Projection will get you nowhere….loser. Your denial of a fact is a form of verification.

Again, every word I wrote is a verified fact, you can’t dispute a single fact so you just say “nuh-uh” like an idiot toddler told its bedtime.

Trump lost another delay, 3 in 3 days…Trump complains that his properties are worth 100 times what he pays taxes on…Trump’s CEO is BACK in prison for lying under oath for Trump, again…catch and killing news stories is exactly what he claims happened with Hunter’s (Russian fake) laptop and is what he did himself repeatedly and admittedly at this point…Trump is a well known speed addict and has been for decades, he takes it in pill form, this explains the constant 3am insane tweets….Trump’s whitehouse handed out more scheduled narcotics than every whitehouse in history combined…Trump’s fake bond has been rejected and if he can’t come up with another by Monday properties start going away.

Every word a fact.

Exactly what do you dispute?
Be specific. (Again, like the toddler you are, I understand you are incapable of making a cogent argument and will not respond, because I know you don’t have anything to say besides whining.)

Considering the plethora of baseless fact free insanity you have spewed from your fecant maw, having you say I don’t know shit is a compliment…you, sir, do know shit, and only shit…you know it so well you have completely replaced your brains with it.

And once again, I’m not Christ…if I was you would be in deep trouble.

Since you deny every fact I point out, here’s a few for you to look up….Google Kentucky Republican candidate Brian Ormes for yourself….more MAGA family values on display…notice the party has not asked him to drop out and stands with him saying he needs due process before they decide what happened despite the fact that his violent attack on a child and strangling the poor terrified kid in public leaving lasting marks on his neck was not only caught on security camera he also admitted it to police.

Then google Tennessee State Representative Gino Bulso who wants to make it legal to marry your first cousin.

Then google Jonathan Stone, Trump New Hampshire campaign head, child rapist, and disgraced cop who threatened to murder his workmates and rape the chief’s wife in front of him before murdering them both when he was reprimanded for having a 16 year old high school “girlfriend”.

Fun…Trump Media is being sued by its former CEO who claims his files were hacked and stolen by the new CEO in an illicit effort to oust the original CEO…all while the stock remains in freefall. At this rate by the time Trump can sell his stock it will be worth a negative amount. Already lost over half! A Typical Trump investment opportunity.

At the same time, Trump’s legal team is subpoenaing the wrong people, never thinking there might be two Mr Rosenberg in New York…and didn’t know for months because they’re so incompetent they put a disconnected phone number on the form so Mr Rosenberg couldn’t even tell them they got the wrong person, so he just wrote the court that he has no documents for them….they didn’t understand and complained he was stonewalling. The trial starts Monday, they haven’t subpoenaed their witnesses yet!

Sorry I’m spewing coherent facts, I know how that upsets you, but maybe one day you’ll join us in reality where a racist misogynistic delusional rapist and lifelong hypocritical fraud with dementia isn’t America’s best.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

Meaningless fiction.
In the post Trump era, it’s more likely that aliens will land and offer free telepathic abortions on demand than it is Democrats and Republicans will agree on anything enough for a 2/3 majority. When one party’s entire platform is “obstruct the other party”, constitutional evolution is dead.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….that makes abortion a right on all 3 counts, since pregnancy can threaten life, denies liberty, and who could be happy forced to be a life support system for another? Also, the logical extension of that obligation means healthy people forced to donate kidneys, transfuse their blood, repeatedly donate partial livers, etc. …anything that other person needs to live should be the obligation of anyone who can supply it. Same as forced pregnancy. That makes it a constitutional issue, the denial of life, liberty, and property without due process, conviction, or even a crime is addressed in the constitution, and applies here.

The difference between the past and present, republicans and democrats, is that we've never had a president openly claim the entire system was rigged, broken, stolen.

I have no problem with due process on either side, but name calling and baseless accusations are not helpful. Quietly and politely take your grievances to the appropriate channels. What Trump is doing is in a nutshell, destroying people's faith in democracy.

Note that if you think this is a partisan answer, this works for either side in any context.

"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

"You feel how nervous everyone just got in here at the fact that I just suggested that there should be due process."

crickets

Too soon to point out that particular flaw in society I suppose.

*quality nutjobs

We are talking about the same idiot that agreed with a conservative talk show host, all the way back in 2011, that doing away with all amendments after the 10th "would eliminate many problems."

The amendments repealed would contain:

13th - Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

14th - Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post–Civil War issues.

15th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.

19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.

24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax.

26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.

Yeah, I could see how making slavery legal again, making it impossible for the people you don't like to be citizens, and preventing undesirables (Blacks,Women,Poor,Young) people from voting would help a certain section of voters.

Cops would have been 100% justified in shooting gelman at any point after he started swinging his knife towards the narrator and before the narrator disarmed him.. Or at least kicking the shit out of him as necessary to stop his killing spree. Due process is for after the perp has been apprehended.

Ok, so....

Cops should just jump on people they think *might* commit a crime because: Reasons .

Good call, citizens!

Due process. Due fucking process.
It exists for reasons beyond your cynical worldview...or even worst case scenarios. It exists to protect the rest of us. The majority.

The cops were right there to take the guy away once he did something stupid. They were also "correct" in not doing anything beforehand. Right before he pulled a knife and stabbed someone, he was just being an asshole, nothing more. That's not illegal. Sorry.

and no: you don't want the police "protecting" you. That's what the Mafia does.

So what's the alternative? Preemptive police takedowns? That happens too, and people scream all the same.

Difference is: I'd rather live in a free society where cops wait for somebody (maybe me) to actually do something wrong, than just leave it up to them to decide when you (or I) *might* be a risk, and then taze or shoot you or me dead.

The police are not there to keep you safe. For one, there is no such thing as "safe" in absolute terms, and in my opinion, if there was, you sure as shit don't want the state prescribing that "safety".

But...that's just my opinion.

Again,

If you want to take a book of rules and ignore it take American law and only read a portion of it like:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death

I suppose that in isolation suggests that American law justifies citizen's pulling out a gun and shooting people providing comfort to Americas enemies. Of course, if you read the WHOLE of American law you find there are things about due process and courts and other checks and balances in place. In fact, that the naive original reading is completely the anti-thesis of what American law advocates.

The point of course being that is EXACTLY the same thing you've done with the bible by entirely ignoring the existence of other parts in that address alter, or provide context on the pieces you picked out. You know, like some guy named Jesus that came along later and some folks have made a big deal about following the teachings of.

The unemployment numbers of 28, 29, 35, and 42% is a weird sequence. So he starts by jumping 1%, then 6%, then 7%. So if we keep the pattern going if could be: 1 6 7 13 20 33 53. It may have been 28, 29, I heard 35, maybe 42, could even be 55, even as high as 88 or *gasp* 141%.

Or it could be up by 1, then up by 5, up by 1 and then up by 5 as in: 1 6 7 12 13 18 19 24 25

But since he stopped at 42, let's get the range: 42 - 28 = 14

Since it's America and it's somewhat appropriate, in the mystical ways of presidential numerology (the only way to understand Trump), the range of 14 must be referring to the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

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.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

Hannity and all those at Fox, good example.
All white nationalists too, because they radicalized the terrorists in Canada to murder people in another church....and those that are connected with the white nationalists....like Bannon and Trump. We need to assassinate them now, because clearly they're fostering and creating terrorists or at the very least in league with them, right?
No due process needed, they live in a place where there's no chance of the law touching them, so assassination is the proper course, right?
I find the entire argument incredibly short sighted and myopic.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.