TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:15 am https://nypost.com/2024/11/06/us-news/d ... dds-again/

Trump wins his third election for President.

I am still surprised at the number of Americans who voted for what I think was the worst candidate for President ever.

I know many left leaning people who cast a ballot for Harris that have said they were not voting FOR Harris, they were voting AGAINST Trump. I suspect that was alot of 2020 as well.

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:17 am

Beiruty wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:48 pm Who came out with this nonsense, suspending the constitution?

This is an interesting problem. Everyone is jumping to either indict or defend Trump. And both sides seem to ignore that we have been suspending or ignoring the Constitution for a long time. Where in the Constitution does it give the government any powers that allow for an "emergency" to be declared and rules imposed? This was considered by the authors and it shows because they specifically mentioned the one right that could be suspended in an emergency and what would constitute the emergency (writ of habeas corpus during an insurrection). So during all of COVID, we have suspended the Constitution.

And that does not include as suspended or ignored how it has been twisted in cases like Wickard v. Filburn? We have not had a constitutional government since at least the depression of the 1930s.

Speaking of Wickard v Filburn, I had just forwarded this article to some friends just the other day.

https://fee.org/articles/wickard-v-filb ... ted-power/

Whether you agree or disagree with Trump....one thing is indisputable. Trump DOES increase voter turnout, both for and against.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:18 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/poli ... for-trump/

Dems licking their chops to indict Trump on criminal charges for the riot.

Since he was acquitted by the senate, wouldn't a trial for the same thing run afoul of double jeopardy?

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:35 pm Mark Levin has reported that the FBI knew in advance the a planned and coordinated attack would occur during Trump’s speech. The attack on the Capital occurred 20 minutes before his speech ended.

So if the FBI knew in advance that it was going to happen, does that then mean that Trump's speech really had nothing to do with the attack and therefore the impeachment proceedings from earlier is politically motivated with no actual substance?

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:39 pm https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaki ... exas-case/

Trump asks Trump to argue Texas SCOTUS case.

Don't you mean Trump asks Ted Cruz?

I am hoping that the title of this thread gets changed to "Today in Trump's FIRST term as President"....so that we can create a new thread for his 2nd term.

BigGuy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:09 pm Additionally, you can't claim to simply be a platform (and as such not responsible for the content of posts) if you edit, or restrict what posts users can make. Now they have accepted responsibility for the content of posts as they remove some they deem inappropriate.

I've been making that argument for awhile now. But they want to be able to control content, and still have liability protection.

I got a little curious as to how Barrett did with her Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) confirmation process. So, I went to look up the yeas and nays. She was confirmed 55-43 with 2 democrats not voting.

It was a MOSTLY party line vote, with 3 democrats voting to confirm her; Donnelly (D-IN), Manchin (D-WV) and Kaine (D-VA). Yes, the democrat's VP nominee from 2016 Tim Kaine voted to confirm her to the Court of Appeals in October 2017, just 3 years ago.

Of those 3 democrats, Manchin and Kaine are STILL in the senate today. Donnelly was replaced by a republican in 2018. Manchin voted to confirm Kavanaugh. So even with Murkowski and Collins backing away from confirming a new SCOTUS justice, it would appear the remaining republicans plus a couple potential democrats should be enough to confirm Barrett with little trouble.

https://ballotpedia.org/Amy_Coney_Barrett

NYC police union endorses Trump

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-po ... presidency

Lynch said that in his 21-years as the chief of the PBA he didn’t remember a president being endorsed by the union and said, “In the NYC PBA you earn the endorsement.”

If we want an accurate term, just call them propagandists.

prop·a·gan·dist
adjective: propagandist

consisting of or spreading propaganda.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:27 pm Leftists Angered over the Daytona 500 Should Blow it Out Their Tailpipes
https://townhall.com/columnists/toddsta ... s-n2561426

"NASCAR fans never forget that no matter who wins the race, what matters most is God, family and country," POTUS declared.

Trump livin' in their heads, rent free 24/7...

I heard there was a rain delay yesterday caused by a tsunami of liberal tears.

Seen on social media;

The devil bowed her head because she knew that she'd been beat
And she laid that golden pen on the ground at Donald's feet
Donald said, "Nancy, just come on back if you ever want to try again
I done told you once you drunk old bat I'm still your PRESIDENT!"

So lets recap the week for the democrats;

• The NFL team who is in Pelosi's district loses the super bowl
• Iowa caucus debacle
• Trump delivers an epic SOTU
• Pelosi catches heat from moderates and independents for tearing up Trump's speech
• Trump acquitted of both articles of impeachment

Did I miss anything?

I'm curious. Since the Senate is going to provide the House and Secretary of State the results of the trial; does Nancy use one of her expensive pens to sign some sort of receipt? Or does she simply tear the report up?