Trump Ally Roger Stone Gets 40 Months for Lying, Witness-Tampering

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

This current administration in no way, represents anything resembling the constitutional form intended by the founders. And your statement that it purports to return to limited central governance is a joke, right? Limited central governance? With Donald J Trump? Pushing his way front and center on every issue. Dismissing experts in the field of disease and science so he can make a gut call.... Are you truly ready to hang your hat on this current administration? My eye is on the prize. I am going to vote against what the current administration has presented, which more closely resembles a nationalist dictatorship.

"More closely resembles a nationalist dictatorship" and "in no way represents anything resembling the constitutional form intended by the founders."????

The Founders were very nationalistic. They were very America First. They were very for immigration based on our economic, cultural, and technological need, not on open borders.

Trump has removed scads of regulations written by federal agencies (which had no constitutional grounds to exist in the first place), that were hampering our economic growth. The Founders were very against federal regulatory power outside of constitutional limitations and very much for the freedom of Americans to do business without the central government regulating its every move.

The Founders were very much for tariffs against foreign businesses that threatened the survival of American business.

Trump has nominated judges who are far more constitutionally oriented than those any Progressive would choose.

Would a Biden administration, or any Progressive administration for that matter, "more closely resemble" the Founders constitutional form of government than the Trump administration?

I get it that Trump, as a person, at least as he is portrayed and which many of his statements can be twisted to bolster that portrayal, is unacceptable to you. But being acceptable as a person, is not the same as being acceptable as a President who "more closely" will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

I don't know on what grounds you think he less resembles a protector of the Constitution than Clinton, Obama, or Biden did or would.

Just the choice of Judges alone would be enough to make him more closely resemble a protector of the Constitution than any Progressive would be. If you do a thorough study of American Progressive political ideology, you will find that the Progressive premise of good government is that it not be hampered by silly things such as separation of powers. That, in order to efficiently mandate what is good, it must be centralized in one supreme authority of experts. Constitution be damned. Progressives invented the notion of a living constitution that changes, not by amendment, but merely when the ruling elite decides it has become outmoded. Progressives have, as one of FDR's "braintrust" advisors admitted, tortured and twisted the Constitution out of any original meaning in order to pass legislation needed to advance their centralizing form of unhampered government which very importantly included the creation of various regulatory agencies which the Constitution did not actually give them the power to do.

So, through Progressive disregard of constitutional limitations, we have arrived incrementally at a point where one election can enable Progressives to remove their mask and just openly begin to fill their wish list, as well as continue to create new wishes. One election can turn the court into the Progressive yes man against any challenges to what a Progressive administration desires.

You didn't answer when I asked you what does your conscience tell you about which party will protect your signature quote “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.

All it takes is a majority of Progressive Judges in SCOTUS to abolish the Second Amendment. Or any other Amendment or "unalienable right." Progressives don't believe there are such things as unalienable rights. They believe all rights are created by government and can be taken away or restricted by government.

The election is not about the person Trump. Voting for Biden because he, in your opinion, is a better person, can very well be voting against what you prize most in your form of government.

[Got Stripers]

Ross once you wind him up.......

[spence]

Yea those oppressive regulations were really holding the economy back. And I forgot the SCOTUS has the power to dissolve amendments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea those oppressive regulations were really holding the economy back.

Yes they were that's one of the reasons the economy quickly expanded after the regs were dropped.

And I forgot the SCOTUS has the power to dissolve amendments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Judges rule by personal preference rather than constitutional text, it then becomes a numbers game. Five or more votes decides. Simple as that. Progressive jurisprudence promotes, among other things, adjudication by what are perceived as higher moral principles or social justice rather than strict adherence to text.

Simply bring a test case to the court to challenge previous rulings or text, have five or more thoroughly Progressive Judges on the court . . . voila . . . change.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes they were that's one of the reasons the economy quickly expanded after the regs were dropped.

That’s not even remotely true. Not sure if you’re just blatantly lying or ignorant.

When Judges rule by personal preference rather than constitutional text, it then becomes a numbers game. Five or more votes decides. Simple as that. Progressive jurisprudence promotes, among other things, adjudication by what are perceived as higher moral principles or social justice rather than strict adherence to text.

Simply bring a test case to the court to challenge previous rulings or text, have five or more thoroughly Progressive Judges on the court . . . voila . . . change.

Still doesn’t invalidate an amendment.

Next.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That’s not even remotely true. Not sure if you’re just blatantly lying or ignorant.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

prickly snowflake

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

prickly snowflake

Both hands on the keyboard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton non scandals
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

There is the SD we all know, couldn’t help yourself, just like your guy; neither of you can stop the inner self.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Our guy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That’s not even remotely true. Not sure if you’re just blatantly lying or ignorant.

The claim may be exaggerated, but some deregulation helped along with the tax cuts and with the generally pro business tenor.

Still doesn’t invalidate an amendment.

The Court can basically void an amendment by neglect. And by "interpreting" it on the basis of "need" or "good reason" or any problem of gun violence that it deems that it currently deems so egregious that public safety requires gun ownership to be restricted to near uselessness in the case of the 2A.

This article notices a trend in that direction: https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/16/s...endment-cases/

Next.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Elections and the Court. And the Constitution.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

How is politely asking a big baby to move out of the Country an insult, and who is Bruce?

Bruce is the moderator who was crying like a baby.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am not worried about you.
Peg will keep your diapers clean

It's amazing how you canceling resort to personal insults. Talking about people's wives is about as low as it gets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RickBomba]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It's amazing how you canceling resort to personal insults. Talking about people's wives is about as low as it gets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know.

Talking about people’s wives is as low as it gets.

Now, if I had a bacon-wife, I’d prolly be a little more nicer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by RickBomba

I know.

Talking about people’s wives is as low as it gets.

Now, if I had a bacon-wife, I’d prolly be a little more nicer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I've said many times, just like Trump can't help lying on a daily basis, SD's nature is to insult and the nastier the better; which is why he is dying now that he promised the boss to behave.

[RickBomba]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I've said many times, just like Trump can't help lying on a daily basis, SD's nature is to insult and the nastier the better; which is why he is dying now that he promised the boss to behave.

One of the best things about my COVID Summer Vacation is that I have no boss.

Specially not one that wears a skirt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I've said many times, just like Trump can't help lying on a daily basis, SD's nature is to insult and the nastier the better; which is why he is dying now that he promised the boss to behave.

We must have a different idea of what behaving means

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Wow, just wow.... I have to take a step back when I hear this argument. If "the most powerful criminal and intel organization in the country," ( I believe you mean the Democratic party operatives) could not secure an impeachment, then I question the title you have chosen to give them. This is all too extreme, for me at least, to even consider as credible. And if true, then we are just plain fuc ked anyway.

By the powerful criminal and intel organization in the country, I did, as Slipknot said, mean the FBI (as well as its international corollary the CIA. The Democrat party is not an intel org). But I did say that the Dems were complicit.

When you say you have to take a step back when you here this argument, and that it is all too extreme for you to even consider as credible, I would guess that's because the major media has not reported it, but, on the contrary, has ridiculed it all as "conspiricy theories."

Consider this fairly brief but to the point article in The Hill which covers only some of the material that is being declassified and reconsider what you think is too extreme to consider credible:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...tr?ocid=msnews

[Got Stripers]

Tin foil hats are a bit too tight!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Tin foil hats are a bit too tight!

Great insight. Game changer.

[Pete F.]

Raw intelligence and evidence are two very different things.
Destroying trust of sources in our intelligence community will have long lasting effects.
Putin’s very happy with the Trumplicans performance and so is the CCP
Congratulations
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Raw intelligence and evidence are two very different things.

blah, blah

Destroying trust of sources in our intelligence community will have long lasting effects.

Apparently, it was more important for some in intel to try to get rid of Trump than to be concerned with maintaining trust in themselves. What Comey and other of his minions have done in trying to illegally change the outcome of an election may have long lasting effects.

Putin’s very happy with the Trumplicans performance and so is the CCP

Putin and especially the CCP are very happy with the phony media knee cap of Trump, and with the destruction of the American economy caused by locking down the economy because of the virus.

Congratulations

Congratulate yourself. You're posts are part of the narrative that hides the duplicity of those who are trying to bring the Progressives to power which opens the door to transforming our system of government from one based on classical liberal emphasis on the unalienable rights of the individual to one which prescribes all rights and promotes them as belonging to various groups at the expense of other groups. And transforms our system founded on limited government to one of unlimited government power.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Congratulate yourself. You're posts are part of the narrative that hides the duplicity of those who are trying to bring the Progressives to power which opens the door to transforming our system of government from one based on classical liberal emphasis on the unalienable rights of the individual to one which prescribes all rights and promotes them as belonging to various groups at the expense of other groups. And transforms our system founded on limited government to one of unlimited government power.

Fun fact: When he is kicked out of office, Trump is no longer immune from criminal indictments.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Fun fact: When he is kicked out of office, Trump is no longer immune from criminal indictments.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do have this inordinate delight in sadistic humor. It's one of the first signs of a serial killer.

[Pete F.]

Tweety is a serial criminal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tweety is a serial criminal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I've said, you're a lot like him.

[Pete F.]

Unlike Teeety,I have no fear of indictment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Unlike Teeety,I have no fear of indictment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unlike T, you don't have to worry because nobody cares about you.

[Pete F.]

That’s OK
I have a Trump wall joke but it blows................over
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device