Okay, who goes to Camp David for "the talk"?

26,878 Views | 467 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Big C
WalterSobchak
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 1:14p, 7/1/24
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.

To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear

Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
3
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 1:18p, 7/1/24
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
Reply Quote
4
WalterSobchak
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 1:37p, 7/1/24
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.

To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear

Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
2
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 1:42p, 7/1/24
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
.

Wow, is this the first case you have read? You really think she was stating that presidents now have the green light to assassinate Supreme Court justices? No, genius. Her arguments followed her objection on the exclusion of use of evidence from official acts. And it is the lower court's determination on whether the act falls under a core duty, related official act or an official act.

Despite your misunderstanding, nothing in the opinion held conclusively that killing a supreme justice is absolutely immune. But start your civil war.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
WalterSobchak
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 1:44p, 7/1/24
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
.

Wow, is this the first case you have read? You really think she was stating that presidents now have the green light to assassinate Supreme Court justices? No, genius. Her arguments followed her object on the use of evidence from official acts. And it is the lower court's determination on whether the act falls under a core duty, related official act or an official act.

Despite your misunderstanding, nothing in the opinion held conclusively that killing a supreme justice is affirmative immune. But start your civil war.
Start my Civil War? You think I want Civil War? Jesus you are obtuse.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.

To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear

Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
3
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 1:45p, 7/1/24
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
.

Wow, is this the first case you have read? You really think she was stating that presidents now have the green light to assassinate Supreme Court justices? No, genius. Her arguments followed her object on the use of evidence from official acts. And it is the lower court's determination on whether the act falls under a core duty, related official act or an official act.

Despite your misunderstanding, nothing in the opinion held conclusively that killing a supreme justice is affirmative immune. But start your civil war.
Start my Civil War? You think I want Civil War? Jesus you are obtuse.


Apparently you think this case leads to a civil war. The only one whining about this are the liberals like you. So who is starting this civil war you are predicting?
Reply Quote
4
Edited by Staff
WalterSobchak
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 1:50p, 7/1/24
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
.

Wow, is this the first case you have read? You really think she was stating that presidents now have the green light to assassinate Supreme Court justices? No, genius. Her arguments followed her object on the use of evidence from official acts. And it is the lower court's determination on whether the act falls under a core duty, related official act or an official act.

Despite your misunderstanding, nothing in the opinion held conclusively that killing a supreme justice is affirmative immune. But start your civil war.
Start my Civil War? You think I want Civil War? Jesus you are obtuse.


Apparently you think this case leads to a civil war. The only one whining about this are the liberal loonies like you. So who is starting this civil war you are predicting?
My goodness. There is nothing good about this decision. SCOTUS has pressed the issue now. Someone will use it to overreach and the other side won't be happy. We're in prisoner's dilemma territory.
Please give to Cal Legends at https://calegends.com/calegendsdonate/donate-football/ and encourage everyone you know who loves Cal sports to do it too.

To be in the Top 1% of all NIL collectives we only need around 10% of alumni to give $300 per year. Please help spread the word. "If we don't broaden this base we're dead." - Sebastabear

Thanks for reading my sig! Please consider copying or adapting it and using it on all of your posts too. Go Bears!
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 1:52p, 7/1/24
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
Let's take this item based on a real event. In 2020 Trump bragged about being involved in the U.S. Marshalls executing what he considered to be an extrajudicial killing of antifa murder suspect Michael Reinohl. Here is what Trump said:
Quote:
"We sent in the US Marshals. Took 15 minutes (and) it was over. They knew who he was; they didn't want to arrest him, and in 15 minutes that ended,"
Here is Trump claiming to be involved in an illegal murder carried out by U.S. Marshalls. If what Trump said is true, how does the immunity issue stack up?
"They're eating the pets"
3 time Republican nominee for President
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 1:55p, 7/1/24
How many Middle Eastern weddings did Obama take out with drone attacks?
Reply Quote
3
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 1:58p, 7/1/24
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
.

Wow, is this the first case you have read? You really think she was stating that presidents now have the green light to assassinate Supreme Court justices? No, genius. Her arguments followed her object on the use of evidence from official acts. And it is the lower court's determination on whether the act falls under a core duty, related official act or an official act.

Despite your misunderstanding, nothing in the opinion held conclusively that killing a supreme justice is affirmative immune. But start your civil war.
Start my Civil War? You think I want Civil War? Jesus you are obtuse.


Apparently you think this case leads to a civil war. The only one whining about this are the liberal loonies like you. So who is starting this civil war you are predicting?
My goodness. There is nothing good about this decision. SCOTUS has pressed the issue now. Someone will use it to overreach and the other side won't be happy. We're in prisoner's dilemma territory.


You think there is nothing good because you are thinking in your exclusive prism of Trump as opposed to separation of power.

There is very little disagreement on whether a president should be immune for exercising his core duties. Even the dissenting justices agree. Where they disagree is whether discussions with DOJ on election is a core duty, and the dissenting justices took exception to what they viewed as expansion of what core duties is included in the constitution.

But the rationale for civil immunity in the Nixon case should clearly apply to criminal immunity since whatever chilling concerns the court believed in Nixon for civil liability would be even more amplified for criminal liabilities.

As Roberts indicated, this goes beyond just one president. This goes to the heart of separation of power and whether the courts or Congress can criminalize a president's actions taken in his official actions.

Since the staff are taking exception to this discussion, chill your hyperbole and discuss the actual holding without talking about some inevitable civil war that will come from this or whether there is free license for the executive branch to now execute justices. That kind of talk leads to even more nonsense.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
GoOskie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:16p, 7/1/24
I'm confused. From SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting:

"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today's decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now "lies about like a loaded weapon" for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one
day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

Does it not say what I think it says?

"...the President is now a king above the law." This is exactly what republicans want. An authoritarian.

Roberts wrote: "The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law."

trump, republicans and this court have been destroying both separation of powers and precedent for the last several years. This court is illegitimate.












Reply Quote
3
1 edit
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GoOskie • 3:30p, 7/1/24
The actual & real Democrat Lawfare - to file illegal, fradulent charges, and in some cases change state law specifically to go after the Outsider in the courts - is now being curtailed.

Trillions are at stake.
Reply Quote
4
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 3:48p, 7/1/24
tequila4kapp said:
Breitbart summarizing a NYTimes article claiming the family told Joe to stay in, and Hunter was the loudest voice

The explanation - his advisors over worked him in the lead up to the debate - is nonsensical. Do they not understand that's exactly the point - he is incapable of doing the job, either physically or mentally.


So, you'd rather have Trump, then?
Reply Quote
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 3:53p, 7/1/24
dajo9 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
calbear93 said:
WalterSobchak said:
Asked and answered.
If your answer is that you lack ability to actually read a Supreme Court opinion, yes, you definitely answered in the positive.
LOL. You literally failed to read all of the excerpts I provided and say I can't read.
Unlike you, I actually read the whole dissenting opinion. I think you missed the part (even though you highlighted it) where she writes that assassination of a political rival is not an official act benefitting from any type of immunity.

But it's OK. You seem to lack ability to get past your hysteria to think or read logically.
No genius, she hypothesizes that killing a political rival with a private hitman isn't official conduct but that killing a political rival with the military is. These are two different hypotheticals. She also points out that this decision "expands the concept of 'core constitutional powers,' ante, at 6, beyond any recognizable bounds." This "includes the President's broad duty to ' 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' ' among the core functions for which a former President supposedly enjoys absolute immunity. Where does this boundary lie? It ends wherever SCOTUS, however composed, says it ends.

I highlighted all of this for you. Good thing you know how to read LOL.
Let's take this item based on a real event. In 2020 Trump bragged about being involved in the U.S. Marshalls executing what he considered to be an extrajudicial killing of antifa murder suspect Michael Reinohl. Here is what Trump said:
Quote:
"We sent in the US Marshals. Took 15 minutes (and) it was over. They knew who he was; they didn't want to arrest him, and in 15 minutes that ended,"
Here is Trump claiming to be involved in an illegal murder carried out by U.S. Marshalls. If what Trump said is true, how does the immunity issue stack up?
I think a lower court would hold that this does not include a core duty or even an official duty.

Why?

Because the president is charged with upholding the constitution.

Taking life, liberty without due process is unconstitutional and, therefore, not within the scope of his presidency.

Just like agency liability. If an employee gets into a car accident while in the process of working, the company is liable. That was within the scope of his employment. Now, if that same employee chooses to run down MAGA voters, that would not be viewed as agency since killing voters is not within the scope of his employment.

I think Justice Barrett made that clear. If Trump interfered with state election tabulation, that is not within the scope of his duties or an official action since the state and not the president counts votes.
Reply Quote
1 edit
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 3:54p, 7/1/24
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 3:56p, 7/1/24
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WalterSobchak • 4:16p, 7/1/24
WalterSobchak said:
tequila4kapp said:
All the policy stuff is irrelevant. Both sides can argue their guy did good. It is a never ending cycle of politics.

Biden is not physically or mentally capable to handle the demands of the job. This was not just a bad debate night. We can go back almost to any point during his presidency and pick a point in time where he either was demonstrably more well than today - demonstrating the decline - or we can look to points in time where he was also showing signs of not being well. Remember, it was only 2 or 3 weeks ago where video evidence of this was present and the WH claimed the video was doctored. Again, the debate was not an isolated incident.

We have entered the zone of the movie Dave, where some inner circle is so partisan and so power hungry they keep a figurehead in place but run the country themselves. For the good of the country, this has to end. And it is also the humane thing to do for Biden himself. How disgusting is it to abuse an elderly person like this just for political power?

If people on the left are so power hungry and so afraid of Trump that they must win at any cost...fine. I kind of get that - most R's felt some version of the same thing with HRC. But beat Trump with someone else, someone who is capable of doing the job and doesn't put the nation at risk because of their lost faculties. If you really care about the institution of Democracy - as many of you claim - then fight for what is right.
Put the nation at risk?!? You've got some ****ing nerve. The nation is being systematically dismantled by Trump's court as we speak. Civil war is all but inevitable now.


Good thing I live in the boonies.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 4:21p, 7/1/24
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.
Reply Quote
1
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 4:34p, 7/1/24
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.

A lot of people are hoping that that DOESN'T turn out to be the question of 2024.
Reply Quote
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 5:30p, 7/1/24
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.


You sound like you are having another conversation with yourself. In case you are talking to me, I don't hate Biden enough to vote for Trump, and I don't hate Trump enough to not criticize Biden.
Reply Quote
2
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:46p, 7/1/24

Okay, I think most of us enjoy some fun digression now and then, but I'd like to nudge us back to the actual thread topic...

As prophesized, the President is holed up in Camp David as I write this (and do I reek of credibility, or is that Teen Spirit?)...

The question is, who are The Deciders in there with him? Well, we all know Dr, Biden is there and, frankly, when the President is 81 and somebody needs to yell, "Is there a doctor in the house?", you want that answer to be yes.

But who else is there? Well, my sources have tried to get as close to the main building as possible, but they keep getting shot at and poisoned by the Secret Service/FBI/Deep State, Still, they were there when a loooooong black SUV entered through the gates this morning and though all the windows were tinted (some illegally), certain individuals were plainly visible. I'm not gonna lie, if you compare this list to my OP, there are some mild surprises:

Taylor Swift (potentially controls more than 5 million swing-state voters, though 4.5 million have yet to register)
Hunter Biden (has been The Decider in the White House the past three years, so it makes sense)
Hillary Clinton (in a stylish athleisure pants suit!)
George Soros (obviously)
Sasha and Malia Obama (double proxy... what better way to get their feet wet in politics! Dad gets plausible deniability.)
Alec Baldwin (with his pistol,,, serving as unofficial sergeant-at-arms)
George Santos (representing the LGBTQIS+ community... claims to have always been a Democrat... true?)

Well, with this group, I can honestly say I have confidence that, one way or another, the right decision is going to be made!

That makes nine votes; the Supreme Court should have this much gravitas and distinction. Stay tuned...
Reply Quote
1
4 edits
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 6:36p, 7/1/24
Big C said:
As prophesized, the President is holed up in Camp David as I write this...
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 6:37p, 7/1/24
His sister.
Anita Mao Dunn.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 7:05p, 7/1/24
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.


You sound like you are having another conversation with yourself. In case you are talking to me, I don't hate Biden enough to vote for Trump, and I don't hate Trump enough to not criticize Biden.


So, forget about your opinion commentary. Who are you voting for, between the two?

It's tie 80M to 80M. You cast the deciding vote.
Reply Quote
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:08p, 7/1/24
Biden just used the White House for a campaign speech, a violation.
Reply Quote
3
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:09p, 7/1/24
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.


You sound like you are having another conversation with yourself. In case you are talking to me, I don't hate Biden enough to vote for Trump, and I don't hate Trump enough to not criticize Biden.


So, forget about your opinion commentary. Who are you voting for, between the two?

It's tie 80M to 80M. You cast the deciding vote.


That's not how we choose Presidents in this country. We don't have majority rule.
"They're eating the pets"
3 time Republican nominee for President
Reply Quote
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 7:10p, 7/1/24
movielover said:
Biden just used the White House for a campaign speech, a violation.


It was an official act. He's immune.
"They're eating the pets"
3 time Republican nominee for President
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 7:25p, 7/1/24
Big C said:

Okay, I think most of us enjoy some fun digression now and then, but I'd like to nudge us back to the actual thread topic...

As prophesized, the President is holed up in Camp David as I write this (and do I reek of credibility, or is that Teen Spirit?)...

The question is, who are The Deciders in there with him? Well, we all know Dr, Biden is there and, frankly, when the President is 81 and somebody needs to yell, "Is there a doctor in the house?", you want that answer to be yes.

But who else is there? Well, my sources have tried to get as close to the main building as possible, but they keep getting shot at and poisoned by the Secret Service/FBI/Deep State, Still, they were there when a loooooong black SUV entered through the gates this morning and though all the windows were tinted (some illegally), certain individuals were plainly visible. I'm not gonna lie, if you compare this list to my OP, there are some mild surprises:

Taylor Swift (potentially controls more than 5 million swing-state voters, though 4.5 million have yet to register)
Hunter Biden (has been The Decider in the White House the past three years, so it makes sense)
Hillary Clinton (in a stylish athleisure pants suit!)
George Soros (obviously)
Sasha and Malia Obama (double proxy... what better way to get their feet wet in politics! Dad gets plausible deniability.)
Alec Baldwin (with his pistol,,, serving as unofficial sergeant-at-arms)
George Santos (representing the LGBTQIS+ community... claims to have always been a Democrat... true?)

Well, with this group, I can honestly say I have confidence that, one way or another, the right decision is going to be made!

That makes nine votes; the Supreme Court should have this much gravitas and distiction. Stay tuned...


I propose you write the script for Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Hair
Reply Quote
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 7:25p, 7/1/24
Big C said:

But who else is there? .
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 7:28p, 7/1/24
dajo9 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.


You sound like you are having another conversation with yourself. In case you are talking to me, I don't hate Biden enough to vote for Trump, and I don't hate Trump enough to not criticize Biden.


So, forget about your opinion commentary. Who are you voting for, between the two?

It's tie 80M to 80M. You cast the deciding vote.


That's not how we choose Presidents in this country. We don't have majority rule.


I know why you refuse to answer.

Let's try again. The state you live in is the deciding state, like Florida in 2000.
And it's tied 5M to 5M. You have the deciding vote.

Okay, go ahead, give another excuse. "That's illogical, how could I know it was tied?"
Reply Quote
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bear2034 • 7:31p, 7/1/24

^ Regarding that SNL: we're in an existential crisis. I don't think this is any time to be cracking jokes.
Reply Quote
1 edit
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 7:33p, 7/1/24
My condolences.
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 8:00p, 7/1/24
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.


You sound like you are having another conversation with yourself. In case you are talking to me, I don't hate Biden enough to vote for Trump, and I don't hate Trump enough to not criticize Biden.


So, forget about your opinion commentary. Who are you voting for, between the two?

It's tie 80M to 80M. You cast the deciding vote.


Biden
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 8:01p, 7/1/24
dajo9 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
oski003 said:
concordtom said:
tequila4kapp said:
The guy has dementia right now. He shouldn't be president TODAY, much less the nominee. My gawd, how ****ing partisan can people be? This is wrong on so many levels.


So, you'd rather have Trump be president??


I will take Trump Whataboutism for $500 Alex.


How about we try to find common ground.

Biden is too old. Yes? Okay, we agree.

Trump is a ****ing monster who is ruining this country. Yes? Okay we agree.

If it's therefore a choice between too old and a ducking monster, who do you choose?

That's not whataboutism, it's THE question of 2024. Don't evade it.


You sound like you are having another conversation with yourself. In case you are talking to me, I don't hate Biden enough to vote for Trump, and I don't hate Trump enough to not criticize Biden.


So, forget about your opinion commentary. Who are you voting for, between the two?

It's tie 80M to 80M. You cast the deciding vote.


That's not how we choose Presidents in this country. We don't have majority rule.


Adorable. Zomg.
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16p, 7/1/24
Oh boy. Sac State alum infiltrates call. Imagine what Putin & Xi are up to.

BREITBART: Trump Campaign Spokesman Infiltrates Biden-Harris Campaign Call: 'They Have Given Up'






Reply Quote
2
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.