Why do the Republicans support Child Molesters, women beaters and nazis?

TopT

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,579
Likes
347
Points
83
Location
Pa
well, technically speaking, the 2nd amendment already says this portion, along with any other type of weapon, in its last phrase:"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"....
I take it back Marty. I was trying to have an intelligent conversation with an unarmed man. My bad.
 

Paul M. Weir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,227
Likes
2,114
Points
163
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
For those unfortunate enough to live under Trump, take heart!

A state house election in Kentucky was the 39th special to flip R to D whilst only 4 have gone D to R. Trump won that district (KY-49) 72% to 23% but that went 68% to 32% for the D, that's -40% for the Rs and +45% for the Ds or a 49% margin R win to a 36% D win. As far as I know the R candidate was not an alleged serial killer/kiddie fiddler/cannibal, so there is no Roy Moore effect here.

The mid terms are unlikely to be as drastic as such special elections don't have incumbents (who rarely lose), but few R seats should be considered safe even in the reddest of states.
 

Marty Ward

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
10,832
Likes
262
Points
83
Location
Maryland
well, technically speaking, the 2nd amendment already says this portion, along with any other type of weapon, in its last phrase:"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"....
Yes it does but it poorly worded and has been interpreted to mean different things at different times. It should stated clearly, we have a right to own and carry arms. If they want to set out specifics ok but the wording should be cleared up.
 

Dave68124

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
14,867
Likes
505
Points
113
Location
United States
For those unfortunate enough to live under Trump, take heart!

A state house election in Kentucky was the 39th special to flip R to D whilst only 4 have gone D to R. Trump won that district (KY-49) 72% to 23% but that went 68% to 32% for the D, that's -40% for the Rs and +45% for the Ds or a 49% margin R win to a 36% D win. As far as I know the R candidate was not an alleged serial killer/kiddie fiddler/cannibal, so there is no Roy Moore effect here.

The mid terms are unlikely to be as drastic as such special elections don't have incumbents (who rarely lose), but few R seats should be considered safe even in the reddest of states.
I guess we will see. I am sure the excuses will fly if your predictions don’t come true.
 

Paul M. Weir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,227
Likes
2,114
Points
163
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
If, as the old saying goes "A week is a long time in politics", nine months are a geologic aeon, indeed these days 280 characters are a very long, sometimes frightening, time in politics. Incumbency alone will save a fair few Rs, but the rest are getting very nervous, demonstrated by the higher number of Rs not running again. Recent generic D vs R polls saw a surge for the Rs bringing the D lead down to single digits but the most recent Quinnipiac has the D lead go from 9% to 15% compared to their previous poll. The R budget likely helped the previous month but I strongly suspect that when it was examined in detail the electorate saw who really benefited and drew their own conclusions.

As Electoral-vote.com said there are no Generic D or R candidates running anywhere, but things are definitely not looking good for the GoP. The real problem is a little less that the Rs are behind now but what can the Rs do to enthuse voters compared to what blunder Trump and his sycophants are very likely to commit or what Mueller reveals in the meantime? I don't remember the same number or size of demonstrations repeatedly occurring in the US since the peak of the Vietnam War. Trump is the GoP's suicide vest and the pins are falling out.
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,485
Likes
1,411
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
a people armed are the basis of any militia. what delineates one must then of necessity delineate the other as well. Hence, if a=y+z, and b=a, then b must also equal y+z. people armed are B, a militia is A. Hence, if A is modified by being well-regulated (y+z), then B is also modified by being well-regulated (y+z).
That's math, not English. If you want to try the calculus of a sonnet, knock yourself out. -- jim
 

Sand Bar Bill

Active Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
4,367
Likes
373
Points
83
Location
Putin's backyard
Mueller filed 32 more criminal charges against your boys today. This administration will set an all-time record for criminality by the time it ends.
 

JimWhite

Active Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
3,966
Likes
371
Points
83
Location
Newark, Delaware
Skype
jim_white33
Mueller filed 32 more criminal charges against your boys today. This administration will set an all-time record for criminality by the time it ends.
Good thing for him that he isn't investigating "your boys" otherwise he would have already had an "accident"
 

Sand Bar Bill

Active Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
4,367
Likes
373
Points
83
Location
Putin's backyard
Good thing for him that he isn't investigating "your boys" otherwise he would have already had an "accident"
Good thing he isn't investigating my boys, because he probably would waste about $82 million of tax payer money in uncovering nothing like Kenneth Starr.
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,485
Likes
1,411
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
well, it was the hummers he was lying about......
Lying to a grand jury is lying to the grand jury. If he told a Federal Officer he wasn't getting a BJ guess what? That's also a punishable offence subject to up to one year in jail for each time he lied. As it was a federal grand jury, I am sure he was speaking to federal officials BEFORE he was brought to the Grand Jury. Think he lied to them too? I would be surprised if he didn't. -- jim
 

TopT

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,579
Likes
347
Points
83
Location
Pa
Lying to a grand jury is lying to the grand jury. If he told a Federal Officer he wasn't getting a BJ guess what? That's also a punishable offence subject to up to one year in jail for each time he lied. As it was a federal grand jury, I am sure he was speaking to federal officials BEFORE he was brought to the Grand Jury. Think he lied to them too? I would be surprised if he didn't. -- jim
Agreed, he lied. He should have been impeached.

It only took $80M & 4 years of a Whitewater investigation that produced zero charges against him. Yeah, that investigation wasn't political. Back then I was 100 % Republican and I even thought that it had gone too far. Politics have never looked back.
 

witchbottles

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,910
Likes
1,490
Points
163
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Lying to a grand jury is lying to the grand jury. If he told a Federal Officer he wasn't getting a BJ guess what? That's also a punishable offence subject to up to one year in jail for each time he lied. As it was a federal grand jury, I am sure he was speaking to federal officials BEFORE he was brought to the Grand Jury. Think he lied to them too? I would be surprised if he didn't. -- jim
well, I do believe you must be under oath before lying becomes a crime (perjury). You are welcome to lie to the police officer who pulls you over for speeding 40 MPH over the limit all you wish - even if he is a US Marshal that decided to do something about you being neglectful of the speed limits (as he would be a federal officer) - its not a crime to lie and tell him your speedomoter is broken when it isn't. Only if you say the same thing in a courtroom under oath does it become a crime. Clinton perjured himself, several times, under oath- each a federal crime as it was a federal jurisdiction. He didn't lie, he lied under oath - 2 different things in law. You can lie to your mommy all you want about changing your socks this morning- its not a crime legally punishable to do so.

Still doesn't mean much- knew he was a raping lying bastard all along - the only part I missed was we nevr got to watch Hillary lose it and drag all his sh&t out on the White House lawn and tell him "get the f--k out!" for all the world to see...... muttering under her breath "... and you had to pick the one girl who can't get a f--ing stain out of a dress!!!!....."

That would havebeen worth the 80M in taxpayer dollars to watch.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
91
Likes
12
Points
8
Location
Reading, PA
well, I do believe you must be under oath before lying becomes a crime (perjury). You are welcome to lie to the police officer who pulls you over for speeding 40 MPH over the limit all you wish - even if he is a US Marshal that decided to do something about you being neglectful of the speed limits (as he would be a federal officer) - its not a crime to lie and tell him your speedomoter is broken when it isn't. Only if you say the same thing in a courtroom under oath does it become a crime. Clinton perjured himself, several times, under oath- each a federal crime as it was a federal jurisdiction. He didn't lie, he lied under oath - 2 different things in law. You can lie to your mommy all you want about changing your socks this morning- its not a crime legally punishable to do so.

Still doesn't mean much- knew he was a raping lying bastard all along - the only part I missed was we nevr got to watch Hillary lose it and drag all his sh&t out on the White House lawn and tell him "get the f--k out!" for all the world to see...... muttering under her breath "... and you had to pick the one girl who can't get a f--ing stain out of a dress!!!!....."

That would havebeen worth the 80M in taxpayer dollars to watch.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2016/12/what-are-the-penalties-for-lying-to-a-cop.html
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,485
Likes
1,411
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
well, I do believe you must be under oath before lying becomes a crime (perjury).
I don't *believe* that's the case. I know if you lie to an FBI agent as part of an investigation, you can be taken to court for lying to a federal officer. This is what agents have told me over the years. -- jim