What Orwell said can apply to government as a whole. The two parties aren't unique in this country. Same end game, just different priorities.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
That's not how it works. You can't just give it to someone else.
I didn't say that. I said that was a report out.
According to the report, since she is on the ticket, she'd get the cash on hand.
Last edited:
The report is wrong unless they are talking about an outside group that can spend the money for any candidate. Any money that was donated to Biden for president has to be spent on Biden. I guess maybe Biden could have written in some kind of loophole that would allow him to spend it on another person, but I've never heard of that happening.
Dems will screw up the game of politics somehow. They are happy to be career politicians and happy to preach about ideals, but just aren't good at the game.
For pres they just need to focus on swing states. There are enough never-Trumpers who will vote for anything with a pulse other than Trump, that a Josh Shapiro or G Whitmer or similar could help swing the swing states.
I understand there are down-ballot repercussions if you chose someone that could be hated by certain demographics, but i think that's a secondary concern.
Edit - Trump is a unifying factor, but otherwise there just aren't enough common bonds across all the non-conservatives
For pres they just need to focus on swing states. There are enough never-Trumpers who will vote for anything with a pulse other than Trump, that a Josh Shapiro or G Whitmer or similar could help swing the swing states.
I understand there are down-ballot repercussions if you chose someone that could be hated by certain demographics, but i think that's a secondary concern.
Edit - Trump is a unifying factor, but otherwise there just aren't enough common bonds across all the non-conservatives
in other words, if you would vote for Biden over Trump, you would vote for anyone or thing exhibiting signs of life. Where is @prlyles to confirm this.
We all should be bent IF the supreme court is polarized.
The problem for you and Justice Sotomayor is that the people that Biden would hypothetically order to do something support Trump. Lol.
from an NBC link...
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday raised the bar for
in limbo terms, does this mean DJT can walk under the bar now? Har har.
LMAO.
And they say Trump is the snake oil salesman. They so blind out here in the skreets.
I'm worried about @prlyles. Haven't seen him here and he hasn't posted to the 'Wordle' board in some days now. Welfare check you think? He always seemed to be near the edge over Trump.
How is this a measure of anything?
And before you reply, you should know that your biblical level opinion known as Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision.
In all seriousness, what specifically about this decision isn't appropriate (other than it doesn't automatically get trump). How could a president, regardless of party, do their job if they were subject to prosecution simply for carrying out their official duties? Other than Joe's defense of being too far gone to be prosecuted, why would anyone even want to be president if the next people through just got to prosecute her/him for carrying out their responsibilities?
Now before you or others go off on a bunch of exaggerated examples, just remember that this has been kicked back to the lower court for determination as to what is or isn't official duties. He may still yet be prosecuted.
What duties did you have in mind? Maybe orchestrating a coup to overthrow our government?
Like the court which they over-ruled to hear this "nobody is above the law" case in the first place? Not so helpful if the appeal can get back into the hands of Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch.
Roberts gave zero examples of official vs unofficial, meaning it can always be appealed back up to him, and he can rule depending on his whims (spare me the original / text at this point)
Last edited:
I don't care about Trump's prosecution in regard to the election - I want him on the ballot. (so in that regard the 4 month delay due to scotus making this ruling isn't so bad).
There are a lot of confused people out there. On both sides.
I'll start with the Democrats: The left-wing media and pundits can quit discussing the likelihood/benefit of Joe Biden dropping out of the race. It's not going to happen. Nor should it happen. He beat Donald Trump once and he's about to do it again. A whole lot of Republicans went to church yesterday and prayed to God for Biden to back out of the race.
Now for the Republicans: Many are jumping for joy after today's ruling, and as for all of the outstanding charges against Trump they have cause to celebrate. However, for all those voters on the fence who are weary of what Trump has already declared he will do during a second term, most of them likely just shit themselves over the prospect of even fewer limits on this supposed dictator in chief. Just like the controversial Roe ruling that happened before the 2022 midterm election, this will backfire for the MAGA crowd.
I'll start with the Democrats: The left-wing media and pundits can quit discussing the likelihood/benefit of Joe Biden dropping out of the race. It's not going to happen. Nor should it happen. He beat Donald Trump once and he's about to do it again. A whole lot of Republicans went to church yesterday and prayed to God for Biden to back out of the race.
Now for the Republicans: Many are jumping for joy after today's ruling, and as for all of the outstanding charges against Trump they have cause to celebrate. However, for all those voters on the fence who are weary of what Trump has already declared he will do during a second term, most of them likely just shit themselves over the prospect of even fewer limits on this supposed dictator in chief. Just like the controversial Roe ruling that happened before the 2022 midterm election, this will backfire for the MAGA crowd.
I'm the one exaggerating? What charges against trump have been exaggerated?
The hiding/obstructing of classified docs? He admitted to that.
The pressuring of people to find votes? His voice and those words are recorded.
Maybe you feel the "conspiracy to defraud the United States" and "conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" are not warranted, but don't forget a massive problem (a crime) happened that day and a GRAND jury thinks Trump's culpability needs to be weighed.
Hell, even Mitch McConnell said trump was culpable. While voting to acquit the impeachment he said
There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said. “The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”
Last edited:
I don't think so. Roe's implications are black & white. Trump vs US is more theoretical. The things below are huge, i don't want Biden to have this power, but general public won't get it.
“And the parties and the district court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the president or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial,” Roberts wrote.
So you have to dismiss the letters Jeffrey Clark wrote regarding Fake Elector schemes (and the falsely declaring that the DOJ was concerned about rampant voter fraud). We know this happened... but it can't be weighed when judging offical vs unofficial.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” Roberts wrote.
So lower courts can't question motive, and pretty important evidence must be ignored when determining if acts were official vs unofficial. But you always appeal to $COTU$ if you have questions
Do you order your panties in extra large sizes or just go through a pair each time you sit down? This type of rhetoric just gets old.
In spite of your mini-series, the subpoenas, the sworn testimony, and the constant probing the last three years, your bigfoot hunters have never produced the smoking gun of this constant refrain. To the contrary, evidence has slowly leaked out (or been flat out destroyed, thank you very much J6 committee) that he didn't act in this fashion. The calls of being a buffoon, lack of action, poor response, obsessed with not letting the election results stand, etc. are all fair criticisms, but the promised evidence of organization, planning, contact with the white supremists, and so on are just another in a long line of hoaxes. Even the asswipe with the horns on his helmet was falsely maligned with this witch hunt. He did bad things and has been deservedly punished, but he wasn't the wildman he was portrayed to be before the actual video got leaked out. There was no orchestrating of any coup to overthrow our government and the longer you hold on to such fantasies only the deeper you'll be bitter and disappointed in the end.
You're right. The 7-2 vote of the Supreme Court in 1972 that created a constitutionally protected right to abortion out of thin air was very controversial. The shame is that it took them over 50 years to correct this legal travesty. Now, if you want to talk about abortion and how it should be approached politically going forward, have at it. BUT, you'll never be able to show us the words in the Constitution that establishes such a thing.
Thanks for doing exactly what I thought you would. You jumped in with both feet on the distraction and failed to answer the actual question. With your ability to constantly move the goalposts, I don't think even Justin Tucker could kick an extra point on you - and he's got the NFL record. You won't answer the question because you can't answer the question. The bottom line is they're right, but you're hurt because it applies to He Who Must Not Be Re-Elected. Go find your safe space.
EXACTLY! anyone paying attention would not be surprised by the ruling giving immunity for official acts. Without it As commander in chief a pres could be subject to a host of different indictments for military actions and so on. The question will be kicked back to lower courts to see whether or not the Jan 6 “stuff” would be considered an official act. The phone call to the ga gov and the fake elector scheme might be hard to frame as such. But tough to say what the parameters are. This will prob drag out in lower courts for a couple years.
Can you name an example of this in the past 230 yrs?
An example in the other direction:
"Richard Nixon would have had a pass," John Dean, Nixon's White House Counsel, said on a call with reporters Monday.
How'd they do their jobs the last 230 yrs? There is no such commentary on immunity for pres in the Constitution (where are my originalists).
See my post above regarding two pretty big problems.
oh wait, it was a GRAND jury? Well shit, why didn't you say so before?
Jesus, enough with the shrill chanting of the narrative. One entire case built on semantics. Finding votes is not creating votes. If votes were thought to have been miscounted...and Trump made it plain that that was his belief or at least the possibility that he was acting on...only the most dedicated of one-way windbags would insist on maintaining evil intent in a request to find them. Oh, the threat to our way of life. MASSIVE problem in these purposely misconstrued semantics, just massive.
In the other, an errant bookkeeping entry made possibly to hide a hush payment has to be distorted into an illegal campaign contribution, and that's the treasonous felony you keep screeching about because it's such a MASSIVE PROBLEM!!!! Felony, felony, felony. Oh the humanity. Oh, our democracy. Oh go fvck yourself.
But wait, that isn't all. There's that improper possession of documents thing. You know, the improper possession of documents that Biden was guiltier of than Trump, but who was let off the hook because in the meantime has become a sympathetic, doddering old fart who couldn't be convicted (reminiscent of Hillary's shamefully egregious escape from justice for DESTROYING subpoenaed evidence on similar grounds), and in spite of lying his ass off about it was deemed to be more 'cooperative'...so only Trump remains on the hook for essentially identical offenses. Did I mention go fvck yourself? Annoyance with this mindless bullshit has long ago turned into disgust with its endless repetition.
c'mon man. Don't let simple facts get in the way of an opportunity to whine like a little girl.
So in 32 non-unanimous rulings, only about 1/3 were divided strictly along “liberal/conservative” lines. That hardly sounds like a very biased court. If the ratio of liberally appointed justices to conservatively appointed justices was reversed, I think we would have seen a much larger number of 6-3 rulings. Dims fanatically toe the party line.
and then shooting him on 5th avenue…even then, maybe not enough.
so one talking head made it sound like they are naturally hers…maybe he meant in a traditional sense.
Similar threads
