Race realism is considered a Pseudoscience which is defined as " practices which are unproven, disproven, impossible to prove, or excessively harmful in relation to their effect " But hey, if it qualifies as "your truth" go for it I guess. I would just question where I am getting what I qualify as truth. The welfare state is ripping society apart? That's an interesting take on things. I would think that the distribution of wealth, shrinking of the true middle class, class warfare, and tribalism have a larger effect on our society than "the welfare state".
More efforts by trump and his supporters to create fear. Fortunately, the numbers tell a more accurate story: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/criminal-aliens-gang-members/
If you are going after people with citations they’re going to have citations. Compare it to their total numbers compared to the general population. I’ve been in las cruces for a month for business. Very safe town.
I'd bet GWB was called a "bumbling idiot" more often than he was called "the devil". If you find that funny, then you might also find it funny that administration just hired 17 lawyers to protect POTUS from impeachment. You are likely footing that bill. The government shutdown is a distraction for Trump and Trumpers away from his legal woes. He doesn't believe in these negotiations - "it's a waste of [his] time" as he himself stated. He could've had his dumb wall up long time ago (dumb because very few local border politicians support it). So when your plane is late or your food is rotten or you don't get your tax refund, hope you have a good little laugh for yourself. not to mention services like FBI, coastguard, and American overall GDP/economy. #MAGA
I know people that called GWB "evil" (not "the devil", but eh). It was stupid then. As far as the impeachment stuff, that's on the Dems. Trump has done nothing impeachable. They just want him out because they don't like his politics. "By any means necessary" -- same with Kavanagh. And the same legitimacy to their arguments, which is to say: none. As for the rest, meh...... (BTW I have repeatedly heard that the non-refund thing is bogus and just another Dem scare tactic...)
Funny. Don't remember GWB being impeached. Or other republican SCOTUS nominees being accused of harassment. Hope you get your check.
There were absolutely Democrats calling for GWB to be impeached, hell you even had nut job Dennis Kucinich introduce articles of impeachment in the Senate but the majority of the left hadn't quite gone so crazy yet, so it didn't go anywhere. As to other SCOTUS nominees being falsely accused of harassment, well, Justice Thomas might disagree with you that Kavanaugh was the first time Democrats used that cynical tactic.
The part that is hilarious is how trump went to rallies and interviews. Even the friggin presidential debate and didnt just say mexico would pay he bragged about it. Its annoying. Now he has been unable to use conventional means with control of congress, then shutdown. Longest in history. Awesome dude. All the sudden hes saying indirectly when we all heard the dude say it f-ing zillions of times that mexico would pay. We saw it on his website! Press releases! Tweets! Im not sure what he is thinking and this is a true litmus test of how comically stupid some must be to tout that line. Is this part of some kind of insanity defense with mueller? Then to add insult to injury trump is going to not only have us pay for it, but he is going to use funds that would help with fires and hurricanes?SERIOUSLY?!? Are we 3rd world now to where we dont need a that? Then trump talks about security? How are we more secure almost a month into no coast guard pay and tsa? How are we safe when streets are flooded and streets roads bridges infrastructure damaged from flood/fire with no govt help? We are never going to see that money from mexico or anywhere else and we all f-ing know it...and all this guy can say is he never said that? This is honestly unbelievable. Can you imagine new orleans flooding over and we have our boys in middle of desert? This wall shenanigans will go on for years its not a quickie!! The corp of engineers has been key in the past. This is garbage if he triples down after the mexico pay, shutdown , and now this with corp of engineers?!Frigging ridiculous shame of highest order. Do you know what control of congress means? or 'taking the mantle' means? Sounds familiar ..Im just trying to remember where I heard it.... cant place it...We need rewind this back for you. I want to help you ..I feel bad for you for some reason.
You did not answer my question. all you did was blather about welfare state...... again. and pretty much undermined his theory.
10 safest US metro areas, 2018? 6 are within a short drive of the border. https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-metro-cities/
How did I not answer your question? And who is "he"? And, the welfare state (and the debt) are the main problem that we face; thus my focus on it.
Weren't you the one that brought up the impeachment stuff against Trump? That's what I was referring to. SCOTUS -- see Thomas and Kavanaugh hearings. My point is the use of "trumped" up charges that have no basis in fact. Dems are doing this more and more because they can't win on the merits of their arguments. I get my check from my employer twice a month, thank you -- and that employer is not the govt or the Republican party, or whatever you were alluding to.
You say he has done nothing impeachable so these aren't impeachable acts Violating Campaign Finance Laws Obstructing Justice Advocating Violence and Undermining Equal Protection Under the Law Just to name a few.
The constitution is pretty vague, "high crimes and misdemeanors?" The bar for bringing charges was set pretty low by the last impeachment trial. By that standard he probably is impeachable It seems that an impeachable offense is whatever the Congress says it is, so I don't know that you can definitively say he hasn't done anything impeachable. I'm not in favor of impeachment at this point, BTW. As I stated elsewhere, declaring an emergency to circumvent Congress would change that in my mind. I appreciate you may feel otherwise, but what I see as unconstitutional usurpation of power would be a big issue for me, even if done for the best of reasons. Incrementally it's how the Roman Republic ended up with 1500 years of Emperors. I find Trump to be an affront to basic human decency, but I dont think being a dirtbag in anyway qualifies as impeachable. But like I said, what Congress thinks is what matters.
I'm pressed for time, but paying Stormy Daniels money to keep quiet, I think *before* he ran for president, is not a campaign violation. "Advocating violence" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure I've heard Trump doing this. Are you referring to the speech where he exhorted police to hit a suspect's head against the car? If that's your example, I think your argument is on very shaky ground. And where and when has he obstructed justice? In short, I don't concede any of the points you list.
trump directed Cohen to make the payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016, a month before the election. That would make it a campaign violation. In February 2016, during his campaign for president, trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, "So I got a little notice. We have wonderful security guys. It said, ‘Mr. trump, there may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience.’ So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell .... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise." And obstruction of justice? Let's wait for that Mueller report.
If the payments weren't a crime, Cohen wouldn't be charged for it, and going to prison in part for it. That point is just incredibly.... yeah. Obstructing Justice.... if you still need to be convinced at this point that there is evidence even after he admitted on TV that he fired the lead investigator on a probe in which he is a subject & admitted he did it because of said investigation, you are not someone that can be convinced. That is like, EXACTLY what the statute was created to prevent in law enforcement. Impeding the Legal process. Impeachment is a political process, but the law does state "High Crimes & Misdemeanors". Meaning crimes committed at a high level of office. We all know its DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president. So arguing that because the president hasn't been charged, therefore he hasn't committed crimes is a dubious & disingenuous argument. Yes... our laws are up for argument even when someone is charged. That's what the courts are meant for. However, there's just no arguing here that there is enough evidence here ALREADY that we know about, to warrant "court debate" as it would see fit for someone that essentially has immunity in the eyes of this particular Justice Department. That's what the Congressional body and the impeachment process provide. If the argument is "Well the justice department didn't charge HIM PERSONALLY with a crime therefore I see him as innocent", you are not providing a counter argument in good faith, and you are someone not open for open and honest debate on this topic. So you saying "I don't see obstruction", and I say "yeah... its obvious" is only really settled if and when an authoritative body like say the Justice Department say's "yes... that's a crime". However, in cases like the one you are making, I find it disingenuous when people respond like you did because of the objective obviousness of the crimes we are talking about Trump likely committed. You don't have to say he's guilty because he cannot be guilty until he's charged technically, but you can come to the argument in a much less close minded way.
