Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cult of Donald Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Wonderful Plans View Post
    I don't allude to anything, what I say should be taken at face value. Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't claim any of those things.

    I already wrote my position clearly, "I'm not questioning these accusations. I'm not following the case and don't really know much at all about what Trump is up against." And as such, none of my comments can be attributed to being opinions on the trial.
    So you are ok with supporting Trumpkin from any and all criminal liability because "he's got balls" but have no opinion on his impeachment?

    One question my friend - for I bear you no grudge or ill will - could a female President (or Prime Minister even in another country) have "balls" if she did the opposite in regard to executive orders and for example legalised abortion in all states and opened welcome centers for migrants? Would it be "having balls" for her attempt bribery of a foreign country for her own good or is it only A. Male Presidents or B. Those you agree with who can "have balls"?

    Full disclosure; you possibly don't know that I am female so I would hate to feel that I have misled you.
    Last edited by snapper; 22 Jan 20,, 01:20.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
      1. It shouldn't even be necessary, given the wording of the law.
      2. There are multiple court rulings, but...
      3. It's been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

      But, again, the argument of Trump all along is that he's immune from prosecution in the first place.
      Still doesn't make sense to me. This should not have gone to the SCOTUS. The President is not above the law.

      Why has this not been struck down in Lower Courts and prevented from going all the way to the SCOTUS? Congress should have had the Returns by now.

      In any case, the point is mute. The Democrats have their impeachment. I don't see them wasting effort in trying for a 2nd impeachment.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        What exactly don't you buy?

        That such a claim is lawful? Well, I don't buy it either because it isn't lawful.
        The claim your president has complete immunity from prosecution. We are in agreement then.

        "Our guys"? Who are "our guys" that will ensure that this never happens? "Passing a law"? The law is already passed: The President is not immune from prosecution, the President is not a King, full stop. But that is what Trump's lawyers are arguing.
        Your judges have the final say


        Trump's lawyers say you're completely wrong. And it's not an insinuation at all. They've declared it, in clear and unequivocal language. I've posted their words and the relevant links multiple times on the board, including in this thread. Bolded it, even.
        We need more tests then. They're claiming victory without a battle. What is the proof of their assertions

        Does this claim by Trump give you have a better understanding of why this man is so dangerous to the United States?
        Politicians are known to talk out their sides. Every where.

        He's grandstanding : )

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          Can you challenge what i said ? otherwise the phrase is bunk

          You're unaware this nonsense was said quite frequently in India since 2014

          I called it out early only the very ignorant repeat it these days, ones on the left who won't be told otherwise

          Not into fear mongering, prefer fear bashing
          Did you read the essay? Yes or no? It is that simple.

          Well, that simple for most except you. I'm pretty sure you have zero clue about it as usual given that your response bears no relationship to the essay.

          As, I said, dismissed.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
            Did you read the essay? Yes or no? It is that simple.

            Well, that simple for most except you. I'm pretty sure you have zero clue about it as usual given that your response bears no relationship to the essay.

            As, I said, dismissed.
            So no challenge then ?

            After i trashed that article why do i need to read any essay

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
              Still doesn't make sense to me. This should not have gone to the SCOTUS. The President is not above the law.

              Why has this not been struck down in Lower Courts and prevented from going all the way to the SCOTUS? Congress should have had the Returns by now.

              In any case, the point is mute. The Democrats have their impeachment. I don't see them wasting effort in trying for a 2nd impeachment.
              They probably already have them. If they don't got an I.R.S. insider already sneaking records out then what kind of spies are they really? No, they must acquire those records through the proper channels in order to use them in court, but rest assured, they already got 'em.
              Hit the grape lethally.

              Comment


              • #52
                Here's the plan.
                Congress demands the tax returns.
                If the Executive Branch refuses, Congress impeaches the President.

                How's that sound?
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  Trump's lawyers say you're completely wrong. And it's not an insinuation at all. They've declared it, in clear and unequivocal language. I've posted their words and the relevant links multiple times on the board, including in this thread. Bolded it, even.

                  Does this claim by Trump give you have a better understanding of why this man is so dangerous to the United States?

                  President Trump Doesn't Need To Release His Tax Returns — For Now | NPR | Oct 07 2019


                  A federal appeals court has granted President Trump a temporary stay of decision, and he will not have to turn over his tax returns to the Manhattan district attorney.

                  Earlier on Monday, a federal judge in New York ruled that Trump's longtime accounting firm must turn over eight years of tax returns as part of a criminal probe of his business dealings. The president's personal attorneys immediately filed a notice of appeal.
                  Temporary

                  Just one word in my defense


                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  "Our guys"? Who are "our guys" that will ensure that this never happens? "Passing a law"? The law is already passed: The President is not immune from prosecution, the President is not a King, full stop. But that is what Trump's lawyers are arguing.
                  I mean something more basic. Want to stand for office then present your tax returns

                  California enacted a law to require presidential candidates to disclose their taxes if they wanted to be on the state's primary ballot, but a federal judge blocked the law.
                  Sounds like a reasonable requirement to stand for office but it was blocked. Means you're not supposed to have such a law. Why ?

                  Maybe its to prevent frivolous cases being filed with the express intent to block candidates from running for office.

                  Most people find this bit bewildering.

                  How can some one who wants to stand for office not have to prove they pay their taxes.
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jan 20,, 13:29.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Pak foreign minister Qureshi says Trump will visit Pakistan 'soon'; US President skirts question

                    Nowhere to post this gents. Trump is so.....so very inconsistent. Nobody told him, he won't get an inch on Kashmir from India, always speaking like a fool. Sometimes Pakistan is good, sometimes very good, and sometimes Paks take billions in aid. What kind of shit does he smoke. Trump will end up alienating India, and then it will take another 20 years for mutual trust to set in. Batshit crazy.

                    Indian response - No scope for third party mediation on Kashmir: Govt sources after Trump's fresh offer for help

                    It has been India's position since Day # 1. What is it that people, countries and leaders don't understand?
                    Last edited by Oracle; 22 Jan 20,, 16:55.
                    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Temporary

                      Just one word in my defense
                      Temporary until the Trump-packed and conservative-dominated Supreme Court votes on it. This will hinge entirely on Chief Justice Roberts deciding if the President is a monarch accountable to no one, or if he is indeed the constitutionally-bound president of a representative democracy, required to adhere to the rule of law.

                      It will literally come down to one man's interpretation of Donald Trump's dictatorial fantasies.

                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      I mean something more basic. Want to stand for office then present your tax returns
                      I would like that as well. Won't happen as long as Trump and the GOP are able to stop it. Because they absolutely will.

                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Sounds like a reasonable requirement to stand for office but it was blocked. Means you're not supposed to have such a law. Why ?
                      No, it does not mean that "we're not supposed to have such a law". It means that that particular court ruled as such.

                      The courts have also ruled that "the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free"

                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Maybe its to prevent frivolous cases being filed with the express intent to block candidates from running for office.
                      It is struck down as unconstitutional, meaning that it was not part of the requirements laid out in Constitution, which do not include "turn over your tax returns" before you can run for President.

                      But again, the Constitution has also stated that Congress shall not pass any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States (prior to 1808).

                      So, the whole point is, what is actually needed is a Constitutional amendment. Which is, as stated, a pipe dream.

                      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      How can some one who wants to stand for office not have to prove they pay their taxes.
                      See above. Until a constitutional amendment is made and ratified, you can run for president even if you're an incurable tax cheat and until you somehow get caught, you'll stay in office. So make damn sure you do everything you possibly can to keep your returns out of the "wrong" hands.
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                        Still doesn't make sense to me. This should not have gone to the SCOTUS. The President is not above the law.

                        Why has this not been struck down in Lower Courts and prevented from going all the way to the SCOTUS? Congress should have had the Returns by now.
                        Sir, now you know exactly why I, and the majority of this country, are absolutely appalled at this man and what he has done to the once-sacred institutions of this country. (Or what people like surfgun like to casually dismiss as "TDS")

                        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                        In any case, the point is mute. The Democrats have their impeachment. I don't see them wasting effort in trying for a 2nd impeachment.
                        And the Trump will have his acquittal. Which he will proclaim is an exoneration. And use that new immunity to further shred this country from one end to the other, all to satisfy his sewage dump of an ego.
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

                          Politicians are known to talk out their sides. Every where.

                          He's grandstanding : )
                          No DE, this is not grandstanding. This is not "talking out of his sides". This is not fear-mongering. This is not a interpretation by the mainstream press. This is not the Democrats accusing him of anointing himself as king.

                          This is an actual legal defense, made by Trump and his lawyers, in multiple courts of law, that has now reached the highest court in the land.

                          Do you see now why the situation is so serious?
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                            Sir, now you know exactly why I, and the majority of this country, are absolutely appalled at this man and what he has done to the once-sacred institutions of this country.
                            My question is why haven't these sacred instiutions struck back? McCarthy was held back by these institutions. They should have done the same to Trump.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              My question is why haven't these sacred instiutions struck back?

                              These institutions are sacred only so long as the party in power believes in them, and defends them.

                              Look at who the party in power is. There will be your answer.

                              Look at the Impeachment Vote in the House. There will be your answer.

                              Look at the votes in the Senate trial yesterday to subpoena witnesses from the Executive Branch to be heard at the beginning of the trial. There will your answer.

                              See the title of this thread. There will be your answer.
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                political incentives have changed.

                                sorting within districts as well as gerrymandering have produced political incentives that highly, highly discourage political independence...at least for Republicans. Dems are more flexible in that regard.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X