Disagree all you want but democrats aren't talking about anything. Can you tell us which signature legislation Biden wants passed? What bills do Biden and congress have first on their agenda? Nobody knows. He has very vague ideas on his website but zero specifics. Why was he whining about not getting a transition when apparently he isn't using it for anything. If I were Biden I'd have already had Pelosi create a bunch of legislation that would pass on day 1 but there isn't a peep about anything and democrats don't care about asking him about it.
Biden has been playing close to his chest. I suspect his is waiting till after the inauguration to put everything out there. I’d suggest patience.
What the hell for? He wasn't elected to keep his plans secret, is he embarrassed about them or something? What a dumb thing to say, like we won't find out eventually? What does he gain by not telling people what he plans to do as president?
Maybe he sees that there is still a toddler in the White House for the next two weeks and doesn’t think it wise to point him in the direction of things to break on the way out? Pretty rude of you to say my speculation was dumb, don’t you think? You’ve come up with some stinkers of your own if memory serves me right.
Actually, I posted his after thought/tweet is apropos to what was truly on his mind and intent during his initial rally ramblings. He knew damned well what he was pushing, but his butt wasn't on the line, so he had no problem stoking up the yahoos. His after thought/tweet is just capitalizing on his "I was robbed" mantra, moving to "you were robbed...what are you going to do about it?". What YOU need to understand about the First Amendment is that is does NOT shield one from the consequences of their speech (libel, slander, incite to riot). Dump's rally speech in it's entire context is a call to arms to STOP the count and certification. You tell that to an angry mob peppered with anti-gov't types and racists, you get what happened. Sound like inciting a riot to me. Deal with it.
But you don't have even a basic understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence. If you did, you'd know that no prosecutor is going to bring an "inciting a riot" charge for "be strong"-type vagueries because no prosecutor would win such a case.
According to the left there isn't anything left for Trump to destroy. Our nation is in the worst shape it's ever been in. Democrats could be in power for the next 100 years and that still not be enough time to replace what Trump destroyed. He is the most evil person to ever lead any nation in history.
Was Trump a democratic plant? Parlor seems to think so. He was born in New York. His wife is still in New York. No true-blooded American would live in that cesspool. He divided the GOP like no democrat could ever dream of. Where was he during the riots? He said he would be there. Why didn't he drag out Pelosi onto the lawn to await God's justice? Is he actually colluding with democrats? Have we been fooled?
~ What arms ... Arms and legs ? There were no firearms or weapons and nobody encouraged such. That's the deal. ( Ol' Joe's favorite expression )
FYI: 52 arrested, 6 weapons recovered at U.S. Capitol riot | KTLA 2 pipe bombs and cooler of Molotov cocktails found near Capitol Building amid Capitol riot, DC Police Chief says (msn.com) UPDATE: Pipe bombs, other explosives, truck with weapons found near Capitol Building amid Capitol riot (dennismichaellynch.com) And PLEASE GMAFB denying Trump stoked this....inciting to riot is not regulated to a declarative "go out and kill/loot/torture/assault, etc. Reading the text of Trump's speech to a howling crowd rift with anti-govt' types and racists would leave any rationa, objective person to conclude his complicity in the attempted insurrection that followed. THAT, my friend, is indeed the deal! I think you've just made the "Wildest Conspiracy Theory" top ten list.
My man, pay attention: the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech....IT DOES NOT MAKE ONE IMMUNE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF SAID SPEECH. That's why we have laws pertaining to slander, inciting to riot, etc. And your myopic reading comprehension aside, when you say the following to a howling, angry mob rift with anti-gov't types and racists, " ... Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." Don't be shocked when something like the Capitol attack happens. What preceded the above quote clearly points to inciting folks to action...as to whether that could stick in a court of law is anyone's guess. But it's enough to take the shot.
No, it's not "anyone's guess". People who know a lot more about this than you do have already examined the facts and told you (& everyone else) that incitement charges will not, in fact, stick.
So YOU say...However, Chris Christie would disagree with you...Chris Christie says Trump's incitement of mob is 'impeachable offense' (northjersey.com) Seems you're just blowing a lot of smoke in that hurricane of yours, Ditka.
And there you have it, dear readers. Face with inrefutable facts that prove him wrong, James just deteriorates into babbling right wingnut mantras and disproven nonsense. Sad, but not unexpected. These Trumpers just can't admit they're wrong on any level....just like their orange faced "fearless" leader.
~ I see hypocrisy and double standard in your comments Those weapons will be traced back to BLM/ANTIFA. That is THEIR m/o - not the Trump supporters.
You don't seem to understand. The word "charges" in my post means criminal charges. Impeachment is a political process wholy separate from our criminal justice system
You seem to be doubling down on what I previously pointed out. I don't waste time on Trump troll stuff. You're done.
You incorrectly attach a lot more meaning to your previous sentence than there is. Chrisitie knows a hell of a lot more about law and procedure than you or I. All you've done is parrot a moot point to reinforce your original declaration. Let me explain on a level you can fathom....if a sitting President commits a CRIME AS DEFINED BY CIVIL LAW, LOCAL OR FEDERAL STATUTES, HE CAN BE IMPEACHED. Charges are made in the House, hearings determine is a crime has been committed, if so, then the President is charged and the Senate review deems if an article of impeachment is justified. Remember, you stated "...People who know a lot more about this than you do have already examined the facts and told you (& everyone else) that incitement charges will not, in fact, stick." Well, Chris Christie is just ONE high profile "people" who disagree with you. There are others easily googled, if you are so inclined to deal with ALL the facts. If not, they exist anyway.
