Lol, Jim halpert from The Office

---

So Trump rallies are fake news?

---

Manafort flipped.

---

Manafort flipped.

No, it's just another hand job by Mueller to keep his Trump-hating leg-humpers something to hope for until the elections. Nothing more.

---

I thought it was time to create one.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

....and these friggin clowns wonder why Trump was elected in the first place. The absolute clown show that it going on up there right now has the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. Those that pay taxes in this country should be outraged at the waste of it.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Dang, I called this 2 years ago.  Funny thing is that I'm really indifferent on the subject matter at this point in time of my life.  Both parties suck !!

---

I thought it was time to create one.

2 YEARS TOO LATE  ..... Thread was created back in Aug 2017 -- ha !!

---

I thought it was time to create one.

2 YEARS TOO LATE  ..... Thread was created back in Aug 2017 -- ha !!

Well, yeah. We've all known the Dems would find a way to somehow get to this since Election Day.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

2 YEARS TOO LATE  ..... Thread was created back in Aug 2017 -- ha !!

Well, yeah. We've all known the Dems would find a way to somehow get to this since Election Day.

No, we've known since 1991 that the Donald lacked the integrity sufficient to serve in public trust while avoiding the appearance of evil.
The original meaning of the term "misdemeanor" as Last42min has taught us, is roughly "bad appearances in public".
So yes this was inevitable, but not for the reason you say.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Well, yeah. We've all known the Dems would find a way to somehow get to this since Election Day.

No, we've known since 1991 that the Donald lacked the integrity sufficient to serve in public trust while avoiding the appearance of evil.
The original meaning of the term "misdemeanor" as Last42min has taught us, is roughly "bad appearances in public".
So yes this was inevitable, but not for the reason you say.

So ... everyone then?

Also, Hamilton worried that it'd be used on the basis of political differences than by innocence or guilt. I haven't read that the original meaning of misdemeanor was simply a 'bad appearance', but Samuel Johnson's dictionary said, in 1755, that it was an 'offence' or 'ill behavior' lesser than an 'atrocious crime'. While 'ill behavior' would indicate a low threshold on its own, when it's compared to an 'atrocious crime', it implies that it's a crime of lesser significance and not just 'behavior'.

---

None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

---

None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

Yep, but a surprising number of sky screamers think he’ll be frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs. Pelosi even went so far as to explain this in a press conference before she finally succumbed to the far left mob of her party. She tried to explain, but their seething hatred prevents them from hearing.

---

No, we've known since 1991 that the Donald lacked the integrity sufficient to serve in public trust while avoiding the appearance of evil.
The original meaning of the term "misdemeanor" as Last42min has taught us, is roughly "bad appearances in public".
So yes this was inevitable, but not for the reason you say.

So ... everyone then?

Also, Hamilton worried that it'd be used on the basis of political differences than by innocence or guilt. I haven't read that the original meaning of misdemeanor was simply a 'bad appearance', but Samuel Johnson's dictionary said, in 1755, that it was an 'offence' or 'ill behavior' lesser than an 'atrocious crime'. While 'ill behavior' would indicate a low threshold on its own, when it's compared to an 'atrocious crime', it implies that it's a crime of lesser significance and not just 'behavior'.

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So ... everyone then?

Also, Hamilton worried that it'd be used on the basis of political differences than by innocence or guilt. I haven't read that the original meaning of misdemeanor was simply a 'bad appearance', but Samuel Johnson's dictionary said, in 1755, that it was an 'offence' or 'ill behavior' lesser than an 'atrocious crime'. While 'ill behavior' would indicate a low threshold on its own, when it's compared to an 'atrocious crime', it implies that it's a crime of lesser significance and not just 'behavior'.

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

Can you name one from the last 100 years that doesn't fit your criteria?

Obama absolutely committed crimes. I'm not sure why you're saying he didn't unless you're defining it as 'bad appearances in public'.

'Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time'? What are you saying? Are we talking about courtesy or misdemeanors.

---

So ... everyone then?

Also, Hamilton worried that it'd be used on the basis of political differences than by innocence or guilt. I haven't read that the original meaning of misdemeanor was simply a 'bad appearance', but Samuel Johnson's dictionary said, in 1755, that it was an 'offence' or 'ill behavior' lesser than an 'atrocious crime'. While 'ill behavior' would indicate a low threshold on its own, when it's compared to an 'atrocious crime', it implies that it's a crime of lesser significance and not just 'behavior'.

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

None of this matters anyway. He's still gonna be president, even if he does get impeached. He could even get re-elected.

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

So, it'll prove the political system in the United States isn't fair? Oh no! Whatever will we do? Guess what? It's been that way for years. It's never gonna change. That's life.

---

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

Can you name one from the last 100 years that doesn't fit your criteria?

Obama absolutely committed crimes. I'm not sure why you're saying he didn't unless you're defining it as 'bad appearances in public'.

'Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time'? What are you saying? Are we talking about courtesy or misdemeanors.

In 18th century English,
"High crimes" = using power not granted, or abusing power that was granted, or refusing to comply with duly enacted laws. 
"Misdemeanors" = conduct unbecoming, bad appearances.  Drunkenness or brawling in public, cursing.

Obama did a few high crimes because he acted where Congress refused to act, but this was only because Congress didn't want to go on record.  Secretly, a majority in Congress agreed with DACA, which is why articles of impeachment were not written for DACA.

But Obama did no misdemeanors.

---

I wouldn't say everyone. I don't think any of the previous 44 presidents are remembered for saying or doing things in public that their peers felt were beneath the dignity of the office.  I think you could say that Obama committed some High Crimes by creating DACA along with a few other things, but he didn't commit misdemeanors.  Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time.

---

It definitely matters.
If the Senate votes to acquit along party lines without calling witnesses, it will be proof that the checks and balances created by the founders do not work and that political parties and elections are the only remaining check on tyranny.  Either the public will accept that, or they will wake up on re-structuring our constitution.

So, it'll prove the political system in the United States isn't fair? Oh no! Whatever will we do? Guess what? It's been that way for years. It's never gonna change. That's life.

It's not likely that the constitution would be amended again, but it's not impossible either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Can you name one from the last 100 years that doesn't fit your criteria?

Obama absolutely committed crimes. I'm not sure why you're saying he didn't unless you're defining it as 'bad appearances in public'.

'Obama behaved with the courtesy expected in his time'? What are you saying? Are we talking about courtesy or misdemeanors.

In 18th century English,
"High crimes" = using power not granted, or abusing power that was granted, or refusing to comply with duly enacted laws. 
"Misdemeanors" = conduct unbecoming, bad appearances.  Drunkenness or brawling in public, cursing.

Obama did a few high crimes because he acted where Congress refused to act, but this was only because Congress didn't want to go on record.  Secretly, a majority in Congress agreed with DACA, which is why articles of impeachment were not written for DACA.

But Obama did no misdemeanors.

---

So, it'll prove the political system in the United States isn't fair? Oh no! Whatever will we do? Guess what? It's been that way for years. It's never gonna change. That's life.

It's not likely that the constitution would be amended again, but it's not impossible either.

Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

---

In 18th century English,
"High crimes" = using power not granted, or abusing power that was granted, or refusing to comply with duly enacted laws. 
"Misdemeanors" = conduct unbecoming, bad appearances.  Drunkenness or brawling in public, cursing.

Obama did a few high crimes because he acted where Congress refused to act, but this was only because Congress didn't want to go on record.  Secretly, a majority in Congress agreed with DACA, which is why articles of impeachment were not written for DACA.

But Obama did no misdemeanors.

---

It's not likely that the constitution would be amended again, but it's not impossible either.

Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

As I told another skeptical poster, the Wikipedia article gives some sources. It's not that you should trust Wikipedia, but you should look at the sources they're using and see if those sources are trustworthy and used correctly... Decide for yourself.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Care to source that definition because I can't find it.

I'm not going to delve into the crimes Obama committed since since I'm more interested in figuring out this definition of 'misdemeanor'. It sounds like you're associating a common use of the word when the literal meaning defined criminal conduct.

As I told another skeptical poster, the Wikipedia article gives some sources. It's not that you should trust Wikipedia, but you should look at the sources they're using and see if those sources are trustworthy and used correctly... Decide for yourself.

I'm trying but I didn't read anything that confirmed your statement. I'm just asking for the same source you said you got your info from.

I've seen nothing in those sources, either.

---