What's new

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Definitely didn’t rape. Definitely.



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
 
And of course:
IMG_20240124_133014.jpg

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
.IMG_20240124_133036.jpg

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
.IMG_20240124_132952.jpg

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
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:

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

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.
 
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.
 
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."

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






 
Last edited:
There is no change to Presidential power.






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

 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
... 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?
 
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
 
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.
 
What if Biden steps down?
Is it illegal to step down once you have won the nomination?
The nomination process isn't defined by laws, so nothing is illegal, but rather the process is defined by rules adopted by the parties. The rules to become a Republican nominee is different from the rules to become a Democrat nominee. For the Democrats, the guiding document is this: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2024-Delegate-Selection-Rules.pdf

To really answer your question, the DNC can do whatever it wants. Two terms we may all get familiar with are 'super delegates' and 'brokered convention'. We haven't had a brokered convention since the DNC did it in 1952. but that is what they call it when the nominee naming process gets creative, and super delegates are the parties' way of subverting the will of the people to place the candidate they want.



The place where things can run off the rails is at the state level. The states get to decide who is on and not on the ballots. The most famous example of that was the election of 1860 where there were two different democrat nominees with one on the ballots of some states and the other appearing on the ballots of other states. The guy who won the election wasn't on the ballots of many states. The winner was Abraham Lincoln and the election of 1860 was the start of the US Civil War. No pressure 2024 DNC.
 
Last edited:
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?

Laughable when you try to hold democrats accountable. Hold yourself accountable first before throwing stones.

Where was this energy with the judges on the Trump cases? “It’s lawfare!!!”. Pathetic. Maybe wiki will help you with a cut and paste.

I’ll help you, the DNC is garbage is will do whatever. They robbed us of Bernie, damned us with Hillary, and ushered in Trump.

You, like most here, are listening in the 2 party sauce. The only difference is one isn’t trying to turn us into a Christo-fascist state. Big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top