Search results

Guys. Peterson has been a public figure for years now. He likes to claim stuff exists that supports his position whether or not it is there. He also likes to read a headline or a factoid and claim it supports him without reading or understanding the whole thing. He's intellectually lazy. This...

And you are 100% correct in that response. It should play into whether you make him leader of your party, or as a tie breaker if you have a few good options, but once you are at the general election you choose who you think is going to do the best job, not who you want to hang out with. To...

It's Peterson so the odds are probably 50/50 the research even exists and even worse that he has understood it or interpreted it correctly. Where did you learn that?

Nothing of the sort. Votes of no-confidence didn't even exist yet. (I think the first one was for losing the colonies). They really became a thing in the 19th century. The Founders didn't reject much of the British system, they just tried to fix things they thought weren't working...

You can get impeached for whatever the House feels you should be impeached for and you an get whenever enough of the Senate thinks the House's reasons for impeaching you merit your removal. That's it. The people can then decide those lawmakers were wrong and vote them out. The Constitution...

STN - The word you are looking for is "plurality" not "majority". And yes, the fact a weak plurality could result in the Cons getting shut out and the Libs having a majority is a major problem. It would be nice if this made the Conservative party push for voting system reform to get rid of...

Wait, you literally couldn't vote for Clinton because you thought she was a bitch? (I notice you didn't specify what "special interests" or "specific agenda" you didn't like. That's pretty pathetic. Dislike of someone's personality should be the last in line of reasons to vote against someone...

The fact you don't know what that phrase means isn't my problem. Do you work at being this dumb? You said you thought his crimes were small stuff. But my point was about the GOP stuff in the Senate. They have made it very clear they don't care about his crimes either. As usual, you are...

Why would you assume Trump would win easily? What logic is involved there? He has one advantage - the electoral college. Outside of that he is behind on all the polls, he has always been unpopular, he is self destructive. He does have a couple of additional advantages in that he is perfectly...

You're asking him to think for himself and not repeat "own the libs" talking points. That's not really in his wheelhouse. Were you around for the Mueller stuff? Facts that contradict his narrative are things he avoids.

What does one have to do with the other? Trump's other crimes aren't the reason he is being impeached, and being impeached isn't limited to crimes. They don't have a lot to do with one another. Or is your point that you think small crimes are ok? Obviously not. The odds he will be removed are...

Another +1 for Metro access - driving in the city is a pain.

That last set she just put up really are great, Fradi.

That sounds grim. Some real bullshit in there.

"It is critical to remember that hysterias — such as Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, “endemic and systemic racism in America,” the heterosexual AIDS “crisis” in America and the “rape culture” on American college campuses — are to the Left what oxygen is to biological life." Wow. What...

Since the thread title is specifically about Trump being a criminal. Trump has to pay back $2 million dollars because of his illegal conduct.

C'mon. "No puppet." was the best one. Debates do seem to move the needle, but only for a little bit and it isn't very durable in most cases. I don't expect Trump to debate anyone except Biden, though. I think he know how bad he would look against any of the other front runners.

Google says the RCMP Prime Minister Protective Detail has been in charge of protecting the Prime Minister since 1995. It says nothing about 1993 or the military or it switching back. That's why I am asking you.

Citation needed Wasn't this one of the right wing conspiracy memes about Obama? Can you provide any evidence of this? Not even of the idea that the military won't protect him. Just provide me that the RCMP stopped protecting the PM in 1993 and then switched out in late 2019 back to RCMP...