There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'
Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".
jmo.
I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.
And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Another myth that is repeated so much people don't know that it's not true:
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'
Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".
jmo.
I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.
And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Another myth that is repeated so much people don't know that it's not true:
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'
Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".
jmo.
I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.
And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Another myth that is repeated so much people don't know that it's not true:
I'm going with The Economist's analysis over dqydj.com
I'd hate for you to read and think for yourself.
And even their analysis was that it depends on the timing, with nothing timed from the point he first got his money. You can spin the story as you like (as has been done with the S&P 500 myth), but picking random times to jump into the market and ignoring the tax implications is lazy and dishonest, kinda like a certain female Prez candidate.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'
Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".
jmo.
I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.
And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Another myth that is repeated so much people don't know that it's not true:
I'm going with The Economist's analysis over dqydj.com
I'd hate for you to read and think for yourself.
And even their analysis was that it depends on the timing, with nothing timed from the point he first got his money. You can spin the story as you like (as has been done with the S&P 500 myth), but picking random times to jump into the market and ignoring the tax implications is lazy and dishonest, kinda like a certain female Prez candidate.
So the way I spin it is a myth. But your spin isn't. Got it.
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'
Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".
jmo.
I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.
And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Another myth that is repeated so much people don't know that it's not true:
I'm going with The Economist's analysis over dqydj.com
I'd hate for you to read and think for yourself.
And even their analysis was that it depends on the timing, with nothing timed from the point he first got his money. You can spin the story as you like (as has been done with the S&P 500 myth), but picking random times to jump into the market and ignoring the tax implications is lazy and dishonest, kinda like a certain female Prez candidate.
So the way I spin it is a myth. But your spin isn't. Got it.
He got his money in 1974...he beat the S&P500 index from that point. That's not spin...it's a simple fact. The fact that it's a FS comparison to begin with for numerous reasons including taxes (and picking random points after 1974 is FS as well) is "spin" you can believe or not...for you it's pretty obvious you believe what you want facts be damned...
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]
And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?
There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).
They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'
Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".
jmo.
I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.
And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Another myth that is repeated so much people don't know that it's not true:
I'm going with The Economist's analysis over dqydj.com
I'd hate for you to read and think for yourself.
And even their analysis was that it depends on the timing, with nothing timed from the point he first got his money. You can spin the story as you like (as has been done with the S&P 500 myth), but picking random times to jump into the market and ignoring the tax implications is lazy and dishonest, kinda like a certain female Prez candidate.
So the way I spin it is a myth. But your spin isn't. Got it.
He got his money in 1974...he beat the S&P500 index from that point. That's not spin...it's a simple fact. The fact that it's a FS comparison to begin with for numerous reasons including taxes (and picking random points after 1974 is FS as well) is "spin" you can believe or not...for you it's pretty obvious you believe what you want facts be damned...
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]
And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.
Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.
Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]
And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?
Comments
https://dqydj.com/donald-trump-beat-sp-500-index-funds/
And even their analysis was that it depends on the timing, with nothing timed from the point he first got his money. You can spin the story as you like (as has been done with the S&P 500 myth), but picking random times to jump into the market and ignoring the tax implications is lazy and dishonest, kinda like a certain female Prez candidate.
Dude was as overrated as Sark.