American Politics

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2922798]First, the Winger-owned Wall Street Jounal concocted a "report" about Joe Biden supposedly "slipping" mentally at a meeting that, no surprise, was comprised of known Repub liars' opinion and no truth-telling Dem opinion. Including one well-documented Repub former Squeaker of the House who was known to have made a similar public statement that he totally contradicted in private:

[B]The Wall Street Journals story about Bidens mental acuity suffers from glaring problems.
June 6, 2024[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/media/wall-street-journal-biden-mental-acuity/index.html[/URL]

Then, the Sinclair Winger Broadcast Group of local news outlets are caught repeating the Winger-owned WST bullshit "report" on their local outlets, which polls show viewers believe to be "more trustworthy" than the national outlets, apparently all reading from the exact same Winger script:

[B]Watch: Local Sinclair Anchors Read Same Shady Script on Bidens Age.
Local news anchors across the country are reading from the exact same script on Joe Biden.
June 11, 2024[/B]

[URL]https://newrepublic.com/post/182567/sinclair-right-wing-script-biden-age-local-news[/URL]
[/QUOTE]This post has not aged well. The investigative journalists at WSJ came out with a sequel, about foreign leaders who've noticed the decline in the President's mental acuity. Then there was the debate. Last night on CNN, Carl Bernstein, one of the Washington Post reporters who broke Watergate, reiterated what the WSJ wrote, and said journalists have known about it for a long while.

Why wasn't it reported? Why did they cover it up? Well, because they're mostly biased towards your side. Take a look at [URL]allsides.com[/URL]. They rank media from far left, which is assigned a value of -6, to far right, which is +6. Except for the Wall Street Journal, newspapers with large, nationwide circulation are rated around -2 to -2. 5. The Wall Street Journal, based on its news reporting (not its editorial page) is rated -0. 2. The Wall Street Journal, Fair and Balanced.

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. ".

How unfortunate that the opinion included the words "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution". Pardons, an official act, that would not be subjected to prosecutions, even if the pardon is criminal in nature. I fault the argument against absolute immunity for it didn't bring it closer to home to some of these justices. The example set out from Judge Pan at the appelate was what if a president order SEAL Team six to execute a rival. At the supreme court, I would have brought another example closer to home for the 9 justices. If a president suggested in a speech that someone should take out a justice or justices who are not "loyal to the American people" would be pardon. This example would have perked them up.

It's a shame that they decided for that possibility.

[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2927104]"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. ".

How unfortunate that the opinion included the words "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution". Pardons, an official act, that would not be subjected to prosecutions, even if the pardon is criminal in nature. I fault the argument against absolute immunity for it didn't bring it closer to home to some of these justices. The example set out from Judge Pan at the appelate was what if a president order SEAL Team six to execute a rival. At the supreme court, I would have brought another example closer to home for the 9 justices. If a president suggested in a speech that someone should take out a justice or justices who are not "loyal to the American people" would be pardon. This example would have perked them up.

It's a shame that they decided for that possibility.[/QUOTE]CM, I do not think you understand the decision. Obama famously droned and killed an American citizen without the due process of a trial. Do you think after the SCOTUS ruling Obama has immunity for that?

[QUOTE=TheCane;2926954]These right wing clowns don't seem to remember that you don't spike the ball until [B]after[/B] you've crossed the goal line![/QUOTE]This election odds were 59-36 in Trump's favor before the debate. It was Green Bay, who owns the Chicago Bears, versus the bears before the debate. Now we have learned that so much of the Bears team is sick that they may have to be substituted for, and the odds are 67-20 now. Or as permadouche Spidy / Joy would say of 67-20 odds, a coin flip.

As far as spiking the ball, why would I do that? You douches may think 2020 was the most fair election of all time, but we don't, and among one of the many reasons I think that is the Democratic primaries were rigged.

And in this Democratic primary season, we Republicans did not even have to say everything. You have RFK Jr, a life long Democrat, saying he has to run as an independent because the Democratic primaries are so rigged. In some states, ballots are printed with only Biden's name on them. This is the douche version of a fair election. RFK Jr. Is shouted down as some antivax loser by the leftie media instead of being beaten at the ballot box.

Now we get this Democratic panic when the MSM douches have a news flash. This just in. Biden is old. There are two Democrats pols the polls show have a shot at beating Trump, Michelle Obama, who does not want the nomination, and RFK Jr. You cannot make this shit up.

You douches were such chicken shits with RFK Jr. He could not even be on the ballot. He was anti-Fauci, anti-deep state, and anti-drug company, and the Dems could not have that. Hell, Dems are still suing RFK Jr. To keep him off the presidential ballot.

So if the election were tomorrow and were IMO shown to be fair, I would put every dime I had on Trump. But with the lawsuits, the cheating, the deep state with its assassins, and a potential health issue in the next four months given Trump's age, I think 67% is about right.

But I am not spiking the football when I think you douches have the refs paid off.

On the other hand, if you douches are so certain Biden is going to win, and he is getting 4-1 odds, why don't you shut up and bet on him instead of mouthing off on how he is going to win?

Yeah, I get it. That concept of risk and thinking for yourself and acting ion your own thoughts is too tough for you all. You have to be told what to do by the NYT and MSNBC.

The douche way of gambling is to go to the roulette wheel bet on green, wait for the ball to land on red, and say, "Why didn't the ball land on black? Racist much?" and suing the casino out of business.

[B]What happened to "free speech" in this case[/B]?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2926991]Did you google who infamously said Fuck the EU and what context it was in, and think about what point I was making in bringing in?[/QUOTE]I apologize Elvis. I did not google it. But do remember who said "Fuck the Police". It is still one of my favorite songs to this day. LOL! Caused a serious political uproar when it came out.

[URL]https://www.gq.com/story/nwa-fuck-the-police-live-detroit[/URL]

I think the President should be able to pull straight mafia gangster moves. If the President of the United States feels like it is the interest of the country to put a hit out on someone, that someone better run like a ***** cause he going to get hit. President has to be as powerful of the Kings of the world. MBS said: Hit him. The kings men got it done.

Don't fuck with me about morality. It is cruel world. I accepted a long time ago that if someone in the real world wants you dead, and they do not care if they get caught. Friends in family will miss you terriblely and think of your often.

[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2926512]And Cane asks me why I call you guys douches ...

...blah, blah, blah... [/QUOTE]

No big explanation needed, as I'm sure many an old biddy, has told Elvis 2008 over the years,
[b]"What an ugly [i]'potty mouth'[/i], you have!"[/b] (...kkkk!)

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2927077]This post has not aged well. The investigative journalists at WSJ came out with a sequel, about foreign leaders who've noticed the decline in the President's mental acuity. Then there was the debate. Last night on CNN, Carl Bernstein, one of the Washington Post reporters who broke Watergate, reiterated what the WSJ wrote, and said journalists have known about it for a long while.

Why wasn't it reported? Why did they cover it up? Well, because they're mostly biased towards your side. Take a look at [URL]allsides.com[/URL]. They rank media from far left, which is assigned a value of -6, to far right, which is +6. Except for the Wall Street Journal, newspapers with large, nationwide circulation are rated around -2 to -2. 5. The Wall Street Journal, based on its news reporting (not its editorial page) is rated -0. 2. The Wall Street Journal, Fair and Balanced.[/QUOTE]Oh, why be shy? There is a video clip of Bernstein on CNN that you could have posted.

This is the one below, right? He reports 2nd hand comments from other people "also of numerous inexplicable moments" of Biden "losing his train of thought and can't pick it up again" that ought to be looked into, perhaps by a doctor. I agree.

BTW, Bernstein does not use the words "Cognitive impairment", "Cognitive incapacity" or even "Cognitive decline", the latter of which would be expected for anyone over the age of 50 and still would not disqualify them for the job of President.

See, I thought you were being shy about providing the actual link because, being the well-known fair and unbiased "Bothsider / Neithersider" here, you did not want to show off those admirable traits by including the OTHER things Bernstein said he has been hearing about Joe Biden from those exact same people referenced above and more:

That [B]"No question about it, I have known for two years", that Biden is "GREAT when you see him. SHARP. Has an ABSOLUTE COMMAND of the facts, as SHARP as can be"[/B] in his detailed briefings on Ukraine and other presidential level topics. ".

[B]Bernstein says sources suggest concerns about Biden have been growing for a year.[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/video/carl-bernstein-biden-performance-presidential-debate-ac360-digvid[/URL]

Oh, look! CNN must also be shy about mentioning any of those OTHER things Bernstein said about Biden in the big bold headlines or in the body of the text in that report.

Why didn't CNN or you do that? Why, like you, did they cover it up? Well, because CNN, the template for Mainstream Media cable news, is mostly biased to your side, we can only suppose.

Meanwhile, I presume NOBODY told Bernstein for all four years of Trump's horrific presidency how "sharp" Trump was and had "an absolute command of the facts" at any presidential level meeting any more than any CEO did at the meeting Trump spoke at recently:

[B]CEOs at Trump meeting: Ex-president meandering and doesnt know what hes talking about[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/ceos-at-trump-meeting-not-impressed.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]

Interesting. It also appears NOBODY ever came out of a meeting with Joe Biden describing him as "meandering" and that he "didn't know what he is talking about. ".

Oh well.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2927165]No big explanation needed, as I'm sure many an old biddy, has told Elvis 2008 over the years,
[b]"What an ugly [i]'potty mouth'[/i], you have!"[/b] (...kkkk!)[/QUOTE]I wasn't "wondering" about anything. Not worth my time. He does what he does with that, and that's that, among other things. No explanation needed. Like with the rest of the "basket of deplorables" LMAO!

[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2927104]"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. ".

How unfortunate that the opinion included the words "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution". Pardons, an official act, that would not be subjected to prosecutions, even if the pardon is criminal in nature. I fault the argument against absolute immunity for it didn't bring it closer to home to some of these justices. The example set out from Judge Pan at the appelate was what if a president order SEAL Team six to execute a rival. At the supreme court, I would have brought another example closer to home for the 9 justices. If a president suggested in a speech that someone should take out a justice or justices who are not "loyal to the American people" would be pardon. This example would have perked them up.

It's a shame that they decided for that possibility.[/QUOTE]So, Biden can have DJT taken out if your worries are true-- And why wouldn't the people who have their hands up senile Joe's ass not have him do it? They seem to have no scruples.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2927121]CM, I do not think you understand the decision. Obama famously droned and killed an American citizen without the due process of a trial. Do you think after the SCOTUS ruling Obama has immunity for that?[/QUOTE]Yes, if Republicans want to prosecute Obama for killing Americans with drones, or Biden for involuntary manslaughter for rapes and murders committed by illegals, they're now shit out of luck.

Republicans and Democrats shouldn't be ecstatic or upset about the court decision. It's going to make it harder to prosecute a president for anything he does while in office that relates to his official duties, so there's less ability for one side to persecute an ex-president it doesn't like through the court system. That's better left to the ballot box, or perhaps the impeachment process IMHO. At the same time this doesn't let Trump off the hook for any unofficial act. And for that matter, for any acts unrelated to the president's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. ".

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2927188]Republicans and Democrats shouldn't be ecstatic or upset about the court decision. It's going to make it harder to prosecute a president for anything he does while in office that relates to his official duties, so there's less ability for one side to persecute an ex-president it doesn't like through the court system. That's better left to the ballot box, or perhaps the impeachment process IMHO. At the same time this doesn't let Trump off the hook for any unofficial act. And for that matter, for any acts unrelated to the president's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. ".[/QUOTE]This hits the nail on the head. All this drama and it being "a bad day for America". Give me a break. Presidents, and certain other officials, should have immunity for their official acts. Like you say, Trump isn't off the hook. It's just going to take a very long time to figure it out. That is, unless Trump wins. Then he will find ways to make much of it go away. And [B]that[/B] my friend [B]would[/B] be a bad day for America and the rest of the world.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2927188]Yes, if Republicans want to prosecute Obama for killing Americans with drones, or Biden for involuntary manslaughter for rapes and murders committed by illegals, they're now shit out of luck.[/QUOTE]No, a president is not allowed to violate the Constitution, and Obama violated the fourth amendment, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So a person has a right to be secure in their person.

In addition, you have the 8th amendment, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. It is kind of hard to argue killing someone is not cruel.

So the real issue comes down to prosecutorial discretion. Will the prosecutor get a conviction? And it is that conviction good for society? Given what we know, I think Obama broke the law, but I am not sure you are going to get a conviction if you use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2927188]It's going to make it harder to prosecute a president for anything he does while in office that relates to his official duties, so there's less ability for one side to persecute an ex-president it doesn't like through the court system. That's better left to the ballot box, or perhaps the impeachment process IMHO. At the same time this doesn't let Trump off the hook for any unofficial act. And for that matter, for any acts unrelated to the president's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. ".[/QUOTE]Well, given the impeachments, the idiocy of keeping Trump off the ballot, and now the bullshit trials in New York, the deep state and prosecutors needed to have a bright line drawn of what was and was not acceptable. The line had previously always been there until recently based on custom. Hopefully, now the Democrats will quit with this bullshit of beating Trump everywhere but the ballot box.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2927188]Yes, if Republicans want to prosecute Obama for killing Americans with drones, or Biden for involuntary manslaughter for rapes and murders committed by illegals, they're now shit out of luck.

Republicans and Democrats shouldn't be ecstatic or upset about the court decision. It's going to make it harder to prosecute a president for anything he does while in office that relates to his official duties, so there's less ability for one side to persecute an ex-president it doesn't like through the court system. That's better left to the ballot box, or perhaps the impeachment process IMHO. At the same time this doesn't let Trump off the hook for any unofficial act. And for that matter, for any acts unrelated to the president's "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. ".[/QUOTE]Glad you answer his question. But he still does not have reading comprehension on more than just the headlines.

In my example, it is about A President targeting Justices by egging on cult members (by proxy), and then pardoned them for a crime he couldn't commit himself, sort of like a mob boss with Supreme Court blessings.

His example is a complex situation of US Citizens in a foreign country with close proximity to an armed conflict area, with bad actors that the CIA and Military have to assess and make decisions to protect the country (judgement call), and with the final approval from the president. In this case, the president (Obama, as well as previous administrations) did not wake up one morning and decided without any input to target a civilian. That's why the ACLU sued "the government", which at the time Obama was the head of, and not the President himself. As the file stated; al-aulaqi-v-panetta, since he was the Secretary of Defense. Subsequentially, it was dismissed on 4-4-2014. The decision by Judge ROSEMARY M. COLLYER is at the bottom of the article that I linked for anyone who is curious.

[URL]https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens?redirect=targetedkillings[/URL]

Judge Marchan, the hand picked Democratic partisan hack, and now Alvin Bragg are squirming. After the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity, Trump's team filed a motion to dismiss the New York criminal case, and Bragg was fine with that motion being filed.

Then this so called Judge Merchan has vacated Donald Trump's July 11th sentencing date and will delay it until September 18th "if such is still necessary". When Trump issued payments to Cohen it was in 2017, but that had NOTHING to do with Trump's official duties being president.

However, now you have to define what the crime Trump supposedly committed and if it happened when he was president and if it was part of his presidential duties or not. Of course, they cannot do that because they never defined what the crime is. So now there is obvious grounds to throw the case out.

So Bragg and Merchan are going to use the SCOTUS ruling which really has zero to do with this case to worm their way out of sentencing Trump. Given that these two partisan asshats literally made up a law and used lawfare to try to rig a presidential election, I would put these two in jail for any made up crime for twenty years.

With Giuliani now being disbarred and Bannon being tossed in jail, there is not going to be any mercy like was shown with Hiliary. Fuck that! We Republicans need to pick out the worst of the worst and put these partisan dipshits like these two screaming "rule of law" away for a long, long time.

[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2927200]Glad you answer his question. But he still does not have reading comprehension on more than just the headlines.

In my example, it is about A President targeting Justices by egging on cult members (by proxy), and then pardoned them for a crime he couldn't commit himself, sort of like a mob boss with Supreme Court blessings.

His example is a complex situation of US Citizens in a foreign country with close proximity to an armed conflict area, with bad actors that the CIA and Military have to assess and make decisions to protect the country (judgement call), and with the final approval from the president. In this case, the president (Obama, as well as previous administrations) did not wake up one morning and decided without any input to target a civilian. That's why the ACLU sued "the government", which at the time Obama was the head of, and not the President himself. As the file stated; al-aulaqi-v-panetta, since he was the Secretary of Defense. Subsequentially, it was dismissed on 4-4-2014. The decision by Judge ROSEMARY M. COLLYER is at the bottom of the article that I linked for anyone who is curious.

[URL]https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens?redirect=targetedkillings[/URL][/QUOTE]Sotomayor's claim you repeated in your other post, that now the president can order Navy Seal Team 6 to take out a political rival, is hypothetical. It won't happen. She may be a supreme court justice, but I don't believe any president who did that would stay out of jail. Your situation, where a president eggs on supporters and they kill a Supreme Court justice, is hypothetical too. The Obama administration however actually did target Americans for extra-judicial killings. Good for the ACLU for taking up for the victims.

If esteemed board member Just TK and I were attorney generals, and if we were as aggressive as New York prosecutors about going after ex-presidents, we'd go after all of them, back to FDR at least. Certainly we'd throw Obama in jail for sanctioning the deaths of USA Citizens abroad. The Supreme Court decision protects ex-presidents from people like us, but who unlike us are in power.

Trump does deserve an ankle bracelet in my opinion. I don't think the Supreme Court decision will directly prevent him from getting one. Indirectly maybe, because this will further delay the Washington D. C. , Fulton County, Georgia and Florida cases. And if Trump is elected president, the two federal cases will go by the wayside, while Fulton County will have a snowball's chance in hell of enforcing judgement on the president. But if that happens, if Trump is elected, it was the will of the people. And I'm not sure that juries and judges should overrule the will of the people in this particular instance.

The press is preoccupied about what's going to happen if Trump is elected. You shouldn't worry. Trump's mostly bluster when he talks about retribution and the like, and American institutions, including the Supreme Court, wouldn't let him get away with it anyway. Just look what happened with all the election fraud cases filed by Giuliani et al in 2020 and 2021. Theoretically they could have gone to the Supreme Court and it could have ruled in Trump's favor. That didn't happen.