American Politics

[QUOTE=TheCane;2928134]Let me get this straight. You think that if down the line another president invokes immunity for official acts, then the Supreme Court will say, "Sorry, that only applies to Donald Trump". That's not just being blind on your part. That's just plain ignorant! I'm no fan of this court, but that kind of thinking is just pure, adulterated, shortsighted, partisanship. As I responded to Checkmate, things don't remain static over time. Times are a changing, and the presence of Donald Trump forced some kind of decision on the matter. There was no Chump two centuries ago doing what he did! But here he is here now. The Supreme Court made the right decision on the matter. I just wish they had the cajones to say more about what's an "official act" and what isn't.[/QUOTE]

Supreme Court doesn't or should't prescribe what is or isn't "official acts". It was left to the legislative branch to put in place the language, and interpretation up to the Supreme Court. Lower courts will do that and in many cases the Supreme Court (textualists) will say it doesn't say that in the Constitution, reversed. Unfortunately, legislative branch don't write enough laws to close out these loopholes within the law structure and we always get the same case over and over again relitigated.

In an ideal US, the SC would make a ruling that is against something not on the books, but majority want it. Legislative branch then create a new law to address that, and voila, problem solved.

Case in point: ROE V Wade deals with the 14th Amendment. So one court will say that 14th addresses this, and another does not. And back and forth we go. Easily addressed if legislative wanted to solve it, but they don't. It allows them to continue to debate this and make it a continual issue for their side to remain in power.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2927974]Those were fantastic links proving your side. Thanks for that. Oh. No links? No proof for your side? Oops. Nevermind.

How about this shaky source link:

[B]US violent crime decreased in 2023, continuing to reverse pandemic-era spike, FBI data shows.
March 20, 2024[/B] Thanks, Joe.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Spidy;2927982]Yes, quite right!

I applaud your due diligence in your response, but can you really teach an old (Repub) dog, to get new tricks? Or new tropes for that matter?

[/QUOTE]Yawn! Jesus, don't you two douches know by now I don't lie you two do?

[URL]https://www.nssf.org/articles/america-has-a-crime-reporting-problem/[/URL]#text=Tracking%20 crime%20 statistics%20%E2%80%93%20 and%20 more, crime%20 statistics%20 to%20 the%20 FBI.

Just 24 percent of New York's police departments sent their crime data to the FBI. That's a failing grade in anyone's book. That includes New York City's Police Department, along with neighboring Suffolk, Nassau and Westchester County police. Just 141 of the 583 New York police agencies reported data in 2022.

Pennsylvania was worse, with just nine percent of police departments reporting crime data to the FBI. Only 126 of the 1,392 police agencies reported their statistics. Missing were Pittsburgh, Allentown and Scranton.

Maryland police agencies reported just 38 percent of the time, with 65 of the 170 police departments failing to send the FBI crucial crime data. Departments surrounding Washington, the. See. , which has been plagued by crime, didn't submit any data, including Anne Arundel County and Howard County near Baltimore. Other surrounding communities including Montgomery County and Prince George's County submitted just two months of data.

California came in with just 49 percent less than half of police agencies sending crime statistics to the FBI. The Marshall Project reported that 44 states and the District of Columbia had higher reporting rates than California. Only 356 of the 721 police agencies in the Golden State submitted crime data to the FBI. Missing from that list were reports from the LOS Angeles Police Department, LOS Angeles County Sheriff's Office, San Fransisco, San Jose, Oakland, Riverside, Sacramento County Sheriff's Office and both the San Bernadino County Sheriff's Office and Police Department.

Illinois crime data submitted to the FBI in 2022 was only slightly better, with 52 percent of police agencies reporting. There, 464 of the 885 law enforcement agencies submitted data. Chicago's Police Department fully reported but neighboring Lake County Sheriff's Office and Du Page County Sheriff's Office didn't report any data. Cook County Sheriff's Office reported just one month's worth of data.

New Jersey tied Illinois for percentage of law enforcement agencies reporting data at 52 percent. Just 301 of the 574 law enforcement agencies sent the FBI crime data for 2022. Paterson, Woodbridge, Edison, Clifton, Trenton and Camden Police Departments didn't send the FBI any crime data in 2022.

To be fair, the worst was Florida, with just eight percent of law enforcement agencies reporting their 2022 crime data to the FBI. That represents only 49 of the 633 police agencies in the Sunshine State. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Orange County Sheriff's Office and Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office didn't report any crime data to the FBI that year. Neither did Orlando's Police Department or Fort Lauderdale Police Department.

And now you two losers will do the never mind thing and pretend you two are not lying losers who are full of shit.

Thanks Joe? Here we go again with Loony Tooms lecturing us on the condition of the USA from Thailand. You are as big a liar as Biden is.

I am still waiting for the picture of the casino stub where you two lying FOS losers put money on Biden.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2928053]This must be evidence of the "genuinely dire consequences" that Disney lady has every reason to worry about if Trump wins a 2nd term:

[URL]https://youtu.be/gA_3AIdmmrs?si=65AhoUHyn5J8UjFZ[/URL]

Only someone suffering from senility and dementia could have that much trouble simply articulating what he reads from his notes or on a teleprompter.

As always, there is no Biden counterpart of that or any kind of serious cognitive impairment that is routinely exhibited by Trump.[/QUOTE]LOL. Republicans had a legitimate primary. If we felt Trump were not there mentally, he would not have been voted in. You douches let billionaires pick who was the nominee and they freaked out when they had been lied to. So Biden owns all the delegates and there is no way out. That is what you get when you do not have primary elections. If Biden's mental status were properly disclosed, RFK Jr. Probably would have won the nomination.

There are not scores of donors backing out of funding Trump, and every poll looks better and better for Trump. Casino odds look great, and all you got is the Alinsky bullshit where you attack where you are weak. Biden may be old but have you seen how Trump looks?

And crime is down? Yeah, okay, Loony Tooms.

[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2928163] It allows them to continue to debate this and make it a continual issue for their side to remain in power.[/QUOTE]LOL. Last I checked Biden is president and is a Democrat, so SCOTUS ruled for Biden? Unreal.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2927752]Right. God only knows how this little pathetic country has managed to get anything done for 2+ centuries without a presidential immunity. Gee, that was close.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2928151]In the previous post, I laid out a situation that a president can ask a person or group to assassinated a federal officer or group and promised to pardon the individual or group, and according to this decision, that would be legal because PARDON power is in the constitution as an official act. Would this not be considered Absolute? What the court failed to do, in my opinion, is to confirm that NOT ALL official acts (criminal acts) are immuned. I didn't argue that official acts shouldn't be immuned. I said that it is unfortunate that they allowed this POSSIBILITY to exist into the future, and let the future courts relitigate this issue. That was a hard decision that they didn't want to make. Unlike some, I may disagree with decisions made by the supreme court, but I will never say it is illegitimate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Spidy;2927820]Overall a good post on presidential immunity, much of it I've never disagreed with.

However, I think what your post failed to realize, state or mention, is the one distinction, [u]I clearly empathized[/u] in my post (see below and EihTooms' "tongue in cheek" post), was that, no matter which "KING" sits a top the throne at the White House, ultimately, said [i][b]"Kingly Powers"[/b] (aka. presidential immunity),[/i] won't be the same for a Dem vs. a Repub president, with a corrupt 2/3 conservative SCOTUS, that could and would preside and make these immunity decisions, as 2/3 conservative majority, for several decades to come.

Look, while Repubs would have you think, this ruling is no big deal, [i][b]"nothing to see here"[/b][/i]...it is every bit a huge deal. Just like the far reaching implications, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, by this very same corrupt 2/3 conservative SCOTUS (aka. MAGA 6), the immunity ruling decision, comes with its own set of far reaching implications.

And while the sky may not be falling...today, let's not get blinded or lulled by Repub rhetoric, and not see [i][b]"the bigger picture"[/b][/i] at work here. Again, think the overturning of Roe v. Wade!

With a fascist conservative doctrine like [b]"Project 2025"[/b], that seek to chip-away at our democracy, equalities and freedoms, it is very easy to think, that this type of decision, [b][i]"equally"[/i][/b] enables and supports immunity for a Dem president, as it does for Repub president.

When in reality (IMHO) nothing could be further from the truth. So given the fact, we have a corrupt 2/3 conservative SCOTUS (aka. MAGA 6) and they would have the final say, on what they feel, is and isn't immunity, for a president (supposedly, no matter the party affiliation)...doesn't really past the smell test, for me.[/QUOTE]

Another good post Cane:

[QUOTE=The Cane;2928134]Let me get this straight. You think that if down the line another president invokes immunity for official acts, then the Supreme Court will say, "Sorry, that only applies to Donald Trump". That's not just being blind on your part. That's just plain ignorant! I'm no fan of this court, but that kind of thinking is just pure, adulterated, shortsighted, partisanship. As I responded to Checkmate, things don't remain static over time. Times are a changing, and the presence of Donald Trump forced some kind of decision on the matter. There was no Chump two centuries ago doing what he did! But here he is here now. The Supreme Court made the right decision on the matter. I just wish they had the cajones to say more about what's an "official act" and what isn't.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Elvis 2008;2927970]To be fair, a more fair person like Tiny might say you, Tooms, and Xpartan are suffering from [b]cognitive dissonance[/b].[/QUOTE]

Gentlemen, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board's reply today to your concerns is better than anything I've written. Here are some excerpts,

[b] The Supreme Court Restrains Trump

Far from empowering a dictator, the Justices limited executive power. And Trumps ability to prosecute Biden.[/b]


[i]Sometimes we have to marvel at the [b]cognitive dissonance of our progressive friends. [/b] (Tiny's note: I prefer Partisan Democrat Friends to progressive friends. Unless its Cane, who should be referred to as a Democrat Friend.)

They shout with alarm that the Supreme Courts decision this week on presidential immunity has removed all legal restraints on a future Trump Presidency. Then they lambaste the Court for curbing the power of the executive branch. Who's on first?

The Justices ruled in Trump v. U.S. that a President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his core constitutional duties, and presumptive immunity for other official acts. But they also stressed that a President isnt shielded from prosecution for private actions. So Mr. Trump wouldn't be free to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.

[b]The Court merely extended its Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) precedent, which shielded a President from civil liability for official acts in order to protect against the chilling effect such exposure might have on the carrying out of his responsibilities, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. This will protect every President from partisan prosecutors, including Mr. Biden.

Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws), the Chief writes. An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad obstruction statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine.

The Courts ruling will prevent a future Trump Justice Department from seeking retribution against Mr. Biden by prosecuting him for, say, obstructing immigration enforcement or forgiving student debt.[/b][/i]

Here's what the editorial says about overturning the Chevron decision,

[i]Progressives rightly fret that Loper could put other Biden rules in legal jeopardy for instance, the Securities and Exchange Commissions climate disclosures and Food and Drug Administrations classification of lab-developed tests as medical devices. Regulators will now have a harder time stretching laws to expand their power.

This includes future Trump regulators. Judges will have more leeway to block Trump immigration actions. And Trump appointees will have a harder time rewriting the law without Congressional legislation, such as regulating the proxy advisory duopoly. This is a check on willful presidential power.

The demise of Chevron could even empower Democrats in Congress since a future Trump Administration would have to negotiate with them to pass legislation. Most of the Trump agenda cant be enacted by a Republican majority through budget reconciliation.

Jarkesy limits the enforcement power of agencies and will make it harder to target opponents. The ruling requires agencies to bring enforcement actions that involve private rights (e.g., fraud) and seek penalties in federal courts rather than their own administrative tribunals where they almost always prevail.

This will constrain the National Labor Relations Board, Federal Trade Commission and SEC, which have used administrative tribunals to rubber-stamp charges. Agencies will have to persuade juries in federal court and be subject to more legal discovery, which will make them less likely to abuse their power.[/i]

[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-donald-trump-presidency-immunity-administrative-state-joe-biden-3b7a0559?mod=opinion_lead_pos1[/url]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2928053]This must be evidence of the "genuinely dire consequences" that Disney lady has every reason to worry about if Trump wins a 2nd term:

[URL]https://youtu.be/gA_3AIdmmrs?si=65AhoUHyn5J8UjFZ[/URL]

Only someone suffering from senility and dementia could have that much trouble simply articulating what he reads from his notes or on a teleprompter.

As always, there is no Biden counterpart of that or any kind of serious cognitive impairment that is routinely exhibited by Trump.[/QUOTE]Haha! Good link Tooms, honestly.

Yes, no doubt if Trump wins the election, he may be in as sad of shape in 2029 when his second term ends as Biden is now.

In a closed meeting of the executive board, Elvis pointed out to me that there actually are some advantages to Trump's narcissism. Perhaps this is an example. If Trump follows the same path as Biden, then in 2028 he won't be all there. He's self confident enough though that he'll still call the shots to the extent that he can. Perhaps this means the federal government will be a little less effective than it would be otherwise, like when we have split government with both parties sharing power. That may mean the federal government has less opportunity to screw us over.

Biden on the other hand has shown he'll farm out policy to 30 something quasi socialists and neoconservatives. If Biden hadn't lost his mind, maybe he'd be more like the Senator Joe Biden of the 1980's, who worked to help pass the Reagan agenda. Unfortunately now he's just a figurehead.

[QUOTE=TheCane;2928134]Let me get this straight. You think that if down the line another president invokes immunity for official acts, then the Supreme Court will say, "Sorry, that only applies to Donald Trump". That's not just being blind on your part. That's just plain ignorant! I'm no fan of this court, but that kind of thinking is just pure, adulterated, shortsighted, partisanship. As I responded to Checkmate, things don't remain static over time. Times are a changing, and the presence of Donald Trump forced some kind of decision on the matter. There was no Chump two centuries ago doing what he did! But here he is here now. The Supreme Court made the right decision on the matter. I just wish they had the cajones to say more about what's an "official act" and what isn't.[/QUOTE][B]Bush v. Gore[/B]

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore[/URL]

[QUOTE][b]Limitation "to present circumstances"[/b]

Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic in the following sentence in the majority opinion: [b]"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." [/b]The Court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read too broadly,arguing that in the short time available it would be inappropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases, [b]stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[/b] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, several federal courts have cited it in election cases, as did a lawyer for a Republican congressional candidate during legal arguments coincident with the 2020 United States presidential election.
.........
Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz writes:

"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."[/QUOTE]A Repub MAGA 5+ has shown they are perfectly capable of blah blah blah-ing their way into a one-time-only carve out to benefit a fellow Repub MAGA whenever necessary in order to ensure typically historically disastrous across-the-board Repub economic, national security and now Constitutional results.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2927487]
Thank you, Elvis, for providing the perfect example of how your Trumpian Repub MAGA's Gish Gallop rhetorical chnique works even in text form.

[B]Gish gallop:[/B]

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2927769]See, now short and sweet bursts of Repub MAGA lies like that are manageable. Thanks for keeping it at a Gish Trot instead of a Gish Gallop:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheCane;2927562] But you can't because there aren't any. So you engage in this around and around "gish gallop" as Tooms puts it. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Spidy;2927940]I often love to the phase [i]"...great minds think a like, and weak minds seldom differ"[/i], knowing people will often lose sleep and struggle trying to figure out, of which "minds" they really are in the quote...but I digress.

Anywho, I couldn't help but fall outta my chair laughing when you both applied EihTooms' article on [i][b]"gish gallop"[/i][/b] to Elvis 2008, as that's who immediately came to mind (...kkkk!), when I initially read the article, that EihTooms posted (a few days ago), here:



Earlier I wanted to post, that the [i][b]"Gish Gallop"[/i][/b] article, sounded [u]eerily similar to a tactic employed by[/u] our resident QAnon/MAGA conspiracist, INCEL and misogynist, Elvis 2008, but you guys beat me to the punch!

Well, one thing is definitely clear, the upstart "Gish Gallop" fledgling, is just a chip off the ol' Trump "Gish Gallop daddy-block" (....kkkk!)[/QUOTE]Elvis doesn't Gish Gallop. He thinks out of the box. Trump does, but he's not an effective practitioner of the art because his misrepresentations are so ridiculous. As Sidney Powell's lawyers argued in Dominion Voting System's defamation case against her, many of Trump's lies are so ridiculous or so hyperbolic that no one takes them seriously.

So who's good at this? Well, Tooms could write a book, "The Art of the Gish Gallop. " His body of work about Republican Presidents and the economy is impressive. His recent arguments about how badly the economy fared in 2019, during the Trump presidency, was a Masterpiece of Gish Gallop. He's also effective at countering Gish Gallup. As he did when I attempted to engage in the art, to show that Democrat presidents are bloodthirsty because they sacrificed many more young American lives in foreign wars than did Republican presidents.

Thanks for teaching us a new word Tooms! And for teaching us how to use it! Just like The Donald created Trump University to teach about real estate, perhaps you should start Tooms University to teach Gish Gallop. Just make sure you actually teach people something or you may get sued like Trump.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2927970]I almost fell out of my chair thinking you and Loony Tooms think you have great minds. You two are certainly in line for Electroconvulsive therapy. You two have that in common. To be fair, a more fair person like Tiny might say you, Tooms, and Xpartan are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I must be like the great Carnac to read your mind when reading this story, [URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/political/disney-heiress-halts-donations-democrats-until-biden-replaced[/URL].

Disney heiress Abigail Disney told CNBC on Thursday, July 4, that she plans to stop making political donations to the Democratic Party until President Biden withdraws from the presidential race. She is among a growing number of Democrat donors who are pausing donations until Biden steps aside.

Disney continued, "If Biden does not step down the Democrats will lose. Of that I am absolutely certain. The consequences for the loss will be genuinely dire. ".

Who is this woman? Blah, Blah, Blah. Zero Hedge sucks. Blah, blah, blah. Bothsider. Blah, blah, blah.

That is why I call you guys douches. You attack anything and anyone who interferes with your delusional view of the world. But wait, the article gets worse:

Later in the day, Biden showcased his plummeting mental acuity, even though leftist corporate media outlets and those in the White House lied to the nation for years about the president's cognitive capacities. On Philadelphia's WURD radio, the president called himself the first black woman to serve in the White House.

And there is audio and even more.

NEW: Hollywood Democratic megadonor Ari Emanuel torches President Joe Biden.

"I talked to a bunch of big donors, and they're moving all their money to Congress and the Senate. ".

"he gave us a bunch of malarkey, and I'm really pissed. We all should be really pissed. ".

"he is not the candidate anymore. This is a legal issue now. You can no longer remove him in three swing states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. There's only one democratic congress. Michigan.

They have to vote to remove him. I don't believe the Republican party in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will do that. And, if they do, it's then Kamala Harris. This is legal, so lawyers will have to look at this.

Now, there are some questions about whether the delegates can do something. The lifeblood of a campaign is money, and maybe the only way this gets solved is if the money starts drying up.

It's a legal issue now. But we're in fuck city.

End of link.

So is the problem me and Trump? Because I do not see either of those donors mentioning us. Or is the problem Biden and your ridiculous Democratic douchery where you cannot tell a lie from the truth? Biden is just fine.

Quit your whining and insults, grab your balls, and go put everything you own on Biden. It is four to one odds. If you really believed in him, this is the deal of a lifetime.

Of course, you will not do so because Soy Boy, you are a wimp. Why are you concerned so much about abortion? A man like you, and man may be an exaggeration, must be so concerned about others because someone with your testosterone levels could not impregnate a woman, but I could be wrong.

Man up, Soy Boy, put that money down on Biden and prove me wrong and quit your whiny little douche insults.[/QUOTE]Abigail Disney is a piker. Tooms' real estate and mutual fund empire may be worth more than everything she's got. Her contributions to the Democratic Party will not be missed. They were a drop in the bucket.

Furthermore, she hasn't really done anything in her life except sit on her fat ass and support questionable causes. I don't like that, and it's partly why, unlike you, I don't like RFK, Jr. He's from the same mold, except he's not fat. I'm not sure what he's done besides living off of his Grand Daddy's money.

[B]Biden narrows Trumps lead in swing states after debate debacle: Survey.
July 6, 2024[/B]

[URL]https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4757918-joe-biden-donald-trump-swing-states-bloomberg-morning-consult-survey/[/URL]

[QUOTE]President Biden, the wake of a poor debate performance and growing calls for him to step aside, has narrowed Trumps lead in the key swing states, according to a new survey.

The Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll, published Saturday, showed Biden leading Trump in Michigan and Wisconsin. In Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina, the incumbent is now within the margin of error per the survey.

Overall, the poll found that Trump is leading Biden by only 2 percentage points across the seven states 47 percent to 45 percent. This is the closest Biden has been to overtaking Trump since Bloomberg started tracking the seven states last October.

The poll also showed Biden narrowed the gap with independent voters, with Trump and Biden being tied at 40 percent. In a previous poll, the former president led the incumbent 44 percent to 36 percent.

The widest gap between the presumptive party nominees came from the battleground state of Pennsylvania, Bidens home turf. The survey shows Trump received 51 percent of support from Keystone State voters, compared to Bidens 44 percent.

This was Bloombergs first poll after the June 28 debate, which was hosted by CNN moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. The presidents lackluster performance on stage where he stumbled over his words and had a raspy voice has raised concerns among Democrats about his ability to beat Trump in November or serve as president for another four years.

While the first 2024 presidential debate appeared to alarm some Democratic leaders, our surveys of swing-state for Bloomberg News show the matter has done little to change the underlying dynamics of the contest, Morning Consult US political consultant Eli Yokley wrote alongside the poll release.[/QUOTE]Additionally, RCP, 270 to Win and 538's No Toss-Up States EV Maps remain unchanged with the latter showing Biden now only behind Trump by a fraction of 1 percentage point in 2 of the 3 battleground states he needs to clinch 270 Electoral Votes, Wisconsin and Michegan, in the Consensus of Polls. Only Pennsylvania showing Biden behind Trump by as much as 3 points.

But that can be easily remedied by Biden if he campaigns there several more times in the next 3-4 months. At which point it will come down to Ground Game in PA as it likely would be today re WI and MI.

Clearly, many if not most poll respondents have not fallen for Mainstream Media's rush to aid Trump and his fellow Repubs' "confirmation bias" regarding Biden's obvious lack of cognitive impairment by his truthful and pertinent responses to the Presidential Debate Quiz Show questions vs Trump's pathetic evasion and repetition of outrageous lies.

So too will they not fall for that typically pro Repub MSM tactic with regard to Biden's 25 minute interview on ABC, where he had zero problem fully comprehending every word and subtexual implication of wily George Stephanopoulus' questions and had zero problem answering each one fully, completely and with facts, figures and data on his side. Something Trump has not only failed to do with any interview ever but he has gone into hiding to avoid showing up on the same show to face similar questions.

Biden's only evasion was, of course, a proper one; he is not about to set a precedent where presidential candidates are given cognitive tests. Ridiculous request. Besides, there are already 2 voluntary demands of presidential candidates to strengthen confidence in their determination to serve; submit their tax returns for the previous several years and disassociate themselves with any ongoing commercial business or investments, BOTH of which Trump failed to do.

The only difference between the perfectly lucid and cognitively competent Joe Biden of 4 or 15 years ago is he gets short of breath easier and his voice can sound tired.

No surprise considering this is now his 2nd time at work in the Executive Branch cleaning up the horrific mess of everything left behind by the outgoing Repub. That is exhausting. Not like the years of riding ponies, clearing brush down at the ranch and constant golfing incoming Repubs taking over from outgoing Dems can always enjoy.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2928171]Yawn! Jesus, don't you two douches know by now I don't lie you two do?

[URL]https://www.nssf.org/articles/america-has-a-crime-reporting-problem/[/URL]#text=Tracking%20 crime%20 statistics%20%E2%80%93%20 and%20 more, crime%20 statistics%20 to%20 the%20 FBI.

Just 24 percent of New York's police departments sent their crime data to the FBI. That's a failing grade in anyone's book. That includes New York City's Police Department, along with neighboring Suffolk, Nassau and Westchester County police. Just 141 of the 583 New York police agencies reported data in 2022.

Pennsylvania was worse, with just nine percent of police departments reporting crime data to the FBI. Only 126 of the 1,392 police agencies reported their statistics. Missing were Pittsburgh, Allentown and Scranton.

Maryland police agencies reported just 38 percent of the time, with 65 of the 170 police departments failing to send the FBI crucial crime data. Departments surrounding Washington, the. See. , which has been plagued by crime, didn't submit any data, including Anne Arundel County and Howard County near Baltimore. Other surrounding communities including Montgomery County and Prince George's County submitted just two months of data.

California came in with just 49 percent less than half of police agencies sending crime statistics to the FBI. The Marshall Project reported that 44 states and the District of Columbia had higher reporting rates than California. Only 356 of the 721 police agencies in the Golden State submitted crime data to the FBI. Missing from that list were reports from the LOS Angeles Police Department, LOS Angeles County Sheriff's Office, San Fransisco, San Jose, Oakland, Riverside, Sacramento County Sheriff's Office and both the San Bernadino County Sheriff's Office and Police Department.

Illinois crime data submitted to the FBI in 2022 was only slightly better, with 52 percent of police agencies reporting. There, 464 of the 885 law enforcement agencies submitted data. Chicago's Police Department fully reported but neighboring Lake County Sheriff's Office and Du Page County Sheriff's Office didn't report any data. Cook County Sheriff's Office reported just one month's worth of data.

New Jersey tied Illinois for percentage of law enforcement agencies reporting data at 52 percent. Just 301 of the 574 law enforcement agencies sent the FBI crime data for 2022. Paterson, Woodbridge, Edison, Clifton, Trenton and Camden Police Departments didn't send the FBI any crime data in 2022.

To be fair, the worst was Florida, with just eight percent of law enforcement agencies reporting their 2022 crime data to the FBI. That represents only 49 of the 633 police agencies in the Sunshine State. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Orange County Sheriff's Office and Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office didn't report any crime data to the FBI that year. Neither did Orlando's Police Department or Fort Lauderdale Police Department.

And now you two losers will do the never mind thing and pretend you two are not lying losers who are full of shit.

Thanks Joe? Here we go again with Loony Tooms lecturing us on the condition of the USA from Thailand. You are as big a liar as Biden is.

I am still waiting for the picture of the casino stub where you two lying FOS losers put money on Biden.[/QUOTE]LOL. My link was Fox News and you rejected it? Are you with numbskull mentally deranged Trump now in slamming Trump Media Central?

Your link was from a firearm association that I am sure is recommending every terrified American buy and hoard a dozen semi-automatic weapons to protect themselves from murderous woke drag queens.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2928207]Abigail Disney is a piker. Tooms' real estate and mutual fund empire may be worth more than everything she's got. Her contributions to the Democratic Party will not be missed. They were a drop in the bucket.

Furthermore, she hasn't really done anything in her life except sit on her fat ass and support questionable causes. I don't like that, and it's partly why, unlike you, I don't like RFK, Jr. He's from the same mold, except he's not fat. I'm not sure what he's done besides living off of his Grand Daddy's money.[/QUOTE]I've been reading the NYT since the 80's, this is clearly the best article I've ever seen them publish, it alone will have made this years subscription worth it.

And to think this great man once worked for the evil turd Romney, Allahu Akbar.

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/06/opinion/populism-power-elites-politics.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=TheCane;2928134]Let me get this straight. You think that if down the line another president invokes immunity for official acts, then the Supreme Court will say, "Sorry, that only applies to Donald Trump". That's not just being blind on your part. That's just plain ignorant! I'm no fan of this court, but that kind of thinking is just pure, adulterated, shortsighted, partisanship. As I responded to Checkmate, things don't remain static over time. Times are a changing, and the presence of Donald Trump forced some kind of decision on the matter. There was no Chump two centuries ago doing what he did! But here he is here now. The Supreme Court made the right decision on the matter. I just wish they had the cajones to say more about what's an "official act" and what isn't.[/QUOTE]Well, let me help you get it straight.

We're talking about the man who called for his supporters to attack the Capitol, who called brutal Putin's invasion of a another country "genius", who pledged -- if elected -- to go after his political enemies. This is the man, I'll remind you, who flooded the legal system with 60+ bogus lawsuits with zero merits, and now the highest court in the land is giving him a legal leg up? Really?

Tell you what. I don't care about "down the line". I'm not even sure that we'll still have the "down the line" if that fascist POS gets the second term. But if you believe that this lifeline thrown by 6 partisan judges was designed for some mythical "down-the-line" rather than to benefit THIS particular aforementioned fascist piece of shit, then I have a dozen of London bridges with all the trimmings to sell you for next to nothing.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2928209]
The only difference between the perfectly lucid and cognitively competent Joe Biden of 4 or 15 years ago is he gets short of breath easier and his voice can sound tired.[/QUOTE]If if people believed that, this race wouldn't be close. For goodness sake, Trump tried to steal a presidential election. He likes to grab women by the pussy. He fucked a porn star and regularly banged a Playboy Playmate while his wife was pregnant and nursing. He screwed his partners, his investors, his bondholders, his banks, and his suppliers before he became president. AND HE'S LEADING IN THE POLLS. Which goes to show what a suck ass candidate Biden is. The Democrats are running a human vegetable for President. Admittedly another problem for Biden is that Americans aren't stupid. They don't believe that Bidenomics was the greatest thing since sliced white bread.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2928258]If if people believed that, this race wouldn't be close. For goodness sake, Trump tried to steal a presidential election. He likes to grab women by the pussy. He fucked a porn star and regularly banged a Playboy Playmate while his wife was pregnant and nursing. He screwed his partners, his investors, his bondholders, his banks, and his suppliers before he became president. AND HE'S LEADING IN THE POLLS. Which goes to show what a suck ass candidate Biden is. The Democrats are running a human vegetable for President. Admittedly another problem for Biden is that Americans aren't stupid. They don't believe that Bidenomics was the greatest thing since sliced white bread.[/QUOTE]It has been close since long before the debate.

You are obviously discounting how stupid Repubs are to think Biden caused Trump's Pandemic global supply-chain closure global Inflation.

Not to mention Repubs have been enthusiastically voting en masse for horrific economic and national security Disasters for America for at least 100 years. Scandal, hypocrisy and "Once in 100 Years Disasters" are a plus in a Repub candidate, not a negative.

The same as it is for the Repubs' always reliable benefactors in Mainstream Media.

Do you honestly think the numbskulls in the polls and right here who think the unemployment rate is at a 50 year high, the econony has tanked, he Stock Market crashed this year, that crime is up and, yep, even that Biden is responsible for abolishing Roe v. Wade got to those idiotic conclusions without pro Repub "Bothsiderism" tirelessly working to get them there? LOL. How on earth would that happen otherwise?

Vegetable? Please cite the answer to any question in the debate or the ABC interview where Biden and not Trump babbled on as though he didn't understand the question. Biden simply twisted a comment about "beating big pharma for Medicare drug prices" in an answer about Medicare and helping people get the drugs they need cheaper. That's it.

Trump could not explain anything complicated that he did to help Americans that way because he never helped Americans in any way complicated or not. Makes it easy for him to continually cycle back to a favorite lie about Immigration for every question.