SuperSpreader Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 He prefers his children undercooked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 9 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said: Biden can't put coherent sentences together. Meanwhile It has to change, people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 11 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said: Biden can't put coherent sentences together. Meanwhile The best part? That video is from 2018. You can tell because his face is full and his hair is thicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I mean, he clearly just misspoke and said "born" instead of "aborted". This isn't even worth a second of attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 But Biden, a guy with a stutter, can get attacked for every flub as proof of cognitive decline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPCyric Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 11 minutes ago, TUFKAK said: But Biden, a guy with a stutter, can get attacked for every flub as proof of cognitive decline. People also fail to consider how much more stress he is under as President. For someone with a stutter he is doing just fine considering his position and age. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 We don't need to sugar coat it... listening to Biden speak these days is rough. I find it painful and cringy. I find listening to him speak to be difficult. Trump is a deranged lying madman who is also a nightmare to listen to... but he doesn't sound like a confused feeble old man. He sounds like a deranged weirdo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 15 hours ago, Ricofoley said: Were there any estimates of what Uncommitted was expected to get? 1 in 6 people seems pretty good for a protest vote, I dunno. In the last Democratic Primary with an incumbent running without real competition (Obama in 2012), "UNCOMMITTED" got 11% of the vote in Minnesota. So this entire media push and protest campaign resulted in a 2% jump over 2012 when there was no concerted effort to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 8 minutes ago, ort said: In the last Democratic Primary with an incumbent running without real competition (Obama in 2012), "UNCOMMITTED" got 11% of the vote in Minnesota. So this entire media push and protest campaign resulted in a 2% jump over 2012 when there was no concerted effort to do anything. Biden faced significant opposition winning the primary with 78.5% of the vote and uncommitted getting 16.2%, but Trump coasted to victory with 65% of the vote and Haley getting 30.9%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricofoley Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Trump offers $100m bond instead of full $454m as he appeals New York case | Donald Trump | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Lawyers say judgment banning ex-president from obtaining loans from New York banks makes it impossible to cover full amount This dude is BROKE broke 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 25 minutes ago, Ricofoley said: Trump offers $100m bond instead of full $454m as he appeals New York case | Donald Trump | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Lawyers say judgment banning ex-president from obtaining loans from New York banks makes it impossible to cover full amount This dude is BROKE broke I'm sure Trump will be allowed to proceed on a quarter of the appeal bond just like I'm sure any of us would be allowed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 51 minutes ago, ort said: We don't need to sugar coat it... listening to Biden speak these days is rough. I find it painful and cringy. I find listening to him speak to be difficult. Trump is a deranged lying madman who is also a nightmare to listen to... but he doesn't sound like a confused feeble old man. He sounds like a deranged weirdo. Biden is not the guy who butt fucked Paul Ryan on national TV. Which I think a lot of people still hold him to that standard personally. But the man still sounds presidential. His stutter is getting worse as he ages sure, but his points are cognizant and easy to follow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPCyric Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 43 minutes ago, TUFKAK said: Biden is not the guy who butt fucked Paul Ryan on national TV. Which I think a lot of people still hold him to that standard personally. But the man still sounds presidential. His stutter is getting worse as he ages sure, but his points are cognizant and easy to follow. He sounds Presidential still something Trump never managed even when he was President Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 SCOTUS of course going to hear the immunity bullshit. hes gonna get away with everything like usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 33 minutes ago, Firewithin said: SCOTUS of course going to hear the immunity bullshit. hes gonna get away with everything like usual At this point, it's hard to argue against the notion that nominating Garland as AG will go down as the absolutely fatal error of the Biden presidency. He just waited too damned long to appoint a Special Prosecutor to bring these charges. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricofoley Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I imagine this is just to try and delay past the election and it'll be like a 7-2 ruling against Trump when they get around to it (still real bad in and of itself!), but just the entire concept of the highest court in the country hearing a case that amounts to "Can the president do crimes with impunity?" feels like some real foundational shit is starting to become unmoored. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 2 minutes ago, Ricofoley said: I imagine this is just to try and delay past the election and it'll be like a 7-2 ruling against Trump when they get around to it (still real bad in and of itself!), but just the entire concept of the highest court in the country hearing a case that amounts to "Can the president do crimes with impunity?" feels like some real foundational shit is starting to become unmoored. The 8-1 ruling will occur by the end of the Court's term in July which means that the earliest the DC trial can start is September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 @nycsouthpaw.bsky.social on Bluesky BSKY.APP Remember that DOJ sought expedited review of this issue from the Court last year (skipping the circuit courts). They refused and punted it to the DC Circuit, which took months; then dilly dallied... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 In reality, if we are honestly relying on a criminal conviction to save us from Trump 2.0, then we are seriously screwed anyway, conviction or not. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 6 minutes ago, Jason said: @nycsouthpaw.bsky.social on Bluesky BSKY.APP Remember that DOJ sought expedited review of this issue from the Court last year (skipping the circuit courts). They refused and punted it to the DC Circuit, which took months; then dilly dallied... Quote If the Supreme Court decides in favor of Trump’s claim that a sitting president has immunity from prosecution, the logical and legal thing for Biden to do would be to simply assassinate him before the election 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 @GeneticBlueprint Ahem. On 2/6/2024 at 7:36 PM, Kal-El814 said: Step 1: SCOTUS determines POTUS has absolute immunity Step 2: Biden orders drone strike on SCOTUS, Mar a Lago Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 2 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: @GeneticBlueprint Ahem. Brilliant. I was actually trying to link a reply to Jason’s BlueSky thread but iPhone isn’t copying the link to the post from the app for whatever reason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUFKAK Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 26 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: In reality, if we are honestly relying on a criminal conviction to save us from Trump 2.0, then we are seriously screwed anyway, conviction or not. As I told a friend the other day, America is already dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 So is America now at volume 5 or 6 of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Jack Smith might as well just say "Y'kow what? To hell with all this shit!" and just head off into the sunset. It just ain't worth it, Jack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 This also pretty much puts the final nail in the Haley campaign coffin as there's no reason for her to stay in on the presumption of a conviction prior to the GOP convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 It’s a shame Biden isn’t the evil mastermind the right thinks he is, because I would just have a series of drone strikes waiting in anticipation of the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 13 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said: It’s a shame Biden isn’t the evil mastermind the right thinks he is, because I would just have a series of drone strikes waiting in anticipation of the decision. That's precisely the reason why SCOTUS is going to rule 8-1 against Trump.,, ...when the decision is handed down in July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 29 Author Share Posted February 29 20 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: That's precisely the reason why SCOTUS is going to rule 8-1 against Trump.,, ...when the decision is handed down in July. I'm not convinced they don't just go "lol sorry can't do anything this close to an election" once he's officially the nominee. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBladeRoden Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Deffy worried DoJ will say "While it is still July, the trial will likely dip into our 'no going after political candidates a month before election' period, so we'll just shelve it now" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5timechamp Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 The loop will be SCOTUS looking to answer ONLY the question of immunity for “official acts" of a sitting President, which is YES. The ambiguity will remain in defining an "official act". Is plotting against the US while President an "official act"? Clearly, NOT. So, who will answer the question about overstepping I think SCOTUS will uphold immunity and refer back to Congress for legislative solutions to the "official acts" ambiguity. Trump will drag this out FOREVER… or until elected I will just keep my “this is how democracy dies.. with thunderous applause” meme on standby I think Ive burned enough copies of Home Alone 2 and Franklin the turtle DVDs that youd think Trump and McConnell would have dropped dead by now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 This is a very good analysis of yesterday's decision posted by someone on ResetERA who very closely follows these cases, including careful readings of the amicus briefs, etc. Quote OK, I calmed down a bit since yesterday. Let's have another look at this. Why did SCOTUS take the case? Note what SCOTUS has taken on. Only the question of if and when a President is criminally liable for supposedly official acts. (They have not taken on Trump's stupid double-jeopardy argument.) That suggests to me there is some concern about potential retaliatory prosecutions - a concern that could easily have been raised by the Dem justices as well as the Rep ones. Part of the problem is that this is something that the DC Circuit ruling rather skated over - it decided that while there was no blanket presidential immunity there was definitely no immunity in this case. But it did not go so far as to articulate a test for when, and if, any presidential immunity would apply. That is a bit of a hole, especially since Trump only a week ago raised a further immunity argument in the Florida case. Either way, this is not necessarily a Republican stitch-up. What sort of outcome should we want/expect? This is where we get into the hypotheticals. You'd probably want a president to be immune from personal prosecution for something he does as president that is in the interests of the US. For example, ordering the killing of a Russian spy armed with some deadly poison and known to be targeting US citizens. But you would not want immunity to be available for the president ordering the killing of his wife's lover. (Of course there is a grey area if the president's wife's lover is a Russian spy. Then you'd have to get into motive.) The distinction is probably along the lines of whether the act was done 'for an improper purpose', or 'corruptly' or something like that. Or maybe whether he was acting for his own personal benefit, which comes to more-or-less the same thing. It isn't particularly easy to define or articulate a test. Not if we want to guard against retaliatory prosecutions. Indeed, Special Counsels claim before the DC Circuit that we could rely upon the discretion of independent professional prosecutors rings rather hollow in the light of the Hur Report and the sham impeachment 'Biden Crime Family' stuff that is going on right now. It'll be interesting to see what the case throws up. As I did in the 14th amendment case I'll try to track all the various amicus briefs that get filed so we can see the scope of the arguments available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 17 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: This is a very good analysis of yesterday's decision posted by someone on ResetERA who very closely follows these cases, including careful readings of the amicus briefs, etc. This is a stupid argument. Are Cabinet Officers immune? We know Judges aren't if they corruptly do official act, same with Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 43 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said: For example, ordering the killing of a Russian spy armed with some deadly poison and known to be targeting US citizens. But you would not want immunity to be available for the president ordering the killing of his wife's lover. (Of course there is a grey area if the president's wife's lover is a Russian spy. Then you'd have to get into motive.) Dumb af Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 One of the arguments that Trump has put forward is that a President cannot be prosecuted criminally UNLESS they are first impeached and removed from office. Quote The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. The problem with this argument presented by Trump is that it would apply to ALL officers of the United States, not just the President. That would mean that every single person who is subject to the impeachment process would be immune from criminal prosecution unless they were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. There have been numerous instances of Executive branch officers and judges who have been arrested, tried, and convicted in criminal court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.