Donald is about to go through some things...

[Bucknutz]

These for example:

Missouri Republican candidate torches LGBTQ-inclusive books in viral video

Valentina Gomez, who is running for Missouri secretary of state, lit two books on fire, including an LGBTQ guide for teens and a sex education book.

www.nbcnews.com

This Republican torched LGBT books from her public library.

Yep, you were right 1 republican running for Missouri’s Secretary of State torched a book from a library.

Don’t worry you can still get it here:

Amazon.com

Or check out 6 copies of that book in her library here:

Queer — St. Louis Public Library - City

Queer — Belge, Kathy, — A guide that helps LGBT teens come out to friends and family, navigate their new LGBT social life, figure out if a crush is also queer, and rise up against bigotry and homophobia.

slpl.bibliocommons.com

I think your definition of book burnings is different than mine.

Mines this, you know burning as many books as possible from the general public, that goes against the ideas of the party in power.

Recently Utah’s SSB met to discuss on how to dispose books banned and collected by school districts.
And it’s not like these are isolated incidents. We’ve now had several years of Republicans enforcing their beliefs and their narrow Christian nationalist vision on the rest of us.

You complain about how Christian nationalists are trying to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us. How about not exposing porn to children.

Why @The Thriller, being in education, do you want children to access books with porn and or inappropriate topics and shame everyone who is against this, into believing it is a book ban or burning.

There are people on right, who are trying protect children from keeping this inappropriate material from them. This is not enforcing their beliefs on the rest of us.

It’s interesting how you cared more about the accuracy of my book burning statement than what is actually happening around the country to both public libraries and school libraries. Are you not concerned with a minority of vocal people intimidating librarians, banning books, and closing libraries?

Again, you are making statements that are not true. You tried to do this with Desantis and Florida before. The fight is about age appropriateness of books in libraries. You can still get these books if you want, by multiple ways. This is not a book ban. This is not book burnings or closing libraries. You are just trying to shame people who don’t agree with you.

Are those allegations against Trump not concerning to you?

I will use your own words to answer this:

If the contents of the allegations are true, then that would be a major problem. But given the LW media’s history of lying about Trump conspiracies, why are we giving this any thought? This is just more Very Fine People, Drink Bleach, Hunters Laptop Russian disinformation, etc material.

So now we spend more time talking about this nonsense than actual policy, like keeping porn out of schools.

 

[fishonjazz]

Trump raping under age girls re-emerges. How does MAGA and the rest of the trolls spin this? But Biden is old.

Donald Trump Was Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old Girl - The Biggest Jeffrey Epstein Story No One Is Talking About - Perez Hilton

This week there was a new dump of Jeffrey Epstein docs, and we noticed something really interesting. But less in these files themselves... No, something

perezhilton.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was posting about this a while ago.
No one cared of course.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Definitely didn’t rape. Definitely.

Former Trump Staffer Shares Texts Revealing Secret Payoffs

A new court filing alleges that Donald Trump’s campaign has paid to bury a number of lawsuits over sexual harassment and discrimination.

newrepublic.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of this is surprising. He is a big time scummy douchebag.
I have known that for decades. I hated trump long before he became a Republican or a politician.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

And of course:


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[The Thriller]

Yep, you were right 1 republican running for Missouri’s Secretary of State torched a book from a library.

Don’t worry you can still get it here:

Amazon.com

Or check out 6 copies of that book in her library here:

Queer — St. Louis Public Library - City

Queer — Belge, Kathy, — A guide that helps LGBT teens come out to friends and family, navigate their new LGBT social life, figure out if a crush is also queer, and rise up against bigotry and homophobia.

slpl.bibliocommons.com

I think your definition of book burnings is different than mine.

Mines this, you know burning as many books as possible from the general public, that goes against the ideas of the party in power.

View attachment 16702



You complain about how Christian nationalists are trying to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us. How about not exposing porn to children.

Why @The Thriller, being in education, do you want children to access books with porn and or inappropriate topics and shame everyone who is against this, into believing it is a book ban or burning.

There are people on right, who are trying protect children from keeping this inappropriate material from them. This is not enforcing their beliefs on the rest of us.

Again, you are making statements that are not true. You tried to do this with Desantis and Florida before. The fight is about age appropriateness of books in libraries. You can still get these books if you want, by multiple ways. This is not a book ban. This is not book burnings or closing libraries. You are just trying to shame people who don’t agree with you.


I will use your own words to answer this:

If the contents of the allegations are true, then that would be a major problem. But given the LW media’s history of lying about Trump conspiracies, why are we giving this any thought? This is just more Very Fine People, Drink Bleach, Hunters Laptop Russian disinformation, etc material.

So now we spend more time talking about this nonsense than actual policy, like keeping porn out of schools.
View attachment 16703

So no, the allegations against Trump don’t bother you. I suspected as much. Would’ve been a lot simpler for you to just say that

Im not going to argue about books. Pretty sure we have pages upon pages of those arguments (you probably already participated in them) with one brow. It’s also laughable about porn in school libraries, as if public schools don’t already have a system in place to approve books on content and age level. We all know this was a Chris Rufo scare tactic to further smear schools and provide fodder for the pro voucher movement. We already went over this like two years ago. What, are we going to recycle CRT nonsense again, as if we didn’t know what CRT was code for?

Im not here to debate what you want to debate. Just remember that.

 

[Red]

I know the criminal prosecutions of Trump will carry on because reality.

I have no idea what charges will remain, after all the appeals related to the SC immunity decision. But, try to remember this is much more about the power of the presidency moving fwd., and less to do with what will eventually remain of the charges Trump faces in the federal courts. The alarm, which you consider fear mongering, and for which you referred to 2 liberal SC justices as “morons”, has to do with the immediate prospect of Trump returning with the prospect of him using his office to enact “retribution”. Methinks he’s enjoying that SC decision.

 

[Red]

View: https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-world-panicking-as-project-2025-gets-on-the-radar-of-voters-214312005740

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I have no idea what charges will remain, after all the appeals related to the SC immunity decision. But, try to remember this is much more about the power of the presidency moving fwd., and less to do with what will eventually remain of the charges Trump faces in the federal courts. The alarm, which you consider fear mongering, and for which you referred to 2 liberal SC justices as “morons”, has to do with the immediate prospect of Trump returning with the prospect of him using his office to enact “retribution”. Methinks he’s enjoying that SC decision.

There is no change to Presidential power.

As a side note, in life: you should be cautious at taking the opinion of a lawyer who you are not personally paying. They lie. There is a reason that when they were making a movie about a father who could not lie for 24 hours, they made that character a lawyer. A lawyer's profession is to advocate a position. In this case, the so-called experts you trust are being paid to advocate the idea of this case being dangerous. That you can find material from them making that argument doesn't mean it is true or that they even believe it themselves. All it means was that a work product was delivered.

As for Sotomayor and Jackson being morons, I am comparing them to the other lawyers graduating from Ivy League schools which includes all of the other Supreme Court justices. Sotomayor admits as much.

"I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale."

Sotomayor says she was 'perfect affirmative action baby' - CNN.com

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor years ago said she was a "product of affirmative action" when she was admitted to prestigious universities, but defended the contributions she offered as a Hispanic woman to classroom and workplace diversity.

www.cnn.com

Personally I would like to see LSAT scores for every Supreme Court Justice.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

.View attachment 16709

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Oh Trump’s definitely been “going through some things”. Plowing right through children’s cries to stop raping them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Red]

There is no change to Presidential power.

I don’t believe you could be more mistaken. Based on your description of 2 of our liberal SC justices, I’m guessing all these brilliant legal minds must also be “morons” according to your astute interpretation. Give me a break….you could not be more wrong.

Eminent legal scholar and one of the most cited by SCOTUS, Yale’s Akhil Reed Amar:

How the US supreme court shredded the Constitution and what can be done to repair it | Laurence H Tribe

Court’s troubling rulings on presidential immunity and regulatory power make it clear that change is an ethical essential

www.theguardian.com

I Argued ‘U.S. v. Nixon.’ The Supreme Court’s New Ruling on Presidential Immunity Appalled Me.

Fifty years after ruling against a corrupt president, the Court has now decided that presidents are above the law.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Red]

There is no change to Presidential power.

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/02/nx-s1-5026545/new-presidential-immunity-ruling-supreme-court-constitutional-scholar

What does presidential immunity ruling mean for presidential power, democratic norms?

Experts are concerned that the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision has drastically expanded presidential powers and dealt a blow to checks and balances.

abcnews.go.com

How the Supreme Court immunity ruling reshapes presidential power

In one of the most anticipated rulings of the year, the Supreme Court declared that former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for any so-called “official act” taken as president, but not “unofficial ones'' taken as a candidate. Amna Nawaz discussed how the ruling reshapes...

www.pbs.org

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Immunity Ruling Escalates Long Rise of Presidential Power

Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.

www.nytimes.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCTNDSMUP18

Supreme Court Grants Trump, Future Presidents a Loaded Weapon to Break the Law | ACLU

By granting Donald Trump immunity for a wide range of criminal conduct committed while in office, the Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent that presidents are above the law.

www.aclu.org

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I’m guessing all these brilliant legal minds must also be “morons” according to your astute interpretation.

Not at all. There are extremely talented lawyers on both sides, but Sotomayor and Jackson aren't among them. I'm noting that you refuse to read the decision for yourself and you refuse to take in any information from any source challenging your wrongheaded view. You want the propaganda. Your misconception of Presidents now being above the law is falsified by the reality of a former President being subjected to criminal prosecutions for acts committed while in office, but reality falls in the category of things challenging your wrongheaded view and is discarded.

 

[fishonjazz]

Not at all. There are extremely talented lawyers on both sides, but Sotomayor and Jackson aren't among them. I'm noting that you refuse to read the decision for yourself and you refuse to take in any information from any source challenging your wrongheaded view. You want the propaganda. Your misconception of Presidents now being above the law is falsified by the reality of a former President being subjected to criminal prosecutions for acts committed while in office, but reality falls in the category of things challenging your wrongheaded view and is discarded.

A. The prosecutions you speak of haven't begun yet.
B. Sometimes when a change is made it starts taking effect after the change was made and things that happened before the change was made aren't affected by the change.
C. Those acts trump committed while in office are currently being considered right now whether they were official acts or not. Not everything a president does in office will be immune. But some things will have immunity. Which increases the power. Not everything is immune so not complete and total power but some things will be immune so definitely more power
D. Even if a president is prosecuted for something done while in office, some of the evidence proving guilt could now be inadmissible in court due to immunity. Making it harder to convict.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[The Thriller]

I have no idea what charges will remain, after all the appeals related to the SC immunity decision. But, try to remember this is much more about the power of the presidency moving fwd., and less to do with what will eventually remain of the charges Trump faces in the federal courts. The alarm, which you consider fear mongering, and for which you referred to 2 liberal SC justices as “morons”, has to do with the immediate prospect of Trump returning with the prospect of him using his office to enact “retribution”. Methinks he’s enjoying that SC decision.

The problem is, with the immunity the Supreme Court provided Trump, it gives trump with assurance. One, he knows his trials will be delayed until past the election. Two, he knows that he can crime and then his alleged crimes will have to be vetted, weighed, and then decided by judges that he’s appointed. Trump knows that if he’s president, this court he’s created is unlikely to find crimes that aren’t part of his immunity that they’ve created. An example of this was his phone call threatening GA sec of state Brad Raffensburger to find enough votes to give the state to him. Biden wouldn’t try this because he’s not a fascist and he knows that the Trump Supreme Court would likely rule this to not be immune from prosecution. Trump absolutely would, because he’s a fascist and knows that his court is going to protect him.

What Trump’s Supreme Court has done is gaming the system. They granted unnecessary privileges and protections for Republican presidents. It’s hard for democracy to survive when one political party believes that the rule of law only applies to their political opponents while their own tribe gets to do whatever they want and have judges they’ve hand picked decide whether their actions are legal or not.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

... and have judges they’ve hand picked decide whether their actions are legal or not.

Oh noes! Judges, who are subject matter experts in laws, are deciding if an act violates a law? The horror.

If am curious as to your viewpoint though: How do you see the attempted overthrow of the democracy of the Democrat National Party's Presidential nomination process going? Do you think it will be successful and is that a good thing?

 

[fishonjazz]

Oh noes! Judges, who are subject matter experts in laws, are deciding if an act violates a law? The horror.

If am curious as to your viewpoint though: How do you see the attempted overthrow of the democracy of the Democrat National Party's Presidential nomination process going? Do you think it will be successful and is that a good thing?

What if Biden steps down?
Is it illegal to step down once you have won the nomination?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[LogGrad98]

What if Biden steps down?
Is it illegal to step down once you have won the nomination?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

No. Not the nomination. I mean I supposed he could step down at any time. I don't believe there is any aspect of illegality to it.