The latest nutbaggery is these lunatics offering old photographs of them with Trump (always in a public setting) as some kind of proof that he knew them and therefore their accusations are true.
It reminds me of my one and only meeting with Donald Trump.
In 2000 I was in NYC attending a medical device trade show at the Javitts Center. One evening after the trade show closed for the day a couple of my colleagues and I went to dinner at Del Frisco's Steak House on 7th Avenue. All during our meal we had people pushing past our table, bumping into our chairs and causing a commotion. Some a-hole actually grabbed the chair I was sitting in and pushed it in to the table so that he could push by.
Finally a waiter came to our table and explained that Donald Trump was dining with some of his friends at a nearby table and that autograph hounds had caused the problem and he apologized. Toward the end of our meal the same waiter came to our table and said: "Mr. Trump noticed the trouble you were having and he is paying for your dinners." Soon after that Mr. Trump came to our table and wanted to offer his apologies to us. We all told him there was no need for him to do that as he wasn't the one that had bothered us. He was very gracious and very friendly.
One of my colleagues had his camera along and he took photos of each of us with Mr. Trump.
I am absolutely certain that Donald Trump has no idea who I am and no recollection of that incident, but judging by current events I suppose that now I can claim that he sexually assaulted me and I can show that old photograph as my "proof" when he claims he doesn't know me and doesn't recall ever meeting me.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2017).]
Democrats now have a strategy, that will allow them to steal every election. When this country burns from marxist policies, and you are homeless don't say a fricking word.
Democrats now have a strategy, that will allow them to steal every election. When this country burns from marxist policies, and you are homeless don't say a fricking word.
I don't regard it as Jones winning so much as Moore losing. We all see it differently but I saw him as a very flawed candidate. If they had put just about anyone else up there Jones would have lost bigly. I don't see it as a sea change for the dems.
I don't regard it as Jones winning so much as Moore losing. We all see it differently but I saw him as a very flawed candidate. If they had put just about anyone else up there Jones would have lost bigly. I don't see it as a sea change for the dems.
False accusations just won a election. All future elections will use this strategy.
False accusations just won a election. All future elections will use this strategy.
I think that it was more than just accusations whether anyone believes the accusers or not. Wasn't he removed from his judge seat twice? The accusers were probably one of the things that derailed him. I stand by my opinion that if they had put anyone else up there they would have won. Luther Strange would have won in my opinion.
That won't stop leftists and the media from playing it up that way for the next few months though.
If anything this should also motivate the Republicans to reevaluate their slates for the upcoming 2018 midterms and since they also have a very fat war chest against a broke and financially destitute Democrat national party, (they can thank Obama and Clinton for that), the Republican party should be able to put a lot of money behind well vetted candidates.
I really don't understand why everyone who accuses a republican on this forum is a "false accuser" and everyone accusation against a liberal is taken as gospel.
Trumps accusers(for the most part) were before he even entered politics, when the women had nothing to gain. Roy Moore's accusers not only had corroborating stories, but when a false accusation tried to go to WaPo(to prove that they had just hired the accusers), WaPo exposed them as false.
Additionally, there were many other negatives against Moore.
- He attempted to defy the separation of church and state by refusing orders stating that he violated the first amendment(10 commandments) - Then he was removed a second time for these six reasons 1. disregarding a federal injunction. 2. demonstrated unwillingness to follow clear law. 3. abuse of administrative authority. 4. substituting his judgment for the judgement of the entire Alabama Supreme Court, including failure to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court. 5. interference with legal process and remedies in the United States District Court and/or Alabama Supreme Court related to proceedings in which Alabama probate judges were involved. 6. failure to recuse himself from pending proceedings in the Alabama Supreme Court after making public comment and placing his impartiality into question.
He has been quoted multiple times referring to times of legal slavery as "better for America". Quote 1: "I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another. Our families were strong, our country had a direction." Quote 2: "Getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would 'eliminate many problems' in the way the US government is structured.
For christ sake this guy believed that Obama wasn't born in the United States.
I really don't understand how anyone can attempt to blame one thing for his defeat, its like if I refused to accept that Hillary was a total sh!t candidate. She was total crap, and she deserved to lose. Moore is the same way, he in no way deserved to win that seat.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 12-13-2017).]
I'm a Trump supporter but I think this puts a nail in coffin regarding his agenda for the next two years at least. As it stands now, the Republicans have a one seat majority in the Senate and things sit at zero seats if you count McCain.
This means that all it will take is one spineless Republican to doom anything that Trump proposes. The wall, the budget, travel ban, repealing Obamacare. All gone
The way I see it, it's gonna be a rough two years folks.
I'm a Trump supporter but I think this puts a nail in coffin regarding his agenda for the next two years at least. As it stands now, the Republicans have a one seat majority in the Senate and things sit at zero seats if you count McCain.
This means that all it will take is one spineless Republican to doom anything that Trump proposes. The wall, the budget, travel ban, repealing Obamacare. All gone
The way I see it, it's gonna be a rough two years folks.
And Obamacare, well, I can't really argue the cost with that one. After all, costs are going up. But the Republicans had a full year to come up with a replacement , and they couldn't. They really proved that they were only capable of saying "no", not actually fixing anything.
Oh, and that magical tax bill? Yeah, that will be great for a few years, but it is going to skyrocket our deficit and screw over everyone who isn't rich after the middle class cuts run out. According to the super liberal thinktankthe nonpartisan Join Committee on Taxation.
I'll agree that Obamacare is in DESPERATE need of a fix, but just repealing it is not the solution. Going back to a system where pre-existing conditions will stop you from getting healthcare? Do we really want that? There are many, many better solutions.
As for the other stuff, they are awful ideas based on emotion and fear, nothing more. They won't help anything, as they are solving issues that just do not exist.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 12-13-2017).]
I really don't understand why everyone who accuses a republican on this forum is a "false accuser" and everyone accusation against a liberal is taken as gospel.
Trumps accusers(for the most part) were before he even entered politics, when the women had nothing to gain. Roy Moore's accusers not only had corroborating stories, but when a false accusation tried to go to WaPo(to prove that they had just hired the accusers), WaPo exposed them as false.
Additionally, there were many other negatives against Moore.
- He attempted to defy the separation of the first amendment by refusing orders stating that he violated the first amendment(10 commandments)
Do tell how the first amendment applies to a judge. This I wanna hear. Lol
Does dear teacher not know the 1st amendment? Lmao
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-13-2017).]
I really don't understand why everyone who accuses a republican on this forum is a "false accuser" and everyone accusation against a liberal is taken as gospel.
Any more questions?
The concept is called "verifiable evidence" and you might also note that neither Franken or Conyers denied any of the allegations against them.
It is almost hard to believe that we have to keep going over simple concepts with you, but then you *are* a leftist.
Additionally, your atrociously worded sentence above is proof enough that you couldn't properly *teach* anyone to even tie their shoes.
(Who are the Republicans on this forum that have been accused of something?)
Your claim of being some sort of educator gets more and more doubtful every time you post.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2017).]
- He attempted to defy the separation of the first amendment
Outside of Shadeball, it's rare that we get something this garbled and incomprehensible from anyone....(Ok, there is Efurgal, but that is also expected)
Just for entertainment, please regale us with your "theory" of how one goes about "defying separation of the first amendment".
Trump was against Moore during the primaries, and that was long before the Dems paraded the victims on Moore.
All the main stream Republicans was against Trump's pick for the Senate race and embraced Moore, who ended up winning the Republican nomination. The press streamed headlines for weeks saying that Moore's win was a setback for Trump.
Then the Dems did there usual parade the victims on Moore and all of a sudden everyone bailed on him, except reluctantly Trump, being maybe a bit too loyal for the Republican Party stumped and robo called on behalf of him. But it is over, and Dems have another chump puppet to do their bidding for the remainder of that Senate term, because he won't get reelected.
Press for weeks will say this is a Trump failure, when Trump never endorsed him in the first place and campaigned against him in the primaries. Anyways, Trump congratulated the new Alabama Senator for a hard fought election and welcomed him to the Senate and future Whitehouse visits. That is something that Dems will never do, is congratulate a winning opponent. Trump did, because he is good dude in his heart. Good peoples do those sort of things.
I like Trump because he calls people out for lying, I liked him for reluctantly stepping up for the party sake, and also for the rightful sportsmanship and professional courtesy of congratulating a winner. Just true leadership in action. Despite his many flaws, I can say that Trump is growing on me and I think we may be surprised to see some real positive outcomes from Trump in the next few years.
I'm a Trump supporter but I think this puts a nail in coffin regarding his agenda for the next two years at least. As it stands now, the Republicans have a one seat majority in the Senate and things sit at zero seats if you count McCain.
McCain is 80 years old and is battling with aggressive brain cancer, (tumors).
I wish him well, but realistically I think he will be gone from the Senate sometime in 2018.
After that, the usual interim appointment by the Governor of Arizona, (a Republican), and a special election later.
Apologies, broken link and a typo. Fixed the PewResearch link and the typo with "First Amendment" when it was supposed to say "Separation of Church and State"
The precise text reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This also means that the government may not endorse a particular religion. That would be establishing religion, and the Alabama supreme court agrees with this. Link from the time: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW...ore.tencommandments/
Congress being key, which means Judge Moore's removal from the court was unconstitutional and done to appease unconstitutional marxist.
The genesis of the issue of Judge Moore and the removal of the 10 Commandments monument is with a liberal Federal court judge, (Myron Thompson), appointed by Jimmy Carter.
It had nothing to do with the will of the people of Alabama.
"Richard Cohen, a lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center -- one of the groups that sued Moore over the monument -- said the organization would seek to have Moore disbarred."
What a non-surprise. Hardcore leftists going after a conservative judge.
Roy Moore has been a big target of the left for many years.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2017).]
This also means that the government may not endorse a particular religion. That would be establishing religion, and the Alabama supreme court agrees with this
You're a LIAR
Here we are AGAIN with you LYING by both commission and omission.
Your link says NOTHING like what you stated fabricated.
Judge Moore was removed from the bench ONLY because he didn't comply with the federal court order. That's it.
"The ethics panel said Moore put himself above the law by "willfully and publicly" flouting the order to remove the 2.6-ton monument from the state judicial building's rotunda in August."
The balance of the article continues to support and reiterate that point.
It says NOTHING about the Alabama Supreme Court agreeing with a damn thing regarding endorsing anything.
In point of fact, the article says almost the exact OPPOSITE of your LIE.
Other than the Alabama Supreme Court being totally silent on the "separation" issue, the article specifically says:
"President Bush has nominated (Alabama Attorney General), Pryor to a seat on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Senate Democrats are trying to block the nomination by filibuster. Pryor, a Republican, has said he believes the Ten Commandments display was constitutional, but he said Thursday federal court orders must be obeyed."
That's the highest elected Judicial Branch official in the State of Alabama stating for the record that he disagreed with the liberal federal court judge's ruling.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2017).]
There were great people running, people that would have easily won.
Then the establishment tried to run their guy, and put a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Different factions of the Republican party split the vote away from the "clear winners" giving Roy Moore the primary. I believe Roy Moore is a good man, and a Godly man. He's spent his career standing up for the Ten Commandments. But he's also... Quirky.. He's polarizing, and has never won an election by a "landslide."
Republicans, not Democrats created the fake story about Roy Moore kissing a teenage girl, and the other people that came forward. They did it to get their establishment guy forward, and pushed it because they would rather have a Democrat in (establishment is establishment.) office, than someone that wouldn't play ball with them. Right now the Republican party (not the people) is celebrating the Democrat victory.
There were great people running, people that would have easily won.
Then the establishment tried to run their guy, and put a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Different factions of the Republican party split the vote away from the "clear winners" giving Roy Moore the primary. I believe Roy Moore is a good man, and a Godly man. He's spent his career standing up for the Ten Commandments. But he's also... Quirky.. He's polarizing, and has never won an election by a "landslide."
Republicans, not Democrats created the fake story about Roy Moore kissing a teenage girl, and the other people that came forward. They did it to get their establishment guy forward, and pushed it because they would rather have a Democrat in (establishment is establishment.) office, than someone that wouldn't play ball with them. Right now the Republican party (not the people) is celebrating the Democrat victory.
This also means that the government may not endorse a particular religion. That would be establishing religion, and the Alabama supreme court agrees with this. Link from the time: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW...ore.tencommandments/
Was Roy Moore a congressman, making a law? The order to take it down, was closer to a violation of the first.
Without having read all of the previous "back and forth"....
Moore was pretty much of an asshat. Even before the accusations (which are really questionable, IMHO.) Nevertheless, Jones won because the Republicans who weren't sure just stayed at home, and all the Dems turned out in force. It is what it is. I'm not surprised by the outcome. Not at all. The Republicans have bigger fish to fry than this dumbass. Let it go. Get on with it.
My question is this. If Roy Moore finally concedes, what happens to the women who accused him? Do they continue on or do they just drop everything because Moore is no longer a possible Senator? Is he still a sitting judge and, if he is, will they move to remove him from the bench?
Outside of Shadeball, it's rare that we get something this garbled and incomprehensible from anyone....(Ok, there is Efurgal, but that is also expected)
Sorry my post are garbled much of the time, They look fine to me, but I have Dyslexia . And ADHD So staying "on point" most times doesn't happen.. As I refuse to take the meds for ADHD.. I rather be thought of as an uneducated dope, than take the meds that make you a zombie or the legalized meth.. I know I guess I'm stupid, but I rather skip the meds for look squirrel, than take mind altering drugs, That you get hooked on and can't live without, or cause you to need a bigger fix (adderial) and then go down that road..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 12-13-2017).]
My question is this. If Roy Moore finally concedes, what happens to the women who accused him? Do they continue on or do they just drop everything because Moore is no longer a possible Senator? Is he still a sitting judge and, if he is, will they move to remove him from the bench?
That's a good question.
Unfortunately, the crimes are far too old to prosecute, and with most sexual assault cases, evidence is almost always "he said she said". This is why there has been an "awakening" recently, women's voices have been suppressed around this country, and they are often condemned for coming out(hence why they don't).
I honestly don't have a solution to this issue. I don't think people should be convicted without evidence, and the evidence for these crimes is long gone. The best thing people can work on right now is that police officers can actually take these accusations seriously when they are made, gather evidence(rape kits, surveillance, witness testimony), and keep the identities hidden until the issue is resolved. Even now, women are still shrugged off or called liars by the people who are supposed to help them.
Go reread BLM list of 10 demands, and you'll see why he was accused and why the black voting block came out in huge numbers, they are claiming 98%.. I'm sure there was no voter fraud either <rolls eyes>
A white dem this round and a black dem the next, per the plan.. Hell they gave the playbook months ago and no one thought to look at it.
Separation of church and state is not a "thing" in the sense that Liberals want it to be.
Speaking as an Attorney - it is a thing. The first amendment creates the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The separation between church and state phrase is a paraphrase from Thomas Jefferson. A founder of the US. You can find the letter wherein he references this here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html and the particular phrase was "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
[This message has been edited by ArbinShire (edited 12-14-2017).]
Originally posted by ArbinShire: Speaking as an Attorney - it is a thing. The first amendment creates the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Ok. Does that mean a Court House of a State can put up a monument of the Ten Commandments, a Christmas tree, a statue of mohammid ?
Speaking as an Attorney - it is a thing. The first amendment creates the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The separation between church and state phrase is a paraphrase from Thomas Jefferson. A founder of the US. You can find the letter wherein he references this here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html and the particular phrase was "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Nope, sorry, that's a twisted meaning to fit a modern day meme first thought up in 1947 by activist Judge Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education.
Actually, in his letter Jefferson uses the phrase "separation between church and state" to assure the association there would be no establishment of a national religion by Congress because there were fears that the federal government might one day attempt to make religious freedom a right granted by the state.
Sound familiar?
Sure it does. Ask the average Millenial where their rights come from and they will confidently tell you they are granted by the state.
