who will win? Trump or Biden?

[davidc4430]

vote now

[davidc4430]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

Just a little tip, I dont get FOX or Newsmax or OANN where I live and unlike a few others it seems, I have got better things to do than sit around reading conspiracy theories on websites and watching cable TV all day

---

so where do you get your unbiased sensible current affairs reports from?

cant say ive seen you point out any i should trust

even the good old ABC is a lefty righty stacked to the gills agender driven news outlet

so tell me where do i go to get the real story?

actually, how do you know anythings happening off your farm?

i'm keen to know

[the_great_she_elephant]

Chameleon wrote:The Democrats have put together a very carefully edited, highly produced, often taken out of context, TV mockumentry as the center piece of their prosecution case

Which leads me to ask what was the context for the video snippets used by Trumps lawyer as the center piece of their defence case.?

The prosecution video clips all related to and were direct coverage of one single event . To what event(s) were the defence video clips related? 

Were those speeches delivered at protest rallies to banner waving crowds?

Were the crowds  then called upon by the speakers to march on varrious seats of government and attempt to prevent them from going about their lawful business?

[domino-710]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

Just a little tip, I dont get FOX or Newsmax or OANN where I live and unlike a few others it seems, I have got better things to do than sit around reading conspiracy theories on websites and watching cable TV all day.

Just the usual - Except for essay posts I don't have time for this. lol

When its all boiled down, its really very simple. 

It really is very simple.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE SMOKING GUN BECAUSE TRUMP WAS CUNNING ENOUGH NOT TO LEAVE ONE !!!..............That's why the Impeachment will fail

That has no bearing in this case as to why the Impeachment will fail.

If his actions where more clearly culpable instead of vague statements and double entendre, the Democrats may have convinced enough Republicans to cross the floor and convict. ( No doubt they will convince a few now. With a clearer more robust case they could undoubtedly convince a few more )

As this is not a court trial - the Democrats do not have to convince the Republicans of anything. This is purely political - it is not a vote of conscience - nor is there a jury of peers - to deliberate guilt or innocence

It should be noted - the ' Evidence ' of Trump's first Impeachment was not even allowed in the Senate.

Didn't happen and wont happen.................Don't believe me ?..... then wait and see what the senate decides and come back then and tell me I,m wrong.

 You are not right nor wrong - simply arguing for the sake of argument - something that is not a court case.

There is simply not the burden of proof required and it appears Trump will be acquitted. ( as should rightly happen whenever there is not enough evidence )

There is evidence enough - but it will be voted on along party lines - those who have too much to lose being Republican - for their political futures - will find a not guilty vote - this vote does not imply innocence.

The main aim of Impeachment is to get the facts out to the people - whether found guilty or not.

Chucking a tanty and shooting the messenger, just because you don't like the message, wont change a thing.

You got the message wrong - it is not half & half - half legal & half political - it is totally political.

---

The more I read the less sense it made..

[rogevibe]

---

@ambercat16 wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

 the others were tragic misadventure , trampled , falling off the wall, accidental self-tazering effects, the other an odd shooting by security 

Really? Trampled would have happened if the place wasn't being invaded? Falling off a wall? Odd shooting? What's odd about shooting an invader, or being shot by one, that's not pertinent to the riot?

You really need to stop defending the orange one and his minions. Facts have shown your POV to be, at best, reprehensible.

---

Is he defending the giant orange baby or manufacturing a conspiracy theory?

---

Just stating the facts : from there one can form a valid opinion that is free from a distorting narrative 

[rogevibe]

---

@not_for_sale wrote:

---

@rogevibe wrote:

---

---

So what is your point? Are you suggesting that the roving intruders were the good boys who were sensitive and respectful of property while they were being violent? I suppose that justifies the 7 dead in your mind?

---

7 dead ? I seem to note 5 deaths , with one of five pertinent riot violence  , that being the police officer who was deliberately struck with a fire extinguisher - the others were tragic misadventure , trampled , falling off the wall, accidental self-tazering effects, the other an odd shooting by security 

The protesters violently confronting police should have been separated from the crowd and marched away , no protesters should have been allowed in the building, those that breached the building should have been subject to lethal force if necessary 

the question is - why was events allowed to degenerate given the vast resources of the United States ? Why is there so much spin when the facts would be condemning enough ? 

Is not Congress the seat of democracy ? 

---

You made comment on the video in David's post - message 658. Clearly you didn't watch it, but made comment anyway. You need to catch up if you are going to attempt to defend Trump and his insurrectionists. Ignorance can only be ignored and dismissed as irrelevant.

---

And all because you say so  ? 

[domino-710]

[the_great_she_elephant]

Chameleon wrote: This isn't the place for emotive, paste up videos, designed to sway opinion based on emotion, it is the place for clear, concise, legal evidence that directly addresses matters of law.

                                                      . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Circumstantial evidence: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving oth

er events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue (Meriam Webster Dictionary.

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial+evidence

[not_for_sale]

---

@rogevibe wrote:

---

---

You made comment on the video in David's post - message 658. Clearly you didn't watch it, but made comment anyway. You need to catch up if you are going to attempt to defend Trump and his insurrectionists. Ignorance can only be ignored and dismissed as irrelevant.

---

And all because you say so  ? 

---

Sorry, but you've been dismissed.

[domino-710]

---

Chameleon wrote: This isn't the place for emotive, paste up videos, designed to sway opinion based on emotion, it is the place for clear, concise, legal evidence that directly addresses matters of law.

                                                      . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

---

Given - this has nothing to do with LAW - but the Constitution - circumstantial evidence is not pertinent either.

The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" ( Article I, section 2 ) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…[but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present"

[chameleon54]

While you have all spent the day tapping away on the keyboards, I went fishing..........

Lovely sunny day, beautiful surf, good company and the fish where on the bite. Caught a few nice salmon and a couple of legal Mullet. ( Planning a nice BBQ lunch with the family tommorow to share the catch ) 

I can thoroughly recommend getting outside and experiencing real life. Much better than sitting at the computer all day arguing with each other over pedantic little points that wont make a scrap of difference to anything.......