We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In order to do those things it requires money. In essence "Other People's Money". Explain how to do any of this without taxes.

You need to enroll in a "How to recognize sarcasm" seminar.

#9 | POSTED BY CONTRECOUP

There are those on the DR who believe it. It's hard sometimes to tell who does or doesn't.

They're lucky that they worked for trump, and not the Clintons.
Hillary would have had them killed.

#2 | POSTED BY CONTRECOUP

Yeah, cause everybody who worked for them is dead, now. Right?

Yeah, let the new immigrants do it the old-fashioned way - organized crime.

Most western countries aren't going to allow you to emigrate unless you can show you are going to be an asset to that country. In reality, most countries won't even let you enter unless you can demonstrate you have sufficient resources to take care of yourself and return to your country of origin.

#25 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You do realize that no other "western" country was built by immigration, right? Without immigration, the only people who have that status here are the natives who were here when the white folks stole it from them at gunpoint. We are all immigrants (or descendants of slaves brought here by immigrants). You are aware, are you not, that when the Irish and the Italians came here many/most were dirt poor, right? The only reason they didn't get "government assistance" was because there wasn't any such thing at the time! So, instead, they formed "gangs" to provide for them (a form of authoritarian socialism). It was the second and third generations who established themselves as major contributors, not the original immigrants.

It's good to know that the folks on the DR are much more talented than the people who actually, you know, win Grammys.

When will the right recognize that this is not just some old guy sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off his lawn? He is the President of the United States. He has more power than almost anyone else on the planet. Why do you think the Ukrainian ambassador felt threatened? Why do you think Stormy Daniels felt threatened? Why did Cohen threaten people on his behalf? This is who he is! And the fact that he has so much power should be frightening.

You have never been in the state of Texas have you?
#21 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Actually, I spent a lot of time in the Dallas area in the early 80's. I've also been to Houston and Austin. Are you claiming that those cities are as conservative as their suburbs and exurbs? I used to stay in Irving when I was there and noticed that it was "dry". But Dallas isn't dry, is it? There's one difference right there.

#14 | Posted by danni Seems that only ultra-liberal states have a problem with staggering amounts of homeless living on the sidewalks.

#15 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

You mean the states with the biggest cities? You ever wonder why all the biggest cities are "liberal"? Or why even in the reddest states, the largest cities are the most liberal? Maybe it's a result of lots of different kinds of people living together...

#12 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

And your solution to the problem is?.....

I wonder when they will be the only ones who get to vote.

They pretty much already are.

He means "white people weren't counting, so it didn't happen". Nothing is true in America until white people declare it to be so.

The Republican party has made it clear. They only care about two things: Money and Power. They are "Christians" who think Jesus was a wimp. "Turn the other cheek", "love thy enemy", "feed the hungry". Bah! Humbug!

I love how a guy who was indicted for colluding with Russia to interfere with US elections is now the Left's favorite "whistleblower".
You can't make this shht up.

#2 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

As I'm sure you know, if you really are a lawyer, some of the best testimony in a criminal conspiracy comes from other criminals including those involved in the crime.

#15 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Biden can't provide any testimony regarding what Trump did or didn't do, which is the only thing relevant to the trial. Nothing Biden could have done in Ukraine justifies extorting a foreign government to provide dirt on a political opponent. By the way, Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board after the company was cleared by the Ukrainian government. Biden didn't break any Ukrainian laws. There is no evidence that Joe Biden delivered any "quo" regarding Ukraine. His agitating for the removal of the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was, at the time, the official policy of the United States Government (including some Republican Senators), not a "favor" to benefit Hunter.

They thought Abuse of Power was impeachable when they charged Bill Clinton with it. Also in the Nixon articles and several Federal Judges who have been impeached and removed for Abuse of Power. The Impeachment Clause doesn't differentiate between impeaching the President and any other "Federal Officer". The process and the standards are the same for all.

For today's Republicans, elections are pep rallies.

Makris, this is the same thing I posted to you on another thread:

It sounds like you are unaware that at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no criminal statutes because they hadn't been written yet. Federal statues did not exist until the Congress under the Constitution created them. So, obviously, a statute is not required to impeach and remove.

Several Federal judges have been impeached and removed for "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench", neither of which is a "criminal statute". The impeachment power is not different for President than it is for other "Federal Officers" including Federal Judges.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804:

"The House adopted the select committee's eight articles on March 26, 1804,[17] one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his "intemperate and inflammatory ... peculiarly indecent and unbecoming ... highly unwarrantable ... highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury."

Several others were impeached and removed for "Abuse of power".

Nope, not seeing a violation of a Federal statute there...

And just how do you go about calculating what constitutes a "living" wage?

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How about what it costs to live? You know, rent, utilities, food, transportation. A person who does not have all of those things cannot hold a job.

And I'm tired of this BS about "teenagers". Everywhere I see fast food restaurants, the majority of the workers are middle-aged women. Housekeeping - adult women and men. Lots of jobs that don't pay more than minimum wage are not jobs where the workers are primarily teenagers. Lots of people in nursing homes and hospitals (including Certified Nursing Assistants) make less than the proposed $15 minimum wage. These are not teenagers.

It sounds like Makris is unaware that at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no criminal statutes because they hadn't been written yet. Federal statues did not exist until the Congress under the Constitution created them. So, obviously, a statute is not required to impeach and remove.
Several Federal judges have been impeached and removed for "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench", neither of which is a "criminal statute"

The impeachment power is not different for President than it is for other "Federal Officers" including Federal Judges.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804:

"The House adopted the select committee's eight articles on March 26, 1804,[17] one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his "intemperate and inflammatory ... peculiarly indecent and unbecoming ... highly unwarrantable ... highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury."

Several others were impeached and removed for "Abuse of power".

Nope, not seeing a violation of a Federal statute there...

...in any other country except ours.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Well, she's still an American citizen, so your opinion doesn't matter. She has as much right to live here as you do. Now, whether Harry can get a green card...

Where in the law are they crimed? Show me the criminal statute and the jail time associated with said crimes.
If you cant find them, then they only exist in the House under the political process.

It sounds like you are unaware that at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no criminal statutes because they hadn't been written yet. Federal statues did not exist until the Congress under the Constitution created them. So, obviously, a statute is not required to impeach and remove.

Several Federal judges have been impeached and removed for "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench", neither of which is a "criminal statute". The impeachment power is not different for President than it is for other "Federal Officers" including Federal Judges.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804

"The House adopted the select committee's eight articles on March 26, 1804,[17] one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his "intemperate and inflammatory ... peculiarly indecent and unbecoming ... highly unwarrantable ... highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury."

Several others were impeached and removed for "Abuse of power".

Nope, not seeing a violation of a Federal statute there...

If a job requires a human being to perform it, it should pay enough for that human being to live on.

93% and 95% of blacks voted for Obama.
When was the last time these percentages of a race voted for a particular candidate?

#92 | POSTED BY PETROUS

All the time

Blacks vote for Democrats because -look at the Republican/"conservative" comments above.

Hillary got 89% of the black vote.
Al Gore got 90% of the black vote.
Bill Clinton got 83% in 1992.
Bill Clinton got 84% in 1996.
Dukakis got 89% in 1988.
Mondale got 91% in 1984.
Carter in 1980 - 83%.
Carter in 1976 - 83%.

Is that racist?

I think you can see the point. Obama got a few % points more, but that's all. Blacks are practical voters who vote for policies more than personalities. Republican/"conservative" policies regarding racial inequality suck. They also want to vote for a winner, which is why Obama didn't have the support of the majority of black voters until he won in Iowa, proving that white people would vote for him since we know blacks can't elect a president without a whole lot of white voters.

"Projects" offered by Democrats and JOE was GOOD for African Americans?

The problem with "projects" is that the people who live there are marginal in one way or another. The problem is what it always is, the people are treated as less deserving than those who don't need to live in the projects. The projects aren't great, but it is better than being homeless. But upkeep and security don't come free, or cheap. The people who live there still don't have any money.

The problem is that "conservatives" want to blame people for being poor and always seek to minimize any investment in their welfare. Because, as we all know, being born poor is a character flaw. The child should have picked better parents. Horatio Alger is a myth. Today in America, if you are born poor you will almost certainly die poor.