- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
Why limit it to both ways? You can boot three or four ways of you want to.I think these days it's called "Booting both ways.".
Or, you could use virtual machines, and be questionable.
Why limit it to both ways? You can boot three or four ways of you want to.I think these days it's called "Booting both ways.".
Why limit it to both ways? You can boot three or four ways of you want to.
Or, you could use virtual machines, and be questionable.
I think I got it.You missed the joke...
Thank your fellow foreigner.I'm triggered now you cunts, thanks.
I don't get your obsession with this election, Rapid.
Can't wait for the season finale of America.
Yeah, that statement won't stir up any shit.
Thus, impeachment is more analogous to a civil lawsuit than a criminal proceeding. A person can be prosecuted for a crime even after being civilly sued for the same misconduct. Like impeachment, the civil suit has a lower burden of proof and legal standards that are not as exacting because it is not the functional equivalent of a criminal case. Just as impeachment is only about removing a corrupt official’s power, the civil suit is merely about compensation for damages. Neither involves the potential loss of liberty that a criminal conviction does.
In impeachment, the official is held to a higher standard of conduct because public office is an extraordinary privilege, not a fundamental right. Public office is a trust with awesome attendant powers; a person may be manifestly unfit for it without having committed indictable crimes. Therefore, high crimes and misdemeanors — which, again, need not be indictable penal offenses — are easier to prove: Congress may fashion its own rules for the proceeding, there is no judicial oversight, and no requirement that all essential elements of criminal offenses be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under strict rules of evidence — Congress must merely determine that violations of the public trust have occurred and that they warrant removal of that trust. By contrast, because a criminal prosecution does involve the potential deprivation of fundamental rights, the standards of proof are more exacting and the protections of judicial due process are guaranteed.
Because the amount of leftie butthurt a Trump win would cause would be amazing. Mostly, I just hate Clinton and everything she represents.
So is everyone cool with the President encouraging illegal voting?
I don't like him or his policies, but that was pretty iffy. I never heard him say that illegals should vote. I did hear him say all citizens can vote and that no one is going to go back and investigate the voting. Is the implication that "as noone is going to investigate, illegals should vote"? Without full context, it's impossible to say. I'd be a hypocrite if I asserted that a partial, out of context, statement by the President is OK, but all the out of context statements by Trump weren't.
An out-of-c0ntext quote from the president being used to gin up outrage? Why I never!!!So is everyone cool with the President encouraging illegal voting?