Tab Content
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 12:35 PM
    I agree. I loved this quote. "Politicians take tough votes all the time, holding their noses to get something passed. Only Amash would get so upset at being asked to compromise his beliefs that he would respond with a gesture any reasonable person would interpret as: Fuck you. “He really is one of the most principled lawmakers out there,” Pye says. “Sometimes, he’s principled to a fault.” Happier days on this forum.
    7 replies | 58 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 12:27 PM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.
    6 replies | 119 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:28 AM
    https://ktla.com/2019/11/08/steve-bannon-testifies-roger-stone-was-trumps-campaign-link-to-wikileaks/ Of course none of this proves a connection between Wikileaks and Russia let alone Trump and Russia.
    3 replies | 86 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:19 AM
    Very good interview by Rand. Note that he's one of the few people that get it. Quid pro quo is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for impeachment. Rand points out the double standard and points out the legal requirement to condition aid on clearing a country of corruption without going out on a limb like Swordsmyth and suggesting that a politically targeted investigation becomes okay. It's a question of fact as to whether the investigation of Biden was politically targeted or not. Personally I think Trump's strategy from the beginning, drunk monkey that he is, was to try to get impeached. There's no other explanation for his openly calling for China to investigate the Bidens. Obviously China isn't going to do Trump any favors. The effect of all of this is that Joe Biden is no longer the Democratic front runner. And the more Trump's enemies in the media simultaneously say, as Jake Tapper did, that what Hunter Biden did looks "swampy" but "he didn't do anything wrong" the less credibility they have going forward. When the trial happens in the Senate, and it will, Republicans will be in charge and this circus will turn into a Biden roasting. Really Trump is in more trouble with the Roger Stone trial than he is with the current impeachment circus.
    6 replies | 119 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    0 replies | 50 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:28 PM
    Yes they do and yes you are. Again, a reasonable suspicion is a guess or a hunch that a crime may have been committed. You don't have to "prove" elements to have reasonable suspicion.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:27 PM
    :rolleyes: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-impeachment-hearings-schedule-how-to-watch-live-updates-2019-11 The public Trump impeachment hearings begin Wednesday. Here's who's testifying and how to watch
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:26 PM
    Yeah they do You are conflating suspicion with proof.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:25 PM
    That is correct. To put this in criminal language we're at the initial investigation phase. Next comes the "grand jury" or "preliminary hearing" phase. The Senate is the trial. Since both the grand jury and the regular jury are partisan, Trump will be impeached in the House but not removed by the Senate. Political theater at its best (worst).
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:21 PM
    I absolutely do. I'm not "defending" reasonable suspicion. I explaining it to someone who is willfully ignorant. (You). If they have reasonable suspicion that he is selectively prosecuting a crime for political purposes then they absolutely can investigate that. And the only way to properly investigate it is with the government subpoena power. You said it yourself. They need to "prove" Trump isn't doing a general investigation. It's almost impossible to prove a negative.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:54 PM
    You are correct.
    136 replies | 981 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:53 PM
    You keep proving that you don't understand reasonable suspicion. Again, the only way to prove that Trump isn't pursuing a general Ukrainian corruption investigation would be through the subpoena power.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:39 PM
    :rolleyes: You said... You either have to prove that he is not pursuing any other corruption through any other channels or that he is blatantly ignoring the same kind of corruption by political allies. To "prove" that he's not pursuing any other corruption would require, you guessed it, an investigation. It's not merely a question of "resources." It's also subpoena power. To find out if the Trump administration was doing a general investigation into corruption or a targeted one that only involved politics, witnesses from the Trump administration would need to be questioned under oath. Hence an investigation.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:27 PM
    Uhhhh....no. By definition you don't have to prove anything under the reasonable suspicion standard. Reasonable suspicion is the point where you start the investigation. Using your (as usual) backwards logic, you are claiming that someone must do an investigation to "prove" they have the right to do an investigation. :rolleyes:
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:23 PM
    Not at all. You agreed that you would have a problem with a sheriff selectively prosecuting speeders regardless of whether or not he had reasonable suspicion. And that's the point. Selective prosecution, whether or not there is reasonable suspicion, is wrong. If Trump wanted to go after Ukraine corruption in general then he shouldn't have limited himself to only looking a politically related cases. He didn't have to bring up everything else, but he should have brought up something. That doesn't mean he's guilty by any stretch of the imagination. It's just reasonable to be suspicious of his motives.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:11 PM
    If you think I lost, that means I won.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:04 PM
    He doesn't have to do anything but stay orange. But only bringing up political issues to investigate raises reasonable suspicion that this was politically motivated.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:03 PM
    I rest my case.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:57 PM
    Trump didn't ask about one thing that wasn't directly related to a campaign. Not one.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:56 PM
    Yes or no. Would you be okay with a sheriff who openly always gave warnings to Obama supporters he caught speeding and openly always gave tickets to Trump supporters he caught speeding?
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:49 PM
    :rolleyes: Nope. It may be a malicious prosecution. It's not a bill of attainder. You are like that stupid guy on "In Living Color" that used big words he didn't understand. Ultimately there will be an impeachment which is the same as a preliminary hearing. Then Trump will be tried in the Republican controlled Senate. Then he will not be removed. None of the prongs of a "bill of attainder" will have been satisfied. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.
    136 replies | 981 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:46 PM
    :rolleyes: Reading if fundamental! Please READ! The first time I gave the scenario I stated that the Obama supporters were speeding and the sheriff bragged about letting them go while giving tickets to Trump supporters. I have neither "lost" nor "moved goalposts." You claim Trump is supposed to be "rooting out Ukrainian corruption." Well a Crowdstrike issue is NOT about Ukrainian corruption. Nobody, not even Trump, has claimed that Crowdstrike has anything to do with the Ukrainian government. Trump claimed the server was in Ukraine. (Wrong) But even if Trump had been right about that, that has nothing to do with Ukrainian corruption. Now the Clinton Foundation on the other had has corrupt ties to the Ukrainian government.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:34 PM
    Really? It's based on your argument that Trump was supposed by be "rooting out Ukraine corruption." If that's the case then he should have been doing a general phone call about Ukraine corruption. He didn't. Both items he brought up were election related. Crowdstrike was from the 2016 election and Biden is running in the 2020 election. Trump didn't bring up any non-politically related corruption issues in the call. That's not at all an "impossible" standard.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:31 PM
    Nope. Not at all. Again the "selective speeding ticket" example I gave you. You would NOT be okay with a sheriff that only gave tickets to Trump supporters that were speeding and consistently and openly let Obama supporters off the hook. Crowdstrike was over the DNC server. That has nothing to do with the Clinton corruption with the Ukraine.
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:29 PM
    Okay. You're right. I forgot about them. Of course one could argue that assassination kinda precludes impeachment so that just leaves LBJ. And LBJ was riding the JFK sympathy wave. Still, you have a valid point.
    63 replies | 699 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:26 PM
    Ummm...WITHOUT A TRIAL THERE IS NO PROSECUTION! I shouldn't have to expound on this, but I will. Right now there is an investigation. Ultimately there will be an impeachment, which is the same as an indictment. The "trial" happens in the Senate. So yes, Trump will have a trial.
    136 replies | 981 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:25 PM
    There was no mention of the Clintons or their foundation's connection with Ukraine. You are the straw grasper here. You want to cite a law about "rooting out corruption" while ignoring the obvious fact that Trump didn't make a general plea to "root out corruption." He was very selective in his "corruption rooting."
    216 replies | 1736 view(s)
More Activity

49 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Please stop trying to "out" Erowe1. Let it go.
  2. I know. Like I said I was going to yank your chain but realized that in the current circumstances it would be bad taste even for me.
  3. View Conversation
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  4. View Conversation
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  5. View Conversation
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  6. View Conversation
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  7. View Conversation
    Will you kindly give a tongue lashing to the racist of the board, AmericanSpartan? Thank you. I'd like to see it.
  8. Sorry, but you have failed. That verse does not contain the words "Grace is irresistible." You can interpret it that way, but that's not what the verse says. You had to admit there was "relational language" in the Bible. Yet you have stuck to your guns that there isn't a verse that says "Have a relationship with Jesus." Likewise there is no verse that says "Grace is irresistible." If you were honest you would simply admit that. But you aren't honest.
  9. View Conversation
    Acts 13:48
    And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 49
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About jmdrake

Basic Information

Signature


9/11 Thermate experiments

Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
41,903
Posts Per Day
9.23
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
49
Most Recent Message
11-05-2016 03:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:35 PM
Join Date
06-06-2007
Referrals
5

35 Friends

  1. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  2. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  3. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  4. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline

    Member

    Captain Shays
  5. Christian Liberty
  6. cjm cjm is offline

    Member

    cjm
  7. Crowish Crowish is offline

    Member

    Crowish
  8. DGambler DGambler is offline

    Member

    DGambler
  9. Dr.3D Dr.3D is offline

    Member

    Dr.3D
  10. GigiBowman GigiBowman is offline

    Member

    GigiBowman
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 35
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
View jmdrake's Blog

Recent Entries

How Ron Paul could smack down Iran critics

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:34 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Ron needs to quit playing defense and go on offense. It's not enough to say "the Soviet Union was worse than Iran." If he could point out the following documented facts it would shut the naysayer up for good or at least make them back-peddle.

1) In 2003 Iran was the only Muslim country to help us fight and remove the Taliban from power.

See: Jane's Defense Weekly India joins anti-Taliban coalition. "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

The new bill of rights.

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
This parody is an attempt to "rewrite" the bill of rights in keeping with the current application by our criminal government. Original text will be in italics followed by a list of possible options.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Federal Reserve advised gold standard for Russia

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:32 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I ran across this information by accident (providence?) while looking for something else. The first link is an essay from Jude Wanniski who went with fed governor Wayne Angell to Moscow right after the collapse of the soviet union. Note that Angell advocated the new Russia to go to a gold backed currency! The second link is an online Google book from the Mises institute that talks about the same essay. I've excerpted the essay bellow. (It's too long to post directly). It's interesting to note

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Washington Post 2002 : The U.S. pushed jihad on Afghan schoolchildren.

by jmdrake on 09-13-2011 at 01:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts


By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

08-10-2019


08-06-2019


07-28-2019


05-11-2019


03-21-2019


03-18-2019


02-16-2019

  • 12:47 PM - Hidden

10-25-2018

  • 03:48 PM - Hidden

10-24-2018

  • 02:19 PM - Hidden
  • 09:12 AM - Hidden

09-14-2018


09-13-2018


04-26-2018


04-25-2018


10-02-2017


09-07-2017


08-29-2017


05-04-2017

  • 04:05 PM - Hidden

04-19-2017



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 187 1231151101 ... LastLast

11-12-2019


11-11-2019



Page 1 of 187 1231151101 ... LastLast