A Republican brought an action which caused an independent state Supreme Court to remove Don Insurrection from the primary ballot.. but but Biden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anebriated
Printable View
A Republican brought an action which caused an independent state Supreme Court to remove Don Insurrection from the primary ballot.. but but Biden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anebriated
:) The answer is no, Trump is ineligible to hold high federal office. It's mystifying Republicans have so many issues with upholding the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment against insurrectionists holding high office.
Quote:
Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot
CAMDEN, Maine — Maine’s top election official ruled Thursday that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot next year, fueling a national effort to disqualify the former president over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
The decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, follows a bombshell Colorado Supreme Court ruling last week that concluded the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Trump from serving in office again due to his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
However, Bellows' office said her decision would not be enforced until the courts weigh in, "given the compressed timeframe, the novel constitutional questions involved, the importance of this case, and impending ballot preparation deadlines."
In a 34-page decision, Bellows wrote that Trump's actions around Jan. 6 compelled her to rule him ineligible.
"The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match," she wrote, adding that he "used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power."
Trump is expected to appeal the decision and others like it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will likely have to settle the issue. In the meantime, state election officials and lower courts have been forced to grapple with the unprecedented constitutional question on their own.
In a statement immediately after Maine's decision, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said a court filing was forthcoming.
"We will quickly file a legal objection in state court to prevent this atrocious decision in Maine from taking effect," he said.
Cheung also went after Bellows.
“The Maine Secretary of State is a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden," he said said. "We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter."
Trump had previously demanded that Bellows recuse herself from the case, arguing she is too partisan — she is a former Democratic state senator — and too prejudiced because she had publicly stated she viewed the Jan. 6 attack as an “insurrection.”
So far most courts have sided with Trump, with recent decisions in Michigan, Arizona and Minnesota ruling against citizen-led petitions to disqualify him and affirming Trump’s right to appear on the ballot in those states.
Trump has railed against the effort to remove him from the ballot as politically motivated attempts to undemocratically disenfranchise him and his supporters.
At issue is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was written after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate officers from holding office in the newly reunited states. The clause bars from public office any former official who swore an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”
The Colorado Court concluded that Trump should be considered an insurrectionist for instigating violence in the lead-up to Jan. 6, though it did not enforce the decision immediately, expecting an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While the current cases pertain to whether Trump can appear on Republican primary ballots, they would lay the groundwork for potentially removing him from the ballot in next November’s general election, if upheld.
The effort to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment had been paid relatively little attention until the Colorado decision, but the stakes are now higher as other states consider similar arguments with little time to spare.
Both Maine and Colorado hold their primary on Super Tuesday, March 5, but federal law requires state officials to send ballots to overseas military service members and others 45 days before an election, meaning the ballots need to be prepared in January.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna131375
again, these states are just doing this for the headlines. Nothing is actually happening here.Quote:
However, Bellows' office said her decision would not be enforced until the courts weigh in
Full text of Maine Secretary of State ruling..
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...-petitions.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anebriated
The two people who most hope voters agree with you are Trump and Biden, because they both want Republicans to nominate Trump. I have to think that as more and more tribunals determine that Trump engaged in insurrection, his support among Republican primary voters will fall. If Trump is not the nominee, then Biden will be in Trouble.
So far as I know, every single group that has reviewed the evidence and issued a report on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection has concluded that he did. J6 Commission, Colorado Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State.
Just more election interference. Got to love the fact that the Dems have to resort to lawfare because they know they can't beat him.
YikesQuote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
It's simple, Democrats are the biggest threat to "Democracy" there is. The last time a Presidential candidate was removed from the ballot, it was by Dems and it was Abraham Lincoln. Then he won and they shot him. Every time a Republican wins since Nixon, there is all kinds of crying to end the EC, then there is the harping for mail in cheating (ballots) and now it's a bunch of crying to use the courts to do what the Dems don't think they can do in the ballot box. When are you Leftist pieces of shit going to get it through your head, your policies suck, they hurt people and the people are tired of it? The answer is never since you all think you are smarter, more civilized and more "enlightened" that the people. You can't beat Trump without cheating, this just just a thinly veiled effort at cheating and everyone with half a brain knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Wake up and smell your parties racism, fascism, hypocrisy and destruction because you are sure burning it down right now.
You really think that isn't the case? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
If Trump is such a weak candidate, then dems should be jumping for joy to crush him in 2024 and then throw it in everyone's face for the next 4 years instead of trying to prevent him from being on the ballot with all this weak bullshit they're doing.
The people trying to remove Trump from the ballot are Republicans. That was the case in both Colorado and Maine. If Democrats wanted to keep Trump off the ballot, they would file well financed lawsuits in every state. Instead, individual Republican candidates and voters are bringing suits. Several unsuccessful suits have been brought by a single longshot Republican presidential candidate, John Castro, who has not pursued the suits vigorously, probably because of lack of funds. After the successes by individual voters in Colorado and Maine, you can expect better organized and better financed groups to bring suits in other states, or perhaps somebody will give Mr. Castro enough money to do it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Having Trump removed from the ballot by the courts would be an absolute disaster for Democrats. It would both energize Republican voters and guarantee that Republicans select a stronger opponent for Biden in the general election.
It would be a personal legal disaster for Trump too, because he would lose the ability to pardon himself. That might be why Heley promised yesterday to pardon Trump if she is elected. But Haley cannot pardon Trump for a criminal conviction in Georgia. If Trump were President, Georgia would not be able to prosecute him or put him in jail while he was in the White House. People, including me, who originally dismissed Fani Willis in Georgia are having to second guess themselves. Closer inspection shows that she is quietly formidable. The risk of a Georgia conviction is growing. If Haley pardons Trump and he is convicted in Georgia, he won't get to serve the sentence in a federal prison after Haley's pardon.
Shut the fuck up retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
https://i.imgur.com/7TNqDXd.png
https://i.imgur.com/YGJJTpp.png
We haven't had the Democrats this upset about the presumptive nominee since Abraham Lincoln.
Whoa whoa whoa, you're supposed to be distracted by the conspiracy theory and fail to notice the gross incompetence and dozens of felonies committed by the candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
https://i.imgur.com/oCkHQr9.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
https://gazette.com/news/wex/maine-r...62baaaebd.html
Are these the same republicans you claim are trying to remove Trump from the ballot? If not, then who are these specific republicans you speak of?
Emphasis on "specific."
I think you guys sure like to pretend the Constitution says whatever your interpretation of it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
If it's within the Constitution then it's within the Constitution to legally challenge and it's playing out in the same way countless other legal precedents have.
It's not election interference....
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
https://media1.giphy.com/media/jsCnm...=200w.gif&ct=gQuote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
If you could point out to me when Trump was convicted of, or even charged with "insurrection" that'd be great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Of course! I'll do it immediately. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself trying to Google it.
From the Colorado opinion..
From the Maine Secretary of State ruling..Quote:
More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters ("the Electors")—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City and County of Denver ("Denver District Court" or "the district court"), asking the court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump ("President Trump") may not appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.
This was an entertaining exercise, because I had overlooked the subject of the second challenge -- the 22nd Amendment's rule that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...." The Secretary of State rejected that argument.Quote:
In the first challenge, *******, a registered voter of Winterport, alleged that Mr. Trump violated his oath of office because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. While ******* did not explicitly identify Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis of her challenge, it clearly underpins the disqualification argument she set forth.
In the second challenge, Attorney *******, a registered voter of Portland, argued that because Mr. Trump has expressly stated that he won the 2020 election, he is barred from office under the Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets a two-term limit on Presidents.
In the third challenge, *******, a registered voter of Bucksport and former Republican State Senator; *******, a registered voter of Wilton and former Republican State Senator; and *******, a registered voter of Portland and former Democratic State Senator, collectively contended that Mr. Trump is barred from office because he engaged in insurrection as defined by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On Monday, December 11, 2023, I issued a Notice of Hearing to all parties, indicating that a consolidated hearing would be held at 10:00 am on December 15, 2023, in Augusta.
Ah yes...Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Sounds super solid.Quote:
both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters
Almost as solid as this:
Since I'm sure Alfster won't be doing it, if you could show me where Trump was convicted of, or even charged with "insurrection," that'd be great. If not, feel free to explain how some random voter's opinion means jack shit other than being some random voter's opinion and how that disqualifies Trump without any due process.Quote:
In the first challenge, *******, a registered voter of Winterport, alleged that Mr. Trump violated his oath of office because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. While ******* did not explicitly identify Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis of her challenge, it clearly underpins the disqualification argument she set forth.
As stupid as that ^ is though, this doozy is 9947289470x more hilarious:
Quote:
n the second challenge, Attorney *******, a registered voter of Portland, argued that because Mr. Trump has expressly stated that he won the 2020 election, he is barred from office under the Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets a two-term limit on Presidents.
:rofl:
You don't strike me as a stupid person, so why are you acting stupid 24/7?
This is how criminal convictions work?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
California just rejected removing Trump from the ballot, so, Trump is not guilty of insurrection.
https://y.yarn.co/53b2406c-9b59-4865...98055_text.gif
Irony, considering you are cheering that Trump is taken off the ballots in 2 states so far and has not ever been convicted of "Insurrection"... let alone ever being charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
I mean I get it.. you have had an extreme case of TDS since 2016 and you will be overjoyed anytime he is denied his constitutional rights...
"Fuck the Constitution, I hate him so much! He makes me so upset I can't think!" -Alfster
It's not in the Constitution to claim someone is an insurrectionist and therefore can be pulled off the ballot by any court or any Sec of State without actually charging him with insurrection.Quote:
If it's within the Constitution then it's within the Constitution to legally challenge and it's playing out in the same way countless other legal precedents have.
It's not election interference....
It's literally election interference.. something you read about happening in Cuba or Haiti or Columbia.. not in the United States.
A second Constitutional question has been investigated and found which puts Trump in direct violation of his oath of office while President. This time violation of the Article 1 emoulments clause prohibiting a federal office holder from benefitting from foreign gift or earnings from a foreign government without express approval from Congress. Ruh roh.
Quote:
Trump received millions of dollars from foreign governments while president, House Democrats allege
WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump unconstitutionally profited from the presidency during his tenure in the White House, reaping millions of dollars for his business empire from foreign governments, House Democrats allege in an extensive report.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a 156-page report Thursday morning accusing Trump of exploiting the presidency to financially benefit himself and members of his family. Trump’s businesses, according to the report, received at least $7.8 million from corrupt and authoritarian governments including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The report is the culmination of a nearly seven-year investigation. It says records and documents obtained by House Oversight Democrats reveal "a stunning web of millions of dollars in payments made by foreign governments and their agents directly to Trump-owned businesses, while President Trump was in the White House.”
Among the report’s findings and records available to the committee, China made the most payments to Trump’s businesses during his tenure, spending more than $5.5 million at Trump Tower in New York and two of Trump’s hotels in Washington and Las Vegas.
House Oversight Democrats specifically accuse Trump of violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from profiting from foreign governments without the approval of Congress.
The report notes that its findings are incomplete after House Republicans took control of the committee last year and halted the investigation, which the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., started in 2016 when he was the top Democrat on the committee.
"It is true that $7.8 million is almost certainly only a fraction of Trump’s harvest of unlawful foreign state money, but this figure in itself is a scandal and a decisive spur to action," Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, wrote in the report's foreword.
House Democrats issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, Trump’s former accounting firm, in 2019. Trump attempted to block the request but the Supreme Court upheld the subpoena in 2020. Trump, Mazars and the committee then controlled by Democrats agreed on a set of terms for Mazars to release its records on Trump.
After Republicans took control of the committee, Mazars was eventually released from its legal obligation to provide relevant documentation to the Democrats’ investigation.
As a result, the report “is a significant glimpse into former President Trump’s foreign financial dealings –but far from a comprehensive account of his unprecedented efforts to use the presidency to enrich himself and his family in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.”
The new details into the former president’s finances come as House Republicans continue their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and his family’s finances. GOP investigators have long alleged the president financially benefited from his family’s foreign business dealings.
While the GOP-led probe has turned up evidence revealing the president’s family made millions from their overseas interests, investigators have yet to implicate Biden in those dealings directly.
"It's beyond parody that Democrats continue their obsession with former President Donald Trump," House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said in a statement reacting to the report. "Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not."
The limited documents obtained by House Oversight Democrats show that Trump received at least $7.8 million in foreign payments to his businesses during his presidency, according to the report.
From China, Trump’s businesses received money from the Chinese embassy, Hainan Airlines Holding Co., a Chinese state-owned airline and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a Chinese state-owned bank.
Underscoring the uncertainty surrounding the exact number of payments made to Trump’s businesses, the committee only confirmed a payment of $19,391 from the Chinese embassy to a Trump hotel in Washington. The records only document the payment for an arrival date in August 2017 and do not specify an end date, suggesting that the amount “likely comprise only a fraction of the funds ultimately expended for a stay or event.”
The article continues detailing foreign bribes Trump accepted.
https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-...150016728.html
Fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://i.imgur.com/Vb7lQaf.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
LOL, democrats going full tilt. Was this on your bingo card of false accusations and reasons to discredit Trump?
Democrats are SCARED.
Scared of revealing Trump Organization invoices from state sponsored companies who had one and two YEAR long stays at Trump hotels? Naw dude, Democrats are afraid of the law and exposing it's violations. Republicans are though, which explains why they tried to stop Mazar from revealing those invoices.
Brooooooooooooooo........Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Please stop falling for every.single.media.driven.attempt.to.finally.get.T rump.every.fucking.time.you.fucking.retarded.moron .
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ "pEoPlE sTaYeD aT tRuMp'S hOtEl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You fucking dork.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...vcF6nF7irQwg&s
Shit I meant to quote pb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
It's where it should be. Taking my statements as cheering is very odd. There's legitimate legal questions that really do need an answer and the ruling is stayed, meaning he's on the ballots that will be mailed out prior to the election.
It's an intriguing case that involves whether the 14th amendment in section 3 applies to the president or not. Debates from 1866 claim it does, trumps lawyers claim it doesn't. Then there's the legal argument if it requires a conviction or whatever. It's literally history unfolding in front of us.
Just because you interpret it one way or someone else interprets it another way doesn't matter. I think it's a slippery slope and clearly was not intended for this, and I hope that's the final ruling. The intent was literally to keep the Confederates from holding office. I'm of the belief that intent matters and that the intent was never for it to be used this way.
I'm also intrigued by the whole question of total immunity for presidents, as trumps lawyers are arguing in another case. The ramifications of that being a ruling are absurd, as Biden could simply and legally cancel all elections, jail the maga crowd - and it would be legal.
These are cases that will shape our country.
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
That's not difficult to do. You find the post you want to quote, and you hit the "Reply with Quote" button on the bottom of THAT post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
It's literally not.. it's literally the Democrats doing anything and every thing they possibly can to stop Trump from running again... Constitution be damned.Quote:
It's where it should be. Taking my statements as cheering is very odd. There's legitimate legal questions that really do need an answer and the ruling is stayed, meaning he's on the ballots that will be mailed out prior to the election.
It's an intriguing case that involves whether the 14th amendment in section 3 applies to the president or not. Debates from 1866 claim it does, trumps lawyers claim it doesn't. Then there's the legal argument if it requires a conviction or whatever. It's literally history unfolding in front of us.
This is a far cry from your earlier posts on the subject. I hope whatever you took to manage your TDS is something you start taking more often.Quote:
Just because you interpret it one way or someone else interprets it another way doesn't matter. I think it's a slippery slope and clearly was not intended for this, and I hope that's the final ruling. The intent was literally to keep the Confederates from holding office. I'm of the belief that intent matters and that the intent was never for it to be used this way.
No one is arguing that a previous President has "total immunity" from everything.Quote:
I'm also intrigued by the whole question of total immunity for presidents, as trumps lawyers are arguing in another case.
If Trump wins, and the political ruling class doesn't like the VP or the Speaker... I wouldn't put this past them.Quote:
The ramifications of that being a ruling are absurd, as Biden could simply and legally cancel all elections, jail the maga crowd - and it would be legal.
That's kind of the whole point of due process and convictions/acquittals. Otherwise any slob with an opinion and/or suffering from extreme butthurt can be like "Trump committed insurrection!" and it'll have legal repercussions, which is literally what's happening right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
You dumb cuck, Trump and his lawyers are arguing he has total and lifelong immunity from prosecution. The Courts have ruled several times now that Trump doesn't get to claim privileges of the office as deposed despot, despite his countless filings trying to claim the same. The only thing stopping Trump from running is his own violations of the Fourteenth amendment, if he wasn't committing so many felonies, he wouldn't have this issue. Stop blaming others for your lawless would-be dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I can't wait to watch your meltdown after SCOTUS takes a dump all over this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
In before Seran says SCOTUS is illegitimate, politicized, and ruining our democracy.
Precedent setting. By arguing it and it being rejected then no previous president will have immunity either.
The argument is whether a former President retains immunity, that is an easy one - - they don't. The broader question is whether the President has criminal immunity at all, the Constitution certainly doesn't prescribe it as it does the limited immunity of Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anebriated
Quote:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
So we can go back and prosecute Clinton for pedophilia and rape then for his Epstein Island visits?
At this point the Clintons are just arrogantly flexing their power on what’s left of the good regular moral Americans. Clintons be like: “Yeah Bill went to Epstein’s Island 50+ times. What the fuck are you going to do about it, piss ant? We hire assassins to murder journalists.”Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Well, at minimum I’ll just bring it up in conversation randomly for the rest of my life. Bill (and every single bastard on that list) who most certainly raped underage girls is evil. Not holding those people accountable is an absolute disgrace.
What list?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Trump and Epstein were besties too you know. It explains the incestuous comments about banging his own daughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Dear Welfare loser:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You are wrong. You are retarded. You have never been right.
Don't believe me?
Here:
From a left leaning Yahoo... I'm going to make sure you don't miss the important part:
In his appeal in the federal election theft case, Trump makes two arguments. The first is that he has permanent absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any acts undertaken during his presidency. The second is that under the theory of double jeopardy, he cannot face criminal charges for acts upon which he was impeached but not convicted.
https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-...aving%20office.
You see that part I highlighted for you? Trump is not arguing that he has "total immunity from everything"... he is saying he has immunity from when he was President.
Now I know you are special needs.. but "total immunity from everything" is not the same as "total immunity from 1/21/17 to 1/21/21"
You fucking retarded fucking fuckstain.
https://i.imgur.com/iVvEENf.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
"Trump is not arguing he has total immunity, he is arguing he has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. It's different because I say so." ~PB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's obvious you don't even read your posts, you contradict yourself everytime. There is no Constitutional immunity for Presidents, period. Thus there is no legal argument. You want to argue there is? Cite it. We'll wait a decade or two for you to figure out it doesn't exist if needed.
The list. The ones we know that traveled to the island. Yeah I read the same Vox article. Don’t minimize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
The very reason the Founders didn't want to grant absolutely immunity to the office of the President was they did not want to create a Monarch. What you're arguing, without Constitutional citation is the very thing the Founders designed the Constitution to avoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I'm not going to engage in guilt by association. A lot of people are pointing to this video of Trump at a party with young cheerleaders, where Trump is desperately trying to win Epstein's approval by pointing out to Esptein which cheerleaders are, in Trump's words, "hot." I won't be a part of that. Nor will you ever catch me taking cheap shots at Trump for his 2002 statement when Trump said, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
There's no contradiction in my post at all.. you just have to have an IQ above 12... which leaves you out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Trump is arguing that while he was President, he has immunity. This totals 4 years.
Trump is not arguing that because he was once President, he has immunity from everything. This totals 77 years.
77 is not the same as 4. You know this because you can count (with some help) to 4 on your fingers. You will never be able to count to 77.
"I'm not going to engage in guilt by association" and then proceeds to engage in guilt by association.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
You sniveling little pussy you.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Try counting to 77. That's a monumental task for you.
Now try counting to 4. With some assistance, it's probably not too hard for you.
See how they are different?
Please don't turn this into digging in your high heels and defending a stupid position.
Sounds like you just did.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
If there is clear evidence of a person visiting Epstein’s island, there is a very high probability they had sex with minors. What you suggested isn’t quite at the same level of damnation. That’s slightly below Biden’s repeated involuntary sniffing of little girl’s hair on live TV.
Anyways, I’m not here for a political pissing match on the topic of pedophilia. We shouldn’t tolerate it as a society. That’s my point.
I saw an Instagram video last night about how Epstein's little black book has been in the hands of the Director of the FBI now for 4-5 years... he has wielded that power for that entire time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Imagine how many politicians and celebrities he has coerced to do whatever he wants them to do.
There is no Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, said non-existent immunity would have ended when he was deposed 3 years ago. Dumps lawyers, like you, couldn't cite the law granting this imagined criminal immunity. So arguing he has absolute immunity is you just making shit up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING STUPID!?!?!?
Let me recap:
Alfster: Trump's lawyers are arguing for total immunity for Presidents.
PB: No one is arguing for total immunity for everything just because you became President.
Seran: U R DUM YES THEY ARE!
PB: No. They are arguing that Trump is immune only for the 4 years as President, not immune from everything for his entire life.
Seran: ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS NOT THE SAME AS TOTAL IMMUNITY!
PB: What? Who said anything about absolute immunity. He is arguing that for the 4 years as President he is immune. That's it.
Seran: THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION!
I'm not arguing for or against any immunity, you brainless fucking retard.
No, you're just arguing a ridiculous point that you don't even support. Great job, you're either retarded (my bet) or realized you're unable to support your main conclusion and are backpedaling and falling on your ass. Congrats in either case, you've made a fool of yourself as usual.
I bet Seran & ClydeR believe Christians being massacred in Nigeria is happening because of climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
How are you still incapable of understanding anything? What if I used pretty colors and only used easy words for you? Let's try:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Alfster: Trump said he wants to be exempt from any charges for everything.
PB: No. Just when he was President
Seran: NOOOOOOO! HE WANTS FREE ALL TIME!
PB: No, Retard. Just the 4 years he was President
Seran: NOOOOOOOOOOOO! ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL NOT SAME!
PB: No, Retard. Just the 4 years he was President.
Seran: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! TRUMP CAN'T DO THAT!
I realize you are the Retard Champion, but for the 4th time, I am not arguing whether or not Trump SHOULD be immune from prosecution during his time as President... I am saying that there is a difference between being immune for 4 years or being immune for the rest of his life.
More than likely, it's you that has difficulty understanding English, words, numbers, simple math, proper hygiene, working for a living, money, "apostrophe's", etc...Quote:
Great job, you're either retarded (my bet) or realized you're unable to support your main conclusion and are backpedaling and falling on your ass. Congrats in either case, you've made a fool of yourself as usual.
Neither one cares since they are Democrats and have always look down on people who aren't white like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
At least the Conservatives on the board realize there is no Presidential criminal immunity.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...95k2o1_500.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
^ Fake news, even with help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
^ Real news.Quote:
You will never be able to count to 77.
Which would then give Biden the power to do whatever he wants WHILE he's president. Like cancelling elections, refusing to certify the election, and using his own electors. You know. The exact thing trump tried to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
A victory in court here has major ramifications. Biden is currently president, so if they rule in Trump's favor...he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
Well no, because obviously that didn’t work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
If presidents are fully immune while in office then that is legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
It's a no win argument because it is absurd, but yes. He'd be free to do that, legally. It is odd that conservatives struggle to apply their own arguments to current events.
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
You've forgotten the Conservative MO.. do the bad shit, then pretend it was the Democrats who actually did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Trump committed a coup, but Democrats have done bad things to poor innocent cheeto!
No one committed or attempted a coup you useless piece of shit. No one has been convicted or even charged with insurrection. The only real threat to democracy in our Constitutional Republic is Democrats trying to keep both other Democrats and the primary Republican challenger off the ballot. You all haven't been this mad since we took your slaves away.
Yes, yes.. because making a speech is the same thing as cancelling elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Great point Seran.
Oh shit, it's Alfster.. sorry, sometimes I mix you two up.
Ah yes, those damned unarmed coups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You fucking dumbass.
You're omitting the fact the speech directed folks he organized and worked up into a frenzy to march on Congress to overturn the results of the 2020 election. So yes, Trump attempted to cancel an election, by organizing a violent insurrection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Ah yes, those "BE PEACEFUL" calls to violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You stupid cuck.
Bro... I can't take you seriously anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Go ask mommy for a cookie.
What do you mean "anymore?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
As evidenced by your inability to take the entirety of the situation seriously, I can't say I'm surprised. No President in the history of our nation until Donald Trump has attempted to retain power by circumventing the constitutional transfer of power. None have had the massive financial gains paid directly to him by foreign powers through a company he retained direct control. Think on that a bit before you try and rejoin the conversation, or humanity in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
If Presidents don’t have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during their term in office (without first being impeached by Congress), why doesn’t the DOJ arrest & charge Obama for murder for the ordering drone strikes that killed US citizens?
For context he targeted and killed 3 US citizens that we know about away from war zones. One of them was 16 years old.
NO THAT'S D-D-D-DIFFERENT YOU BIGOT!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
https://i.imgur.com/QS2HzfD.jpg
Absolutely. I don't consider Jan 6th anything more than a set up by the FBI/CIA/Democrat Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
That's quite an imagination you have. Don't you wish you could channel that imagination into something intelligent?Quote:
No President in the history of our nation until Donald Trump has attempted to retain power by circumventing the constitutional transfer of power. None have had the massive financial gains paid directly to him by foreign powers through a company he retained direct control. Think on that a bit before you try and rejoin the conversation, or humanity in general.
That you think Congress is a judicial body is curious, certainly the lawyers for Dump should understand that the impeachment procedures laid out in the Constitution is a delegated power of the House and Senate respectively to remove a sitting President who who specific infringements. They, nor you apparently could find any law granting this imagined immunity from prosecution. But you've seen the official federal charges and the cited laws which Trump allegedly broke. Can you identify any federal statute which prescribes the President from initiating action against terror suspects in foreign war zones?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Ray Epps got 1 year probation and a $500 fine for J6 :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Those mentioned drone strikes did not happen in a war zone. Here is an article about it for reference: https://www.politico.com/blogs/under...laybook-226760Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
To answer your question, there are federal laws against murder. It’s your argument that a President is not immune to criminal prosecution for official acts of their duties. If that is the case, then Obama can and should be charged. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
"BUT TRUMP TRIED TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY AND BECOME A DICTATOR BY AN ARMED INSURRECTION COUP!!!!!!!!!!!" -sErAn tHe rETaRd cHaMpIoNQuote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Incidents at the capitol that were way worse than Jan 6th and our Republic survived.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/272555785539563/?s=single_unit&__cft__[0]=AZUdKS2Ka7JtcqtVXekuLE9lO0iU-XuDJRMZfQ4OEdoZoj-Ito9dxNaOeB1_uKTHwTwDt4f6THLiRvkMQhG4Qknxf6Iw2AqhD ffVsGA5_7y2hvi5jDCtszadSVe9pJMwTPy3Tova4680slCe_dy mmUNuuYJdVaIyEgojQ68R6nO4iAeJgPhsSwCXHjRJDc46G9E&_ _tn__=H-R
As I thought, you couldn't cite any federal laws broken. It's okay, you don't understand Yemen is an active warzone and has been for decades or that US Support for allies in the area has included anti-terrorism strikes for decades. I don't blame you for being lazy, just ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
You really need me to cite a federal law for murder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
How about 21 U.S. Code § 844 possession of a controlled substance? Charge Joe Biden with that right now. We found cocaine in his house.
The point of this exercise and why you don’t want to answer is because Presidents indeed have immunity from prosecution while in office and performance of official acts. SCOTUS previously ruled on this issue.
Droning an Afghani family, transporting water, because you needed a flex for getting 13 military members murdered during the botched Afghanistan withdraw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Funny you claim murder, but I'll point out that killing terrorists isn't murder nor are the accidental deaths of 'bystanders' in proximity to terror subjects. You can't cite a single legitimate claim or law to support your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Trump isn't President. The immunity conferred against civil suits for lawful acts in office doesn't confer criminal prosecution immunity nor does it magically extend to former Presidents. The Supreme Court did indeed rule that former president's can be prosecuted, you're correct there, which is why Trump's is facing the remainder of his life in prison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6zzLAhEyqoQuote:
you're correct there, which is why Trump's is facing the remainder of his life in prison.
1st grade level apostrophes: 9993287432423804872304
Seran the welfare leech in his 30s: 0
Were those American citizens targeted in a drone strike convicted of terrorism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
So let’s remove the President for a moment. Say instead of Obama, I flew to Yemen or wherever and killed those US citizens because I suspected them of terrorism. Is that perfectly legal too? We can just kill people we suspect of terrorism?
Also Yemen has been in civil war since 2014. I do believe this happened before then. Everyone including the Obama administration recognizes they were targeted and killed outside an active war zone. That’s why he made a playbook for drone strikes that the President has to directly authorize the attack outside a war zone. You would know this if you read the article referenced.
Obama droned that kid on October 14, 2011Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Hypotheticals have no bearing here. The President is a sworn officer of the Untied States and bound to act in the best interests of our country. Trump attempting to overthrow the elections process and to corruptly retain the office by organization of a coup is not in the best interest of the nation in the final months in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Killing a US citizen is murder, since he was not charged or tried or convicted of being a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Let's say that citizen was in Seattle and not Yemen.. do you believe it's right for a President to order a drone strike on him because the government determined he was a terrorist?
Well, by kid, you mean Anwar al-Awlaki the US citizen Islamic cleric, then two weeks later, Obama did indeed drone his kid Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Cause we like to keep it in the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Whoever the 16 year old retard was, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
The Colorado Republican primary is tomorrow, and the Supreme Court has still not ruled whether or not Trump is eligible to be on the Colorado ballot. The court heard oral arguments on the case on February 8.
OMG! THE SCOTUS MUST BE READING THIS BECAUSE THEY ANNOUNCED THIS YESTERDAY!! You must have reminded them this morning!Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...-po-rcna141567
Fucking retard.
How will you feel when SCOTUS unanimously decides this case that was ruled on by judicial partisan hacks is completely unconstitutional & nothing more than an attempt to overthrow our democratic process? How will you feel when Trump wins the Colorado primary tomorrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
I know... same as he felt in 2016 when Trump won the election. Here's a gif of him:Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
https://i.imgflip.com/3onzvo.gif
Also, unanimously would be something. Only way that will happen is if Sotomayor can't find someone else to dissent with her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I think there is a strong possibility the decision will be unanimous in order to send a clear message from the court. Just my opinion. We’ll find out soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's time to go scream into the sky...Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
9-0
Pretty resounding answer.
Boom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
There you go ClydeR. It has been decided.
The 3 liberal women didn't dissent.. but they aren't happy with how they had to actually follow the law.
'It's not fair we had to follow the law and not our feelings!' -Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson.
Poor Nikki... that was her only chance to "win" Colorado.
Seran will be along shortly to cheer her on as if she actually accomplished something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Hey guys, remember when Seran said this after we saw & heard the argument and questioning from the justices? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The court said Congress will get to decide if Trump is eligible. If Trump happens to win a majority of the electoral votes, then Congress will probably vote on his eligibility in January.
One more:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I'm honestly shocked that MSNBC isn't calling for President Biden to nominate more Justices to the SCOTUS after this decision.
Sure it's early.. but even the dumbest among them knew this is how the decision would fall. This should have been queued up first thing!
Interesting theory. You must believe Elvis is still alive and well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
I started reading his posts.. but felt dumber when he referred to the "Untied States"Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Imagine getting that out of this decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Dumbass.
Go give yourself a decent cry.
They will absolutely lose their minds if SCOTUS decides a president (Trump in this case) has immunity from criminal prosecution when exercising official acts of duty. Now that one I’m not so sure how they will rule on that case, but they’re already pissed off beyond belief that they decided to hear it. It has fucked up their entire timetable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
One of the three was Justice Barrett, who is not liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
He's 88. At that age, not many people are well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
No, I specifically stated "3 liberal women".. did you not know there were 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Here, let me show you:
Justice Soyomayor
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...COTUS_robe.jpg
Justice Kagan
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...%282013%29.jpg
Justice Jackson
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-KBJackson.jpg
Hope that helps, dipshit.
Are you saying that every woman on the court disagreed with the way the men on the court reached their decision? It was girls vs. boys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Can you read, you fucking moron?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
No, no one said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Why are you this stupid? Did Seran hack your account today? Because you're being Seran level stupid today instead of ClydeR stupid, which is only like 70% of Seran stupid on an average day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
No. I literally stated (for the 3rd time now) that the 3 liberal Justices didn't want to go as far as the Majority went.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
How are you this fucking stupid? Which word confused you? I'm guessing it was "women"... given you can't define one and have never had any experience with one.
https://y.yarn.co/5e85db3b-6c73-4978...cc5b8_text.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
His mom still breastfeeds him, if that counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Or his "Dad"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Now that I've had time to read all three opinions issued by the Court today in the Trump eligibility case, I see this as very bad news for Republicans. All of the judges made crystal clear that they would not save the Republican Party from destroying itself tomorrow during the Super Tuesday primaries. Justice Barrett, however, wanted to leave open the possibility that the Court might step in later if Republicans do the unthinkable. And the "3 liberal women," as Certain People describe them, fully agreed, in their five-page separate opinion, with Justice Barrett's succinct one-page opinion.
I still believe, as I predicted at the outset, that Congress will decide whether or not Trump is eligible, but only if Trump wins the general election.
Congress already decided. He was impeached in the House but it failed in the Senate. He is eligible. I’m sorry that the D Party’s attempt to remove choice from the American people have failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
It's like you wanted to have a point with this post.. but as usual, failed miserably.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Did you have your good cry yet?
Fucking retard.
Holy shit, this is retarded AF.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Even the most liberal judges think you're retarded.
9-0 should tell you to sit down and shut the fuck up.
9 out of 9 Supreme Court justices want you to go eat a bag of dicks. Raw. With herpes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Any politician who is trying to circumvent the Supreme Court decision yesterday is literally trying to start an insurrection and should be removed from office and thrown in jail.
We have to destroy democracy in order to save democracy. - DemocratsQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Newt Gingrich on X @newtgingrich
The biggest meaning of the Supreme Court decision on Colorado is that by 9-0 the Justices concluded that the biggest threat to democracy was not Donald Trump it was the left. Properly driven this can become a major political definition for the rest of the campaign and proof positive that the threat from the left is so great even the liberal Justices voted to protect the American people's right to have candidates they choose.
Trump needs to pound this for the next 8 months.
Newt is one of the smartest politicians this country has seen in my lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
My favorite reaction so far is Jena Griswold (Colorado Secretary of State):Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I suppose the irony of her statement is lost on her.Quote:
"My larger reaction is disappointment," Griswold said on MSNBC. "I do believe that states should be able under our constitution to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists."
"Ultimately, this decision leaves open the door for Congress to act to pass authorizing legislation, but we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body," she added. "So ultimately, it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November."
Sounds like Seran, at least if Seran were capable of putting together a coherent sentence on his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Actual footage of Seran after reading her statement:
https://media1.tenor.com/m/P5_hF2Kzf...uhhuh-clap.gif
Let the cope begin!
Reuters headline:
Took them about 24 hours, but they found a way to twist this to their liking.Quote:
US Supreme Court ruling in Trump ballot case showed unanimity, not unity
https://i.yourimageshare.com/ZEHMOWC9BI.jpegQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Keeping Trump off ballots was 3/4th's of the Democrat playbook for 2024. They have absolutely nothing to run on and now Victoria Nuland just stepped down because, as some of us warned, Ukraine is a fucking quagmire that we have burned up a 100 billion on and there's no end in sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Some of the conservatives in this forum should have known better than to support US involvement in Ukraine with the US track record since Vietnam.
LOL... no idea who Harry is.. he looks like a high school kid? Let me guess... rich white family and he goes by the pronouns "they/them"? What a racist though.. much like most Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
I like to think of myself as a libertarian with conservative values as I don’t fit neatly into the box of politicaly conservative, especially on social issues, but to respond…Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
I was ok with the first 20-50 billion in aid to Ukraine and will stand by that. Our strategy initially was to make it difficult & costly for the Russians to achieve their objective, prevent Russia from steamrolling ALL of Ukraine, and make them think twice about any other aggressive expansion ideas especially with our NATO allies. In some sense we achieved that. My support for aiding Ukraine is not unlimited. If Europe wants to give more, they can. A big problem we have is there is no clear US strategic objective with Ukraine that I can ascertain. A peace should be negotiated as we’re in a prolonged stalemate. Ukraine doesn’t have the numbers to win, no matter how much military aid they receive. I do not support direct military intervention, which is the only hope for Ukraine to “win” this war.
I think my biggest issue with Ukraine funding is just how out of control it has gotten, and how obviously corrupt Ukraine has become about it all.
First it started out with military aid. Okay, sure. Next thing you know we are literally paying the salaries of their police and firefighters, then we are paying for the seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers. What? The US isn't even helping US farmers as much as they are helping Ukrainian farmers.
Then Zelenskyy has the brass balls to demand billions of dollars to fund their election, otherwise they just won't hold elections.
When did Ukraine become the 51st state of the US?
I was for it at the beginning when the invasion first happened.. but it's now nothing more than a slush pot for politicians to get more donations from the US war machine. It's gone on entirely too long because of our limp wristed policy and our inability to act quickly and decisively at the beginning. Zelensky going to each country to panhandle and somehow make this our problem is irritating and the American people have zero responsibility to keep throwing their money away so politicians and the US arms manufacturing CEOs can get their pockets lined by the blood of Ukrainian and Russian solders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The US taxpayers needs to take a good hard look at how our government spends our money.
If you, or the rest of you, have never read 1984 or it's been a while, I highly suggest this audiobook. Everyone, including the Seranites and Time4MaleBreastFeeders, need to listen or read it until you know it by heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
There's absolutely no reason anyone should have supported US involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Stop falling for their psyops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QLy4_2spkk&t=21602s
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
Well, you know, we kind of overthrew their government in 2014, have been laundering money through them for a long time, Trump wasn't having any of that crap but also Trump didn't tell them to invade. Biden got in, told them to invade and the massive money laundering is back in full swing. Sad as it is, sorry they got invaded, it would be good if Russia would get the major smackdown for invading people cause they have a penchant for but honestly, this is a European problem and they should be shouldering the bill.
When Winston starts reading the brotherhood book it all becomes crystal clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Simply put, if you're not voting for Trump in 2024, you're a complete fucking moron and deserve to live in the world of Oceania.
I’ve read the book at least three times. 1984 is definitely in my top 10 best novels of all time. I’d place it behind Lord of the Flies & nothing beats Watership Down by Richard Adams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
While I love 1984, the one problem I have with it is humanity is totally fucked. If you are a 1984 guy and believe that is what awaits our dystopian future, there is no red pill wake up to change things moment. From beginning to end, there is not a shred of hope that Winston (or anyone) can actually make a meaningful difference. Perhaps it’s even true, but I can’t live that way.
Also, if you like 1984…I highly recommend “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
It’s about middle aged German men that agreed to do what they thought was a peacekeeping mission in Nazi occupied Poland. These men were not indoctrinated Nazis. They were just middle class ordinary people like you and me. When they get there they learn they have to exterminate 1500 Jews by shooting them at point blank range. They could opt out, but most did not because they didn’t want to further burden their fellow men in the police battalion. All the men got sick and turned to heavy drinking. Then every day after they had to kill hundreds or thousands of more Jews…men, women, and children. Over time it became easy & systematic to do that every day.
Anyways, it’s a fascinating exploration of human psychology & points to a sad truth that we’re all capable of normalizing unspeakable acts of evil.
I've never actually read this, but I do know a little about the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
That area of the world has been at war for thousands of years. It's not in Americas interest to be involved with Europe's conflicts. The American taxpayer has been bilked by European countries long enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Looks like Nikki Haley is suspending her campaign today at 10am.
She came to the same conclusion that everyone else came to a year and a half ago when President Trump declared himself a candidate.
Personally, I think she harmed the Nikki Haley brand.. same with DeSantis.
I tend to agree. As nasty as it sounds, we should let them and the Middle East pretty much alone. We buy oil, we don't need too, the rest of the world really does need to buy oil so let them deal with it. Also, for the most part, we should cut off all immigration from most of the rest of the world. Clean up your own mess, we need to stop footing the bill for your crap and stop wrecking our economy and bleeding our kids for that crap. Alternatly, we should go in full force and stay full on and take them over and be the imperialist nation people accuse us of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
But who will save our democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Sounds like she is trying to negotiate some role in the next Trump Administration. She won't endorse him until he "earns the support" of those who voted for her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
:jerkit:
So typical, in Nikki Haley fashion.. what's in it for her now?
Get the fuck off the stage. I really hope Trump doesn't select her for VP... she brings nothing to the table.
I really liked her as the UN Ambassador, but as a candidate for President.. she's was outted as nothing more than a swamp creature.
https://i.imgflip.com/7t37cs.gif
I don't think Nikki Haley has much room to demand much of anything at the moment. Trump is like 200 delegates away from winning the nomination outright.
I think she had more pull before Super Tuesday, but now she officially looks like the clown all rational people already knew she was.
Trump might offer her Secretary of Transportation or something just to get her to shut up and throw her support behind him, but I would be shocked if he offered her vice president.
Nikki is finished in the Republican Party. DeSantis may have tainted himself a little bit at most on the national stage, but he got out early enough when it was clear he had no shot of winning. On the contrary, Nikki committed political suicide. Most of the votes she received were from Democrats & Independents that are Never-Trumpers in open primaries. The overwhelming majority of those same people wouldn’t actually vote for her in a general election. She pulled a Liz Cheney. No way will Trump choose her as VP.
The best part about Nikki Haley's humiliation has got to be her boasting about winning DC.
Yes, Nikki, you got a whopping 1,274 votes in DC! You did it! You're going all the way to the White House!
Meanwhile Trump gets almost 1.1 million votes in California without even trying.
The most Google searched question in the last 24 hours:
Who the fuck is Jason Palmer?
:rofl:
My favorite was her getting 3rd in Iowa.. where she outspent every other candidate.. and getting on stage telling people it's now a 2 person race between her and Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Like what? Bitch, you got third place... go sit the fuck down.
I'm for Uncommitted in the Democrat Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
SeranQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
At this point she's not in it for votes. She's in it for the money, book deals, syndicated shows, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
She'll just go sit on the board of Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman and keep telling the US taxpayer we need to have conflicts all over the world to "safeguard Democracy".. while she rakes it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
This was a pretty rough week on our super sensitive Democrat posters.
And I'm here for it.
You know it's gotten bad when even time4girldicks hasn't shown up to tell us all how very very smart she is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
"80 years old is too old to hold office!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
also
"Work on the factory floor until your 75 before you get the money we forcefully took from you your entire life" ~ Nikki Haley
The messaging is so fucking bad.
Speaking of 1984.
NY is now deploying the National Guard to the NY subway system to "Check Bags"
Get out of the cities while you still can...
She would probably tell us that the 9-0 decision is complicated & nuanced. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Big Brother watching the NYC subways:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...AXAAAVMfz.jpeg
"I NEVER SAID THAT!" ~ Nikki HaleyQuote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
The factory worker, construction worker, dude throwing garbage all day, etc.....will never see their money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
They never want to talk about the 2 trillion dollars they "barrowed" from Social Security, can't even fathom how the American people ever let that happen, of course, it's not like we were really given a choice.
Just got around to reading the full story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
So in NYC, they won’t let private citizens conceal carry a firearm for personal protection (from thugs on the subway for example), but they deploy the National Guard to come in with actual assault rifles to have them perform full cavity searches on anyone that uses public transportation.
I don’t understand how or why New Yorkers tolerate this.
https://i.yourimageshare.com/LtrDRN90LY.webp
Do New Yorkers even realize that they have no one to blame but themselves for the shithole that NYC has become?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
This is what happens when you believe in the shit the Democrat Party is spouting.. like "sanctuary city", "Defund the police", "Cashless bail", etc...
It is pretty amazing.
These same people who claim to be triggered and suffer from PTSD if they see someone walking around with a pistol holstered to their waist seemingly have no problem with people literally carrying actual military grade weapons in the subway.
They let Trump out on cashless bail in all four of his criminal cases. Trump is out on bail right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Wrong. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
But Trump telling Democrat governors and mayors to request the National Guard to stop cities from burning in the Summer of Love 2020…well that’s just racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's because they're just really that stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
That's really all it is.
Yeah, but Seran also throughly enjoys government administering a full cavity search of his anus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
You never get tired of being lonely, cowardly or wrong.. do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
I can't wait for you to lose what's left of your mind in November.
How's that lead poisoning going?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
I hear Flint still doesn't have clean water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
It would appear you have first hand knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
Fail troll is fail. Troll harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Keep posting from your shitty phone, you edgelord. You are winning hearts and minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Uh okay. Hilarious you and PB are offended by thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Arqueto
Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk
Not offended by it at all. You want to do free advertising for a shitty phone company.. go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Most people have figured out how to stop doing this.. you can't.
I find it amusing that you somehow believe you are edgy with it... when the reality is you don't know how to stop doing it. This was obvious when you were "YOU WANT ME TO EDIT EVERY POST I MAKE!?!?!" comment.
sErAn would have the same problem, but he can't post using his government issued phone.
Retards need to tard. If it keeps you from eating your own boogers today, then it's worth it.