Buy-bye Kitara Devolver. Can we start deportation/extradition to Brazil now please?

*promote to celebrate his expulsion today, a year after democrats put forth the resolution to expel him and the ethics committee to investigate his litany of crimes.
114 Republicans still voted to keep him in congress, knowing all about him. Says volumes.

George Santos is the new face of MAGA…zero morality, zero honesty, zero accomplishments, zero shame, 100% self centered criminals knowingly supported and protected by their party.

You should meet yourself.

You don’t post those anymore (you used to until I beat you up over ridiculous lies and suppositions about Biden with proven facts about Trump, once again proving the accusation is an admission) because there’s absolutely zero evidence of any such thing, but tons and tons of payoffs, multiple unreported hidden secret foreign Trump “bribe me here” accounts including but not limited to unreported accounts in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Qatar, South Korea, Saint Martin, Saint Vincent, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom, actual trades and offers to trade personal payments/favors to Trump/fam for stolen top secret classified documents PROVEN against Trump, and multiple actual trials against him for criminal abuses of office, absolutely nothing against Biden besides ridiculous whining liars, like you.

I would say you should stop looking stupid, but you are what you are…with you it’s not a “look”.

Everything I posted is fact, court filings and actual reporting of what those involved said (with no opinion added).
Remember, you recently posted gleefully about the one Democrat ACCUSED of having child porn…no conviction there…why jump the gun? Why can’t you ever wait until news is “real”….or is the definition of “real” or the “rule” different for you than everyone else…or can you dish it out but are way too thin skinned to take it? *ding ding ding ding

Tell me what isn’t legit. I double dog dare you….can’t call you a tool, tools are useful. You are a fool, and a willing one.

I know you wish I would stop rubbing your party’s constant, unbelievable, history making criminality in your face daily…but more is prosecuted and more are convicted daily, more top Republicans are convicted in $60 million bribery schemes, more go on the run from the law daily, more terrorist Maggots are fleeing to Belarus and Russia to avoid extradition daily. Certainly you want to know what your team is up to/dragging you into.

If that were true, why did you make up the sexist, disrespectful lie that she slept her way into office….repeatedly? You clearly cared that she is a woman despite your denial, and obviously care that she’s black even though you know better than to admit it.

I don’t expect an answer….I would say you should go pander your idiotic propaganda elsewhere, but it seems that since the day Putin’s troll farm was shut down you’re gone, and it’s going to be a while before they get back online, so I’ll instead say enjoy your time out, and enjoy real inflation of your rubles and true leadership failure that Trump praises.

Lol…Manafort caught trying to flee to Dubai yesterday, pulled off the plane with his invalid passport trying to escape to a country with no extradition….a trial run for Trump fleeing to mother Russia or Belarus?

Remember, Trump said Russia’s invasion was genius, near perfection, and indicated it’s what he would have done….with the same disastrous results.

This is you guy. This is you pick? (You’ll never live down your pigeon Russian/English, comrade).

Sorry sugar, newsmax isn't being honest with you.

Almost every challenge has already been tossed out of court or ruled against Trump. Those remaining deal with a miniscule number of votes that may have arrived (not mailed) late thanks to the USPS acting as a part of the Trump campaign and slowing deliveries, and ignoring court orders to "sweep" mail rooms for missing ballots. When forced, one single Houston mail room found over 800....most for Biden. The vote fraud that's been found are all Republican frauds, again, and the numbers aren't large enough to swing the election for Trump in any states. Some might turn blue if all legal votes were delivered.

Most lawsuits were asking to stop vote counting, and were tossed in the trash. Some were about observers, but have zero effect on the counts. The rest are based on pure assumptions, not evidence, of things like late votes being counted, or normal processes like ballot "curing" which is filling out the circle/box when the vote intent was clear but the box not totally blacked out. They're even trying g to disqualify ballots that only had a vote for president...as if that was abnormal or illegal.

Even his case for a recount in Georgia is highly unlikely to proceed, since the margin is over .25% the team requesting a recount must pay for it, and the Trump team is too broke to even hire real lawyers, forget paying up front for a statewide recount.

There aren't even enough votes being questioned by Trump's campaign to swing any states...so there aren't enough to cast doubt even if every one being questioned is fraudulent...and so far there aren't many if any verified fraudulent votes, and my bet is the few found are double votes for Trump anyway.

Sorry sunshine. You lost, and are just stewing in your sour grapes. Just another never Bidener. There's a decent chance you'll lose the Senate too when Georgia is through.
Red tsunami 2020!

Edit: if you donated to the legal defense fund, I hope you read the fine print, because at least half is going to pay pre-existing debts from the campaign, and still more goes directly into Trump's pocket for using his donation portal. Not much is going towards his legal battles, battles he knows are lost causes (most already lost in court). Don't be surprised if you also signed up for monthly donations too, watch your credit card bill, his campaign has repeatedly suckered donors into agreeing to that by hiding it in the fine print, now that his presidency is done he has no reason to not be a pure con man/thief again. Russia won't extradite him, so he's going to grab every penny of your money he can before he flees the country.

Let me guess, he's moving to Russia, right? Saudi Arabia is my second guess, Israel is out, pretty sure they extradite non Jewish foreigners.

Lol. A few Uncle Ruckus clones with their confederate flags aren't the black community, @bobknight33. The creator admits his opinions are extremely unpopular with non whites and non far right wingers....but he makes money off selling them to white far rights.

Trump hates most of America and most Americans, just as most despise him. Why doesn't HE just leave?
He can go home to Putin with his illegal immigrant wife (she violated her no work visa by doing soft core pornography for money) and her anchor baby. It's his best bet to avoid prison....flee to a country that won't extradite.

So much fail.

Canadian devil's advocate here.

We've got incredibly strict gun laws up here by comparison to the US. So our country has done the 'more than nothing' on gun laws. 3 days before the LA shooting we had a terror attack up here in Edmonton but the attacker used vehicles and a knife.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to own guns is leading to higher body counts and that restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts, that rationale is slippery.

Here's the parallel.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to 'practice religion' is leading to higher body counts then restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts.

Because, the Attacker in Edmonton was a Somali refugee. They had an ISIS flag in their car. The US tried to extradite him before Canada welcomed him with open arms. Canadian police even investigated him before when a co-worker reported him advocating genocidal ideas about Shiite scum.

We had a lot of potential red flags that we could have acted harder on or used for profiling and in this case having him in jail would've prevented the attacks.

The thing is, it is NOT immediately self evident that restricting those freedoms is objectively the best answer.

Personally, banning automatic weapons as my country has seems a very sane thing to do. Countering myself though, would the Catalonians in Spain be getting beaten up for holding a vote if the residents had automatic weapon in their basements or would the police show a little more respect to the citizen's than they did?

@newtboy,

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them.

I addressed exactly that in my longer follow up to Enoch. I am asking you to open your eyes and look at the reality on the ground. It's not about legitimizing claims to statehood for convenience or opportunity or semantics or whatever. It is that an area of land larger than many European countries was running under their laws. Was paying them taxes. Was under their justice system. Was under their rule in every single manner. At that point you need to recognize the reality and call a spade a spade and start acting in accordance with reality and not just the borders drawn up on somebody's map somewhere.

You want an analogy in America, than have the whole state of Texas under the control of Richard Spencer and his likes. The American police don't go there, because they fear for their lives. Even the American military has stopped pushing in because their losses were too much. Instead the American military is using back chanels to mostly direct their violent terrorist attacks towards the Mexicans. If Mexico gets tired of Texans coming in and killing them, do they have no further recourse than to ask pretty, pretty please to the US to extradite Spencer and crack down on extremists? That is the reality in Tribal Pakistan with the Taliban calling all the shots.

@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.

@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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Extradite the culprit to Canada to face robocide charges. Probably a dentist.

But they're not at war. America is absolutely 100% not at war with the nations of Pakistan or Yemen or wherever else they're currently using drones.

They are prosecuting assassinations of private individuals within those states. It is quite literally state sponsored terrorism.

The simple fact is that it is an illegal action under international law. Just because a foreign country doesn't want to hand over one of it's citizens that the USA believes is or has been engaged in harmful acts against your country does not mean you can simply throw your toys out of the pram.

If one of your neighbours assaults you and then runs inside their house, you can't just kick down their door for revenge.

To repeat @SDGundamX's excellent summation of the point:

if Americans are in support of remote assassinations that are carried out by executive decision without scrutiny from courts or any sort of due process, how can they possibly decry the use of such strikes by foreign powers against American citizens?

Just because you don't get what you want (the arrest/extradition of terrorists) does not mean you can just do whatever you want.

Oh, and @SDGundamX, my point was not so much that Britain would have used drones against Ireland, it's that they wouldn't have.

As much as I hated Thatcher, she wasn't stupid, and the political fallout over a British armed strike into sovereign Irish territory would have been immense, especially in the USA.

But because it's in one of them foreign places with poor brown people that don't speak english.... well, they get blown up all the time, right? What's a few more air to ground missiles, eh?

Ok, let's change the territory. Forget Muslims and Al Queada and the Middle East and all that.

Let's roll the clock back 30 years, and let's find a comparable scenario where we have stateless actors living in a country who's reluctant to extradite them (either through inability to locate them or because they don't really like the country asking for extradition). These actors are responsible for a number of atrocities committed in the name of a political cause that has some tacit support by the locals of this country.

So we have the IRA hiding in the Republic of Ireland for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Now let's assume the British have drones. Is it acceptable for them to drone strike targets within the Republic leading to civilian casualties? If not, why not?

Hell, let's go forward 20 or 30 years to when Iraq or Afghanistan have drones and the USA refuses to extradite the people that illegally invaded their country and then committed crimes against humanity there. Is it ok to drone strike Texas to get to GW Bush?

This is not a door we want to open. You're happy with it now because you're the ones holding the big stick, but legitimising international assassination because you don't get your way is a recipe for a nightmare.

I'm trying to point out the dilemma posed by stateless criminals operating in parts of the world where they are not liable or accountable to anybody. They are not within your own borders, so domestic law and order can't reach them. They are not operating within an extradition country, so that is out too. They in truth are not operating in a region where any country can bring it's own rule of law to bear on them, so even a declaration of war on Pakistan or Yemen doesn't really even fit.

When criminals operate from these regions, demands they be treated like a regular suburbanite, with a reading of Miranda rights before a bail hearing and formal trial including a state funded defends attorney is ludicrous. Acting like that extreme is mandatory is akin to rejecting the real world and demanding we all just pretend hard in some fictional world that is possible. I'm not advocating unlimited executive powers, I'm just observing that stateless criminals can NOT be dealt with through the same channels as domestic thugs.

I'm with you, but I must admit that the ONLY argument that gave me any pause was the one that goes "if he is practicing civil disobedience, he should WANT to get arrested and stand trial".

Real civil disobedience types like Martin Luther King Jr. and others intentionally broke laws (bullshit laws, but still laws) knowing full well that they would be arrested and go to jail. The point was to bring those terrible laws under public scrutiny and ideally ridicule. Point out how unfair they are. I think that people that take such actions are incredibly noble and selfless. To a certain degree, I think that the arguments that Snowden could or should follow that approach at least partially resonated with me.

But then, I considered some mitigating circumstances. IF Snowden had done that right out of the gate, he'd probably have been tossed in Gitmo for life without ever standing trial -- the administration has made it clear that they consider him an enemy of the state and that they are fine with the precedents of how such individuals are treated (ie., rights don't apply to you).

Basically, it boils down to respect. Dr. King Jr. hated some of the BS laws and social injustices in the South, but he respected the justice and good intentions of the US Government in general at the time. Snowden, on the other hand, had firsthand knowledge and proof that our government doesn't deserve such respect from us. They lie, they shit on the constitution, and they have the audacity to call him a criminal.

So, fuck them. They've pushed the line too goddamn far to expect civil disobedience; I think they clearly deserve every bit of blowback they get in the form of uncivil disobedience. Hell, I hope that Snowden has enough more dirt that he can turn the dial up to 11 and get into downright nasty disobedience if the government steps a single corrupt toe out of line in their attempts to extradite him back to their bullshit kangaroo courts.