|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 8, 2024 9:18:47 GMT
I don’t think there should be unlimited immunity. Then what is your position on Donald's court cases, many of which hinge on that one issue. Should he be held accountable, or not? Freon I’ve answered this within the thread. I’m sorry you are unable to understand it. I don’t see a reason to repeat the argument, as it was as dumbed down as possible when I wrote it before. Enjoy your Sunday! |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 8, 2024 12:36:39 GMT
Presidents start wars where hundreds of thousands die under false pretenses. Obama murdered an American citizen as judge, jury, and executioner. The truth is that presidents have always had perceived immunity. Do you think Trump’s paying off of a porn star was the first “crime” a president has committed in 250 years? These men have people murdered. I just want the law applied equally. Using it against one but not others is just accelerating towards partisan violence, and I don’t want that. This is a load of crap! It's like saying that as long as there are wars in the world, who cares about murder?After all in war people are massively murdered and nobody is brought to justice about it. So let's just stop wasting tax money prosecuting murderers.
You are a fucking freak show!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by archie on Sept 8, 2024 13:24:27 GMT
Yes, your kind does not want to live by the constitution. If your tribe gets more power than it has right now, the end of the USA will be very soon. Figa - was this 'living by the Constitution'?  No Thor. It is your Giggles that wanted to defund the police. And it is your Giggles that is not enforcing our immigration laws. It is your (D) party supporting wars all over the planet not realizing they are weakening ourselves more and more every day. Will we be able to save the country when the invasion war starts? Do see what illegal immigrant gangs are doing all over the country. Keep your gun loaded Thor. They may be kicking your door in pretty soon. |
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by sokpupet on Sept 8, 2024 13:33:10 GMT
None of the RW posters have answered in a cogent manner. It’s like having to deal with some of my family.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,537
Member is Online
|
Post by thor on Sept 8, 2024 13:34:45 GMT
Figa - was this 'living by the Constitution'? No Thor. It is your Giggles that wanted to defund the police. And it is your Giggles that is not enforcing our immigration laws. It is your (D) party supporting wars all over the planet not realizing they are weakening ourselves more and more every day. Will we be able to save the country when the invasion war starts? Do see what illegal immigrant gangs are doing all over the country. Keep your gun loaded Thor. They may be kicking your door in pretty soon. Figa....do you know who those people attacking the cop are? They are Trump-Slaves......like you. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 8, 2024 13:40:39 GMT
Then what is your position on Donald's court cases, many of which hinge on that one issue. Should he be held accountable, or not? Freon I’ve answered this within the thread. I’m sorry you are unable to understand it. I don’t see a reason to repeat the argument, as it was as dumbed down as possible when I wrote it before. Enjoy your Sunday! Your attempts at insulting me are just a waste of time because you don't have any concept of what would bother me. Please answer the question. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 8, 2024 13:47:07 GMT
None of the RW posters have answered in a cogent manner. It’s like having to deal with some of my family. It's because they are not in this forum to converse, where they know their positions are untenable and disgusting. They are here to try and 'win' by eliciting a negative emotional reaction from the other side. So the absolute most painful thing you can do to them in return, is not react at all, and hold them accountable to their positions, the few times they offer them. One would think that would cause them to stop communicating, but this is a drug to them, they literally CANNOT stop themselves from responding. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 14:09:29 GMT
I truly appreciate you starting this thread atreyu.
It helps me to realize just how radicalized and incapable of critical thinking the left has become. And makes me more confident I've made the right choice every time.
Queshank
Nice, glad I could help.
Could you go into more detail? After all that's what asking the question is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 14:12:24 GMT
Figa - was this 'living by the Constitution'? No Thor. It is your Giggles that wanted to defund the police. And it is your Giggles that is not enforcing our immigration laws. It is your (D) party supporting wars all over the planet not realizing they are weakening ourselves more and more every day. Will we be able to save the country when the invasion war starts? Do see what illegal immigrant gangs are doing all over the country. Keep your gun loaded Thor. They may be kicking your door in pretty soon.
Archie you had your chance to argue that Kamala's position was to de-fund the police. You failed miserably defending that position, and now you repeat it.
What new information have you ran into that supports this position?
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 14:15:53 GMT
None of the RW posters have answered in a cogent manner. It’s like having to deal with some of my family. What I have seen is what aboutism and a lack of understanding in their own position.
Well, either a lack of understanding or they are too embarrassed to state actual reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 8, 2024 15:26:29 GMT
I’ve answered this within the thread. I’m sorry you are unable to understand it. I don’t see a reason to repeat the argument, as it was as dumbed down as possible when I wrote it before. Enjoy your Sunday! Your attempts at insulting me are just a waste of time because you don't have any concept of what would bother me. Please answer the question. Freon Perhaps the question isn’t conducive to you being able to understand my answer. Re-state it. And I genuinely apologize if you’re taking my statements as insulting. They are not intended to be so. They are just an (accurate) assessment of your capabilities. Perhaps take them as constructive criticism, perhaps. Self aware adult individuals are often able to receive feedback and assessments in this way. I fear people who are stuck in bubbles of affirmation often lack this skillset. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday! |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 8, 2024 15:29:10 GMT
Presidents start wars where hundreds of thousands die under false pretenses. Obama murdered an American citizen as judge, jury, and executioner. The truth is that presidents have always had perceived immunity. Do you think Trump’s paying off of a porn star was the first “crime” a president has committed in 250 years? These men have people murdered. I just want the law applied equally. Using it against one but not others is just accelerating towards partisan violence, and I don’t want that. This is a load of crap! It's like saying that as long as there are wars in the world, who cares about murder?
It’s nothing like that. However, if one group of people in a society is allowed to murder with impunity while they charge and convict another group in society for lesser “crimes”, there is a terrible imbalance. Better that nobody murders, obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 8, 2024 15:47:59 GMT
Your attempts at insulting me are just a waste of time because you don't have any concept of what would bother me. Please answer the question. Freon Perhaps the question isn’t conducive to you being able to understand my answer. Re-state it. And I genuinely apologize if you’re taking my statements as insulting. They are not intended to be so. They are just an (accurate) assessment of your capabilities. Perhaps take them as constructive criticism, perhaps. Self aware adult individuals are often able to receive feedback and assessments in this way. I fear people who are stuck in bubbles of affirmation often lack this skillset. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday! Of course, happy to restate. You say unlimited immunity is unacceptable, so my follow-up question is in regards to the court cases that involve Donald, where he believes they should be dropped due to unlimited immunity. Do you agree with his position? Have no concern regarding my taking anything you say as an insult. That's my point, actually. You are incapable of insulting me. So a waste of time, trying. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 16:23:01 GMT
This is a load of crap! It's like saying that as long as there are wars in the world, who cares about murder?
It’s nothing like that. However, if one group of people in a society is allowed to murder with impunity while they charge and convict another group in society for lesser “crimes”, there is a terrible imbalance. Better that nobody murders, obviously.
You're not answering the actual question. Why do you want to encode these abilities in court to enforce presidential power. You're saying your on one side, but your actually supporting these outcomes you claim to not agree with.
To simplify you're supporting the position to further the legal cause of presidential immunity, even for "lessor" crimes. Increasing the power of government seems like the opposite thing you want. It is however what you want to support.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 8, 2024 17:25:29 GMT
I truly appreciate you starting this thread atreyu.
It helps me to realize just how radicalized and incapable of critical thinking the left has become. And makes me more confident I've made the right choice every time.
Queshank
Nice, glad I could help.
Could you go into more detail? After all that's what asking the question is all about.
These threads help illustrate just how deranged you modern American letists actually are. You go into a thread with your opinion set in stone and think you're having a conversation. But any response that doesn't match your pre coded belief structure is dismissed as not applying.
Doubly so you've bought into opinions about the legal opinion and completely ignored the fact that the immunity was literally called "qualified" and in the context of official duties with a direct expressing that "the president is not above the law."
Do you think Obama should be brought up on charges for violating the Constitution and our entire "system" so egregiously that he assassinated American citizens? Or should he have "qualified immunity" because he was operating within the context of his duties as president? How about just the fact that Bush the Younger and Obama started doing targeted assassinations and set that terrible precedent as well?
But no. Your big concern is that the president having the power to declassify documents (and the "process" is for employees of the state to follow not the president) should be determined by you and media pundits. Assassinate American citizens? No biggie. That's whataboutism. But it's super duper hyper important that we focus on whether or not the president follows the employee regulations for declassifying documents.
And you ignore completely that Jack Smith has rebrought the charges. What happened to immunity?
More than anything your belief in that talking point makes me so very happy I have divested myself of allegiances to the American left.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 8, 2024 17:26:50 GMT
It’s nothing like that. However, if one group of people in a society is allowed to murder with impunity while they charge and convict another group in society for lesser “crimes”, there is a terrible imbalance. Better that nobody murders, obviously.
You're not answering the actual question. Why do you want to encode these abilities in court to enforce presidential power. You're saying your on one side, but your actually supporting these outcomes you claim to not agree with.
To simplify you're supporting the position to further the legal cause of presidential immunity, even for "lessor" crimes. Increasing the power of government seems like the opposite thing you want. It is however what you want to support.
Why do you support protecting prior presidents from their actions within the context of their official duties?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 17:31:48 GMT
You're not answering the actual question. Why do you want to encode these abilities in court to enforce presidential power. You're saying your on one side, but your actually supporting these outcomes you claim to not agree with.
To simplify you're supporting the position to further the legal cause of presidential immunity, even for "lessor" crimes. Increasing the power of government seems like the opposite thing you want. It is however what you want to support.
Why do you support protecting prior presidents from their actions within the context of their official duties?
Queshank
I'm not, that's a straw-man. You know that.
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Sept 8, 2024 17:33:00 GMT
Nice, glad I could help.
Could you go into more detail? After all that's what asking the question is all about.
These threads help illustrate just how deranged you modern American letists actually are. You go into a thread with your opinion set in stone and think you're having a conversation. But any response that doesn't match your pre coded belief structure is dismissed as not applying.
Doubly so you've bought into opinions about the legal opinion and completely ignored the fact that the immunity was literally called "qualified" and in the context of official duties with a direct expressing that "the president is not above the law."
Do you think Obama should be brought up on charges for violating the Constitution and our entire "system" so egregiously that he assassinated American citizens? Or should he have "qualified immunity" because he was operating within the context of his duties as president? How about just the fact that Bush the Younger and Obama started doing targeted assassinations and set that terrible precedent as well?
But no. Your big concern is that the president having the power to declassify documents (and the "process" is for employees of the state to follow not the president) should be determined by you and media pundits. Assassinate American citizens? No biggie. That's whataboutism. But it's super duper hyper important that we focus on whether or not the president follows the employee regulations for declassifying documents.
And you ignore completely that Jack Smith has rebrought the charges. What happened to immunity?
More than anything your belief in that talking point makes me so very happy I have divested myself of allegiances to the American left.
Queshank
You're making up positions that aren't mine. Strawmen.
Is it your usual ploy for dodging any accountability on your part? Guess we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 8, 2024 19:22:48 GMT
Perhaps the question isn’t conducive to you being able to understand my answer. Re-state it. And I genuinely apologize if you’re taking my statements as insulting. They are not intended to be so. They are just an (accurate) assessment of your capabilities. Perhaps take them as constructive criticism, perhaps. Self aware adult individuals are often able to receive feedback and assessments in this way. I fear people who are stuck in bubbles of affirmation often lack this skillset. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday! Of course, happy to restate. You say unlimited immunity is unacceptable, so my follow-up question is in regards to the court cases that involve Donald, where he believes they should be dropped due to unlimited immunity. Do you agree with his position? Freon I disagree with Trump that there should be “unlimited immunity”. But if establishment presidents get it, which they obviously have had for much more serious crimes than paying off a porn star, then Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted. I don’t even know who the “victims” are in this case, and so I don’t care that he did it. Is it immoral? Certainly. But our degenerate society doesn’t really concern itself with such old fashioned nonsense, does it? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 8, 2024 19:28:39 GMT
It’s nothing like that. However, if one group of people in a society is allowed to murder with impunity while they charge and convict another group in society for lesser “crimes”, there is a terrible imbalance. Better that nobody murders, obviously.
You're not answering the actual question. Why do you want to encode these abilities in court to enforce presidential power. I don’t. But they are informally encoded. Once again, do you think paying off Stormy Daniels is the first and most egregious crime performed by a president? |
|
