Will Speaker Pelosi withhold articles of impeachment from Senate until guaranteed a fair trial?

[Zorro!]

I'll leave the judgment of Trump to The Lord. I suspect His insight both differs from and infinitely exceeds yours. The Lord knew the entire time that the idea that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with Putin was a complete, total and bald-faced lie. Can you direct me to your posts, before Mueller finally admitted this, where you plainly expressed this truth?

You can go look for whatever you want to find. I honestly couldn't care less.

It's not difficult to see the Booming Economy:

While most analysts were focused on Warren and Buttigieg scrapping over crystal wine caves, many ignored one question from the PBS moderator that seemed to catch all of the candidates flat-footed. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates about the possibility that some voters who might not care for President Trump’s rhetoric or tweetstorms could still be nervous about changing presidents when the economy was doing so well.

Joe Biden, for some reason, chose to say, “I don’t think they really do like the economy.”

Mayor Pete concurred, saying that people weren’t making enough money.

Warren and Sanders also ignored the premise of the question, claiming that the economy was only working for the top 1%.​

Those are odd positions to take, particularly when you consider that CNN’s most recent polling showed that more than three-quarters of Americans feel that the economy is in good or great shape.

Unemployment is at a half-century low; joblessness among minorities has continued to decline.

A new poll for CNN found that 76 percent of Americans rate the economy as very or somewhat good, up from a year ago and the highest recorded since February 2001.

One "solution" offered by the Democrats is higher taxes on the wealthy to produce revenue for investment elsewhere. Depending on the policies advocated, not just those in the top 1 percent, or even 10 percent, could see their taxes increase.

To demonstrate how lost the primary candidates are on this subject, look no further than a followup question tossed to Elizabeth Warren. It was pointed out to her that even some Democratic economists are warning that her radical policies could stifle economic growth. Her answer was to simply say, “Oh, they’re just wrong.”

It’s not hard to find voters across the country who are put off by Donald Trump’s style of leadership, language and tactics. That’s why the same group of poll respondents that gave him glowing marks on handling the economy still turned around and gave him an overall job approval rating in the mid-forties.

But will the public risk the current economic boom times for one of these candidates who not only don’t have a plan but can’t even bring themselves to admit that we’re doing pretty well right now? As of the last surveys, Trump is beating all of the Democrats, including Biden, in the key swing states.

Democrats have to ignore or deride a booming economy

Thanks Obama.

GDP Trend Obama's last two years:

GDP Trend Trump's First Two Years

Obama inherited a recession...

It was over, over a decade ago. Obama's final year was the worst year the US economy has experienced in last 8, but, it's sure been going gang busters since he left!

 

[TheShockJock]

Obama did not save the economy

Obama Did Not Save the Economy


Obama Did Not Save the Economy

Speaking more generally, I cannot think of a single mid-level Obama policy that counts as a pro-growth initiative. The same bad rap cannot be leveled against Trump, for, as the economists Edward C. Prescott and Lee E. Ohanian point out in the Wall Street Journal, the deregulatory cornerstones of the Trump administration are economically sustainable. Deregulation of labor and capital markets are not just a short-term shot in the arm, and the lower taxation of corporate income has worked to repatriate capital from overseas and to expand overall levels of investment. So long as these remain permanent features of the economy—a big “if” with an election coming up—private firms have the necessary time horizons to make much-needed long-term investments. That activity will in turn--as has begun to happen--rejuvenate labor markets. Youth unemployment hit a 50-year low, and the pace of hiring continues to rise. The stock market, always a leading indicator of future fortune, rose by about one-third in Trump’s first year in office and continues to hit all-time highs.




Not Obama's Economy

 

[XponentialChaos]

You can go look for whatever you want to find. I honestly couldn't care less.

It's not difficult to see the Booming Economy:

While most analysts were focused on Warren and Buttigieg scrapping over crystal wine caves, many ignored one question from the PBS moderator that seemed to catch all of the candidates flat-footed. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates about the possibility that some voters who might not care for President Trump’s rhetoric or tweetstorms could still be nervous about changing presidents when the economy was doing so well.

Joe Biden, for some reason, chose to say, “I don’t think they really do like the economy.”

Mayor Pete concurred, saying that people weren’t making enough money.

Warren and Sanders also ignored the premise of the question, claiming that the economy was only working for the top 1%.​

Those are odd positions to take, particularly when you consider that CNN’s most recent polling showed that more than three-quarters of Americans feel that the economy is in good or great shape.

Unemployment is at a half-century low; joblessness among minorities has continued to decline.

A new poll for CNN found that 76 percent of Americans rate the economy as very or somewhat good, up from a year ago and the highest recorded since February 2001.

One "solution" offered by the Democrats is higher taxes on the wealthy to produce revenue for investment elsewhere. Depending on the policies advocated, not just those in the top 1 percent, or even 10 percent, could see their taxes increase.

To demonstrate how lost the primary candidates are on this subject, look no further than a followup question tossed to Elizabeth Warren. It was pointed out to her that even some Democratic economists are warning that her radical policies could stifle economic growth. Her answer was to simply say, “Oh, they’re just wrong.”

It’s not hard to find voters across the country who are put off by Donald Trump’s style of leadership, language and tactics. That’s why the same group of poll respondents that gave him glowing marks on handling the economy still turned around and gave him an overall job approval rating in the mid-forties.

But will the public risk the current economic boom times for one of these candidates who not only don’t have a plan but can’t even bring themselves to admit that we’re doing pretty well right now? As of the last surveys, Trump is beating all of the Democrats, including Biden, in the key swing states.

Democrats have to ignore or deride a booming economy

Thanks Obama.

GDP Trend Obama's last two years:

GDP Trend Trump's First Two Years

Obama inherited a recession...

It was over, over a decade ago. Obama's final year was the worst year the US economy has experienced in last 8, but, it's sure been going gang busters since he left!

I'm sure you were this excited when Bill Clinton was in office too.

 

[Zorro!]

You can go look for whatever you want to find. I honestly couldn't care less.

It's not difficult to see the Booming Economy:

While most analysts were focused on Warren and Buttigieg scrapping over crystal wine caves, many ignored one question from the PBS moderator that seemed to catch all of the candidates flat-footed. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates about the possibility that some voters who might not care for President Trump’s rhetoric or tweetstorms could still be nervous about changing presidents when the economy was doing so well.

Joe Biden, for some reason, chose to say, “I don’t think they really do like the economy.”

Mayor Pete concurred, saying that people weren’t making enough money.

Warren and Sanders also ignored the premise of the question, claiming that the economy was only working for the top 1%.​

Those are odd positions to take, particularly when you consider that CNN’s most recent polling showed that more than three-quarters of Americans feel that the economy is in good or great shape.

Unemployment is at a half-century low; joblessness among minorities has continued to decline.

A new poll for CNN found that 76 percent of Americans rate the economy as very or somewhat good, up from a year ago and the highest recorded since February 2001.

One "solution" offered by the Democrats is higher taxes on the wealthy to produce revenue for investment elsewhere. Depending on the policies advocated, not just those in the top 1 percent, or even 10 percent, could see their taxes increase.

To demonstrate how lost the primary candidates are on this subject, look no further than a followup question tossed to Elizabeth Warren. It was pointed out to her that even some Democratic economists are warning that her radical policies could stifle economic growth. Her answer was to simply say, “Oh, they’re just wrong.”

It’s not hard to find voters across the country who are put off by Donald Trump’s style of leadership, language and tactics. That’s why the same group of poll respondents that gave him glowing marks on handling the economy still turned around and gave him an overall job approval rating in the mid-forties.

But will the public risk the current economic boom times for one of these candidates who not only don’t have a plan but can’t even bring themselves to admit that we’re doing pretty well right now? As of the last surveys, Trump is beating all of the Democrats, including Biden, in the key swing states.

Democrats have to ignore or deride a booming economy

Thanks Obama.

GDP Trend Obama's last two years:

GDP Trend Trump's First Two Years

Obama inherited a recession and pulled us out of it.

Trump inherited a good economy and managed not to fuck it up. At least not yet.

Amen! Trump has artificially juiced the economy with massive deregulation...

Getting rid of unnecessary regulation is hardly "artificial" stimulation.

... when the recession comes - it will hit really hard...

You folks have been predicting a terrible recession since Trump won the election. We haven't even had a negative quarter.

 

[Zorro!]

It's not difficult to see the Booming Economy:

While most analysts were focused on Warren and Buttigieg scrapping over crystal wine caves, many ignored one question from the PBS moderator that seemed to catch all of the candidates flat-footed. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates about the possibility that some voters who might not care for President Trump’s rhetoric or tweetstorms could still be nervous about changing presidents when the economy was doing so well.

Joe Biden, for some reason, chose to say, “I don’t think they really do like the economy.”

Mayor Pete concurred, saying that people weren’t making enough money.

Warren and Sanders also ignored the premise of the question, claiming that the economy was only working for the top 1%.​

Those are odd positions to take, particularly when you consider that CNN’s most recent polling showed that more than three-quarters of Americans feel that the economy is in good or great shape.

Unemployment is at a half-century low; joblessness among minorities has continued to decline.

A new poll for CNN found that 76 percent of Americans rate the economy as very or somewhat good, up from a year ago and the highest recorded since February 2001.

One "solution" offered by the Democrats is higher taxes on the wealthy to produce revenue for investment elsewhere. Depending on the policies advocated, not just those in the top 1 percent, or even 10 percent, could see their taxes increase.

To demonstrate how lost the primary candidates are on this subject, look no further than a followup question tossed to Elizabeth Warren. It was pointed out to her that even some Democratic economists are warning that her radical policies could stifle economic growth. Her answer was to simply say, “Oh, they’re just wrong.”

It’s not hard to find voters across the country who are put off by Donald Trump’s style of leadership, language and tactics. That’s why the same group of poll respondents that gave him glowing marks on handling the economy still turned around and gave him an overall job approval rating in the mid-forties.

But will the public risk the current economic boom times for one of these candidates who not only don’t have a plan but can’t even bring themselves to admit that we’re doing pretty well right now? As of the last surveys, Trump is beating all of the Democrats, including Biden, in the key swing states.

Democrats have to ignore or deride a booming economy

Thanks Obama.

GDP Trend Obama's last two years:

GDP Trend Trump's First Two Years

Obama inherited a recession...

It was over, over a decade ago. Obama's final year was the worst year the US economy has experienced in last 8, but, it's sure been going gang busters since he left!

I'm sure you were this excited when Bill Clinton was in office too.

Clinton's economic performance was top notch. Trump's well on his way to putting in a similar performance. Certainly his Presidency is far more like Clinton's than Dumb or Dumber's.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Thanks Obama.

GDP Trend Obama's last two years:

GDP Trend Trump's First Two Years

Obama inherited a recession...

It was over, over a decade ago. Obama's final year was the worst year the US economy has experienced in last 8, but, it's sure been going gang busters since he left!

I'm sure you were this excited when Bill Clinton was in office too.

Clinton's economic performance was top notch. Trump's well on his way to putting in a similar performance. Certainly his Presidency is far more like Clinton's than Dumb or Dumber's.

So Clinton was better than Trump.

 

[kyzr]

You can disagree with it, but its in the Constitution, so throw pillows at the TV when something happens that you don't like when the "trial" starts in January. <g>

p.s. the Chief Justice was appointed by the president, like RBG will be replaced by Trump, and probably Breyer too, and hopefully Thomas too as his final FU to the democrats and Joe Biden.

The jurors are all partial not one is impartial and the judge is a political appointee in a political trial

LOL look retard the democrats are not all even going to vote to impeach

Democratic Sen. Doug Jones says he'll vote to acquit President Trump if 'dots aren't connected'

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue?
The judge is the Chief Justice, period, full stop. There is no other option.
The jurors are all 100 senators, period, full stop.
Senator Doug Jones can say anything he wants to now, we all know how he will vote on the articles.
The two articles of impeachment aren't even "crimes" and Article 2 was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump vs House democrats on subpoenas of Trump's taxes. Trump does have the right to take House subpoenas to court, and its not "obstruction of congress".

It's not a trial as the judge can not know everyone in the room and the people accusing the defendant can not be the fucking jury.

IT'S NOT A TRIAL, IT'S A LYNCHING

1. The House impeached (accused) and the senate is the jury.
2.Its not a lynching because Trump will be acquitted
p.s. The judge doesn't have a vote

All I am saying is that a situation where the accusers are part of the jury is NOT A TRIAL

1. Nancy Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the 230 or so House democrats are the ones who impeached Trump. There were ZERO House Republicans who voted for impeachment.
2. The Senate, including Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell are part of the 53 Republican senators who will probably vote to acquit. The 47 democrat senators will probably vote to remove Trump. It takes 67 senators to "remove" Trump, but 20 GOP senators will never vote with the democrats. So this "impeachment sham" is just a partisan political hit job hoping to hurt Trump's chances of winning in 2020.

3. So your assertion that the House democrat "accusers" are part of the senate "jury" is incorrect.

 

[Kondor3]

...think it carries such a onus it will hurt Trump in the election....they have made a huge mistake believing that.

Irrelevant.

I repeat my earlier observation...

...The question now becomes: "Do the Republicans in the Senate have the balls to conduct the Trial the way it should be conducted?"

Doubtful, but stranger things have happened; all it takes is one, rediscovering his conscience, duty and soul... the first righteous domino.

And, to build on what you have said here...

If the Republicans think they can railroad the American People with a sham Trial rather than holding an already-impeached and runaway President to account, then they are making a "huge mistake"...

 

[Kondor3]

...3. So your assertion that the House democrat "accusers" are part of the senate "jury" is incorrect.

That is an accurate observation.

The US House of Representatives appoints Impeachment 'Managers' who serve as the functional equivalent of the Prosecution.

The President's legal team serves as the functional equivalent of the Defense.

The 100 members of the US Senate serve as the functional equivalent of the Petite (Trial) Jury.

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court serves as the functional equivalent of the Trial Judge.

The Senate CAN override the Chief Justice on points of law and precedent and Senate rules.

But just because one CAN do a thing does not mean that one SHOULD do a thing.

The Senate undertakes such overrides at its own VERY grave political risk.

 

[Kondor3]

...Who is the presiding judge over the trial?...

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

...Who picks the impartial jurors?...

The voters of fifty States.

...Or are you stupid enough to claim that sitting US senators are impartial?...

No. I am sufficiently read to know that each Senator swears a solemn and binding oath to be impartial as a 'juror' in the Senate trial.

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’​

...There will be no trial...

Tell that to Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton.

...Just a fact

Your so-called 'facts' do not bear any resemblance to Reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Senate_trial

Not one senator would be able to be a juror in a real trial against Trump, and Roberts knowing everyone would have to disqualify himself. All you are doing is quoting the fake system that will not let a juror in a real case read a dictionary because they are required to base their decision on ignorance.

Do you enjoy being my toy?

Your inability to deal in functional metaphor and your nit-picking and repetition indicate that you lack the intellect to pursue this further.

You have served-up nothing adequate to the challenge, nor are you likely to...

Consequently, you need to start dry-humping somebody else's pants-leg... go away... you're borin' the hell outta me, Princess.

 

[Faun]

You have to look at things in EXTREMELY mysterious ways for you to think Trump is Christ-like.

We all have the ability to be Christlike, all one need do is stop the stone

Trump doesn't attempt to do so.

I'll leave the judgment of Trump to The Lord. I suspect His insight both differs from and infinitely exceeds yours. The Lord knew the entire time that the idea that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with Putin was a complete, total and bald-faced lie. Can you direct me to your posts, before Mueller finally admitted this, where you plainly expressed this truth?

You can go look for whatever you want to find. I honestly couldn't care less.

It's not difficult to see the Booming Economy:

While most analysts were focused on Warren and Buttigieg scrapping over crystal wine caves, many ignored one question from the PBS moderator that seemed to catch all of the candidates flat-footed. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates about the possibility that some voters who might not care for President Trump’s rhetoric or tweetstorms could still be nervous about changing presidents when the economy was doing so well.

Joe Biden, for some reason, chose to say, “I don’t think they really do like the economy.”

Mayor Pete concurred, saying that people weren’t making enough money.

Warren and Sanders also ignored the premise of the question, claiming that the economy was only working for the top 1%.​

Those are odd positions to take, particularly when you consider that CNN’s most recent polling showed that more than three-quarters of Americans feel that the economy is in good or great shape.

Unemployment is at a half-century low; joblessness among minorities has continued to decline.

A new poll for CNN found that 76 percent of Americans rate the economy as very or somewhat good, up from a year ago and the highest recorded since February 2001.

One "solution" offered by the Democrats is higher taxes on the wealthy to produce revenue for investment elsewhere. Depending on the policies advocated, not just those in the top 1 percent, or even 10 percent, could see their taxes increase.

To demonstrate how lost the primary candidates are on this subject, look no further than a followup question tossed to Elizabeth Warren. It was pointed out to her that even some Democratic economists are warning that her radical policies could stifle economic growth. Her answer was to simply say, “Oh, they’re just wrong.”

It’s not hard to find voters across the country who are put off by Donald Trump’s style of leadership, language and tactics. That’s why the same group of poll respondents that gave him glowing marks on handling the economy still turned around and gave him an overall job approval rating in the mid-forties.

But will the public risk the current economic boom times for one of these candidates who not only don’t have a plan but can’t even bring themselves to admit that we’re doing pretty well right now? As of the last surveys, Trump is beating all of the Democrats, including Biden, in the key swing states.

Democrats have to ignore or deride a booming economy

You mean the booming economy Impeached Trump inherited? That booming economy?

 

[Faun]

Obama did not save the economy

Obama Did Not Save the Economy


Obama Did Not Save the Economy

Speaking more generally, I cannot think of a single mid-level Obama policy that counts as a pro-growth initiative. The same bad rap cannot be leveled against Trump, for, as the economists Edward C. Prescott and Lee E. Ohanian point out in the Wall Street Journal, the deregulatory cornerstones of the Trump administration are economically sustainable. Deregulation of labor and capital markets are not just a short-term shot in the arm, and the lower taxation of corporate income has worked to repatriate capital from overseas and to expand overall levels of investment. So long as these remain permanent features of the economy—a big “if” with an election coming up—private firms have the necessary time horizons to make much-needed long-term investments. That activity will in turn--as has begun to happen--rejuvenate labor markets. Youth unemployment hit a 50-year low, and the pace of hiring continues to rise. The stock market, always a leading indicator of future fortune, rose by about one-third in Trump’s first year in office and continues to hit all-time highs.




Not Obama's Economy

Oh look ^^^ a rightwing publication states leftwing policies did nothing for the economy over the first 7 years of this decade long economic period of growth; but that rightwing policies helped the last 3 years of it.

 

[Zorro!]

GDP Trend Obama's last two years:

GDP Trend Trump's First Two Years

Obama inherited a recession...

It was over, over a decade ago. Obama's final year was the worst year the US economy has experienced in last 8, but, it's sure been going gang busters since he left!

I'm sure you were this excited when Bill Clinton was in office too.

Clinton's economic performance was top notch. Trump's well on his way to putting in a similar performance. Certainly his Presidency is far more like Clinton's than Dumb or Dumber's.

So Clinton was better than Trump.

His first two years of GDP were a little better, yes.

 

[WEATHER53]

Nancy refusing to complete the process and thus invalidate it is the gift that keeps on giving

 

[berg80]

Here's what Nancy should tell duplicitous Mitch................""there will be no difference between my position and the position of the 70% of the public who want witness testimony in how to handle this."

 

[lantern2814]

The Articles of Impeachment DO NOT EXPIRE - not next year; not next Congress; not ever.

They will expire when McConnell sets the trial date. Once Pisslosi doesn’t turn over the required paperwork, vote to dismiss. Case closed.

And Impeached Trump will still be impeached.

Not if your cowardly leaders (and you know cowards wing one yourself) don’t send it to the Senate fuckwad. Process NOT complete no matter how much you cry dipshit.

LOLOL

Yup, still impeached.

No, not impeached until the process is complete you uneducated dumbfuck. Next time you go to a restaurant you are to inform the waiter to serve you raw chicken. You are to eat it. It doesn’t matter of the process of cooking has been completed. WE say it’s done. So do it coward. Oh that’s right, you won’t even stand behind your owner shit. Poor baby. No matter how much he cries he get slapped slapped around by every poster here.

 

[Faun]

The Articles of Impeachment DO NOT EXPIRE - not next year; not next Congress; not ever.

They will expire when McConnell sets the trial date. Once Pisslosi doesn’t turn over the required paperwork, vote to dismiss. Case closed.

And Impeached Trump will still be impeached.

Not if your cowardly leaders (and you know cowards wing one yourself) don’t send it to the Senate fuckwad. Process NOT complete no matter how much you cry dipshit.

LOLOL

Yup, still impeached.

No, not impeached until the process is complete you uneducated dumbfuck. Next time you go to a restaurant you are to inform the waiter to serve you raw chicken. You are to eat it. It doesn’t matter of the process of cooking has been completed. WE say it’s done. So do it coward. Oh that’s right, you won’t even stand behind your owner shit. Poor baby. No matter how much he cries he get slapped slapped around by every poster here.

LOLOL

Well there's you saying that absent of proof .... and then there's the House rules confirming you're a fucking imbecile.

​

 

[hadit]

Here's what Nancy should tell duplicitous Mitch................""there will be no difference between my position and the position of the 70% of the public who want witness testimony in how to handle this."

Since we're playing political games with impeachment, McConnell should simply announce that the trial starts on a certain day at a certain time with or without the articles.

 

[beagle9]

Here's what Nancy should tell duplicitous Mitch................""there will be no difference between my position and the position of the 70% of the public who want witness testimony in how to handle this."

Since we're playing political games with impeachment, McConnell should simply announce that the trial starts on a certain day at a certain time with or without the articles.

Yes, it's time to put an end to the circus. Now look at what the demons are up too in attempting to keep Trump in impeachment perpetuity now. Good grief.

And on a side note, where as that young feller running for President (whatever his name is "the wine cave" dude), well he should go ahead and quit now, because he mentioned Mike Pence in the last debate, and he did so based upon Mike Pences religion (Christianity), in which undoubtedly he doesn't like or he fears. If he is going to wage war on Christianity, then he might as well quit now. Restoring Christian traditions in this country, where as Christianity will no longer be something to be knocked around as the leftist strategy sought for it to be, and instead it shall now rejoin the mainstream in America as it should once again do... It has been a part of the MAGA strategy and not the opposite of. Just sayin.

 

[TheShockJock]

They will expire when McConnell sets the trial date. Once Pisslosi doesn’t turn over the required paperwork, vote to dismiss. Case closed.

And Impeached Trump will still be impeached.

Not if your cowardly leaders (and you know cowards wing one yourself) don’t send it to the Senate fuckwad. Process NOT complete no matter how much you cry dipshit.

LOLOL

Yup, still impeached.

No, not impeached until the process is complete you uneducated dumbfuck. Next time you go to a restaurant you are to inform the waiter to serve you raw chicken. You are to eat it. It doesn’t matter of the process of cooking has been completed. WE say it’s done. So do it coward. Oh that’s right, you won’t even stand behind your owner shit. Poor baby. No matter how much he cries he get slapped slapped around by every poster here.

LOLOL

Well there's you saying that absent of proof .... and then there's the House rules confirming you're a fucking imbecile.

Quote

Impeach means to charge someone with doing something wrong, specifically a high government official, such as the U.S. president, a senator, or a federal judge.

Trump has been charged and that is all at this point.

The Senate is the one to decide whether or not the President is guilty of what he has been charged with.

Apparantly lots of Democrats seem to think that just because he has been charged that means he is guilty.

This is America...where one is innocent until he has been proven guilty. Only the Senate has the power to say he is guilty.

The situation of Nancy not delivering the charges to the senate has never occurred before...thus no precedent for that and there is nothing in the constitution that supports it.

I said way back when the democrats started this that they were opening a can of worms...aka venturing into un-charted waters...which could lead to something very ominous.

It might be possible to make a criminal case against Nancy for 'obstruction' --aka --not allowing or interfering with The U.S. senate's obligation according to the constitution to conduct a trial.

Any lawyers on here who care to comment on this?

6 Reasons Pelosi's Impeachment Article Obstruction Is A Total Disaster