Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m going to say the s.Ct. Is going to try to rule in a fashion that doesn’t disenfranchise voters so will keep him on ballots but won’t let him off the hook for his shitty ways and will deny immunity.To be clear, the immunity issue pertains to the Special Counsel's election subversion case.
Completely agree. And it will be easier to rule against him on immunity after ruling in his favor on the eligibility question.I’m going to say the s.Ct. Is going to try to rule in a fashion that doesn’t disenfranchise voters so will keep him on ballots but won’t let him off the hook for his shitty ways and will deny immunity.
The eligibility question should be 9-0, but will probably be 8-1 cuz Jackson.I’m going to say the s.Ct. Is going to try to rule in a fashion that doesn’t disenfranchise voters so will keep him on ballots but won’t let him off the hook for his shitty ways and will deny immunity.
If they rule Presidents have total immunity, then what’s to keep the current, or any future presidents from ordering the assassination of their political opponent? There will always be someone loyal enough to a president to do it. What’s to keep them from committing any crime possible? Extreme example, I know, but something to consider. Unless they set specific parameters.Supremes won't let the CO ruling stand, no matter how sound it might be. It's just a bridge too far.
The immunity question shouldn't even be taken up, but if they do he'll lose. If he doesn't, the the Court will have shown its true colors.
I think that the Colorado decision might be decided on separation of powers grounds. If they give him a chance on the ballot that gives them cover on the immunity issue.Supremes won't let the CO ruling stand, no matter how sound it might be. It's just a bridge too far.
The immunity question shouldn't even be taken up, but if they do he'll lose. If he doesn't, the the Court will have shown its true colors.
BTW, my guess is that the Colorado Supremes may have decided this one believing that SCOTUS would be having their say anyway.
K.The decision is laid out with that specifically accounted for.
You'd be immune for things in line with your duties as the POTUS like seeing our legally passed election laws and our Constitution are upheld. It's the actual job of the executive branch to enforce the laws after all.If they rule Presidents have total immunity, then what’s to keep the current, or any future presidents from ordering the assassination of their political opponent? There will always be someone loyal enough to a president to do it. What’s to keep them from committing any crime possible? Extreme example, I know, but something to consider. Unless they set specific parameters.
**** you, ****ing ****.We've got two threads going on the latest Trump news (the CO ballot question) that have been nearly devoid of the typical bomb throwing and shit posting we usually see. Quite refreshing. I'm going to do what I can to keep them that way. If you don't like it you can take a vacay.
You could have at least spelled everything correctly.**** you, ****ing ****.
I agree. The standard should be performing the duties of your office.You'd be immune for things in line with your duties as the POTUS like seeing our legally passed election laws and our Constitution are upheld. It's the actual job of the executive branch to enforce the laws after all.
Assassinating your opponent would obviously not be in furtherance of your official duties as President.
He did. You can't see that?You could have at least spelled everything correctly.
In one of the threads you suggested that the current Supreme Court and any ruling it may make on the Trump/ CO issue couldWe've got two threads going on the latest Trump news (the CO ballot question) that have been nearly devoid of the typical bomb throwing and shit posting we usually see. Quite refreshing. I'm going to do what I can to keep them that way. If you don't like it you can take a vacay.
When you deleted Goo's post you deleted my reply also. It was a good point.We've got two threads going on the latest Trump news (the CO ballot question) that have been nearly devoid of the typical bomb throwing and shit posting we usually see. Quite refreshing. I'm going to do what I can to keep them that way. If you don't like it you can take a vacay.
Goo, as a child:In one of the threads you suggested that the current Supreme Court and any ruling it may make on the Trump/ CO issue could
be illegitimate due to the political make up of who appointed the justices.
That kind of political, bullshit , asshattery poisons the well as much as anything else. Look in a god damn mirror.
But he didn't call anyone a bitch, did he?In one of the threads you suggested that the current Supreme Court and any ruling it may make on the Trump/ CO issue could
be illegitimate due to the political make up of who appointed the justices.
That kind of political, bullshit , asshattery poisons the well as much as anything else. Look in a god damn mirror.
He’s learning. He shows promise.He did. You can't see that?
In one of the threads you suggested that the current Supreme Court and any ruling it may make on the Trump/ CO issue could
be illegitimate due to the political make up of who appointed the justices.
When you deleted Goo's post you deleted my reply also. It was a good point.
It's a system issue, not anything you do. I appreciate your cleaning up the ****, but I thought I had the content of his post handled. Maybe not, but I thought that was the case.That's my SOP -- any reply to a deleted post that quotes the deletion gets zapped as well.
I could understand calling another poster a bitch, although it’s not something they’ve ever enforced on me.But he didn't call anyone a bitch, did he?
When you deleted Goo's post you deleted my reply also. It was a good point.
It's a system issue, not anything you do.
You know exactly what you posted and why it was deleted. Time to move on. It's getting late and I'm getting cranky.I could understand calling another poster a bitch, although it’s not something they’ve ever enforced on me.
An elected official? Get serious.
If the standard is "keep it clean" that needs to be communicated. If it has been communicated you got what you deserve, maybe less. You'd have been gone when I was a mod.I could understand calling another poster a bitch, although it’s not something they’ve ever enforced on me.
An elected official? Get serious.
When did that change occur? Used to be when you got rid of a post, you got rid of its progeny.Incorrect. Your post posted, including the quote of the deleted GG post. (You replied before I deleted GG's post.) I deleted your reply with the quote on purpose. I'm not about to start editing posts to remove included quotes.
Neither is inciting an insurrection but good tryYou'd be immune for things in line with your duties as the POTUS like seeing our legally passed election laws and our Constitution are upheld. It's the actual job of the executive branch to enforce the laws after all.
Assassinating your opponent would obviously not be in furtherance of your official duties as President.
When did that change occur? Used to be when you got rid of a post, you got rid of its progeny.
Oh yeah?He’s learning. He shows promise.
You couldn’t get ********d***** right.
The moment of the great evil, this place has sucked since.Dunno. Switch to topic view instead of thread view
^^^^^^ This is correct ^^^^^^^^^The moment of the great evil, this place has sucked since.
Remedial class finally paid off, huh?Oh yeah?
********d*****. There.
Just tookRemedial class finally paid off, huh?
Neither is scheming to install slates of fake electors, using the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations, pressuring the Vice President to alter the election results, and otherwise unlawfully trying to remain in power after losing the election.Assassinating your opponent would obviously not be in furtherance of your official duties as President.
When did “alternative slates” which have been a thing since forever start to get called “fake slates”.Neither is scheming to install slates of fake electors, using the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations, pressuring the Vice President to alter the election results, and otherwise unlawfully trying to remain in power after losing the election.
Feel free to lobby for that result. Please.When did “alternative slates” which have been a thing since forever start to get called “fake slates”.
The 17th amendment was a heresy I swear. Made people think that this country is somehow or should be a pure democracy.
State governments should nominate who they would like for president.