Jump to content
toomuchbaloney toomuchbaloney (Member) Nurse

Impeachment

Politics   (22,899 Views 699 Comments)
2 Followers; 39,349 Visitors; 10,589 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 55 of Impeachment. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

From Public Citizen:

Quote

Trump’s enablers in Congress led by Mitch McConnell are about to acquit our lawless president. This was never a trial. It’s a cover up.

Wednesday, February 5th at 5:30pm, thousands of Americans will mobilize with a simple demand, hundreds of thousands of Americans will mobilize with a simple demand:
Reject The Coverup

https://rejectthecoverup.org/?source=pc&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9aff69fd-6e47-4cc2-85a5-b8e27854becd

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Wrong and heartless. (In my opinion)

Yes.

It is heartless and wrong, and someone's life is in danger.

For stealing groceries.

Gosh.

If only this woman had violated the Constitution, ordered an assassination or deliberately caused harm to US troops.

Republicans would have acquitted her.

I think we all know that prison or jail is not where you access top-notch medical care.

Last week, I read the story of a 20-something year old, who died of sepsis in jail custody.

Story in WaPo.

The LPN, and jail staff ignored his pleas for help.

He had turned himself in, for an old DUI warrant.

He ended up dead.

Yet, Trump will roam free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chare said:

Link to the original PA news site.

Link to the original NY Times 

And for additional information not included in the above: Judge’s sentence of nine-time shoplifter draws family’s ire, Lt. Gov.’s attention (Updated with DA statement)

I don't think that just because someone with a long history of substance, who also has a shoplifting history, should be delayed necessary medical care, do you?

In fact, the defendant's drug history, very neatly explains the shoplifting, doesn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

I don't think that just because someone with a long history of substance, who also has a shoplifting history, should be delayed necessary medical care, do you?

[...]

No, of course not.  And I've never suggested otherwise. 

25 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

[...]

Horrifying story.

[...]

Horrifying because she was incarcerated?  Or because she's not receiving timely care?  If the latter, I certainly agree with you.  As she is in custody I would presume that the state would be responsible to ensure that she is being treated; at least this is the case in my state, NC.  If she isn't being provided this care, then yes, not only is it horrifying, but the state is failing in its responsibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chare said:

No, of course not.  And I've never suggested otherwise. 

Horrifying because she was incarcerated?  Or because she's not receiving timely care?  If the latter, I certainly agree with you.  As she is in custody I would presume that the state would be responsible to ensure that she is being treated; at least this is the case in my state, NC.  If she isn't being provided this care, then yes, not only is it horrifying, but the state is failing in its responsibilities. 

Read what I wrote in response to herring.

And read the original story, as to how the present prison provider in PA got the contract.

Just because the state is supposed to provide care, doesn't mean care is given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough case because on the one hand Trump goes free and a person with cancer goes to jail for a nonviolent petty crime.  I get that.

On the other hand the person was a habitual thief and refused her medical treatment and there are laws.    

It's a mess. 

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unhinged members of the Cult wasted no time, employing the lessons learned from watching the illogical defense of Impeached Donald John Trump.

From today's WaPo:

The Constitution Says It's Okay To Shoot Socialists, A GOP Legislator In Montana Contends

I suspect we will see more of this unhinged behavior from the Cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

From today's WaPo:

The Constitution Says It's Okay To Shoot Socialists, A GOP Legislator In Montana Contends

The Constitution says it’s okay to shoot socialists, a GOP legislator in Montana contends

 

Quote

Rep. Rodney Garcia, a state lawmaker in Montana, told a roomful of Republicans he believes the U.S. Constitution says socialists can be jailed or shot simply for being socialists. Garcia initially made the statement at an election event, then he reiterated it to a Billings Gazette reporter.

The Republican Party in Montana swiftly rebuked him.

[...]

Garcia was not able to say where he finds that in the Constitution, the Billings Gazette reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.