#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.

Name an opinion and you can find a black guy who agrees with it. Doesn't mean you can generalize it to other black people.

I love it when white people tell black people what is good for us...

Correction: African American fetus.

A fetus.

#23 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You act like you know more about African Americans than I do. And I've been an African American since 1947. My whole family, too. Actually they were African American for much longer. :->) You have made it clear you have no clue what African Americans actually care about. We are the "canaries in the coal mine". When bad stuff happens in this country it usually happens to us first. We knew in 1960 that Nixon was a crook, but did white people listen? Actually, back then there were still good Republicans. Many blacks in the professional and academic classes voted Republican until they nominated Goldwater and the Republican party decided to annex the Confederacy. Kennedy and Johnson gave us the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Republicans gave us the "War On Drugs" and locked up every black man in sight.

Heaven forbid anyone examine if there's racial bias.

If we examine, we'll know. If we know, we might have to act. God forbid.

Yeah, but those are FACTS. "Facts" are so 2015.

something that should be governed at the state level.

Some (actually, most) states have a history of racial discrimination in housing. That's why the Fair Housing Act was passed in the first place. As an American citizen, my rights should not depend upon which state I happen to reside in at any particular time. In my life I lived in 4 different states as a child with my parents and 5 states as an adult. Why should my rights differ from one state to another? Your side doesn't seem to think that it's OK for a state to enact tough gun control rights because you have a "Federally guaranteed right" to have firearms. What about all the other rights that others rely upon? And why is your right to have lethal toys more important than others' right to have a place to live?

Losers are people too. They're not going anywhere. We should figure out how to deal with them.