• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Ladies and Gentlemen, We Got Him!"

BuzzFeed News also isn't the same as BuzzFeed to my knowledge.

When people think BuzzFeed they usually think of the sensationalist tabloids and quirky videos they put out on YouTube.
 
Crossbow said:
Sorry, but that is not right ...
Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm leaning towards ChristianProgressive being correct under those circumstances.

If, for instance, it was found out that a candidate had hacked votes and really won no states then the other candidate would be the President.

Remember, just because there is no precedent for something does not mean that that something cannot exist in the future.

It would make no sense to further reward the cheating if cheating is proven.
 
Brainster said:
The liberals (both here and elsewhere) sure never seem to learn, do they?
Click to expand...


Yes tha liburuls. They so dum. For some weird reason they think it should be illegal for rich people to do things that are illegal.

Unless, of course, the rich people are also liburuls. LOL george soros. how dum would that be.

Liburuls are so dum amiright??


I actually remember when republicans weren't little brainwashed pussies. Those republicans would have had trump hanged for even thinking about getting help from russia. Literally hanged.
 
No, we don't have him. It's the other way around. He has our government, and he is systematically choking it down. And nobody is doing a goddamn thing about it. Everybody is talky-talk-talking about how they're going to do this and that. Meanwhile, the chokedown continues unabated.

And there aren't even enough votes in the the rat-infested senate to override his veto in the face of a collapsing government.

He's got us. And you know how he got us? He got us by telling a bunch of idiots he was going to build a Great Wall and make Mexico pay for it. That was some big, tough talk, and those idiots love that kinda big, tough talk.

Don't laugh, Europeans. You're next. You people are only a couple of IQ points smarter than Americans. That's not enough to make a difference.

Don't look now, but you've got another nasty little nazi infestation building up.
 
Last edited:
So we haven't got Trump yet, but Mueller does have the next best thing: Roger Stone.

I wonder how many people are currently ******** their pants, wondering what Stone might say about them to reduce his sentence.
 
So Mueller got another coffee boy. Big deal......



I made this post in jest, but Huckabee Sanders is minimizing Stone's role in the campaign as I write this.
 
This is The End said:
If, for instance, it was found out that a candidate had hacked votes and really won no states then the other candidate would be the President.

Remember, just because there is no precedent for something does not mean that that something cannot exist in the future.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is there is no way of knowing what votes were flipped. If it's electronic voting, there really is no paper trail to audit the votes.

Also, wouldn't it be easier to have your black hats flip votes for your opponent to DQ them?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I'll believe we got him when I hear about some legitimate evidence of impropriety.
Click to expand...
Trump's campaign manager is in prison. His NSA plead out. His personal attorney is going to prison. His long-time friend/adviser had advance knowledge of wikileaks, and has been charged with crimes. Even his coffee boy went to prison. A gaggle of them lied about Russian contacts. And oh by the way, we have a backdrop of Trump being inexplicably subservient to Russia.

But there's no legitimate evidence?! In what alternate universe?
 
Venom said:
Interestingly titled No President Is Above The Law Act would overturn the statute of limitations for federal offenses committed by the president.

Even if technically Trump could be indicted right now anyway, perhaps this could be used against past presidents?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. It's generally better if new laws are not applied retroactively, making criminals out of people who acted within the law at the time. The US actually has constitutional restrictions against making laws retroactive. I'm not sure if changing the statute of limitations would survive a constitutional challenge, but for sure the first former president you tried to indict this way would mount such a challenge.

In any case, I think applying laws retroactively is a bad idea. I have some concern about what problem you're trying to solve, and why you think this is a good way to solve it.
 
theprestige said:
Interesting question. It's generally better if new laws are not applied retroactively, making criminals out of people who acted within the law at the time. The US actually has constitutional restrictions against making laws retroactive. I'm not sure if changing the statute of limitations would survive a constitutional challenge, but for sure the first former president you tried to indict this way would mount such a challenge.

In any case, I think applying laws retroactively is a bad idea. I have some concern about what problem you're trying to solve, and why you think this is a good way to solve it.
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion on it.

I just thought it was an interesting route to try to 'get' Trump as soon as he leaves office, if the DOJ policy is to be upheld.
 
theprestige said:
Interesting question. It's generally better if new laws are not applied retroactively, making criminals out of people who acted within the law at the time.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? Extending the statute of limitations specifically means the people did not act within the law at the time. It means they broke the law but didn't get busted until it was too late.

theprestige said:
The US actually has constitutional restrictions against making laws retroactive. I'm not sure if changing the statute of limitations would survive a constitutional challenge, but for sure the first former president you tried to indict this way would mount such a challenge.

In any case, I think applying laws retroactively is a bad idea. I have some concern about what problem you're trying to solve, and why you think this is a good way to solve it.
Click to expand...

This whole outlook confuses me. They're looking at applying laws, the same laws as normal, but just for longer. Especially when it applies to the POTUS, which makes sense to me. They should be held to a higher standard. I don't agree with this specific form of doing it, but I'm not against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom