Well, define “carrying water”? To me it means serve, assist, or support, so, yeah, I fervently deny that. If Hillary had won, would you seriously suggest that I were carrying water for her corrupt ass?
I’m not sorry that Hillary lost. I’m only sorry that they both didn’t lose.
Well, you certainly did serve, assist, and support donald trump getting elected by not just your vote, but by anyone who was silly enough to be swayed by your arguments.
So, no, if Hillary had won, then I would not consider you to be carrying water for her, but instead to be giving her shade. I am sure you would instead be going on about how horrible she is, and how much better we would be under a trump administration.
So, you are saying that you are not sorry that trump won, and the only thing that would have made you happier is if your man GJ had won instead.
Yep, that means that you are, at the very least, a trump enabler. Remember, you came into this thread and picked up a water filled bucket, no one forced you to defend trump, you did that all on your own. As much as I detest people who actively support trump, at least they have the courage to actually be honest about their motivations.
What is this, the Salem Witch Trials?
I’m melting!what a world what a world…
Regards,
Shodan
PS - and your mangy dog, too.
Did ye not give the evil eye to the Good Wife Martin just yester-eve? Burn the witch!!
I admit it. I caused the milk from Merneith’s cow to sour.
Nobody expects the Salem Witch Trials.
That’s not the only thing you caused to sour! Or, let’s say at a minimum you were involved to some extent in the souring process. 
The Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment trial in the Senate appears to be more of a ceremonial position, in place of a Vice President (since obviously it might seem to be a conflict of interest). The entire impeachment process itself is a political one, not a legal one, and at least one suit challenging the impeachment and removal of a federal judge has been dismissed previously because the court held that the Constitution gives the Senate sole authority to review and try impeachments. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Chief Justice or anyone but the Senate the authority to dismiss articles of impeachment or otherwise acquit a president once the House has passed articles of impeachment.
Reminds me of a tweet from the Rep from Salem, MA following Trump’s claim that he was subject to the greatest witch hunt in history: “As the Representative of Salem, MA, I can confirm that this is false.”
And just how long had he been waiting to be able to tweet that one!!
Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise… Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency… Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to Hillary… Our four…no… Amongst our weapons… Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise… I’ll come in again.
It was. I enjoy discussing the meaning of the Constitution. Which probably says a lot about me.
I have to feel this is an unlikely interpretation. It’s essentially saying that other places will have their own governments and their own bodies of law. Which it too obvious to need to be said.
I believe that everything in the United States Constitution has an application to American law.
I’m assuming you’re acknowledging the difference between “should” and “must”. Are you saying that Congress could choose not to enact such legislation and could instead enact legislation that prohibited the ownership of ammunition? And that such legislation would not violate the Second Amendment because that only covers firearms?
It seems to me like you’re describing a penumbra that emanates from the Second Amendment. Are you saying it’s not and, if so, how is it not?
For the record, I’ll state my own personal position. I agree with the idea of penumbras and emanations. I believe that the Second Amendment, for example, not only gives Americans a right to own and carry firearms; I believe it also gives them a right to own and carry ammunition, and to shoot firearms in a lawful manner, and to use a firearm in a lawful manner to defend themselves or a third party from a serious crime. None of the rights I just listed are explicitly mentioned in the Second Amendment. But I feel that all of these implied rights are necessary to have the explicit right that is mentioned.
Dang.
Old friend supports Trump and keeps telling me I’m too hostile to him and not giving him a chance. Even though my politics are really liberal and he knows it. :smack:
Today he posts this stupid video about Paranoid Liberals. The very first thing is saying that Liberals would have been fine with Hillary firing Comey, but Trump does it and it is a conspiracy. :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
As I replied, “Trump openly admitted that he did it to stop the Russia investigation. How is that paranoia on our part?”
Damn, Fox News has really trained these people in mind tricks to plaster over the massive cognitive dissonance, haven’t they?
They were certainly allowed to define “advise and consent” to mean “don’t do anything”.
Fiveyearlurker:
If that were the case, Garland would be on the Supreme Court. Advise and consent are what the Congress didn’t do last year.
Oh great. Let’s have that debate again.
What debate? I’m not implying one way or another whether or not it was the Senate’s responsibility to give Garland a hearing, but given that he didn’t have one, the Senate clearly didn’t advise or consent.
You’re claiming that Congress doesn’t get to define “high crimes”, but you seem fine with them defining “advise and consent”.
I read something yesterday that said something like: If we could reason with Trump supporters, there wouldn’t be any.