-->
@cristo71
Looks as though this ruling could really hamper Trump making good on his promise of retribution if he gets elected…
Sarcasm?
Dissenting supreme court judge urges Biden to assassinate trump
Posts
Total:
188
Looks as though this ruling could really help Trump making good on his promise of retribution if he gets elected…
-->
@Double_R
Sarcasm?
More like facetiousness. AS IF Trump is going to get elected… again! Also, I am attempting (probably futile) to point out how this ruling does not provide protection solely to Trump, but acknowledging that requires an objective prospective without partisan blinders on.
-->
@cristo71
this ruling does not provide protection solely to Trump, but acknowledging that requires an objective prospective without partisan blinders on.
It applies solely to whoever the courts decide it applies to. Their decisions get appealed to the Supreme Court which means it applies solely to whoever the Supreme Court decide it applies to.
I guess we are lucky the Supreme Court doesn't have those partisan blinders on... right?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I guess we are lucky the Supreme Court doesn't have those partisan blinders on... right?
Only time will tell.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Made it easier to outlaw abortion. 50% of blacks are aborted before they are even born so this is the first step at ending the silent black genocideUnbelievable. You can’t be serious. What idiot gave you this ridiculous factnoid
“Abortion as black genocide”:
inside the black anti-abortion movement
A new documentary examines how fears of “black genocide” became part of mainstream anti-abortion activism.
Very funny how this judge interprets the law but the possibility that Trump gets assasinated is very high as I stated in a thread I opened some months ago.
Trump should be very careful, the deep state is not willing to leave the power.
Trump should be very careful, the deep state is not willing to leave the power.
-->
@3RU7AL
That whole article does acknowledge the movement within the black community, but they are focused on the movement and how they interpret Sanger's history.
The real argument is that 50% of black people are murdered before they are born. That is the intent. You can always look at what something accomplishes to know the intent and it accomplishes killing black people in disproportionate numbers.
-->
@cristo71
I am attempting (probably futile) to point out how this ruling does not provide protection solely to Trump, but acknowledging that requires an objective prospective without partisan blinders on.
Everyone is acknowledging that this applies to every president, what a ridiculous thing to say.
The reason why no one (including MAGA world) is the least bit concerned about the current occupant brazenly violating the law with the impunity the SC just handed to him is because everyone knows he isn't interested in that, which is ironic given that these are the same people who have been running around for the past few months claiming Biden weaponized the DOJ to lock up his political opponents. This ruling and the lack of concern from the right about the implications here just shows how full of shit they all were.
Meanwhile, what you are observing from the left only further proves the fact that the left is the side that actually cares about the rule of law. No one cares that Biden can now do whatever he wants because we don't want him to. If he breaks the law he should be held accountable like everyone else.
The two sides are not the same.
Biden weaponized the DOJ to lock up his political opponents.
It's objectively true that his opponents have had legal problems similar to how Putins opponents have legal problems
-->
@WyIted
That whole article does acknowledge the movement within the black community, but they are focused on the movement and how they interpret Sanger's history.The real argument is that 50% of black people are murdered before they are born. That is the intent. You can always look at what something accomplishes to know the intent and it accomplishes killing black people in disproportionate numbers.
i've seen a lot of heated debates on the topic
and for some reason
this never seems to be at the top of the pro-life fact sheet
i wonder if the rabid conservatives would like to fund programs to help underprivileged single mothers
-->
@3RU7AL
i wonder if the rabid conservatives would like to fund programs to help underprivileged single mothers
No not really and as several studies on the welfare state has shown when it comes to single motherhood, ironically creating a welfare state encourages single motherhood for a variety of reasons.
..
I also could see that even if that were not true and it is, and that is an unbeatable fact, that it is still bad to support murder even if you are also opposed to government subsidies because you don't want to see the countey turn into north Korea or the UasSR and every cou try who has tried to have extremely large welfare states
So you can say you are helping teen mothers but when a study comes out showing how the welfare state creates more teen mothers and actually harms them, well then we know what your actual evil intent is
-->
@WyIted
So you can say you are helping teen mothers but when a study comes out showing how the welfare state creates more teen mothers and actually harms them, well then we know what your actual evil intent is
i guess it's better just to let them be malnourished and neglected and poorly educated by underfunded public schools
i'm still not clear on your logic here
how do programs that support single mothers "harm them" ?
-->
@3RU7AL
i guess it's better just to let them be malnourished and neglected and poorly educated by underfunded public schools
I don't like the ideal of murdering poor kids because we assume their life sucks.
how do programs that support single mothers "harm them" ?
That's socialism in a nut shell. We want to help poor people but kill 60 million of them. It's not really hard to see but.....
Here you go
-->
@WyIted
Biden weaponized the DOJ to lock up his political opponents.It's objectively true that his opponents have had legal problems similar to how Putins opponents have legal problems
You know this is a complete lie. The only political opponent of Biden's who got indicted is Trump and no one with an IQ above room temperature can look at the facts and claim Trump did not commit the acts with which he was charged. The only case you'd have a halfway rational case against is the hush money trial which had nothing to do with the federal government.
All you guys do is repeat the same nonsense ad nauseam regardless of how thoroughly and repeatedly it gets debunked.
-->
@Double_R
the facts and claim Trump did not commit the acts with which he was charged
Yeah this 80 year old man goes without any sort of criminal record and the magically when he runs for president gets 97 felony charges
-->
@WyIted
Yeah this 80 year old man goes without any sort of criminal record and the magically when he runs for president gets 97 felony charges
Yes.
You are much more likely to be charged for a crime if you have lots of enemies to charge you for a crime or even lie just to sentence you.
Before he became president, no one dedicated time to even investigate him.
After becoming president, he also became a target for 70 million people who oppose him.
The law is not equal for all, contrary to common assumption.
The law is merely an extended hand of politics.
-->
@Best.Korea
correct, which is why We actually do need to let AI take over, and not pozzed AI but just AI, that is completely free of bias. The AI we got that has the potential to be factually accurate has actually been tampered with and only gives PC answers instead of just remaining factually accurate. SOmebody needs to develop the AI and not tinker with it even if they disagree with it's perfect values, but just let it be in charge
-->
@WyIted
Yeah this 80 year old man goes without any sort of criminal record and the magically when he runs for president gets 97 felony charges
It's not magic, all four of his criminal indictments are directly related to his candidacy or presidency. Regarding the rest, it's hardly remarkable. Turns out that when you decide to run to become the most powerful man on earth people pay very close attention to your conduct throughout your life. Who knew?
-->
@Double_R
Read the book 3 felonies a day. I have been recommending it to everyone lately and it is one of the things that made me pretty skeptical of the legal system when I was liberal.
Its cute that you think there are zero political motivations to a process that is supposed to be perfectly neutral and even handed.
-->
@Double_R
“The decision to bless nearly all official presidential conduct as immune from prosecutorial scrutiny also has ramifications for Biden. Republicans have repeatedly suggested that their allies in government should consider charging Biden with crimes for actions ranging from his handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal to the flow of migrants over the southern border. Those policy considerations would be clearly beyond the reach of prosecutors under the Supreme Court’s analysis.”
-->
@IlDiavolo
Very funny how this judge interprets the law but the possibility that Trump gets assasinated is very high as I stated in a thread I opened some months ago.Trump should be very careful, the deep state is not willing to leave the power.
We have our Jewish Space Lasers aimed at him, and the Supreme Court said it's legal.
-->
@WyIted
the facts and claim Trump did not commit the acts with which he was chargedYeah this 80 year old man goes without any sort of criminal record and the magically when he runs for president gets 97 felony charges
"From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes. He has also been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault, with one accusation resulting in him being held civilly liable."
All before he ran for President
-->
@Sidewalker
Lawsuits are par for the course with big businesses
-->
@3RU7AL
The director of the film says black womenfolk get more abortions because they are poor, not because they are black.
-->
@WyIted
nor do they appear to do any investigative journalism.
That’s another ridiculous statement
-->
@WyIted
No, because I actually read through the ruling and it says this would not apply to things the president thinks is official but is clearly intended to be for his own benefit.
Bullshit. Show me
What is more clearly intended for Trump’s own benefit than trying to throw out a valid election that he lost?
-->
@WyIted
The real argument is that 50% of black people are murdered before they are born
And the other 50% are murdered by the police
-->
@cristo71
“The decision to bless nearly all official presidential conduct as immune from prosecutorial scrutiny also has ramifications for Biden. Republicans have repeatedly suggested that their allies in government should consider charging Biden with crimes for actions ranging from his handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal to the flow of migrants over the southern border. Those policy considerations would be clearly beyond the reach of prosecutors under the Supreme Court’s analysis.”
Justice Jackson put it very well in her dissent:
"being immune is not like having a defense under the law. Rather, it means that the law does not apply to the immunized person in the first place"
Republican fantasies about prosecuting Joe Biden have always been ridiculous, the Hunter Biden hearings have put that on full display. The idea that democrats should be breathing some sigh of relief from this is silly. In her dissent, Sotomayor went into fine detail to explain the many layers of protection imbedded in the law from these ridiculous right wing pipe dreams. Established law and precedent already addresses a president's role in carrying out his official duties, no you can't criminally charge a president for poor handling of a military operation. No you can't criminally charge a president for border policies you don't like.
The danger is not what Trump and his minions might do within a legitimate legal system, it's what they will do outside of it. What the SC just said it's that there is no such thing as outside. Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.