It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Due Process is dead. . . . Lady Justice has been sexually assaulted

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

No she is not and clearly you have no idea about her policies.

She is a major so take that for what it is. She is the only one that can challenge Trump in 2020.

Just because she is a "dem" does not mean she is a gun grabber dude.




posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We do need to get back to due process, but I am also tired of them being all in favor of rediscovering stuff like that when it gets them out of trouble and then reversing course when they can use it to their advantage.

What do you suggest we do? We either hold them to their standards, or we have to fight against them successfully. But ultimately, the people who represent us have to understand this is a war and one we will lose if they don't fight. And if they don't fight, then sooner or later there really will be a fight.



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

I was just about to come on here and say the same thing. The impeachment process is due process.

If that wasn't the case then due process went out the window when the Republicans impeached Clinton.



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: seeker1963

No she is not and clearly you have no idea about her policies.

She is a major so take that for what it is. She is the only one that can challenge Trump in 2020.

Just because she is a "dem" does not mean she is a gun grabber dude.



OK! roflmao


Prove me wrong by showing her latest statement involving gun control! I'll give you a hint, you lost already because she supports gun control!
edit on 9-2-2019 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Fairfax Given Until Monday To Resign Or Face Impeachment

Now that a second credible accuser has stepped forward with allegations that Justin Fairfax (D-VA) raped her, members of his own party will start impeachment proceedings Monday if he refuses to resign the lieutenant governors office this weekend.


iotwreport.com...


All joking aside from the complete clusterflock of Virginia politics, what the hell?

Now I don't give a god damn what effing "party" you belong to, but people in the US are innocent until proven guilty.


Not any more.


All you need to do is accuse.


Screw evidence. Screw testimony.

Just find someone you don't like, accuse them of some crap, and ruin their lives.

If democrats want to impeach then have a trial. Prove guilt.

PROVE GUILT!


Our country is so effing screwed up.


Normally I would agree, but this man is not entitled to his government job. The issue is that he can no longer govern effectively because people have lost trust in him. Maybe he did it. Maybe not. But people still need leadership that at least pretends to be accountable. So he should resign. His life is not ruined. He will do just fine for himself in the private sector. I appreciate your sense of justice, but I think it is misplaced in this case.



Would you feel the same if you were falsely accused of doing something you didn't do? Would you step down if you were innocent?

Regardless of whether or not he can bounce back, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?


Yes, I would. In fact, I have stepped aside from a leadership position, not because I had done anything wrong, but because I had been accused of it. It was the best thing for the organization. No, it isn't fair, but such is life. And innocent until proven guilty is a matter of criminal law, not some golden rule. In real life, you either done it or you didn't, no matter what the jury says. But what is your point? This isn't about me. It's about a man accused of some serious stuff and his ability to be effective in his role. Isn't it?



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Tulsi Gabbard is for gun control. Not because she's a Democrat; because she has said so.


Gabbard has co-sponsored bills that would ban assault weapons and institute background checks for all gun purchases.
Wikipedia

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ya but remember timing and her party forcing her to do so. Same can be said with others.
Look at her past policies and then back that up.
Now we must ask is she going to fight the establishment or toa the line.
Imho she will not and is the strongest one against Trump.
Unfortunately she has been shunned for past comments and will not receive any airtime.



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

no trial needed when a woman claims sexual misconduct against her by a man.
we're are suppose to believe a woman's statement as fact.

if you question a woman's statement or ask for evidence you are a "rape sympathizer" .



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Unless your a woman with common sense.
More women need to stand up for "Innocent until proven guilty". IMO.

I am all for "Justice" in a rape case.
When they are PROVEN guilty.



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Does it matter? If she abandoned her principles once, she might do it again. The point is not to denounce anyone who is for gun control; the goal is to elect people who will not vote for or sign gun control. Their personal position is applicable, but only if they stick to it.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2019 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




If that wasn't the case then due process went out the window when the Republicans impeached Clinton.

Really ?
So you consider lying to Congress a non-impeachable offense ?



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Having sensible gun control options is not a bad thing.
Those that support that does not mean that they are gun grabbers.
Don’t fall into party politics dude!



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

According to the OP Clinton should've been brought to trial and found guilty before impeachment proceedings began. Completely ignorant of the fact that the impeachment proceedings are due process in cases like this.

That's the point I was making.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gothmog

According to the OP Clinton should've been brought to trial and found guilty before impeachment proceedings began. Completely ignorant of the fact that the impeachment proceedings are due process in cases like this.

That's the point I was making.

More in-depth post , thanks.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

It's not party politics... it's reality.
    Certain types of weapons are already illegal, including automatic weaponry.

    There is already an extensive background check for purchases.

    Open carry is prohibited in many places.

    Concealed carry must be permitted.
Now there are calls from leading politicians to
    Ban more types of weapons, including those used for hunting and self protection.

    Require ammunition to be either permitted or regulated.

    Extend the background checks farther.

    Have handling/storage requirements that make the gun useless.

    And a few to outlaw guns completely.
That's not party politics, buddy. That's denial of enumerated Constitutional rights. You already have your gun control... no more. Not one single step farther.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

110% agreement of the "not one single step farther" in fact, not due party politics, but belief in what Constitution says, "it should be walked back" from where things are now.

No one would stand for ANY like restrictions on any of the other amendments yet because its convenient, self serving, self justifiable or whatever excuse of the moment is, they are fine stamping all over 2nd Amendment - the only amendment having this reinforcing language "Shall Not be Infringed" to further strengthen.

How about I take my personal beliefs and start applying my "common sense" to your cherished amendments in return, maybe I think your speech for example incites riots where people could be harmed or killed, maybe I dont think baby killing should be allowed etc. etc. etc. Maybe I think your religion is cultist and death dealing.

See how that works.

The slippery slope is if you can get away making up self serving interpretations of plain English in second then yes I too could under right conditions make up self serving interpretations to suit myself and others under right conditions due precedents you set.

Road to totalitarianism.

If you uncommon, common sense types want to limit the second then use method founders provided rather than unconstitutional legislation and activist courts which is at its core dishonest self serving and subversive to the constitution.
edit on 10-2-2019 by Phoenix because: add comment



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
All he has to to is quit and get a job in another state. And its like it never happened.



posted on Feb, 10 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


If you uncommon, common sense types want to limit the second then use method founders provided rather than unconstitutional legislation and activist courts which is at its core dishonest self serving and subversive to the constitution.

Thank you! reposted for emphasis.

According to the Constitution, I should be able to have a nuke in my backyard. If that needs to be changed (and I'll admit it probably does), then pass an amendment. This just changing what the words mean doesn't cut it.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   
What ever happened to the word SLANDER!! It used to be illegal!!



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


No one would stand for ANY like restrictions on any of the other amendments


We've got restrictions on the First. I've seen plenty of people on this site argue that certain people like Antifa should be denied due process.

We also have a lot of people that believe convicts should be denied their Constitutional rights. Just look at how much support Arpaio got when the conditions of his prisons were found to be unconstitutional.

There are restrictions on other Amendments and the are people that support restricting other Amendments. Those facts just don't fit in to the persecution complex pushed by the NRA.







 
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join