The 2020 Presidential Election

[med4u]

interesting take
here's what i read, seems a little at odds with your statement

The Constitution requires senators to take a special oath or affirmation to participate in impeachment proceedings. It doesn’t specify what the oath must say, though the chamber’s practice has been to require each senator to promise “impartial justice.”
The wording of the oath was established in the first impeachment proceedings, the 1798 trial of Senator William Blount: “I, (name) solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of (name), I will do impartial justice, according to law.”

Yes "Appertaining to the trial" they must follow the rules of the senate trial
Since the trial rules are formed by the Senate and may differ from any previous trial...the oath to adhere to these rules impartially, must be reinstated at each seperate trial impartial and ilregardless as to political affirmation
All parties must follow the same trial rules set forth by the senate as an entirety

 

[Zeez]

Saturday Night Live - Trump at NATO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBjGD5VGVg0

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Over 15,000 lies since he took office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/

Washington Post is fake news and deep-state propapaganda. Reading just the first few in this article and it is clear that WP is misleading and lying to its readers. Erronious deep state opinions is pretty much all you get from them.

 

[audiohi]

there is no rule or oath that a senator must remain impartial ...impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with fairness...any member of the senate can call for a dismissal at any point in the trial and effectively end it before it begins with a simple majority vote to aquit...even if justice roberts refuses to dismiss he can be overruled by the senate simple majority...the rules of the senate are exclusively for senators and may be changed and or modified even at mid trial....and nothing is official till it is recorded by the secretary of state after the trial ends

There seems to be differing legal opinions out there in Kentucky.

MITCH MCCONNELL SHOULD NOT FAVOR LOYALTY TO DONALD TRUMP OVER U.S. CONSTITUTION, LAW PROFESSOR SAYS IN TOP KENTUCKY NEWSPAPER

https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-louisville-courier-journal-1479228

He starts his editorial by saying, "We Kentuckians know that our word is our bond. Oaths are the most solemn of promises, and their breach results in serious reputational—and sometimes legal—consequences.

"President Donald Trump will soon be on trial in the Senate on grounds that he breached one oath. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is about to breach two."

Greenfield says that the Constitution requires a fair and impartial Senate hearing and that the oath that Senators would have to take to try the president "is over and above the oath each senator has already taken to support the Constitution."

"The presidential oath and the senatorial oath to be taken before an impeachment trial are kin," Greenfield wrote, adding that on the rare occasion the president has not been faithful in acting without corruption, "the Senate is required to be faithful in its adjudication of the case against him."

"But we have already seen indications that McConnell has no intention of doing impartial justice. He has said that he does not consider himself an 'impartial juror.' He is coordinating strategy with the White House," Greenfield said.

"Every senator has a constitutional obligation of impartiality. But McConnell's role as Senate leader makes his obligation even more important and crucial to the constitutional framework.

"This is not a time for political cynicism or constitutional faithlessness. McConnell's loyalty to Trump should not overwhelm his loyalty to the Constitution. If he fails in this, he is not only violating his Article I oath but his Article VI oath," Greenfield said.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Is "and Mexico is going to pay for it, trust me" considered a lie yet?

Spin away.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Is "and Mexico is going to pay for it, trust me" considered a lie yet?

Spin away.

Supposedly they are paying inderectly. Can you show that they aren't. I know there have been significant changes in our trade policies with Mexico. And, let's say it is a lie, hypothetically, it would be insignificant in the grand scheme of things compared to Iraq and Syria. What about the media lying about how there is no crisis at the border, lol. And then wall to wall coverage of the father and daughter who drowned trying to cross and somehow it's Trumps fault.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

A sexual deviant junky? Perfect candidate for the party of girlbois and pedos. Could probably put him on ticket w Biden and win 2020 in a landslide

I'm sure you know that the GOP has transgender and pedophiles in their ranks as well.

It's just that many Republican waspy males don't want them to be.

It will do you some good to consider change as an inevitably.

Pizzagate is over kiddo. Your guy lost.

Muh cope.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Can you show that they aren't. I know there have been significant changes in our trade policies with Mexico.

Mexico's president said:

"President @realDonaldTrump: NO. Mexico will NEVER pay for a wall. Not now, not ever.

Sincerely, Mexico (all of us)."

Do you believe that subsidized farmers would tell you Trump's trade policies and tariffs aren't, in actuality, hurting the American consumer??

 

[audiohi]

I'm sure you know that the GOP has transgender and pedophiles in their ranks as well.

It's just that many Republican waspy males don't want them to be.

It will do you some good to consider change as an inevitably.

Pizzagate is over kiddo. Your guy lost.

Muh cope.

How quickly they forget Mark Foley, Jim Kolbe, and former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. All pedophiles. And in the case of Hastert, deemed a serial pedophile.

I could continue... for a while.

There also used to be a caucus, the Wide Stance Republicans, if I remember correctly?

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Mexico's president said:

"President @realDonaldTrump: NO. Mexico will NEVER pay for a wall. Not now, not ever.

Sincerely, Mexico (all of us)."

Do you believe that subsidized farmers would tell you Trump's trade policies and tariffs aren't, in actuality, hurting the American consumer??

I think Mexico's prez spoke prematurely there. Also, isn't he the ex prez now? Did he sign on to the new trade deal?

As far as the American consumer, the federal reserve is the biggest economic problem the US faces.

 

[Cannavore]

imagine wanting a wall

 

[bigtacofarmer]

https://news.google.com/articles/CA...CoFCAowgGAwADD-i78G?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

 

[bigtacofarmer]

imagine wanting a wall

If I want to grow outdoors where I live I need to build some walls.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

imagine wanting a wall

I'd rather imagine a world where the CIA weren't running a global narcotics, guns, terrorist and human trafficing trade. I don't want a wall for the sake of having a wall. But, until the deepstate is erradicated, we will need a wall. Also, if there were voter ID laws that would help.

 

[med4u]

Is "and Mexico is going to pay for it, trust me" considered a lie yet?

Spin away.

Spending bill just passed
The outcome in the latest chapter in the longstanding battle over Trump's border wall awards Trump with $1.4 billion for new barriers — equal to last year's appropriation — while preserving Trump's ability to use his budget powers to tap other accounts for several times that amount.
Trumps usmca will increase GDP 0.36% or $68.2b with 176k new manufacturing jobs...so yea Mexico is paying for way more than the wall...

And the beat goes on....

 

[mean mr.mustard]

And the spin was spun.

The very fact that you believe that Mexico is paying for the wall is proof of your blind allegiance.

I could at least respect someone who remembers Trump stonewalling Congress into a government shutdown over not getting funding for the wall.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

And the spin was spun.

The very fact that you believe that Mexico is paying for the wall is proof of your blind allegiance.

I could at least respect someone who remembers Trump stonewalling Congress into a government shutdown over not getting funding for the wall.

The funding of the wall is not something that concerns me. It is defense spending, rather than offense spending like when we attacked innocent people all over the world. But, yes, I remember the shutdown. I supported it. I enjoyed all of the fake news articles too. They were used to drum up hatred of Trump. I remember especially, the fake news story about vandalism at Joshua Tree National Park.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

And all Trump wanted was a wall and immigration reform. He even offered to extend DACA...but, the dems can't win an election against Trump unless they import illegal voters. That is why they don't want voter ID laws.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

You've drank too much Kool aid.

I was pointing out an obvious lie just to get people out of the woodwork to try to explain how it's not.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

You've drank too much Kool aid.

I was pointing out an obvious lie just to get people out of the woodwork to try to explain how it's not.

That's because it is not clear that it was a lie. It could be that you are just using overly simplistic thinking. If you pay for a house, but the bank loaned you the money and you pay the bank back on that loan did you pay for it? Or did the bank? Both? Yes, both. Define 'pay.'