Author Topic: [NEWS] Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) calls for Annoying Orange's impeachment on House floor  (Read 18106 times)

some of those districts have like literally a thousand people in them lol
I can personally attest that dallas/Houston districts/countys are having illegal/non registered voters flood the polls, showing a prime example of urbanized areas and voter fraud.
for reference, I've voted for multiple democrats in office. I'm a true centrist, and we have legit voter fraud issues.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 02:36:13 AM by GRIMLOCK_ »

I can personally attest that dallas/Houston districts/countys are having illegal/non registered voters flood the polls, showing a prime example of urbanized areas and voter fraud.
Do you have any evidence of this? Because if this is true, you should be able to report it to the government and collect a massive whistleblower bounty.

Voter fraud normally happens on both sides. Some statistics predicted that it will always be around 7000+- illegal voters for every 3,000,000 votes. Either way, detecting/stopping voter fraud is virtually impossible without making voting more difficult and restrictive, and in doing so you're allowing the voting process to be exploited by powerful opportunists.

Voter fraud normally happens on both sides. Some statistics predicted that it will always be around 7000+- illegal voters for every 3,000,000 votes. Either way, detecting/stopping voter fraud is virtually impossible without making voting more difficult and restrictive, and in doing so you're allowing the voting process to be exploited by powerful opportunists.
Are you sure that reflects American elections? I've read studies that put voter fraud rates way, way lower than that.

https://www.brennancenter.org/brown townysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth


How the hell did he become a Texas rep acting like this

Obama called off probes for Hillary, where was his impeachment?

We'd have to impeach Annoying Orange, shoot Pence, and keep an eye on Paul. To paraphrase Gordon Freeman, there's no point in getting rid of the current president, they'd just replace him with someone less competent.

Obama called off probes for Hillary, where was his impeachment?
there wasn't enough information on the clinton foundation at that time to really warrant the probes, but we could use them now. it isn't much of a secret now that the clintons have been doing some stuffty things, especially after the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich (click for full):



of course this is all conjecture and should be taken with a grain of salt, but this is what the far-right media is talking about while the left media discusses Annoying Orange's russian ties.

i'm still not sure whether or not to believe this myself, but WikiLeaks' responses to these stories are kind of hard to ignore (retweeting various seth rich news stories, etc) even though there's tons of controversy surrounding the whole ordeal. even then, it does make sense-- if you find the person leaking your organization's emails, why not terminate him?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 01:22:26 PM by Remurr »

-actually nvm this makes little sense now i think about sory-
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 01:18:58 PM by Doughboy »


Isn't the FBI executive branch? Why shouldn't the leader of the executive branch be able to control the executive branch?

Isn't the FBI executive branch? Why shouldn't the leader of the executive branch be able to control the executive branch?
there's nothing inherently illicit about the president firing the FBI director. it's really just the circumstances of the firing that are a problem. if it weren't for the nature of the russia investigation and the apparent previous history between comey and Annoying Orange concerning the investigation, there would be little issue here, aside from the fact that i think it's somewhat unusual for a president to prematurely fire federal employees that are appointed to terms like the FBI director.

Isn't the FBI executive branch? Why shouldn't the leader of the executive branch be able to control the executive branch?
it was because Annoying Orange knew full well firing Comey would halt the investigation of Michael Flynn, but he did it anyway (he even TOLD Comey at one point to stop but Comey refused). if there wasn't an investigation being done in the first place, then there wouldn't be a problem--but right now all signs are pointing to Annoying Orange firing Comey as a result of his probe into the link between Flynn and Russia. that's obstruction of justice and i read somewhere that an indictment has already been written up. i'd hunt for the source but im in laser training at work rn so i'll look for it later

it was because Annoying Orange knew full well firing Comey would halt the investigation of Michael Flynn, but he did it anyway (he even TOLD Comey at one point to stop but Comey refused). if there wasn't an investigation being done in the first place, then there wouldn't be a problem--but right now all signs are pointing to Annoying Orange firing Comey as a result of his probe into the link between Flynn and Russia. that's obstruction of justice and i read somewhere that an indictment has already been written up. i'd hunt for the source but im in laser training at work rn so i'll look for it later
But he should have control of that investigation in the first place, right?