-->
@IlDiavolo
We also have a temporary House Speaker, so that's a problem.
Who can assume the presidency of the USA?
Posts
Total:
146
-->
@John_C_87
Thank you both for taking the time out of your busy day to coach us the American voters on the practice law by self-representation outside a court of law. Not how to evaluate a man's United State Constitutional ability by oath to be President of the United States of America. Do you even know what you both are doing?
What on earth are you talking about?
Who is "us the American voters"? Last I checked I was an American voter.
The only people we are "coaching" Americans are the handful of members here on this site reading this thread. That's a far cry from the populace at large.
We're not talking about the practice of law, we're talking about evidence and if there is any sufficient to justify the claims.
None of what we're talking about has anything to with the constitutionality of Trump being president.
Not a single thing you said made sense or applies to our discission.
-->
@Greyparrot
That may be true, but the public perception of trusting Fauci/Birx at the time was a passive greenlight for all of their recommendations which the States then based their policies on.
The states trusted Fauci and Birx because they were the country's leading experts on the subject matter and their views were representative on the global consensus of the issues. Donald Trump's endorsement had little to do with the states accepting what they had to say, although it certainly played into the states playing politics with it like Florida.
Especially of note was the claim that taking the Pharma vaccine would stop/slow the spread when we now know it never did anything of the sort.
The vaccines had an amazingly high effective rate at preventing COVID when they were first distributed. Once the virus mutated that changed. Regardless, they continue to be highly effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths, which is really the point.
Again, the states that cared about science knew this not because of Trump but because of science.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So two business man presidents has brought us to where the country is now. If only we had just kept electing business as usual DC suck ups the country would be so much better off. I learn something new everyday.
-->
@Public-Choice
I had assumed you were caught up with what the GOP charges were, but I can see that the liberal media has not done its job... again...
I wasn't interested in the GOP's allegations, I've heard many different people within the GOP present their own case. I was asking for the evidence you claim exists that convinces you Biden was running or involved in a criminal scheme.
Though I feel this is a disingenuous retort from you, tbh.
It wasn't a retort. I asked you to briefly summarize your case. You responded with multiple links I could have easily pulled up myself.
I've been through this with many people on this site many times. I am more than willing to read through your documents and watch your videos, all 30 minutes if it. But not when you are unwilling to write out your own thoughts. Links are useful for supporting your argument, not to make it for you. I too have Google, if all I wanted to do was watch YouTube videos or sift through GOP documents I could have done that on my own.
Then a horrible economist you would make. An economy is not just a GDP number and unemployment statistic.
I never suggested otherwise, in fact that is my point. The economy is an incredibly complex subject, so going through each indicator one by one and going back and forth on them is a months long endeavor with almost zero chance of making any progress. I'm just not interested in that.
-->
@Double_R
the evidence you claim exists that convinces you Biden was running or involved in a criminal scheme.
Okie. In that case I gave it. The phone calls specifically and his finances are the most convincing for me, personally.
The economy is an incredibly complex subject
I agree, which is why I posts raw numbers for all the major indicators from the same source. But, even so, a lot of it relies on government statistics anyways and each administration changes how the data is either defined or collected. So it isn't really an accurate comparison. But it's definitely a much better comparison than citing a WaPo or American Greatness article and making a case that way.
I know you are more liberal, but AIER actually does some amazing analytical work on the state of the economy. They are definitely laissez-faire, though, on their commentary, but most of the indicators they look at when they write their state of the economy pieces isn't sham science.
For the left side of things I think Factcheck.org is pretty good.
In all honesty, though, I think it is a waste of time to read most liberal and conservative sites. AIER is good for their general adherence to strict sourcing for their articles and having authors who actually have advanced degrees in the subjects they cover.
I also like Just Facts. But on the liberal side of things the Congressional Research Service is good. A lot of people like the Brookings Institute but I personally think they write trash that can easily be debunked.
-->
@Double_R
Not a single thing you said made sense or applies to our discission.
That is true, however I am writing things down not saying them. Doesn't this sound like you are admitting to practicing criminal law as you say none of what is talked about is Constitutional. Being a President of the United States of America is a Right described in American Constitution. Trump was an Executive officer who had been elected by the people to sit in the Oval Office not President. Have you ever read "all men are created equal by their creator." self-evident truth in combination with an Article of Constitution naming word of writing as a declaration of Independence. Those words are President of the United States of America. The self-evident truth is united state is because there are many states each different and not like the other states. Of course, we are left to wonder if we are speaking as in state of property like "NewYork" or like states as in states of law criminal, civile versus constitutional. Most assumed is the state created as property like New York. What I have written does apply.
We're not talking about the practice of law, we're talking about evidence and if there is any sufficient to justify the claims.
You are practicing law as you are publicly speaking of criminal laws and making claims of greivance as criminal conduct. As there is a United States Constitutional Right to act as your own lawyer in a court of law it does make sense to understand you can do the same outside the courts of law. Does it not? Know this fact or not?
None of what we're talking about has anything to with the constitutionality of Trump being president.
Doesn't this sound like you are admiting to practicing criminal law as you say none of what is talked about is Constitutional. Being a President of the United States of America is a Right described in American Constitution. Trump was an Exsecutive officer who had been elected by the people to sit in the Oval Office not President. Have you ever read "all men are created equal by their creator." self-evident truth in combination with a Artivle of Consitution naming a words as a declaration of Indepences. Those words are Presdient of the United States of America. The self-evident truth is united states is because there are many states each can be different and not like the other states. Of course we are left to wonder if we are speeking as in state of property like "New York" or like states as in states of law criminal civile versus Consitutional. Most common assumed is the state created as property like New York.
What on earth are you talking about?Who is "us the American voters"? Last I checked I was an American voter.
Simple, I am talking about the Oath of office of President in Article II which describes how a man elected must show as his ability to serve, protect, and defend United States Constitution to be a President of this office. Not just one of the above as described by many rights broken by council in a court of law. Otherwise, he is just another Executive officer in the oval office writing out Executive orders. Orders, which by the way can be disputed as unlawful including unconstitutional in an American Armed Service or other court.
-->
@John_C_87
Trump was an Exsecutive officer who had been elected by the people to sit in the Oval Office not President
I agree. He was not president, since he lost the popular vote (twice).
-->
@John_C_87
Doesn't this sound like you are admitting to practicing criminal law as you say none of what is talked about is Constitutional.
No, criminal law is an entirely different subject.
You are practicing law as you are publicly speaking of criminal laws and making claims of greivance as criminal conduct.
No, we're not. We're talking about evidence of wrongdoing, and whether the evidence supports the claims. That's about logic, not criminal law.
And even if the conversation about the president's actions was had in a legal context, this still would not qualify as "practicing law". To practice law, by definition, requires one to do so within the judicial system. This is not the judicial system, it's a debate site.
I am talking about the Oath of office of President in Article II which describes how a man elected must show as his ability to serve, protect, and defend United States Constitution to be a President of this office
None of us were talking about that
-->
@Best.Korea
In short, the vote of the people and the electoral college only chose an Executive officer who sits and works in the Oval Office of the White house. What you would need to understand is how only men had been in the political process without judicial prejudice as an officer of American Constitution, meaning all those men in Senate office, Congressional office, and the one man in Executive office had been created equal. This was by the Oath of office they all took as they all agreed as a single state of law by verbal contract to protect, serve, and defend the United States Constitution. All political figures had taken this oath, all those men as political officer at the time had been created equal in Constitutional Right as a “He" is only described in Article II.
To shorten a long explanation criminal law used a creation of crime to establish a short cut for those people blazing enough to self-represent themselves in criminal and civil acions outside a court as their own legal council. Breaking the United State between the American Declaration of Independence phrase "all men are created equal by thier creator" from the American United States Consitution. By a use of criminal law not consitutional right.
-->
@Double_R
No, criminal law is an entirely different subject.No, we're not. We're talking about evidence of wrongdoing, and whether the evidence supports the claims. That's about logic, not criminal law.
It doesn't make any sence to seek proof as evidence in writing if you are not writing about a crime. Unless you do not know what you are writting about, I presumed you do know though may not agree with me.
And even if the conversation about the president's actions was had in a legal context, this still would not qualify as "practicing law". To practice law, by definition, requires one to do so within the judicial system. This is not the judicial system, it's a debate site.
The American United States Consitution is a judical system The Preamble of the American Constitution tells us specificly in order to form the more perfect union with established justice. No insualt meant but this is straight forward in that the people and all courts of established justice all in thier many forms are indeed part of this process, as United State.
None of us were talking about that
The topic of the room is based on process which describes a man as President of the United States of America.
I asked you to briefly summarize your case.
In summation theUnited States or other word summation is made between Executive officer and presidentialoffice of the United States of America. A man can display an ability to achieveand hold just one office without ever holding both. It is due to a practice oflaw which is most often used to elect and hold a man or now a woman in theExecutive office. It no longer is a United States Constitutional Right to bePresident for a man in this Country as argument of law of United StatesConstitutional Right has been discredited and is no longer observed as typelaw, such as with in many cases Martial law. It is an attempt and at onlymaking a criminal legal claim publicly by use of the practice of criminal orcivil law. We the people practice criminal and civil law, or we do not andpractice United States Constitutional law.
The United States of America consists of three branches of govrement and four states of law.
-->
@John_C_87
It doesn't make any sence to seek proof as evidence in writing if you are not writing about a crime.
Proof, evidence, etc. are not terms exclusive to criminal activity, they're terms of logic from which the criminal justice system bases itself upon.
If I believe my wife is cheating on me and want to evaluate whether my belief is rational, I need to consider what evidence I have; text messages, receipts, etc. and determine whether my belief is justified or if I'm just being paranoid. Same exact process, nothing to do with criminal statues.
No insualt meant but this is straight forward in that the people and all courts of established justice all in thier many forms are indeed part of this process, as United State.
Still has nothing to do with "practicing law".
The United States of America consists of three branches of govrement and four states of law.
Still have no idea what this has to do with anything I've said.
Proof, evidence, etc. are not terms exclusive to criminal activity, they're terms of logic from which the criminal justice system bases itself upon.
You are speaking of which past exsecutive officer should be given a new chance to sit as Exsecutive officer addressing all other officers of federal governing. Two words Constitutional Analysis.
Okay you just had written the terms proof and evidence are not exclusive to criminal activity, yet they are terms of way to think about only criminal justice system. logic saing it's meaning might connect to something else is not a perfect connection to established justice. Yes, I agree the criminal justice system is based upon crime and how it is orginized. Orginized Crime that just sounds wrong but it is the literal description of what is said with Criminal justice system of filing greivance. Doesn't sound like the most perfect connection to established justice to me. How would you describe the difference between criminal justice and United State Constitutional justice?
Asking for proof is asking for common defense describing, then demonstrating how the process works. Evidence is describe how the object demonstated is collected it is collected as evidence. In criminal law it is always evidence of a crime. You are going on to say that America is not based off of a United State Constitutional system of justice, the United States Criminal Justice system is based off crimes directly and how they are held as filed grievance said in the broken parts of the First Amendment damaged in the pratice of criminal law. The only thing Constitutional is the United State made with the description of how courts are run and how judges are elected office inside Articles of American Constitution. Prove something is right, provide evidence that it is right, there is no crime used to describe right. The self-evident truth is no crime can be used to ever describe right, Never ever, ever, ever, ever let alone a perfect right made with established justice.
Still has nothing to do with "practicing law".
It always did have something to do with the practice of law, how we speak and write in public in America is based on the four practices of law. There are four clear choices practice criminal law applied or not to civil law. Practice Constitutional Right as a more perfect established connection to justice, and finally practice martial law. How these types of law are delt within the First Amendment is based on if the Amendment is left in its original state of the union, or if it is interpreted by the practice of law having been disected broken apart and no longer in a state of the union with established Justice. We are getting off topic but this is a matter of what is failing the Justice system or a balance of right working in the justice system?
Who can assume the presidency of the United States of America any man as part of the American Declaration held in a United State with American Constitution. Getting elected to the political Exsecutive office is something diffirent. Getting elected to the political Executive office issomething different. There are some changes required in Constitutional Right to include women All women are created equal by there creator is to be added into the American Declaration of Independence and he word "she", for total lack of better word Presadera is to be added to American United State Constitution.
If I believe my wife is cheating on me and want to evaluate whether my belief is rational, I need to consider what evidence I have; text messages, receipts, etc. and determine whether my belief is justified or if I'm just being paranoid. Same exact process, nothing to do with criminal statues.
All of what is being written by me is to explain that a vote does not make a person a President they are elected as a officer of polotics. There are several kinds of officers in the political arena.
"Same exactprocess"I question, a wife cannot cheat on a husband as a husband cannot cheaton a wife. The truth is a women may dishonor a man in a marriage and a man may dishonor a woman, and both man and women may dishonor marriage itself. Cheating is a legal description of a way to bestow dishonor by infidelity and is considered a crime in many jurisdictions or states of law.
I would like to point out how a higher form of law isdescribed as a self-evident truth. A criminal law is argued before a form of hearing as right or wrong. We as people do have a choice to say innocent orguilty, right and wrong as we are connecting it to the practice of law or the preservation of American United States Constitution as Constitutional Right. The practice of law is simply a way to form a state of union with established justice that may be better or worse than other ways attempted. Like using the abilaty to inteligently explain how a group of people much larger than yourself can be right under a wello detailed set of circumstances.
An Executive officer is required to display an ability of President which requires a method of forming a United State of Right to established justice larger scale of justice for the people. It is easy to confuse the principles of guilt and innocence found in criminal civil law with right and wrong. Though as self-evident truth criminal civil law is about the evaluation of wrong as a crime and punishment onconviction.
-->
@Double_R
We debate who can assume the office of Presidency either bycriminal law or by American United States Constitutional Right with little restriction other than being second generation citizen. This condition does hold a united state with executive office.
80 days later
In order to keep this thread alive, I leave this interesting video. Thank you.
36 days later
Kamala must be rubbing her hands together with what it's happening to old Joe.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Biden was caught on a hot mic speaking to the dead again.
-->
@IlDiavolo
his health issues, the shameless corruption around him, the economic crisis that is getting closer and closer, the migration crisis, the possible outbreak of a war, everything seems to be against Joe.
Trump is obese. Biden is a healthy weight.
What corruption? How come only Trump and his cronies are in court?
The economic crisis that has been just around the corner for 3 years?
The migrant crisis that the Republicans refuse to do anything about by killing Senator Lankford’s bill?
War with who exactly?
Low unemployment?
A growing GDP?
Gas as cheap as any time in the last 25 years where we weren’t in a GOP recession?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I forgot to mentiion the housing crisis. Middle-class americans are struggling to pay their house rents.
The bubble will explode this year before the elections. This is going to be fucking terrible for the Democrats.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Middle-class americans are struggling to pay their house rents.
If they were middle-class, they would be paying a mortgage, not rent.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's already terrible for Democrats. There is no sign of replacing Biden, and Biden continues to amaze all around him as the more he talks, the lower his polls drop. Even if they unalive Trump, whoever replaces him won't even have to try hard at all to replace Biden at this point in the polls.
Biden is going to be replaced. Period. The only real question is whether the left tribe or the right tribe gets to decide who.
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's already terrible for Democrats. There is no sign of replacing Biden, and Biden continues to amaze all around him as the more he talks, the lower his polls drop. Even if they unalive Trump, whoever replaces him won't even have to try hard at all to replace Biden at this point in the polls.
Biden is going to be replaced. Period. The only real question is whether the left tribe or the right tribe gets to decide who.
Are there any youtube videos of Trump wearing Depends? There are allegations and rumors circulating that Donald Trump wears diapers and has a pungent odor, with former associates confirming the reports.
-->
@FLRW
There you go, defending your son-of-a-bitch again.
Menkchin would be so proud of you.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If they were middle-class, they would be paying a mortgage, not rent.You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about
Middle and low income families.