I am not fixated on Biden, I am fixated on what this ruling means for everyone, particularly if Trump wins another term
He we go with trump is going to genocide all the jews again
Dissenting supreme court judge urges Biden to assassinate trump
Posts
Total:
188
-->
@WyIted
He we go with trump is going to genocide all the jews again
Trump has already, publicly, stated that he's running for retribution, has mused about jailing Hilary Clinton (who's had nothing to do with anything he's mad about), said democrats "opened up a Pandora's box" by prosecuting him which means it can be done to them, and has now been given complete and total immunity to do whatever he wants with the DOJ. Please provide one rational reason to reject the scenario I laid out.
Hint: calling it hysteria is not a rational argument against.
-->
@Double_R
It gave Trump more than he was asking for. Trump's attorneys argued that if the president were impeached and convicted by the Senate then he could be criminally charged for official acts. The SC ruled that he could not be charged regardless.
Not even close. he wanted blanket immunity which is just as ridiculous as saying the president doesn’t have any immunity for anything.
I've addressed why extensively on this page the left wing freak out is not dramatic at all. Do you have any arguments against them?
Didn’t read anything past the OP but have been seeing the collective freak out online by people reading into a histrionic dissent instead of the actual majority opinion. Decided to share my own opinion
-->
@thett3
Didn’t read anything past the OP but have been seeing the collective freak out online by people reading into a histrionic dissent instead of the actual majority opinion. Decided to share my own opinion
They’re masters at freaking out. Here is what’s in the opinion: When the President acts pursuant to "constitutional and statutory authority," he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Does the President have the constitutional or statutory authority to execute his political opponent? Clearly not
-->
@Double_R
If Trump should get re-elected, basically one of two things will happen:
A. You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
B. You will eventually realize you were wrong about this.
Who am I kidding? It’s definitely going to be A…
A. You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
B. You will eventually realize you were wrong about this.
Who am I kidding? It’s definitely going to be A…
I will leave you to waste someone else’s time with your prevarications.
-->
@cristo71
You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia
January 6 was not in his mind. It happened, and as Mitch McConnell said, Trump was the person who caused it to happen.
According to leaked footage of Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi says it is Nancy Pelosi fault
https://youtu.be/x6gE-0t4e_E?si=Y_UWG0YzUScg2gTa
-->
@thett3
Decided to share my own opinion
Then perhaps you'd care to share your opinion on this?
-->
@ILikePie5
Here is what’s in the opinion: When the President acts pursuant to "constitutional and statutory authority," he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Does the President have the constitutional or statutory authority to execute his political opponent? Clearly not
Clearly not according to common sense. The problem is that in order to apply common sense you'd need facts and evidence that are admissible in court, which the SC pretty much just got rid of.
Here's a question for you: what's the difference between executing your political opponent and carrying out a military strike for the sake of national security?
Answer: Intent.
Question: So how would we tell what the president's intent was?
Answer: We can't, because the ruling just stated that the president's motives cannot be questioned and that the president's conversations with his agencies are not subject to Congressional or judicial review.
So explain it to me, how does this get to trial?
-->
@cristo71
You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
If only I could find someone on this site who has actually read this ruling and could explain how my detailed analysis of it is wrong...
-->
@Double_R
Yeah, it’s truly a shame seeing as how genuinely open and curious you are regarding these sorts of things…
(And again, THAT was sarcasm)
-->
@cristo71
Yeah, it’s truly a shame seeing as how genuinely open and curious you are regarding these sorts of things…
Note that you haven't even attempted to provide a single rational substantive defense of your position or scrutiny of mine with regards to what the ruling says or how it applies, only characterizations and insinuations.
It's clear which one of us is close minded on this subject.
-->
@Double_R
Note that you haven't even attempted to provide a single rational substantive defense of your position or scrutiny of mine with regards to what the ruling says or how it applies, only characterizations and insinuations.
Ah, yes… the “5 D’s” of your debate playbook: deny, dismiss, distrust, discredit, and deny. If understanding this decision is a 12 story building (in fairness, it isn’t exactly EASY to comprehend properly, as are most such cases) one cannot even get you into the front door without you kicking and screaming in protest. Your opinion of this ruling is mirrored, almost verbatim, in an egregious Vox article:
(Not to accuse you of getting your opinion straight from this article originally, just that every left leaning media outlet seems to embrace Sotomayor’s embarrassing take)
If the extremely detailed and authoritative opinion of the Chief Justice failed to lead you to understanding, what hope does a layperson you have already decided to dismiss have? Seriously, dude…
-->
@Double_R
If only I could find someone on this site who has actually read this ruling
Actually I...
and could explain how my detailed analysis of it is wrong...
Oh nevermind.
-->
@cristo71
If the extremely detailed and authoritative opinion of the Chief Justice failed to lead you to understanding, what hope does a layperson you have already decided to dismiss have?
A meaningless question coming from someone who has yet to offer a single sentence demonstrating that you've even read let alone understand anything within the written majority opinion.
I've given you all the dots, connected them for you, and asked you (or anyone else here) to explain how they are wrong or don't connect. If you are unable to do so then spare me your opinion of me, it couldn't be any more worthless.
-->
@Double_R
A meaningless question
It was a, uh… rhetorical question. That you dismiss it as “meaningless” is, yet again, you adhering to your “5 D’s of debate.”
then spare me your opinion of me, it couldn't be any more worthless.
Yet you insist on posting to me unsolicited.
It's clear which one of us is close minded on this subject.
“No one cares.” <— Your words, not mine, Lex.
-->
@cristo71
You missed deflect in your 5 D's
-->
@Tidycraft
Maybe so. It’s just that “deny” really needs to be in there twice. It could be the 6 D’s perhaps…
-->
@cristo71
Sounds like a oversized bra!
-->
@cristo71
Ah, yes… the “5 D’s” of your debate playbook: deny, dismiss, distrust, discredit, and deny. If understanding this decision is a 12 story building (in fairness, it isn’t exactly EASY to comprehend properly, as are most such cases) one cannot even get you into the front door without you kicking and screaming in protest. Your opinion of this ruling is mirrored, almost verbatim, in an egregious Vox article:
https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship
Seriously check this out when you get a chance it explains how they can almost appear to be a hive mind with no collusion
https://youtu.be/tMKrDxFUZWk?si=V6yJ8PZ_R7pyJreD
Sidewalker urges everyone to assassinate Trump.
You'd be an American Hero, there will be statues, parades, probably a national holiday in your name.
-->
@Sidewalker
You'd be an American Hero, there will be statues, parades, probably a national holiday in your name.
This is kinda what happened with Caesar until the power vacuum created a civil war and Augustus could not get his troops to move unless he promised to avenge Caesar's death.
I know the left sees parallels with Hitler with Trump, but I have studied Julius Caesar and I see more parallels between him and Julius Caesar
-->
@WyIted
I know the left sees parallels with Hitler with Trump, but I have studied Julius Caesar and I see more parallels between him and Julius Caesar
Somewhat, but I think he's most like Mussolini.
-->
@Sidewalker
Somewhat, but I think he's most like Mussolini.
I can see similarities in the movements surrounding them and the Italian fascists were essentially correct but chose a bad leader.
The difference might be that Mussolini was the leader of his movement and Trump is not
-->
@WyIted
Somewhat, but I think he's most like Mussolini.I can see similarities in the movements surrounding them and the Italian fascists were essentially correct but chose a bad leader.The difference might be that Mussolini was the leader of his movement and Trump is not
Nonsense, they are both personality cult leaders, Mussolini the head of his, Trump the head of his.
-->
@Sidewalker
Why do you think Trump is the head? He is merely a way for an ignored demographic to finally fix the system. When he is gone it will be vivek ramaswamy.
-->
@WyIted
Why do you think Trump is the head? He is merely a way for an ignored demographic to finally fix the system. When he is gone it will be vivek ramaswamy.
Because it's a personality cult, and Trump is the personality around which the cult formed.
-->
@WyIted
Who is vivek?
-->
@Tidycraft
Some dude that thought it was possible for a Hindu to win the Republican nomination for president. The odds that you will ever hear about him again are quite low, don't worry about it.