Any one know the procedure for conducting a trial to determine if someone should be removed from office, when they no longer hold that office?
It makes little sense legally, though I guess it’s more a political statement than anything else.
Printable View
Any one know the procedure for conducting a trial to determine if someone should be removed from office, when they no longer hold that office?
It makes little sense legally, though I guess it’s more a political statement than anything else.
It seems to me that in addition to learning how to take care of my body in a large part via Starting Strength, myself and the rest of those with a keen interest in forestalling the tide of misinformation, bullshit and lies would be well served by a book (and maybe some sort of program) for strengthening not our muscles, tendons and bones, but that portion of the jelly between the ears responsible for discerning the truth in the information age. I don't believe such a book exists. It might require the combined works of several authors to attack the problem from multiple angles. Perhaps Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit would be a good start.
Don't really know anything about him other than he is a defamation lawyer who has been saying some potentially defaming things that you'd think would be unwise unless: they are true and he is baiting people or he is batshit crazy (still unwise, crazy don't care). I don't really have enough familiarity to imagine it either way. Of course I hope it is the former.
A lot of people also said Powell is crazy, but I have seen nothing to show that and plenty pointing the opposite direction.
Claims of having kids with aliens get you on the crazy list. making what may be over the top accusations at scumbags that never cease to surprise me with new levels of scumbaggery just makes me wonder.
Hell, I'm even open to the very outside chance Simon banged on of Kirk's ex's. Anything is possible I suppose. I just don't think sane people talk about stuff that crazy....except to cash in on gullible people.
Just stop already. You level of ignorance is bot propaganda level.
You have to have your entire head shoved up your ass to compare the criminal trial of Zimmerman to the trials that never happened over Trump's claims of election fraud. And then there's the fact that trump's team has maybe 3 or so cases going, so all the crap you have barely paid attention to, but head Don Lemon tell you what to think about were not Trump's cases. But regardless. There have been no trials regarding voter fraud that involved Trump or his lawyers.
And nobody has burned down their neighbors' property over the lack of election fraud trials yet. Let alone the nonexistant outcomes. They "stormed" their own damned property, which only happened because they were not a bunch of Lefty pets, like all the cunts who did the same thing over Kavenaugh's nomination. The big difference being the Trump supporters were only let in after a small group (still out as to who they were) already destroyed property and roughed up some police.
The BLM movement is a bunch of Marxist and terrorists. Both can get fucked.
This is not a fucking joke, you guys need to do what you can to stop this type of power to be used against you!
Israel National News - Ministry of Health worker arrested for putting ex-wife on quarantine 4 times
The problem is that people have lost a point of reference. There has to be a balance between believing authority and questioning the same.
I have read Starting Strength and Practical Programming. The third book for us oldies is on order. I read, I contemplated and it all makes sense. When applied it works for me. Why should I question authority? I do the 5 steps when I deadlift my modest weights. Easy, feels good and makes sense. The method was developed by someone with experience in lifting and coaching. You can call it authority. Why would I start to roll the bar toward my shins before pulling it like some videos on Youtube suggest?
The idea to trust authority with a healthy pinch of doubt has worked to develop the life in democratic countries for a long time.
Apply this to the covid-19 response. Questioning the stats should not be partisan and is obviously completely madness. There is a political aspect on how you distribute the responsibility between individuals and the collective to be debated. On the science, the judges are out. My personal belief is that shutdown does not work and it hurt businesses and economy,
So apply this to the Georgia election. Did really a Republican governor and Secretary of State who campaigned for Trump and donated to his campaigh really facilitate a steal of the election? If some evidence was provided we might believe it. Note, evidence is not when someone makes something up and sends it out in a tweet. Evidence is what is presented in court deemed evidence by that court according to law. Rudy did not present any evidence whatsoever. That is a fact! If you do not believe that, try high bar squat!
Jonas, how many courts ruled on the merits of the evidence in the complaints?
Many did. All these rulings are readable on the internet and many describe the lack of evidence or poor quality of the evidence. It's become a conservative meme that "they didn't have standing!" or "they won't look at the evidence", but it's not true when you actually read these things. Here's one, a quick google search will reveal more: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...-contest-1.pdf
I'm making no statement about my opinion on voter fraud, but it's a fact that these lawsuits were garbage and were dealt with accordingly.
The nations capital guarded with automatic weapons and razor wire, where have I seen this?