leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 22, 2023 Posted December 22, 2023 https://nypost.com/2023/12/22/news/supreme-court-rejects-quick-trump-immunity-hearing-in-win-for-ex-president/ This one is a win for common sense. Let's slow down a bit and pump the breaks. 1
BillStime Posted December 22, 2023 Posted December 22, 2023 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: https://nypost.com/2023/12/22/news/supreme-court-rejects-quick-trump-immunity-hearing-in-win-for-ex-president/ This one is a win for common sense. Let's slow down a bit and pump the breaks. Indeed, US voters should remain unaware of the full extent of the alleged corruption surrounding the individual in question... Idiots 1 2
The Frankish Reich Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: https://nypost.com/2023/12/22/news/supreme-court-rejects-quick-trump-immunity-hearing-in-win-for-ex-president/ This one is a win for common sense. Let's slow down a bit and pump the breaks. Quite the opposite. This is what would be called a "pure question of law" - the extent to which the President has immunity for acts taken while he was President. Why not clear up the issue right here and now? Why have a trial (if we get to that in the next 13 months) in which Trump may be found guilty of one or more counts, only to have the Supreme Court decide he was immune? 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 (edited) 35 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Quite the opposite. This is what would be called a "pure question of law" - the extent to which the President has immunity for acts taken while he was President. Why not clear up the issue right here and now? Why have a trial (if we get to that in the next 13 months) in which Trump may be found guilty of one or more counts, only to have the Supreme Court decide he was immune? I had initially responded but circled back to try a different approach. I would assume the justices of the Supreme Court considered the approach you outlined but chose to go about things differently. If I understand things correctly, all they’ve really done is suggested that the process to address this sort of thing should be followed. That makes sense to me. Why do you think they rejected the approach you outlined? What did they miss about the pure question of law, and why do you think they decided as they did? Edited December 23, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd 2
Doc Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Bob's older than Trump... 1
Kemp Posted December 23, 2023 Author Posted December 23, 2023 7 minutes ago, Doc said: Bob's older than Trump... Luckily for Bob, he isn't walking around with a diaper full of shiite. No wonder Melania often looks like she smelled something something awful.
Doc Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: Luckily for Bob, he isn't walking around with a diaper full of shiite. No wonder Melania often looks like she smelled something something awful. Right. I'm sure ol' Bobby has complete control of his bowels... 1
Kemp Posted December 23, 2023 Author Posted December 23, 2023 8 minutes ago, Doc said: Right. I'm sure ol' Bobby has complete control of his bowels... You seem to believe that when one hits a certain age they lose control of their bowels. Even for a Trump supporter that's a poor understanding of how the human body works. On the other hand, it is refreshing that you accept that Trump is regularly shiiting himself.
Tommy Callahan Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 Dems weaponizing of the justice system is getting some strange "blowback"
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 11 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Quite the opposite. This is what would be called a "pure question of law" - the extent to which the President has immunity for acts taken while he was President. Why not clear up the issue right here and now? Why have a trial (if we get to that in the next 13 months) in which Trump may be found guilty of one or more counts, only to have the Supreme Court decide he was immune? Clearly, and unlike the DOJ and Special Prosecutor Smith, the Supreme Court isn't interested in interfering with the election of 2024. 1
Kemp Posted December 23, 2023 Author Posted December 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Dems weaponizing of the justice system is getting some strange "blowback" Not strange at all. Louis Farrakhan joins the other wack jobs and scum supporting Trump. You must be proud to have him on the Trump train. 2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Clearly, and unlike the DOJ and Special Prosecutor Smith, the Supreme Court isn't interested in interfering with the election of 2024. They already interfered with the 2024 election, courtesy of those that put them in power. 1 1 1
Doc Posted December 23, 2023 Posted December 23, 2023 13 hours ago, Kemp said: You seem to believe that when one hits a certain age they lose control of their bowels. Even for a Trump supporter that's a poor understanding of how the human body works. On the other hand, it is refreshing that you accept that Trump is regularly shiiting himself. By age 80 most do and/or fart/shart without knowing it. “He who smelt it…” Just an odd thing for an octogenarian to be throwing out there. 1
Kemp Posted December 27, 2023 Author Posted December 27, 2023 Marjorie Taylor Greene: "I was scared on Jan 6 because Antifa, was storming the Capitol. “I was also scared because no one could tell me that those were Trump supporters. I fully believe that they were Antifa BLM rioters.” She must be right. The crowd was 95% black!!! And she's currently the most powerful Republican woman. 1 1
Kemp Posted December 27, 2023 Author Posted December 27, 2023 It's fine to say who cares what he thinks, but i'd much prefer him over Trump as President. Then again, I'd vote for my coffee cup over Trump. 1 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 Any man capable of angering you, becomes your master. This should be repeated to the TDS folks daily. you prove it. 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 4 hours ago, Kemp said: It's fine to say who cares what he thinks, but i'd much prefer him over Trump as President. Then again, I'd vote for my coffee cup over Trump. Of course you would. Deniro is a really well known guy, known for his friendship and partnering with well-established liberal good guys like Harvey Weinstein, complaining about having to share marital income with his ex-wife, and berating and sexually harassing his assistants. I'm sure he's a fair share guy, too. He's perfectly suited to provide astute and in-depth analysis on political issues. I always loved his work, but I'd think he should be eliminated from consideration solely based on his roles in The Irishperson and Flowers of Paper Moon. His performances were god-awful, and I'd hazard a guess your coffee cup would have done a better job in both. 1 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Any man capable of angering you, becomes your master. This should be repeated to the TDS folks daily. you prove it. idiot. we r trying to stop him from becoming r master even if it means moving abroad. 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 11 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: idiot. we r trying to stop him from becoming r master even if it means moving abroad. Get a jump on it, Streisand! 🤣 No one ever actually moves! 1 2 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted December 27, 2023 Posted December 27, 2023 (edited) Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Get a jump on it, Streisand! 🤣 No one ever actually moves! been looking at real estate and building/land options this week. but trump should be going to jail soon. Interest rates here lower than I can make in market so buying a house would make me money and a family member is a top banker here.... Edited December 27, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever 1 1
Recommended Posts