2020hindsights comments

At least Japan will be on the right side of history!

zibala

And yet she conceded to Trump the morning after the results were in. Still waiting for Trump to concede the 2020 election...

That's a different issue.

No, it isn’t.

Back to the claim she was a gracious loser.

She was. She conceded the morning after.

In comparison, Trump even left the White House before Joe moved in. Talk about a whiny little sore loser.

zibala

Gore and Clinton were both gracious losers.

Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’

https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

And yet she conceded to Trump the morning after the results were in. Still waiting for Trump to concede the 2020 election...

bass4funk

The good news is that it will be decided in court.

The better news is this continues to help Trump.

Maybe for his popularity, but not for staying out of jail.

And the evidence is pretty overwhelming. And that's just what we know. Wait until Mark Meadows is testifying against him...

Good. Won’t help Biden

Biden doesn't need any help. If the economy stays as it is now, he'll win next year,

JJE

The president isn't a king; agreed. He is however the president, and Obama and no one before him went to jail or were even indicted - all 44 of them.

Well, that's because they didn't commit crimes. If you commit crimes, that's when you get indicted.

It's no big secret there is a 6-3 slant in that court (including three appointed by the King himself).

It's also no secret that while they rule with their religious convictions (6 Catholics - Row vs Wade), they also tend to rule toward democracy in other rulings (like the voting rights act).

Be honest and admit it: you don't want it to go to the Supreme Court because of the current composition of the justices sitting on it.

Can you?

Nope, because even though the SCOTUS is slanted, it's pretty obvious that they wouldn't uphold this.

GuruMick

Some US states have legislated local libraries not have some books previously seen as classics of American literature.

Yes. This is very bad.

Australia has a grand tradition of banning books on anti offensive grounds {"Portnoy's Complaint " in the 1970's, for example }

Also, bad.

What would be the purpose of burning the Koran except to cause religious and social unrest

Or as a protest?

Society is not a "free for all " one...lots of rules impede peoples ability to do things.

Yes. But blasphemy shouldn't be one of them.

bass4funk

I wasn't referring to what Trump said, I was referring to the fact that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election after he lost.

If you think so, many of us now with what we know think differently.

The good news is that it will be decided in court.

And the evidence is pretty overwhelming. And that's just what we know. Wait until Mark Meadows is testifying against him...

JJE

The seems to be considerable opposition on this thread to SCOTUS addressing this very important and unresolved issue.

I have no opposition to SCOTUS considering this and if they did, they would strike it down. The president isn't a king. But I doubt they would consider it; it would be a waste of time.

bass4funk

Abrams completely accepted the outcome of the election. So not the same at all.

Hardly..

https://news.yahoo.com/stacey-abrams-defends-refusal-concede-165932285.html

Quotes from Abrams: “I have never denied that I lost. I don’t live in the governor’s mansion; I would have noticed.” “The first thing I said was that I acknowledged the outcome — that the new governor was Brian Kemp. I was not the governor, but I did say the system was broken.”

He’s just a poor loser

As was Gore and Clinton

Gore and Clinton were both gracious losers.

They don't. And they certainly don't incite an insurrection. 

Hmmm..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled

That article is irrelevant. It has nothing about inciting an insurrection.

Oh, but he is..

Sealing the border and drilling.

Context helps.

I wasn't referring to what Trump said, I was referring to the fact that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election after he lost.

bass4funk

Lol how was Trump saying he wanted to be a dictator taken out of context?

relax, you didn’t hear what he said, when he was asked about it, he said specifically: “on day one I will be dictator, and I will seal the border and drill, after that, I won’t be a dictator anymore.” again context helps,

It doesn't really. He was dodging the question, but he did say that he would be a dictator and then some irrelevant stuff.

not to mention he was president already, and he talked a lot of stuff what he wanted to do he couldn’t even get Congress to fund him to build the wall, and now the media thinks he’s going to be dictator and override Congress, how?

You forget that he tried to steal the 2020 election. There was that.

bass4funk

A president’s duties do not include using the power of the office to subvert the peaceful transfer of power.

But it was ok in 2016 to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power

No. Luckily in 2016, there was a peaceful transfer of power.

Trump knew he lost and he knew the claims of a rigged election were bogus. 

That didn’t stop from Abram’s to challenge the results of the election and people were pushing her to NOT accept the results.

Abrams completely accepted the outcome of the election. So not the same at all.

He’s just a poor loser

But the left aren’t when they lose? lol

They don't. And they certainly don't incite an insurrection.

He’s nowhere remotely close to any dictator we had.

Oh, but he is...

JJE

Clearly a matter for SCOTUS to address.

SCOTUS won't touch this with a barge pole. I predict they will decline to hear the case.

“Burning of the Koran is an offense to others,” he said, according to B.T. “You may express yourself as you wish, but not in such a way that you destroy other people’s lives.”

I can see how it is offensive, but I can't see how it destroy's people's lives. This is a slippery slope to anti-blasphemy laws.

Former President Donald Trump is appealing a ruling that found he is not immune from criminal prosecution as he runs out of opportunities to delay or even derail an upcoming trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Yep, he has no chance of winning this one. If he did win, what is stopping a president from murdering someone and saying that they are immune.

tom toto

Few if any are brave to admit what truly is the root cause of immigration. To solve immigration issues 

That begs the question to say that immigration is bad. Or maybe you were referring to asylum, in which I would agree with you.

Blacklabel

Apparently you think only Biden shouldn't be allowed to testify publicly :)

Yeah cause we saw so much public testimony, right?

of the 100s of depositions who testified publicly first? refresh my memory with some names.

A vast majority of congressional hearings are public. The fact that Comer prefers to hold his hearing in private is suspicious.

theFu

But this story isn't about British citizens. It is about immigrants who want permanent residency and, perhaps, citizenship at a later time.

It is kind of a story about British citizens, because in most other countries, if you can prove your spouse is properly married to you, then you can enter the country.

In the UK, if your spouse doesn't earn enough, they can't live together with you in the UK. How cruel to the UK citizen, (let alone the spouse).

bass4funk

I would suggest reading some recent IPCC reports to be informed on the subject.

I did, but again, I listen and read other sources as well. So I’m well informed and that’s the reason why I feel the way I do.

So you would know that if the temperature rise exceeds 1.5 degrees extreme heat waves can be expected to happen every five years. 

And that sea levels can be expected to rise for the rest of the century because of irreversible change that has already happened.

Blacklabel

No it isn't.

what’s this article about then? Why does it exist?

It's about the House Republicans not wanting Hunter to testify in public. They are scared s***less that he will expose their lack of evidence. So they want to compel him, through legal means, to testify in private.

bass4funk

Really? What House Oversight Committee is that...?

Rhetorical question?

No. I just want the name of the House Oversight Committee that the Dems are using to investigate Trump.

bass4funk

The Dems aren't investigating Trump.

I disagree

Really? What House Oversight Committee is that...?

Blacklabel

Hunter has no problem testifying

The entire article is Hunters problems with testifying.

No it isn't.

bass4funk

Typical conservative response. Pretend the problem doesn't exist and kick the can down the road for future generations to sort out.

Not pretending, I just don’t see the doom or gloom like you do and you are not going to force me to see it your way. You have the right to believe and act as you like and so shall I.

I would suggest reading some recent IPCC reports to be informed on the subject.

bass4funk

House Republicans know they've got nothing

As the Dems with Trump.

The Dems aren't investigating Trump. Trump has been indicted by the courts.

and that the investigation will go nowhere.

As with Trump.

Nope. Trump has been indicted. Many times. It went somewhere.

JJE

Deflecting yet again.

Private deposition before a public hearing like everyone else.

You know full well that there won't be a public hearing when their fishing expedition fails.

Certain quarters used contempt of congress charges go after people recently; they don't seem to like it when the boot is on the other foot.

Hunter has no problem testifying, so the boot isn't on the other foot.

"Republicans have so far failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing."

So they have no evidence.

"lawmakers insist their evidence paints a troubling picture"

What evidence are we talking about here? The article just said they have none.

He hasn't refused to appear. He has offered to appear as long as the hearings are public. What is the GOP so scared of in being transparent?! Actually, strike that, it's obvious they have nothing.

bass4funk

Show me any scientific paper that made this prediction.

I did

You didn't.

You do realise that there is a finite amount of fuel available, right?

Yes, but for the next few hundred years, let’s use what we have.

Typical conservative response. Pretend the problem doesn't exist and kick the can down the road for future generations to sort out.

bass4funk

It has nothing to do with libs. And nobody lied. Show me any scientific paper that made this prediction.

You can do your own research, I did.

Sure. That's what I'm asking for: the results of your own research. So, from your research, what scientific papers did you find that said California supposed to go under water 40 years ago?

It's time for America to progress and catch up. Quit lollying around!

We can do, and better. We have to.

And then? We have made great strides to produce cleaner and more efficient, power sources, but the truth of the matter is We are not going to give up on oil, impossible.

You do realise that there is a finite amount of fuel available, right? Better to get off it now when doing so will save our future.

bass4funk

Well, California was supposed to go underwater 40 years ago. Huh...still there...

No, it wasn't.

So the libs lied again.

It has nothing to do with libs. And nobody lied. Show me any scientific paper that made this prediction.

The climate change people? Who are you talking about? I would doubt it was climate scientists, but get me a link and we can find out.

Then you believe them if you want, I don’t.

Sure. Inconvenient facts are not something you like.

Well, it's not a matter of belief. Climate change is fact and will affect you even if you don't believe in it.

Ok, I don’t.

You may well believe that fire isn't hot, it won't help you if you put your hand in it.

It's quite ridiculous to frame facts as a matter of opinion.