No Bob. That's wrong....not surprising because Russia doesn't teach American politics, but that's not how it works.

Your simple illustration from a simple mind is incorrect. Impeachment isn't the same as a bill, if it was McConnell would just refuse to act like he has on almost every bill, killing it in political limbo. He simply cannot do that, because it's not a bill, it's a constitutional duty.

Yes, at this point the articles are legitimate, and the Senate's slimy trail began long ago. The trial can't start until the legitimate articles are submitted to the Senate.

A realistic illustration for a simple mind....this is like having a grand jury indictment that has yet to be put on the courts calendar because the judge is the defendant's best friend and business partner but refuses to recuse himself. The indictment is legitimate, but the trial hasn't yet started because the only prosecutor and the jury pool has stated publicly that they're all working for the defendant and will just exonerate him without a real trial, no evidence, and no testimony.
The Senate has to have a real trial to enforce it....but has already ensured any faux trial is nothing but a politically motivated rubber stamp where jeopardy is never attached.

Funny you ignored the bit about charity fraud and other high crimes, which he undeniably committed and admitted under oath so you have to call him a perjuror to deny it, stealing from veterans and children to pay for his campaign and inauguration, lying to Mueller which you applauded, and making hundreds of millions by renting resort rooms to foreign governments at inflated rates that aren't even used (which is pure bribery). That's impeachable, cause for removal, and should end in prison, he outright stole millions through fraud and admitted it last year in court. I suppose you must agree since you didn't contradict any of that.....and you can't, because he's admitted it all.

No standing? Lol. According to who? Trump? Giuliani?
Technically speaking, once the house votes to impeach, he's impeached.

She's holding them back because Senate Republicans have stated clearly they intend to ignore their constitutional obligation to be impartial and will simply pardon Trump with no examination of the evidence, no witnesses, no trial. It's proper to wait until McConnell publicly retracts his unambiguous public statements that he's not going to have a fair (or any) trial, he's not going to be impartial, and that he's simply going to work for and pardon Trump. If he was on any jury, he would be dismissed for those statements. As it stands, unless he recused himself along with all the others who have said the same thing, the trial is a blatant sham because jeopardy isn't attached, and if that happens it will be relitigated after the Republicans lose control of the Senate, which they will if they follow McConnell's lead.
Perhaps that's why they didn't include the multiple impeachable crimes he's admitted to under oath, they need proven crimes to impeach him a second time in case he's reelected, but this time with a Senate that's not his bitch.

Why is Trump whining about it like a spoiled infant?
Why is he really whining and crying about it?

Because he needs the Senate to quickly rubber stamp his pardon, not be forced into an actual trial, not expose the evidence, and certainly not convict. Funny, until seconds before they knew she was withholding them, they all whined about the process moving way too fast, then instantly flipped and cried that it's going too slow now. *facepalm

Treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy is certainly worthy of impeachment, taking foreign donations in trade for policy that benefits them and not the U.S. is impeachable, so is perjury (which you admit he's done), so is felony fraud (which he admits he's done repeatedly), so is ignoring the emoluments clause of the constitution, just to name a few.

Odd, that's what you said about the Mueller investigation, how have elections gone since?
Remember that fake movement you kept pushing, #walk away, that had to make up fake ex democrats and used stock photos to dupe the ignorant into believing them even after they were caught? Wasn't true then, it's not now.

With still over 50% thinking he should be not just impeached, but removed, I'm not worried that congress fulfilling their constitutional duty is hurting. The republican Senate fast tracking and rubber stamping an acquittal without allowing testimony or evidence to be presented only helps Democrats, proving it's not just Trump that needs to go, but them too. How many, like Nunez, are involved themselves and have no other choice? It's obvious to those of us who don't suffer from C.C.R.

-sitting in my cabana waiting on that red tsunami-

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

Uh, I don't see any times in YouTube's 0:26 time stamp.

How'd I know a Tramp Stamp would be involved?

Yes....I see. It's the old "think of how unthinkably dumb and naive the average person is.....now realize that fully half are dumber and more naive than that." problem.
That's why I think we need to see the Donald/Ivanka sex tape, aired for days on the news with no explanation but plenty of disgust, time stamped to prove Barron is their love child, released right before the primaries. It won't have to be done well, just good enough to confuse morons, which isn't hard.

Then the question would become 'Will that make a difference to the Cultists?'

To imply that not having a ID to vote racist is BS.

Everyone of age has an ID.


You need an ID for nearly anything important.
Buying
Smokes,
Liquor,
Airplane tickets

Getting a job
Getting a Gun
To drive
To get a passport
Buying groceries and paying with a check.
Buying some forms of medicine

Opening a bank account
Apply for food stamps
Apply for welfare
Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
Apply for unemployment
Rent/buy a house
Drive/buy/rent a car
Get married


This false argument is brought up by Democrats every election.

Time stamp 1:25
The meat label
Weight: 2.1 lbs X Unit price: 7.99 = Total price: $37.78
That's not how you math.

How do they take our money? Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, even though they make so much money they could easily pay living wages, give benefits and still make a profit. This happens at big companies all across the country. That's how they take our money. But you, as a Christian, don't give a crap about those employees, they just better get another job and work 80 hours a week, so they don't have to get food stamps, just so the rich people running these companies and the shareholders can continue to reap in the huge amounts of money. Who cares Jesus commanded you to help the poor, and that the rich were going to hell, in modern Christian culture it is the rich who are blessed, and the poor who need to be vilified.

I'd wager most of us are working, probably 40 hours or more. Used to be that one person in the family working 40 hours a week was enough. Now that isn't enough in most cases. That money moved to the top. We have one of the largest and fastest growing wealth and income gaps in the world, and in history. Real world income isn't staying with inflation, but that 1% that modern Christians love so much, is staying so far ahead of the curve.

And as to, "they like making $8 an hour" bull fucking shit. While I'm making well more than that, I know that isn't true. They got the best job they can get. It's not that people aren't applying for the jobs that are out there, the employers aren't hiring the people applying. Perhaps that person making $8 an hour doesn't have a college degree, and can't afford to go to college. I have a worthless bachelor's degree in "programming and applications" which basically means I know how to use Word, which I knew before I had it (I could have taught even the programming classes for all the further we got into the programming). That degree cost me near $25k, and who knows how much it'll cost by the time I'm done paying it off with all the interest on it. Back on point, those people can apply to a ton of jobs, but unless they are qualified they won't get it, and even among those they do qualify for, there are a ton of applicants for each job out there. Nobody is working Walmart, McDonald's, Lowes or whatever because it's their dream job. It's the job they can get.

Why should you make a living off 40 hours a week, but they should have to work 80? Why the double standard? Why say let the rich owners and shareholders take that income that used to go to the workers and just say f the employees, so long as I make a living at 40, those people better just work longer. This is why I HATE Christianity because every person who thinks that is a Christian. Every person who thinks that LGBTQIA+ people shouldn't have equal rights under the law is a Christian. Every person who was shouting "let him die" at the Republican debate in '08 in regards to a guy without insurance, was a pro-life Christian. Every person who cheered at the idea of carpet bombing at the 16' debates were pro-life Christians. It's why, in the unlikely event it is real, I'd rather burn in hell than be around those people for all eternity. I've never met a good right-wing Christian. Never. They are all evil vile people who are full of greed and have zero of the love of Christ. Their witness is a shining example of how evil and vile Christianity is.

I'm surprised that fat tub of lard Trump, who dictated his son's letter, who dictated his Doctor's letter, can swing a golf club as often as he does... a guy who bitched and moaned about how often Obama golfed, and who's own golfing and vacation time has far outdone Obama's golfing and vacation time.

We got a President, flagrantly breaking the emoluments clause, and nobody seems to give a rats ass (save a few on the further end of the left, certainly the mainstream media, which Fox and the right accuse of being far left, doesn't care, nor do even moderate Democrats).

I know you don't believe he, or Fox and the like are the ones doing the lies and deceit... and nobody will ever convince you otherwise. I know, because I too once was a far-right Christian, who only trusted Fox, and thought the science of climate change was a joke, as was evolution and the big bang (though I was an old earth creationist, I could never get into the 6,000-10,000-year-old argument)... then I learned to actually vet my news and information. I have no doubt that most of my anger at the right is the fact I was so easily deceived for over 30, nearly 40 years of my life. Hopefully, in the highly unlikely event that others on the right learn that they are the ones who've been lied to, that they are the ones more guilty of spreading falsehoods, deceit, greed, and setting a horribly bad witness for their faith that does far more harm than good, they don't get as angry as I did and leave the faith all together and then hate all of what they once were a part of.

Nice tribute, well played.

I heard a story from a Swedish friend about 3-4 years ago, where they released a stamp with him on it, but it didn't go down all that well. No one over the age of 35 had heard of Avicii, and no one under 35 knew what a stamp was.

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.

I'll give you a synopsis:

God established the law because of sin:

Galatians 3:19

Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator

The seed it is talking about is Jesus Christ, referred to by this prophecy in Genesis of the coming of the Messiah:

Genesis 3

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

Sin came into the world through the transgression of Adam. Because of sin man was separated from God because God is holy and cannot dwell with sin. Because of sin God gave us the law as Paul referred to. Jesus, the new Adam, satisfied all of the moral requirements of the law by living a perfect life. He reestablished the relationship between God and man:

Romans 5

17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous

This is what it means when it says He came to fulfill the law. He brought everything full circle back to the way it was before man first sinned. That is why the law is no longer necessary, because we are made right with God not by obeying the law, but through our faith in Jesus Christ.

When Jesus died on the cross He said "It is finished". It is translated from a greek word "tetelestai", which means paid in full. It something a merchant would stamp on a loan document that was paid up. He said that because He fulfilled the law and paid our sin debt on the cross.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any moral requirements for Christians, but they aren't the same as the ones given to the nation of Israel. We are under a New Covenant and the law of Christ:

Luke 22

19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Galatians 6

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Christ gave us commands to obey, one of which you mentioned: love your neighbor as yourself. Also, love one another as I have loved you and many others. All of the 10 commandments were reiterated although there is a deeper meaning and interpretation to some of them now. Do not commit adultery now extends to lusting after a women in your heart. Jesus also said that hating someone is murdering them in your heart.

The civil and ceremonial laws of Israel no longer apply exactly because Jesus did fulfill the law.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.

When Jesus taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us, it has force because He is morally perfect. We are morally imperfect. We tell people to do things we don't do, and tell people not to do things we do do. Can you name a single human being on whose shoulders we could place objective morals? If you can't then you can see the problem, I hope

Btw, here is a great educational site which is completely free

https://vmcontenders.org/all-courses/

You get the same thing if you stamp down on the hole as well. The clams try their best to clear out any debris. =)

"I referred to the modern nazi who supports them"

Fair enough.

"It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. "
Agreed. That desire should not be considered an acceptable point of view. But there's a big gap between saying expressing a desire and carrying out an action.

"This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on."
No, I don't believe that. Hitler was in power, he had an army and he was already committing genocide. At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities.

But yes, ultimately, if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide, wouldn't that have been a better solution?

There are absolutely times when violence is the best course of action, but it ALWAYS represents a failure to resolve differences.

"I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok."

I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over it and being completely honest, part of me relishes it. But intellectually, I know it's a) not a sustainable solution and b) it's a juvenile response.

"It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies"

Completely agree. Put enough humans together and they form tribes and ascribe bad things to "the others". What saves us is the ability to learn from past mistakes as a civilisation, and even then we're REALLY slow learners.

But we have made progress.
Going from right to left, I would bet that even most Nazis think women should be able to vote; the vast majority of conservatives view racism as abhorrent (at least, consciously) and "Middle America" has mostly come around to gay rights.

"Defeated" might be the wrong word here. I want Nazism to become as laughable a philosophy as flat earthers. Espousing it should be met with the same response as someone who claims thunder is the gods playing football.

" TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me"

Don't apologise... it's an interesting discussion.