Werewolf said:
By the way, I seldom refer to R's in my posts other than the most obvious.
Uni-Party Globalist Establishment BAAL Worshippers vrs MAGA sovereign is the battle at hand. Returning to the Constituion would follow.
What does it feel like to know that this is as good as your life is?Wufskins said:
I believe my post said "not as bad"
You want a do over?
1st things first...........only one ball goes through the basket at one time.caryking said:I think we can and should do both.Werewolf said:
By the way, I seldom refer to R's in my posts other than the most obvious.
Uni-Party Globalist Establishment BAAL Worshippers vrs MAGA sovereign is the battle at hand. Returning to the Constituion would follow.
Have you figured out who the “snake” is in the snake poem yet ?
— Dr. C IET 17 (@DrC_IET17) March 11, 2024
On her way to work one morning
Down the path alongside the lake
A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
"Oh well," she cried, "I'll take you in… pic.twitter.com/gLd0XbTqSW
Biden renewed it for the THIRD time https://t.co/PAT9p3mnlL pic.twitter.com/eMI0416vWi
— Dr. C IET 17 (@DrC_IET17) April 21, 2024
barelypure said:
There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.
It's true I have few friends, it's also true I have NO Carolina buddies.Wufskins said:
Oh no, it's the TDS label. Cuts almost as bad as when my Carolina buddies say I went to MooU.
Oldsouljer said:It's true I have few friends, it's also true I have NO Carolina buddies.Wufskins said:
Oh no, it's the TDS label. Cuts almost as bad as when my Carolina buddies say I went to MooU.
Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
ooooh, oooh, oooh my little grasshoppa #Sieve. I want you, #Snappy and #Foreskin to remember those two sentences......Civilized said:
I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?
Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.
You already convicted Trump in your own mind before even his actual legal persecutors have. That said, this line of reasoning is already bringing the spotlight on Obama's drone strike killing an American citizen overseas, which sounds a lot more legally actionable than Trump's mostly peaceful demonstration.Civilized said:barelypure said:
There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.
If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?
I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?
Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.
How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?
And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?
If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?
Oldsouljer said:You already convicted Trump in your own mind before even his actual legal persecutors have. That said, this line of reasoning is already bringing the spotlight on Obama's drone strike killing an American citizen overseas, which sounds a lot more legally actionable than Trump's mostly peaceful demonstration.Civilized said:barelypure said:
There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.
If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?
I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?
Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.
How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?
And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?
If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?
Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
Oldsouljer said:You already convicted Trump in your own mind before even his actual legal persecutors have. That said, this line of reasoning is already bringing the spotlight on Obama's drone strike killing an American citizen overseas, which sounds a lot more legally actionable than Trump's mostly peaceful demonstration.Civilized said:barelypure said:
There are levels of criminality and I can see SCOTUS drawing a line in the sand to determine where that line is drawn.
If so, do you think there is any way the line is not drawn before "trying to overturn a Presidential election"?
I mean, is there a Presidential act that runs more counter to our democracy than that one?
Presidents shouldn't be immune from prosecution for crimes. Civil liability shields, I can see.
How do Americans benefit from Presidents operating with immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?
And, how does Presidents not being immune harm America?
If Trump and his merry band of idiots behaved in as unhinged a way as they did in November/December/January 2020/2021 with there being some threat of prosecution, can you imagine what he would/could have done if he had no risk or fear of being prosecuted?
Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.caryking said:Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.
caryking said:Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.
The precedent is if you try to overthrow an election you very well may get charged with associated crimes.Oldsouljer said:Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.caryking said:Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.
And if that should ever happen one day in the real world, perhaps it will.Civilized said:The precedent is if you try to overthrow an election you very well may get charged with associated crimes.Oldsouljer said:Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.caryking said:Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.
Which is good. That should be the precedent.
What the heck are you talking about? I was giving an opinion based on my understanding of the law. Biden, on the other hand, has done far worse things than you liberals, and Hokie, believe Trump has done.SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.
Biden is the current occupant of the White House. This is how you know that the "Biden Crime Family" stuff is a steaming pile of crap that conservatives themselves don't even believe. You'd only argue that a President is above the law if you're sure the other guys are a bunch of boy scouts.
I understand what you're saying. I think we should expect a level of immunity for any dumbass in the White House. The dumbasses, recently, are Biden and Obama.Oldsouljer said:Of course we don't. I didn't opine that Obama should get charged, just saying that with a precedent set, anything can happen, and there ARE people that would go after him.caryking said:Ncsufist said:
Easy. Obama is a good example. He droned two Americans in two separate attacks. It is federally illegally to sanction a hit on Americans in foreign land. Even if it was the right call (I believe it was) he committed two major felonies by ordering the hits. Let's say those Americans were plotting major attacks on us forces or on American civilians. Should our president fear acting proactively to safeguard the country with the threat that his actions do not have some form of criminal immunity?
I think the SC has ruled that the President has immunity while doing his duties serving. If not, we could have a kangaroo system of justice for Presidents after they serve. So, as much as the Obama story gets brought up, I think it is prudent to let it go. We don't want witch hunts of a former President to happen.
4/25 | 6:30amE | NYC
— Dan Scavino Jr.🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) April 25, 2024
President Trump stops by a construction site in New York City to meet with union workers, before the start of the work day… pic.twitter.com/vcxtQujVNx
