TRUMP 2024

312,312 Views | 4805 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by Civilized
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gopack89 said:

Black folks aren't voting for this idiot.. all these staffers speaking for black people is getting old. Breaking news for MAGA ppl want more rights not less. Stop pissing on us and calling it rain.

Werewolf said:

Another MAGA patriot speaks to the RINO traitors......and an attractive one to boot.





Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some more facts! #ThePeople'sPresident



Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.



He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.





He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.


Agree
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.



He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.
Genuine question - who fits that bill that even has a remote shot of getting picked?
ncsupack1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We keep going around and around on this.
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FlossyDFlynt said:

packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.



He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.
Genuine question - who fits that bill that even has a remote shot of getting picked?


Haley helps with independents, but that's not happening. Shame she continued on in primary for so long, which I assume closed her VP door. How about Youngkin?
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packofwolves said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.



He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.
Genuine question - who fits that bill that even has a remote shot of getting picked?


Haley helps with independents, but that's not happening. Shame she continued on in primary for so long, which I assume closed her VP door. How about Youngkin?
Id be shocked if Trump would pick Youngkin given how much he kept Trump at an arms length when he was running for governor. And if I were Youngkin with Presidential aspirations, Id be looking at 2028 without hitching my wagon to Trump. Yea, the VP would definitely help with that aspiration, but given how Trump treated his first cabinet, I would rather just steer clear.

I dont think there is anyone out there that fits the bill currently.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FlossyDFlynt said:

packofwolves said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.



He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.
Genuine question - who fits that bill that even has a remote shot of getting picked?


Haley helps with independents, but that's not happening. Shame she continued on in primary for so long, which I assume closed her VP door. How about Youngkin?
Id be shocked if Trump would pick Youngkin given how much he kept Trump at an arms length when he was running for governor. And if I were Youngkin with Presidential aspirations, Id be looking at 2028 without hitching my wagon to Trump. Yea, the VP would definitely help with that aspiration, but given how Trump treated his first cabinet, I would rather just steer clear.

I dont think there is anyone out there that fits the bill currently.

Don't know what you mean by "fits the bill" but if you mean "wins Republicans the election" then Haley fits the bill perfectly.

If he chooses Haley he seals the deal with white women and guarantees himself and the party a W in November.

If Trump was a grown-up he'd act on this obvious reality and seize the election, but he's not, so he won't.
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

packofwolves said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.



He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.
Genuine question - who fits that bill that even has a remote shot of getting picked?


Haley helps with independents, but that's not happening. Shame she continued on in primary for so long, which I assume closed her VP door. How about Youngkin?
Id be shocked if Trump would pick Youngkin given how much he kept Trump at an arms length when he was running for governor. And if I were Youngkin with Presidential aspirations, Id be looking at 2028 without hitching my wagon to Trump. Yea, the VP would definitely help with that aspiration, but given how Trump treated his first cabinet, I would rather just steer clear.

I dont think there is anyone out there that fits the bill currently.

Don't know what you mean by "fits the bill" but if you mean "wins Republicans the election" then Haley fits the bill perfectly.

If he chooses Haley he seals the deal with white women and guarantees himself and the party a W in November.

If Trump was a grown-up he'd act on this obvious reality and seize the election, but he's not, so he won't.
Fits the bill meaning they have a legitimate shot of actually getting the nod. I agree Haley would be the obvious choice, but no chance it actually happens
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

packofwolves said:

Werewolf said:

Not a fan of this guy being Trump's VP pick.





He does nothing to help the ticket. Would be a terrible pick. Need someone to help with Independents.


Agree
If you liked Pat McCrory, you'll love Doug Burgum. Both of them cast from the same mold. In other words, the weasel class that's been running the GOP for years.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
200%

I'll add to the commentary above that a lot will happen that changes perspectives between now and the election, guaranteed.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is the controlled opposition that MAGA Is flushing down the toilet. #Uniparty no more

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wolfbreath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bidenica Commercial by Donald Trump


Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The People's choice; not Dominion's.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#DaSieve
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of my top 4-5 for VP is Massie.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The greatest military operation in history. #Q
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Supreme Court has ruled that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Only problem now is I don't think they defined what official acts are. So if I'm reading it right it's going back down to the lower court where the judge has to determine what an official act is
wolfbreath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-due-rule-100711073.html

The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority. Its three liberals dissented.




Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wolfbreath said:

US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-due-rule-100711073.html

The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority. Its three liberals dissented.







If I understand it right it's going back to the lower court so the judge can determine what an official act is and if any of the charges were for official acts. I don't think they threw out the charges. Might be wrong. Haven't read the whole decision.
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ncsufist said:

wolfbreath said:

US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-due-rule-100711073.html

The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority. Its three liberals dissented.







If I understand it right it's going back to the lower court so the judge can determine what an official act is and if any of the charges were for official acts. I don't think they threw out the charges. Might be wrong. Haven't read the whole decision.
Thats my current understanding
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bottom line, it's a state's rights issue. 50 petri dishes and let the chips fall where they may. Govt closest to the people ensure the best possible representation for the people.
wolfbreath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The ACLU's take: Supreme Court Grants Trump Broad Immunity for Official Acts, Placing Presidents Above the Law

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law


"On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law. It ruled that former President Trump cannot be prosecuted for deploying Justice Department officials to pursue his own criminal ends. And with respect to other presidential actions, it announces 'presumptive immunity,' and offers only a vague and unworkable standard that is likely to mire the case against former President Trump in years of litigation without holding him accountable for his criminal conduct in resisting the peaceful transfer of power," said ACLU National Legal Director David Cole. "The opinion also sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected."
Ncsufist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wolfbreath said:

The ACLU's take: Supreme Court Grants Trump Broad Immunity for Official Acts, Placing Presidents Above the Law

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-trump-broad-immunity-for-official-acts-placing-presidents-above-the-law


"On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law. It ruled that former President Trump cannot be prosecuted for deploying Justice Department officials to pursue his own criminal ends. And with respect to other presidential actions, it announces 'presumptive immunity,' and offers only a vague and unworkable standard that is likely to mire the case against former President Trump in years of litigation without holding him accountable for his criminal conduct in resisting the peaceful transfer of power," said ACLU National Legal Director David Cole. "The opinion also sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected."


I wonder how the aclu feels about Congress having immunity for official acts?
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ncsufist said:

wolfbreath said:

US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-due-rule-100711073.html

The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority. Its three liberals dissented.







If I understand it right it's going back to the lower court so the judge can determine what an official act is and if any of the charges were for official acts. I don't think they threw out the charges. Might be wrong. Haven't read the whole decision.


If I understand correctly, I don't think they can question or assume a president's reason. Will be tied up in courts for a while.

Assume Biden's DOJ sending their number 3 prosecutor to NY would be protected as well.
wolfbreath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packofwolves said:

Ncsufist said:

wolfbreath said:

US Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity for official, not private acts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-due-rule-100711073.html

The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting Trump's claim of immunity from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority. Its three liberals dissented.







If I understand it right it's going back to the lower court so the judge can determine what an official act is and if any of the charges were for official acts. I don't think they threw out the charges. Might be wrong. Haven't read the whole decision.


If I understand correctly, I don't think they can question or assume a president's reason. Will be tied up in courts for a while.

Assume Biden's DOJ sending their number 3 prosecutor to NY would be protected as well.
It'll probably be tied up in the courts for years.
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting from Thomas's concurrence:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-immunity-case-supreme-court-rules-ex-presidents-substantial-protection-prosecution

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a separate concurrence "to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure" the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.

"In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by Law,' as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices 'by Law,' the Constitution imposes an important check against the Presidenthe cannot create offices at his pleasure."

"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President," he said.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, to the judge, to warrant if something isn't covered by immunity. In other words, the president doesn't have to prove their immunity...

I'm sure if the Judge grants the case to move forward, then an appeals process will happen immediately, to get further clarification.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Democrat twitter thinks this now gives Biden authority to assassinate Trump. They also want Biden to investigate all of the Supreme Court Justices that voted for this.

Today's Democrat wants to jail political rivals and jail judges that rule against their partisan prosecutions. Nut jobs. The whole lot.
Hillsboroughstpunk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ACLU-
"The opinion also sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected."

Trump? Maybe Pub's should start worrying that Seal team 6 shows up at Mar A Lago in their official sanctioned act by the POTUS, to send a convicted felon who is viewed as a threat to America, to Guantanamo Bay. Or just the standard two in the chest, one in the dome move. Outlandish? Certainly, but with todays SC ruling, it is within the realm of plausibility.

Or that Biden orders arrests of Supreme Court members, for acts harmful to the United States, or whatever they come up with. Maybe like Clarence Thomas had accepted bribes. Up to you CT to prove your innocence of the charges. Whoops! Be carful going down those stairs during your visit to Guantanamo!

Plus many more scenarios that till today were considered implausible and even insane. Yet... the ground work has been laid towards a United States where this is now possible.

Let's just say that incarceration's are made and no wet work done. Would those actions now have to be challenged in court as to if they were Official acts? I guess it might fall to who is sitting in the judges chair, when any appointed Judge not towing the party line has been rounded up and sent to a re-education camp. In any case, how long would those incarcerated sit in a black site till the court decides official or not. Most bad/old laws cannot be reversed until they are challenged. You have to have an example where it is shown as flawed in order to overturn it.

Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

I highly doubt this will happen. Given that the Democratic party is neutered, but you never know what happens when the horses are out of the barn, and people are panicking, say like the election date is fast approaching and your terrible performances in debates has you way back in the polls, yet you are President with vast immunities, and a way to rid yourself of any competition. You seen how that works in other countries like Russia, China, and others. Political rivals, just fall out of windows or eat some bad food. The percental chance of it happening here too in the U.S. just raised dramatically.

The Supreme Court has done America no favors with this. Passing the buck some on it too and making the whole matter very convoluted while those who have the ability, and the will to abuse it, will. And then we all try to figure out what's the fair deal, like if that happens will there be a fair court system in place and have the power to enforce it?

I want to say all the above is hyperbole, but I cannot as it now is more within the realm of possibility. You can argue that it always has been, but today... it just gained more legitimacy. It should bother you no matter what your political leanings are. The power of America should reside in it's people and in state rights. Not a Supreme leader.
First Page
Page 137 of 138
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.