(03-21-2017 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  LOL. Really? If she's not convicted, she never committed her crimes? Seriously?





Uhh yes. To be a criminal you do by definition have to be convicted of something. Webster definition and all.

So if Trump shoots someone dead in the street and no prosecutor brings the case, no murder was committed? OK.

Capone did more than evade taxes.

(03-21-2017 07:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:26 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Trump will likely name the next three Supreme Court Justices (let alone 100 district judges) and establish a 30 year reign of conservative jurisprudence.

Bottom line, that's what matters. Everything else is marshmallow.

Pretty much this. The left is losing their mind over that. They know that they've lost badly. The only thing that they can do at this point is try to "deligitimize" him in the public eye but even that is backfiring.

they think this...



but it's really this...

The people that the left needs to win back don't care about this. These are common sense people that care about their families and bank account. Until the left figures that out they're doomed.

(03-21-2017 07:32 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:26 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Trump will likely name the next three Supreme Court Justices (let alone 100 district judges) and establish a 30 year reign of conservative jurisprudence.

Bottom line, that's what matters. Everything else is marshmallow.

Pretty much this. The left is losing their mind over that. They know that they've lost badly. The only thing that they can do at this point is try to "deligitimize" him in the public eye but even that is backfiring.

There actually is one thing that could derail a Trump Presidency and that is losing the support of a significant number of Republicans in the House and Senate.

agree....however, Ryan has turned a full 360.....that's Yuge in those terms....

the key to help ending all this bs are house/senate term limits....

DJT has to somehow figure that one out by '19..

(03-21-2017 07:41 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:32 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:26 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Trump will likely name the next three Supreme Court Justices (let alone 100 district judges) and establish a 30 year reign of conservative jurisprudence.

Bottom line, that's what matters. Everything else is marshmallow.

Pretty much this. The left is losing their mind over that. They know that they've lost badly. The only thing that they can do at this point is try to "deligitimize" him in the public eye but even that is backfiring.

There actually is one thing that could derail a Trump Presidency and that is losing the support of a significant number of Republicans in the House and Senate.

agree....however, Ryan has turned a full 360.....that's Yuge in those terms....

the key to help ending all this bs are house/senate term limits....

DJT has to somehow figure that one out by '19..

Maybe the Republicans can get 60 seats in 2018. Then they can be pressured to install term limits.

(03-21-2017 07:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:41 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:32 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:26 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Trump will likely name the next three Supreme Court Justices (let alone 100 district judges) and establish a 30 year reign of conservative jurisprudence.

Bottom line, that's what matters. Everything else is marshmallow.

Pretty much this. The left is losing their mind over that. They know that they've lost badly. The only thing that they can do at this point is try to "deligitimize" him in the public eye but even that is backfiring.

There actually is one thing that could derail a Trump Presidency and that is losing the support of a significant number of Republicans in the House and Senate.

agree....however, Ryan has turned a full 360.....that's Yuge in those terms....

the key to help ending all this bs are house/senate term limits....

DJT has to somehow figure that one out by '19..

Maybe the Republicans can get 60 seats in 2018. Then they can be pressured to install term limits.

to the former, iif dems stay on the their current path, it's gonna be a gimme putt....

however, the question will still remain whether the red side will align with that ideology....it's a bigly hurdle to change the psyche of those that are in the 'sitting position'....that is DJT's challenge

(03-21-2017 07:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Sad that someone wouldn't support a known criminal?

Sad that a good contingent of both sides would never support an opposing politician based purely on party and/or personality even if their policies were the same as their person of choice. Candidates never run in a bubble based purely on policy as there are always other areas to consider when looking at them, but you get my point.

(03-21-2017 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  LOL. Really? If she's not convicted, she never committed her crimes? Seriously?





Uhh yes. To be a criminal you do by definition have to be convicted of something. Webster definition and all.

Love you, bro.

Too cute.

(03-21-2017 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  LOL. Really? If she's not convicted, she never committed her crimes? Seriously?





Uhh yes. To be a criminal you do by definition have to be convicted of something. Webster definition and all.

Lol wut?

Mach that might be the most asinine thing you have ever said.

The be a criminal you have to commit a criminal act.

To be a convicted criminal you have to have a conviction.

As others have mentioned Capone was a criminal that commuted more than just tax evasion.

(03-21-2017 10:47 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 07:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Sad that someone wouldn't support a known criminal?

Sad that a good contingent of both sides would never support an opposing politician based purely on party and/or personality even if their policies were the same as their person of choice. Candidates never run in a bubble based purely on policy as there are always other areas to consider when looking at them, but you get my point.

Bill Clinton got reelected despite embarrassing the whole country. And Trump is a jerk and got nominated by the Republicans. Now winning was easy because he was facing Hillary, not a one armed war hero.

suspect vs. convicted and by your yahoots definitions we are all criminals then. Every single one of us have broken laws.


Ohhhh btw cutie pies. The house of cards is coming down. Manafort. Trump's campaign manager was on Putin's dole. ala Capone. Kind of fitting.

Before Trump leaves office, the Supreme Court will have a conservative majority for the next 30 years.

IMO that alone is country over team because the country will be the winner.

Yep, Limits on the EPA and unboundless money in our electoral process has been great for the country.


Love that toxic algae bloom in Lake Erie every summer. I'm sure Florida loves their algal blooms too. YEEHAW! Conservative Supreme court for thirty more years!

Was John Wilkes Booth a criminal?
Witnesses saw him shoot President Lincoln, but he was never convicted.

(03-22-2017 07:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, Limits on the EPA and unboundless money in our electoral process has been great for the country.


Love that toxic algae bloom in Lake Erie every summer. I'm sure Florida loves their algal blooms too. YEEHAW! Conservative Supreme court for thirty more years!

The only way that the Supreme Court would have a say in these matters is if it determined that any laws or rules promulgated by the states and municipalities, or by Congress and/or the Administration are unconstitutional. These would mostly be 10th and 14th amendment cases.

Decisions regarding the environment are, and should be, the purview of the political process.

Look up the EPA vs. Massachusetts and then see how the last SC hampered that ruling. A conservative Supreme Court has been disastrous to environmental causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuse...ion_Agency

(03-22-2017 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Look up the EPA vs. Massachusetts and then see how the last SC hampered that ruling. A conservative Supreme Court has been disastrous to environmental causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuse...ion_Agency

Personally speaking, I don't care about environmental "causes". Just enforce the laws we have. We have more than enough people at the state and federal levels to do that.

(03-22-2017 08:02 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Look up the EPA vs. Massachusetts and then see how the last SC hampered that ruling. A conservative Supreme Court has been disastrous to environmental causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuse...ion_Agency

Yep proves my point. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA does not have the constitutional authority to regulate CO2 emissions. A correct ruling IMO.

but they do under the Clean Air Act. That's my point. It's like this on a number of issues. The right hamstrings the EPA and then has the temerity to ***** about them when we have problems.

(03-22-2017 07:36 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Before Trump leaves office, the Supreme Court will have a conservative majority for the next 30 years.

IMO that alone is country over team because the country will be the winner.

Yup.