• jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:16 PM
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-s-van-jones-calls-black-model-s-speech-at-rnc-most-dangerous-for-democrats/ar-BB1q4VXA?ocid=widgetonlockscreen&cvid=b4e761860cc7478785eff47035afa30e&ei=11 CNN senior political commentator Van Jones warned that TV personality and model Amber Rose’s address to the Republican National Convention in support of former President Trump was the "most dangerous speech" for the Democratic Party. The pundit expressed trepidation over the fact that Rose, a person of color with mainstream fame, spoke at the RNC, noting that she’s appealing to people in liberal circles who may be frustrated with Democratic policies. "That was probably the most dangerous speech for the Democratic coalition," Jones said about Rose’s speech while covering the first night of the convention in Milwaukee. Rose’s speech at the GOP convention provided a story of her own political conversion, explaining how she went from thinking Trump was a "racist," to supporting his movement.
    0 replies | 75 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:07 AM
    Okay. The devil is in the details. These details to be precise. Teamsters president Sean O'Brien delivered a fiery address to close out the first night of the Republican National Convention, castigating big businesses and corporate lobby groups for "waging a war against American workers" — and calling for labor law reform. What "labor law reform" does he want?
    39 replies | 636 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:05 AM
    So is the head of the Teamsters Union speaking at the RNC a small victory for or against communism? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567373-Teamsters-president-Sean-O-Brien-savages-big-business-in-RNC-speech
    22 replies | 565 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:51 AM
    https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/teamsters-sean-obrien-trump-rnc-speech Teamsters president Sean O'Brien savages big business in RNC speech Teamsters president Sean O'Brien speaking at the Republican National Convention O'Brien addressing the RNC. Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images Teamsters president Sean O'Brien delivered a fiery address to close out the first night of the Republican National Convention, castigating big businesses and corporate lobby groups for "waging a war against American workers" — and calling for labor law reform.
    39 replies | 636 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-14-2024, 07:04 AM
    LOL. Wrong! Immunity means immunity. You are making up crap as you go along. Andrew Jackson was not prosecuted for not enforcing treaties with the Native Americans. Prosecutors cannot be prosecuted for not prosecuting because they have immunity but they can be removed from office. Judges can be removed from office for not following their duty, but they cannot be prosecuted for it because they have immunity. Your ridiculous "malfeasance" standard which is NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION let's you set up an imaginary and arbitrary standard where you in your own mind get to pick and choose what is impeachable and what is not. The constitution didn't give YOU that power. It gave it to the Senate. The Senate could vote to remove Biden for his action or inaction on the border but we both know they won't. The GOP doesn't have a 2/3rds majority and I doubt even all of the House republicans would vote on it. But if Biden were to come out and take credit for the recent assassination attempt on Trump that would be enough to push even Democrats to vote for impeachment because there would be hell to pay if they didn't. My "problem" is that I'm actually faithful to the constitution and you are not.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-14-2024, 06:56 AM
    I just thought about something. Isn't it odd that Trump was shot at by a 20 year old registered republican a week and a day after publicly disavowing project 2025? Remember Judge Napalitano talking about why Trump didn't release the information he had about the JFK assassiantion? Could someone have been sending Trump a message "Do our agenda or else?" The shot was fired from 130 yards away using a high powered rifle and a scope. The best snipes in the world can hit a target from 400 yards away. The police were told by people in the crowd that there was someone climbing up on the roof with a rifle and yet the police took no action. Something about this all stinks.
    724 replies | 14847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-14-2024, 12:07 AM
    So....random Trump supporters see guy crawl up onto roof with rifle, tell the police, and the police do nothing? Okay. I'm not a cop. I'm not in the secret service. I'm not even a gun nut. But isn't "sniper on a roof" cliche in movies and TV shows at this point?
    724 replies | 14847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-13-2024, 11:17 PM
    "May you live in interesting times" "May you live in interesting times" is an English expression that is claimed to be a translation of a traditional Chinese curse. The expression is ironic: "interesting" times are usually times of trouble.
    724 replies | 14847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-13-2024, 10:30 PM
    Interesting montage. Scary that a liberal comedian said out loud what seems obvious to me about Scalia and the pillow. The year for Pelosi's "uprising" comment was 2018. (The photo said "captured Jan 12, 2021"). Snoop Dogg, Jan 2024, said he has "Nothing but love and respect for Donald Trump." Who's that on the building at 0:48? (Edit: Never mind. That's the shooter on a building. Seems kinda sloppy Secret Service.)
    724 replies | 14847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-13-2024, 10:18 PM
    How much you want to bet that some left wing preachers will start quoting Revelation 13:3?
    724 replies | 14847 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-13-2024, 10:15 PM
    :rolleyes: You full of enough feces to run green the Sahara desert. But thank you proving you have absolutely no principles at all and no understanding of the law whatsoever. Going by your stupid argument, securing the border is a "core constitutional" duty which means he CANNOT be criminally prosecuted for it! But your ready to impeach him. I bet you'd probably also try to criminally prosecute him for what he could not be criminally prosecuted for. Exactly! Swordsmyth's ignorance is so great that the best he can say about someone else is to call that person ignorant.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 10:57 AM
    You are of course correct.
    70 replies | 2476 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 09:49 AM
    Bollocks! Examples of limitations are that there has to be a indictment in the house, a 2/3rds majority in the senate, and if the President is impeached the Chief Justice presides. But what is a "high crimes and misdemeanors'" is not subject to judicial review! That's the dumbest argument ever! Do you know how many misdemeanors are defined by federal law? You admit the president can be impeached for bribery or treason even for core constitutional duties right? Then that means he can also be impeached for any other high crime or misdemeanor"! Your argument depends upon pretending that bribery and treason are different from other defined crimes when it comes to impeachment and that's simply not true! But answer this. There are Republicans who have introduced articles of impeachment against Biden for failing to secure the border. Do you think they are wrong? Do you think if they somehow managed to get a 2/3rd vote in the Senate on that it would be subject to judicial review?
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 07:23 AM
    All of y'all are wrong. He'll probably pick Ivana.
    213 replies | 12095 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 07:17 AM
    It's not "cherry picking." It's a direct quote. Nowhere did SCOTUS limit the language about the lack of judicial review on impeachment the way you are falsely claiming they are through your cherry picking! You straight up LIED when you said "No, SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the process used in the Senate for the impeachment trial, that's all it said." I prove you lied by pointed out that they said there was no judicial review of impeachment period.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 05:33 AM
    You're just lying. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 05:32 AM
    Wrong. You are just wrong. This is DIRECTLY from the opinion Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) at page 255. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. You are fooling nobody but your self. What part of "NO JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT" do you NOT understand?
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-12-2024, 05:27 AM
    And here you fall into your own circular reasoning trap. "Other high crimes or misdemeanors." A misdemeanor is any crime that is punishable by less than one year. Clearly the "core powers" doctrine would keep him from being prosecuted for a misdemeanor committed while executing a core power but it would not protect him from impeachment. This is the crux of your misunderstanding of this entire issue. Again, let's go back to the example of Anwar Al Aawki. He was an American Citizen. The group he was with when he was killed was not covered by the AUMF to go after those who carried out 9/11 or harbored them. No evidence was ever presented to show he was involved in terrorism. Yet, based on nothing but Obama's statement that he ad taken an "operational role" in a drone strike, he was put on a drone list and killed. Based on the core powers doctrine Obama can't be prosecuted but he could have been impeached. If someone says "no" then one has to consider all of the times the government has cried "terrorism" when it wasn't true, like when the intelligence services said Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and then, as soon as Trump was out of office, said that wasn't true. And consider all of the people who have been accused of being "Russian agents" from Donald Trump to Tulsi Gabbard to Julian Assange. If there is not some accountability for the abuse of putting someone on a terror watch list and then killing him without trial then we're in trouble. But recklessly or intentionally ordering the killing of someone who isn't a terrorist is not treason. It's not bribery. Sure it's another high crime (murder) but who decides if it's impeachable? Why the Senate does of course.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:28 PM
    Anti Federalist. The black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha just got hundreds of gay men kicked out of a hotel because some of the were too scantily dressed. I'm guessing most of the gay men were white. Does that count as taking things from white people? :D http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567325-Kamala-Harris-gives-AKA-convention-speech-days-after-sorors-got-hundreds-of-gays-evicted-from
    2464 replies | 190447 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:25 PM
    You can't make this stuff up! So the same time that the Biden administration is trying to force hospitals to provide so called "gender affirming care" to minors, his VP is attending an even for an organization that pushed a hotel to discriminate against gays? It's wrong for DeSantis to pass a law saying children can't be at drag or trans strip shows but gay men can get kicked out of a hotel because of how they're dressed? Imagine if a Republican or Christian group did this, let alone of one of the most prominent Republican politicians came to speak to the group days later? https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-gives-aka-convention-130952632.html?guccounter=1 Kamala Harris gives AKA convention speech days after sorors got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel Christopher Wiggins Thu, July 11, 2024 at 8:09 AM CDT·3 min read Kamala Harris gives powerful speech at AKA convention days after sorors complaints got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel Kamala Harris gives powerful speech at AKA convention days after sorors complaints got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel On Wednesday morning, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a powerful and resolute speech in Texas at the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s 75th Boulé.
    2 replies | 231 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:56 AM
    That's interesting. Memphis' problems sound a lot like Birmingham. And Birmingham attempted to have a Metropolitan government like Nashville but it failed by 1 vote.
    1 replies | 111 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 07:05 AM
    Swordsmyth, even Trump's team acknowledged that the core powers doctrine didn't protect him from impeachment! Their argument was that he couldn't be held liable for official acts unless he was first impeached! From the opinion. Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. Brief for Petitioner 16. The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. For example, Justice Story reasoned that without the Clause’s clarification that “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833). James Wilson, who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979). And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:36 AM
    SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the constitutionality of the Senates impeachment decision. No authority to question constitutionality means no authority to question constitutionality. All of this shows your glaring contempt for the separation of powers. The only reason that its okay to give the executive branch immunity for prosecution in the judicial branch is that the legislative branch has full sole authority on impeachment. If there had been the political will to impeach President Obama for the killing of American Citizen Anwar Al Awlaki or for spying on the trump campaign that would have been a good thing. But there wasn't the political will to do that.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:35 AM
    Can'd you freaking read? Anware Al Awlaki was an American citizen! You'e got it backwards! Core powers allow immunity from otherwise criminal acts. It does not make them not criminal. But I don't expect you to ever understand that if you can't even understand that Obama killed an American citizen and not a foreigner!
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 12:50 PM
    Densely populated urban area? A town of 1,200 isn't considered rural? A community that's 91% white isn't homogeneous enough? Have you looked up the demographics of this town? Edit: The median income is $86,000 per year. The median age is 29.1. A young, relatively wealthy, rural, mostly white community probably has a lot of legal gun owners in it.
    18 replies | 706 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 12:44 PM
    True. My community is way to small to have a police force. The Sheriff's department shows up pretty quick if needed.
    18 replies | 706 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 10:08 AM
    The announcement of victory: The background of the problem: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/01/kenya-protests-finance-bill-government-debt The world is scrambling to understand Kenya’s historic protests – this is what too many are missing
    0 replies | 155 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 09:34 AM
    But being the commander in chief is a core Constitutional power of the executive branch. And people are killed in war without a trial all the time. The whole point of immunity is to protect someone from prosecution of a crime. Bill Cosby was promised immunity from prosecution in order to get him to testify in a civil trial against him. That doesn't mean what he was accused of doing wasn't a crime. The only person redefining anything is you. You are pretending that being immune from prosecution for a crime means that it wasn't a crime in the first place and therefore one can't be impeached either. That's just utter nonsense.
    153 replies | 5351 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-10-2024, 09:02 AM
    So I don't think I even saw this thread the first time Anti Federalist posted it. Thank you for bumping it. I owe you and AF rep. In legal writing were were taught to never use passive voice unless you are trying to deflect from the bad action of your own client.
    64 replies | 8908 view(s)
More Activity

79 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Accept my FB friend request, plz? Thankee, ma'am. ~hugs~
  2. View Conversation
    You were aware that the comment in your sig was sarcastic, right?
  3. View Conversation
    You're a drunk, now? Unexpected.
  4. View Conversation
    Nikki, is it true you are an eduardo stalker? From a rep he gave me:

    Thoughts on using Facebook

    Dude! Don't share my real FB on here, I don't want Nirvikalpa stalking me
  5. View Conversation
    What was the censored word you accused me of using the rep message you left me?
  6. View Conversation
    I never claimed to be tolerant, I'm not. Tolerance is no virtue.

    And that rep message to HB was 1) private and 2) between friends.
  7. View Conversation
    Your new avatar pic is the most beautiful of yours I've yet seen. ~hugs~
  8. View Conversation
    Thanks for the kind +rep, snugglebear. ~hugs~
  9. View Conversation
  10. View Conversation
    This made me think of you.

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 79
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
About Nirvikalpa

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 18, 1988 (35)
About Nirvikalpa
Medicine, Biology, Nature
EMT, Graduate Student
Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
Political Campaign Skills
Entertainers and Events:
Medical (EMT, nurse, doctor)


What do you want me to do, to do for you to see you through?
A box of rain will ease the pain, and love will see you through.
Box of Rain, Grateful Dead

Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV
A real feminist would have avoided men altogether and found a perfectly good female partner. Because, y'know, all sexual intercourse is actually rape.
aka Wicked Heathen
I was a nasty woman before Trump made it cool.


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
05-13-2014 09:49 PM
General Information
Join Date

60 Friends

  1. american.swan american.swan is offline


  2. angelatc angelatc is offline


  3. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline


  4. brandon brandon is offline


  5. Bryan Bryan is offline


  6. Bsouljah Bsouljah is offline

    New Member

  7. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline


    Captain Shays
  8. CaptainAmerica CaptainAmerica is offline


  9. cheapseats cheapseats is offline


  10. compromise compromise is offline


Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 60
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
View Nirvikalpa's Blog

Recent Entries

Worth & Doubt

by Nirvikalpa on 07-20-2011 at 10:58 AM
“Nobody is superior, nobody is inferior, but nobody is equal either.
People are simply unique, incomparable. You are you, I am I.
I have to contribute my potential to life; you have to contribute your potential to life.
I have to discover my own being; You have to discover your own being.”

Far to often in today's society we are struck by a need to prove our worth - our worth as a citizen, our worth as a mother or a father, our worth as a teacher, our

Read More

Updated 07-20-2011 at 11:01 AM by Nirvikalpa




No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast











Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast