something at some point and accusations aren't the basis for punishment.

This morning the channel guide on Direct TV listed the Colts vs. Bills game for 1 PM on the alternate NFL Network channel, 212-1. Whether or not it's actually going to happen on the alternate channel I'll find out at 1. Set it to record to watch later. If whatever you subscribe to has an NFL Network alternate you might want to check the listing for this afternoon.

The section of the amendment requires a prerequisite or qualifyer that a person particpated in an insurrection or a rebellion to be utilized. And given no insurrection or rebellion occured the entire argument is moot. The conditions to apply the article cannot be met. So the constitutional argument is invalid.

Funny how the tactics and programs this administration utliizes are so similar to those of the 3 oppressive governments you reference.

Quite simply there was no insurrection or aid given to any enemy.

If this guy thinks no conviction is necessary in the administration of the law he ain't no constitutional scholar.

Many took bribes or extorted money from conscripts to exempt them from service. Kidnapping fighting age men off the streets was common practice.

$5 million/year utilities included.

A few weeks ago the investigation was declared over as the DOJ and Hunter's legal team were ready to settle the case with a plea deal until the judge requested clarity on the terms and conditions of the arrangement. Disagreement on specifics between the prosecutor and defense attorney followed. An arrangement of almost blanket immunity was disclosed and fell through. As a result, a not-guilty plea was submitted to the court. And today, after what was an investigation to be closed, a special counsel is required? To do what? Investigate new revelations or stonewall in hopes the Democrats regain a House majority and maintain control of the White House in November 2024?

I'm not sure how its possible for any person with basic reasoning skills and an objective outlook to listen to this entire interview and not come away with, at a minimum, a conclusion there's a complete lack of genuine disclosure and discussion from government officials on almost every action and non-action of officials on this day. And intentionally or not, the J6 Committee avoided any and all questions and answers into those areas. Why wasn't the government prepared to stop the violence and why were no mitigation strategies and actions in place or taken? And ultimately who was the person at the top that made the call to "stand down"? What I found especially disturbing along with highly insightful was the former Chiefs statements about how the military refused to provide support for the out-manned Capitol Police force (for fear of optics was the claim) and yet had no fear of optics in their decision to deploy troops to guard their private residences around the Washington DC area from potential attacks or visits from protesters.