I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.

i think you guys are missing the point of this video.this video was not produced for YOU.

this is a dog whistle video for those who identify as "right" leaning politically,and may be on the fence in regards to the alt-right.they may adhere to more conservative and traditional values but find the alt-right a tad to extreme,a tad too racist and neo-fascist.

and they most likely already find "leftists" and "liberals" offensive to their political sensibilities.

and here we have a video showing "lefties" perpetrating violence on innocent,rightwing by-standers..you know..their peeps.

so you watch with indignation and disbelief,while the rightwingers watches in horror and fear.this video is meant to do just that:instill fear and prompt a person to action and to view this action as righteous self-defense.

this is identity politics,pure and simple.

and now we have TWO extremists groups growing,and BOTH are convinced of their righteous convictions that THEY have a RIGHT..no..a DUTY..to perpetrate violence in the name of their ideology.

well,it is not EVERYBODY..

yeah..no shit sherlock.we get that.
not everyone is a neo-fascist,racist,super white nationalist.

nor are they all communists and black bloc anarchists.

but it IS those two groups who have adopted extremist ideologies that in their little pea brains have given them the moral authority to fuck some people up.

and THIS fucking video is a goddamn recruitment video for the neo-fascists!

communists and black bloc anarchists on my left..
racist neo fascists on my right..
here i am...
stuck in the middle...

*related=https://videosift.com/video/ANTIFA-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right

No, this is wrong. Hillary had very strong support from the Black/Latino voters. Saying that Hillary had weak support in that bloc is disingenuous at best when she had something like > 80% of the Black and Hispanic vote. Less than Barack, yes. Absolutely in no way is it 'very weak support'. She had very strong support from that Bloc.

And with reference to Bernie, I'm not so sure his support was there. Hillary did win the popular vote in the in the primaries by 2 million votes. Yes, it's possible the calling of the race for Hillary influenced the people but that ignores the choice/will of the people.

I would say though, this was not a 'whitelash' as he calls it. Fewer white people voted this election than last and Hillary pulled far less of the black and latino vote because she simply assumed that there was no way they wouldn't vote for her. It was only in the last week of the election that her polls showed that she had very weak support from that bloc and she sent out panic attempts to draw them in.

I think Bernie would have given Trump a far stronger challenge, but the Democratic elite hand picked Hillary. We are all going to reap what they sowed.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

We have the enormous misfortune in the UK to live in a democracy; how could it not? As more people from, effectively, the past enter the country the progress we've been making will be slowed or reversed.

Western, or probably more specifically north-western europe is that special region in the world where religion is actually dying off. More people in the UK are non-religious than religious. Christians in this country finally have the decency to be ashamed of their faith, and any extravagant public expression of belief is met with contempt from believers and non-believers alike - look at the minor scandal created when Tony Blair admitted to being a catholic, and engaging in such outlandish behaviours as prayer.

Orthodox christians from easten europe, and refugees from even less civilised areas, haven't had the opportunity to develop the same attitude. As they settle in their nasty little insular communities, the danger is that they're in a position to act as voting blocs that damage public policy.

Anyway, I'm sure it's heartening for eric to discover that basically none of us has any idea either.

The problem is the GOP as constructed is already the minority party at least nationally. Since 1992, they've won the popular vote once in presidential races. Demographics favor voting blocs that track for Democrats. If the GOP splits into a moderate party and Tea Party, that is the effective end of the GOP, and the Tea Party would also be politically castrated. The people who built the Tea Party understood that the way to gain influence was as an insurrection within the GOP, not as a third party. For the Tea Party, it was a smart move. They've gained massive influence nationally compared to their numbers. But it is a cancer to the Republican Party that they've proven they're completely unable to control.

Every single problem or mistake you've listed is all due to one common thread - there are too many supporters of the GOP that are too radical. Why did McCain pick Palin? He was too moderate for the base, so he needed to up his conservative street creds, and he needed a minority splash to combat Obama being black. Combine those two, and you can't get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins, but you could get to either of them if you drop the "needs to be hard right conservative". Why did McCain move to the right in the first place? The base demanded it.

Why can't Obama do anything right according to no one in the GOP pretty much? Base is too rabid and demands it. Why did Romney shift to the right? Base.

You can blame the party for catering to the extreme too much, but the problem is the extreme makes up so much of what they have for support, they have no choice. Tea Party organizers astutely realized that, radicalized their supporters to threaten to not turn out for moderate candidates, and even to primary challenge even guys like Eric Cantor for compromising too much.

I mean this sincerely - the GOP party leadership is not at fault. Blame the original Tea Party organizers. Blame Tea Party candidates. Blame the media environment for increasingly favoring more radical candidates by creating partisan bubbles to carefully dissimenate information that suites partisan goals. Blame an electorate too stupid and/or apathetic to understand that neither conservative nor liberal ideology solves every problem (which is so painfully obvious that I can prove that in about 5 minutes), so you need to learn about each issue, and use those ideologies to form options, and then choose the one that's more likely to work, regardless of its ideological foundation. Yeah, that actually takes work and critical thinking, but you'll actually solve problems!

But that ain't happening, so it's time to sit back and watch the slow decline of the GOP as it eats itself alive, and Democrats will increasingly win because we'll keep being presented more with GOP candidates a majority of candidates can't stomach, and hope like heck the Democrats nominate at least someone semi-competent for office, because that's pretty much all we got.

I couldn't stomach voting for a single GOP nominee for president since George Bush, Sr. It's gotten worse because I couldn't stomach my choice for VA governor last year either. I had to choose between a batsh1t insane Cuccinelli or political sleeze in McAulliffe, and it was both the fastest choice to make for me, yet I was the least happy about having to make it for McAulliffe.

And just when I thought you couldn't get much lower from the GOP, they're on the doorstep of nominating Trump or Cruz for president of the entire country.

One again ... here I am ... to wish you a beauty birthday Fantomas! Perhaps a choc a bloc piss up is in order [if that's your thing]? Whatever you do, stay stoked!

@Lawdeedaw are you trying to make a point? or just being a dickhead?

Should I list a bunch of names that have been changed for precisely those reasons?

You mentioned Russia.. as in USSR Eastern Bloc Russia.. so.. yeah.

Pointlessly snarky much?

@Trancecoach

I don't comment much at all for years, but I did just want to say that people complaining about politicians acting like elitists apparently don't recognize some very key facts about voters:

Most people want the government to spend more (take your pick whether it's favoring increased spending on social programs, or it's more spending on defense, etc.), yet want to be taxed less. Just that fact alone proves how stupid the general electorate is. An alarming portion of voters can't tell you accurately the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, don't understand how market forces are supposed to work, or even be able to recognize what is and isn't a socialist idea at its core.

I don't mean this as an attack on Democratic voting blocs specifically, nor Republican voting blocs. I mean this as an attack against the intellectual ability of most American voters. And when the voting public is that ignorant, ideologically blind, or just plain stupid, what do you think some people are going to do, regardless of their party's affiliation? They're gonna try to take advantage of it.

And doing things to hide key aspects of legislation in order to get support is hardly new, and hardly unique to either side. Explain to me how doing those things is any different than making ridiculous claims about Obamacare that have no bearing on reality different?

Remember those? They're gonna kill grandma! DEATH PANELS!

"Obamacare is a complete socialist takeover of the healthcare system!" That one just proves my point. The conservative right spent decades programming the American voting population to equate socialism as bad, when so many people don't even know what socialism actually is, and they did this despite numerous examples of when largely socialist policies have been resounding successes. Then they make a completely false claim that Obamacare is a complete socialist take over of the US health care system, when it isn't to fire up their voting blocs to oppose it, along with anyone else who is too stupid to know what "complete socialism" would actually look like in the health care system (hint: single payer), and who are stupid or ideologically blind enough to recognize successful largely socialist policies (like institutionalizing compulsory public education as a DUH example).

Where the hell was your outrage then? You think those (we'll call them) criticisms were coming out of voters spontaneously? No, they were thrown into the ring by GOP and conservative leaders as tools to manipulate public opinion into opposing Obamacare when they were flaming piles of bullcrap.

So either you're one of the idiots, or you're one of many partisans trying to spread your BS incredulity at the other side.

And to be clear, I'm not attacking you because you're a conservative. I'm attacking you because this is either hypocrisy or ideological blindness at its worst.

you can make a non-tea party case for fiscal conservatism.

but you really can't make a huge case these days for social conservatism and that's where they really lose. You can't tell gays to go back into the closet, you can't tell minorities to be quiet, you can't tell women to accept lower pay and forfeit reproductive rights and health. You can't tell poor people to fuck off and die in an alley.

I don't know this guy, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he might even agree with all these things. This illustrates the problem with using vague binary terms like liberal and conservative to describe political views. Depending on the person "conservative" can mean completely different things.

This is the problem with the two party system. You can't sum up nuanced , complex political views into two parties. It's stupid.

Republicans have a huge perception problem they need to solve. Many people view them as old, white, racist, plutocrats. I know for a fact that they are not all this way. But the problem is, there are plenty of people who identify as Republican who DO fall completely into that view.

Fortunately, old people do have a habit of dying. so that solves part of the problem. But some people have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming the entire way. If the Republican party wishes to survive, they need to decide pretty quick how they're going to deal with that.

I think there are too many people who identify as Republican for romantic reasons only. They're obsessed with the idea that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican even though the Republican party of then is completely different from the way it is now and it is due largely to racism. (google Southern Strategy)

As i've said before. All parties and lobbying need to be abolished. You can't stop people from assembling into voting blocs, but at the very least we can refuse to officially acknowledge them and do away with the RNC and DNC and remove money from our elections and force the person, not the party to run for office.

Death from old age has a way of getting through to people.

That 40+% voting bloc you spoke of? a high percentage of that number are old (and white)

That's the sad disturbing reality. change is slow...painfully slow. Some people will never change their mind. all you can do is wait for them to die and be replaced by people who have opinions that reflect reality better.

We still have people who don't think women should vote. We still have people who think black people should be back in chains. Sure they're in the minority and they're going to be dead from natural causes relatively soon, but still.

>> ^messenger:

But it's only their people who can worship there. How can tax deductions for religious be justified in the first place? Who even came up with that idea? Stupid.

The justification for it was that churches, synagogues and the like provide benefits for the community at large and not just their members.

How true this is today probably depends on where you live. A few weeks ago this happened about 10 minutes from where I live. Dozens of families have been left homeless and without all their belongings. Many of the local houses of worship have stepped up to donate clothing and food and to find temporary shelter for those that need it with no reservations about the faith of the victims.

Likewise, if I ever found myself way down on my luck with nobody to turn to for help, I could walk into most of the houses of worship here and the father or rabbi would be willing to talk with me and help, probably even without invoking God and faith if I told them I was not a believer.

This is the sort of thing you find in small, somewhat old-fashioned towns like this, though I wouldn't be surprised to find it in NYC either. Not every redneck is an aggressive authoritarian.

That being said, I'd like to see some restrictions enacted on religious tax exemptions. The Hasidim, in particular, have greatly abused this. Large portions of the land here are Hasidic camps (summer homes) which are listed as religious retreats and pay no taxes. It's costing us a fortune and we've been struggling for decades, never mind the recession. They do not participate in the community, they do not give back to the community and if I walked into one of them looking for help as described in my example above, I would be thrown out and charged with trespassing. They do not meet any of the requirements for tax exempt status under NYS law but they are very good at bloc voting, so they have been able to keep it going.

It's just so much easier to lie, isn't it? Or at the very least to allow yourself to be taken in and believe a lie because it challenges your fast-held, dogmatic belief system, no?

FYI: The so-called "black bloc" of anarchists who perpetrate these acts of vandalism during peaceful protests are in no way, shape or from part of OWS. There is plenty of collected first-hand and anecdotal evidence now that the "black bloc" which sought to infiltrate and create an agenda within OWS was actually funded and promoted from without by the very same type of people who posted this video here on VS (ie, those who promote a rich, tax-enabled, elite class to rule over all other Americans).

The "black bloc" has since been ejected and disavowed by OWS to eliminate the presence of police/political agent provocateurs from causing further harm to the avowed peaceful intent of the OWS movement.

Don't be fooled and please keep your eyes open. Peace.

Watch OWS Infiltration by Unscrupulous Liars

I guess I need to come up for a shorthand name for this. Let's call it the Democratic Flop theory.

Basically the idea behind this one is that the fascism the Republican party overtly wants and fights for is also secretly what the Democratic party wants. According to this theory, the reason they seem to lose to the right isn't because they're a diverse group of moderates who are trying in vain to strike reasonable compromises with a monolithic bloc of extremists bent on their destruction, it's because all appearance of dissent in the Capitol is a show, and their role is to placate the ~50% of the population that isn't already pro-fascist.

This is a theory that makes extraordinary claims, and requires some rather extraordinary evidence. Evidence you don't have.

How about another conspiracy theory? How about, the Democratic Flop theory is actually another tool the fascists are using to demoralize their opposition and further consolidate power? Ever consider that one?

If the Democratic Flop theory were right, why would the Republicans bother doing something so blatant as this? Why would the Democratic half of the show draw national attention to it? Why wouldn't they just quietly abolish the requirement with a single unanimous vote before the (ostensibly planned) radical crap like vote suppression and emergency manager law starts being fed into the legislative pipeline?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^TheGenk:
Republicans, preparing the USA for a dictatorship since (at least) 2001.

Eh Bullshit...all white men that owned land wish to control everything since the beginning...they just didn't want ONE white man that owned land to do it. The Republicans and Democrats are the same on this point...they control things, we vote in meaningless elections and remain the cowed hoard.