Senate Votes Trump ‘Won the Election in a Landslide’

a reply to: uncommitted

I've stated my argument. You aren't debating it, you're just characterizing it.

a reply to: andy06shake

I doubt Jesus would agree people should give their money to a corrupt, wasteful government to care for the poor and needy.

He said feed the poor, not the fatten the wallets of those who hate him.

You know who gives directly to the poor and needy? Churches. Ask any social worker. They are a primary resource for immediate needs.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Aye about as well as Trumps 3rd string team of legal eagles.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No they didn't, they admitted into the record Trumps opinion. That's a very different thing

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I doubt he ever existed if im honest.

But its a nice parable.

And are we feeding the poor MotherMayEye?

How much food do both our respective nations chuck in the bin each year?

How many homeless people do our respective societies have in/on our towns and streets?

The answer is to much and far to many.

And organised religious is never going solve the dilemma any more than our respective systems of government.

Austerity all over the shop, but people canny eat bibles, and good faith don't keep the snow away from the door nether.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No they didn't, they admitted into the record Trumps opinion. That's a very different thing

No, it was an averment, "an allegation or statement as a fact: commonly used of statements in a pleading which the party thereby professes to be ready to prove."

The allegation he made false statements was included in the Article of Impeachment. Trump denied his opinions were 'factually incorrect' but agreed the facts were properly before the Senate to decide.

The Defense response to that averment:





The Article of Impeachment WAS NOT divisible for purposes of voting.




If Trump was found guilty you better believe Democrats would be reminding people he was found guilty of making false statements that he won the election, too.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I doubt he ever existed if im honest.

But its a nice parable.

And are we feeding the poor MotherMayEye?

How much food do both our respective nations chuck in the bin each year?

How many homeless people do our respective societies have in/on our towns and streets?

The answer is to much and far to many.

And organised religious is never going solve the dilemma any more than our respective systems of government.

Austerity all over the shop, but people canny eat bibles, and good faith don't keep the snow away from the door nether.

I'm an atheist and guilty of waste. But I think this country is greater for its religious freedoms, not worse.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Aye free to believe everything but the truth.

Lets just say i imagine religion offers up to some, in all its may shapes and guises, enormous peace of mind.

Then there are the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church geniuses, they love there religious freedoms eh?

Slipper slope but im probably a bit on the fence myself.

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: uncommitted

I've stated my argument. You aren't debating it, you're just characterizing it.

Why don't you respond to my posts to you if you want to debate? Why did you say that the impeachment was to decide the result of the election and not come back and explain why you came to that bizarre conclusion when asked?

I seem to remember you not being so weird, but maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

a reply to: andy06shake

If activity is criminal there are laws that address it. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are well defined by the SCOTUS.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No they didn't, they admitted into the record Trumps opinion. That's a very different thing

No, it was an averment, "an allegation or statement as a fact: commonly used of statements in a pleading which the party thereby professes to be ready to prove."

The allegation he made false statements was included in the Article of Impeachment. Trump denied his opinions were 'factually incorrect' but agreed the facts were properly before the Senate to decide.

The Defense response to that averment:

The Article of Impeachment WAS NOT divisible for purposes of voting.

If Trump was found guilty you better believe Democrats would be reminding people he was found guilty of making false statements that he won the election, too.

It's not a statement of fact, it is saying it:
a) agreed he did indeed make those statements
b) the senate is saying those statements are false
c) Trump disagrees they are false.


It really isn't that hard, is it?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: uncommitted

I've stated my argument. You aren't debating it, you're just characterizing it.

Why don't you respond to my posts to you if you want to debate? Why did you say that the impeachment was to decide the result of the election and not come back and explain why you came to that bizarre conclusion when asked?

I seem to remember you not being so weird, but maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

I have answered your questions in the OP and within the thread. Is it possible you aren't grasping them? I'm not seeing signs you are.

originally posted by: uncommitted


It's not a statement of fact, it is:
a) agreed he did indeed make those statements
b) the senate is saying those statements are false
c) Trump disagrees they are fals.


It really isn't that hard, is it?

No. The HOUSE is saying they are false. Trump said they are true.

BOTH sides agreed the SENATE should decide if they were 'factually incorrect.'

The House presented their arguments and evidence to support their allegations made in the Impeachment Article.

The Defense presented their argument and evidence.

The Senate voted the House had not proved that allegation because the Article of Impeachment is not divisible. That was the choice the House made because they wanted him found guilty on this allegation, too.

It isn't hard for me...apparently it is for you.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If standing outside peoples funerals with placards saying the things those mad bastards had on them amounts to religious freedom something is very wrong all the same.

I don't disagree with religious freedom MotherMayEye, i do disagree with peoples lack of common-sense and curtesy.

Personally i imagine if people kept there religious ideologies some what on a private level there would not be half the problems associated with such all the same.

After all did Jesus not say ""the kingdom of god is inside you and all around you.".

Seems like sound advice.

a reply to: andy06shake

I can disagree without insisting that their right to speak is somehow restricted.

I don't have to listen.

If they are criminally harassing people, then they should be held accountable for that criminal activity.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: mikell

Lol, my timeline is extremely intact. Trump was spreading the lies about election fraud that directly lead to the assault months before the assault. He was the one who told them all to come to Washington D.C. on January 6th. And he already knew how violent his supporters were after the assault on the Michigan state capital earlier last year. All of that happened WAY before anyone stormed the capital.

And look what happened to those that did - they got charged and arrested, and not pardoned by Trump or any of that. Trump threw them under the bus.

Enjoy your leader! Have fun!

The Democrats rigged the election - it doesn't need Trump to point it out. The amount of testimony and witnesses was staggering. That the Democrats got away with it and enough people find the subject too much to handle is just the way it is.

But don't pretend that talking about it is some sort of heinous crime. Seems like the overreaction by democrats to the very notion that they stole the election smacks of a guilty conscience.. quick quick forcefully say it didn't happen ... attack those that say it did... bury bury bury.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do stuff like that at a funeral over here, and they would be apt to get the placards over the nut then stuck where the sun don't shine.

Religious freedom and criminality would not even come into it.........well until the Police arrived, and then they would probably issue the crazies with a kicking ta boot.

Some things mate are beyond the scope of reason to accept that mob were one of them imho.

Anyhoo probably getting a little off topic, may bad.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: uncommitted

I've stated my argument. You aren't debating it, you're just characterizing it.

Why don't you respond to my posts to you if you want to debate? Why did you say that the impeachment was to decide the result of the election and not come back and explain why you came to that bizarre conclusion when asked?

I seem to remember you not being so weird, but maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

I have answered your questions in the OP and within the thread. Is it possible you aren't grasping them? I'm not seeing signs you are.

So again, why did you say that the impeachment was to decide the result of the election and haven't come back and explain why? If you keep talking rubbish, no one but you can grasp it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It isn't hard for you because you are reading it to mean what you want it to mean. Sheesh, you are a strange person.

a reply to: UKTruth

Just very boring that people keep saying the election was stolen but can't actually prove it.

I don't think anyone is saying it's a heinous crime to talk about it, it's the height of pointlessness to say there is evidence without being able to provide anything that would pass a test to be treated as such.