And now Republicans in at least 5 states have been caught having submitted matching forged election documents, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona (twice), Wisconsin, and Michigan. These forgeries, complete with forged seals from their respective states, attempted to “certify” fraudulent electors from those states that intended to cast their electoral votes for Trump despite their states voting for Biden, that vote being certified, and the real electors being certified.
Pennsylvania too, but they didn’t try to claim they were the electors, they claimed they would be the electors if a court invalidated the election results….created at the direct personal request of the DJTrump campaign.

Jeff Clark, of the DOJ, drafted a letter telling states to hold off on certification because the DOJ was investigating election irregularities…..but they weren’t and the DOJ head, the AG, refused to sign off, so Trump accepted his resignation, the resignation of the assistant AG, and tried to install Clark so they could send this fraudulent letter about a non existent investigation of non existent election fraud. In that letter he referenced the “second set of electors” two weeks after these forgeries were submitted to congress and elsewhere but long before that was public knowledge.

Another few attempts by Republicans to subvert democracy.

Apparently Trump also flew the idea of having the national guard confiscate all voting machines and rerunning the election (until he won).

Why the entire party isn’t banned from holding office is beyond me, your representatives all undeniably violated (and continue to violate) section 3 of the 14th amendment, and you’ll never get 2/3 of congress to let that slide.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

For the few that weren’t directly involved in the failed coup, the “aid and comfort” clause covers their behavior since.

That looks like fun set to that music.

Damn that sarcasm button.

The imagery makes me think of my army service, on the other side of the iron curtain, we used to have a compulsory 2 years (1 year for university graduates after school, fortunately) so all the 18 yo kids got "drafted" for two years, not to war, but you never knew...

Everyone hated to go, hated it while there, it was a total waste of time, buggery, bigotry, boredom, drink and drugs, women, etc.
Everyone counted down the time to go home day by day like in jail.

Yet everyone posed for heroic photographs, preferably with their tanks (our group stood in front of our kitchen :-) and pretended to be manly.

That is how I see Vietnam, scared kids thrown into a difficult to justify war against the local people in a foreign country. Unenviable.

They deserve all the accolades and any help they can be given tenfold. Also they were all heroes if they did not chicken out.

And god bless America (meaning the US of A) if it can come up with a better way to pick wars. Kind of a hint is if you have to "defeat" the whole local population to win, dont start.

Imagine thinking the US would not intervene when China takes Taiwan...

At best the US could field 500k troops offshore without weakening other strategic locations.

China's paramilitary has 20,854,000 troops, as of 2018...
If they decided to do conscription that will probably add another 30 - 40 million.

Good luck taking that on without a draft to bolster the US numbers.

The US haven't won a war since they lost to rice farmers in Vietnam. Must be your achilles heel considering you lost against goat farmers in Afghan. Hope you do better against something more equipped that farmers...

How's that Texas economy doing? Finally getting past 5% budget cuts to project a $750 million surplus....California, which isn't losing population despite right wing claims of an exodus, had $75.7 BILLION surplus....only >100 times better.

Texas population might be growing, it's economy is stagnant at best and it's infrastructure is horrendous, just criminally awful, actually so bad it's killing Texans.

Ahhh, so this is all uninformed opinion from a foreigner who has no clue about Texas or America, arguing with an informed Texan native and US citizen about America and Texas. I should have known, you really don't have a clue, and biased internet news isn't going to help you be informed.

Lol. Really. Such delusion. Who's circling? What war, we just ended one. What draft, our military is oversized, bigger and better equipped than all others combined, and has no fighting missions to complete. What the fuck are you talking about?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal

^ That's about 2/3 of the world's population.

"Texas's loss" LOL!! Somebody haven't been keeping up on migration in the US. People are fleeing the blue states like no tomorrow. Texas is the fastest growing state in the US...

This is just another example of how divided your country is.

Keep fucking over each-other. You dumb fucks are doing your enemy's job for them. Like I said to you 4 months ago. Enjoy your war and draft. +- 8 Months left of your life as you know it. US have never been so weak. The sharks are circling.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

Why on earth would he think Trump was EVER a straight talker?
When has he EVER seen Trump do what he said he would?
When has he EVER seen Trump be loyal to anyone besides himself?
He hasn't.

It's hard to hear him say all that as if he was tricked somehow....Trump has always been a liar, cheater, coward, and totally disloyal narcissist, failed businessman, tax cheater, thief, welcher, blatant racist, fan of Hitler, draft dodger, and public pedophile and incest enthusiast. If you voted for Trump, you voted for all that out of irrational hatred of Democrats, foreigners, non whites, and/or the educated, not because it wasn't public knowledge or even in doubt.

Y'all got carpet bagged by a con man you KNEW was a professional con man and subhuman fecal pile when you chose him. Your party deserves extinction.

"Climate scientists are increasingly concerned that global heating will trigger tipping points in Earth’s natural systems, which will lead to widespread and possibly irrevocable disaster, unless action is taken urgently.

The impacts are likely to be much closer than most people realise, a a draft report from the world’s leading climate scientists suggests, and will fundamentally reshape life in the coming decades even if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under some control.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is preparing a landmark report to be published in stages this summer and next year. Most of the report will not be published in time for consideration by policymakers at Cop26, the UN climate talks taking place in November in Glasgow.

A draft of the IPCC report apparently from early this year was leaked to Agence France-Presse, which reported on its findings on Thursday. The draft warns of a series of thresholds beyond which recovery from climate breakdown may become impossible. It warns: “Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems … humans cannot.”"

"I offered plenty of information and verifiable fact from multiple sources, you did not." Did you delete them or are you imagining you did during all your hate ramblings because I don't see any links to said sources. Doubt we will speak again next year. You will be too busy with your wars. Hope you get drafted so that you can vent some of that keyboard warrior steam of yours. Yes drafting will kick in again if Biden gets his wars with the big boys. Have "fun"

Aaaaahahaha!!!!!!

No Bob, a Trumptard is not a republican. A climate change/science denier is not a Republican. A war hawk is not an old school republican. A draft dodger who calls those who serve America losers and suckers is not a Republican. You are a ReTrumpican, not a Republican.

Fiscal conservatism is the core of Republicanism, and the antithesis of big spender Trump, the nation's biggest loser, who made zero money at all 10 out of the last 15 years (taxes leaked, so sad), and less than my wife and I did at least two of the remaining five, paying at most $750 in income tax...unless he's a total tax cheat too....and it's looking like he's actually hundreds of millions in debt, some to mobsters, some, like $100 million, to Uncle Sam. THAT is not a Republican, Bob, it's a failed business man, convicted fraud and con man, and soon to be boat anchor in the Black sea.

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

Really? Obama was asked to serve in the military and he also dodged the draft. Odd it's never come up.

Or do you mean congress sent him a bill authorising him to change the base names and he vetoed it? Name of the bill and date?

Or do you mean Obama was asked by an individual once, and that's exactly the same thing to you?

@newtboy,

EDIT: drafted this and sent while you were writing previous reply, so maybe some of this is addressed?

Alright, I've gone one step further and read through the shutdownld50 tumblr 'evidence' seeing as they of all places probably gather the most condemning evidence they could.

The evidence amounts to putting on 1 event/exhibit that included far right folks, and included "Brett Stevens", whom I'm not familiar with but the quote from him on Breivik certainly sounds bad. In addition to putting on this exhibit, the even worse accusation is that they didn't really advertise it much publicly. Now, call me skeptical, but I have to believe that if they HAD advertised it heavily that ALSO would have compounded their guilt.

To me it still looks like guilt be association. The gallery had the audacity to host speakers that people disliked, so ergo-nazi!

Please though, if there is more or better evidence then please do let me know, or point me to what I'm missing. Is the Stevens guy so vehemently pro-nazi and and pro-violence that the association really should be enough? I'm inclined to believe no else they'd have better and more extensive quotes to use against him.

Again, I'm coming from a place of not knowing any of these people's backgrounds or history, but if we are supposed to believe them to be villians of such a high degree, I want a stronger case than those people say so and if you spent a few weeks of research on it you'd agree, trust us.