dont all presidents do that?In the interim trump is seeking a way to provide pre-emptive pardons for his family for crimes for which they have yet to be charged. What a joke.
dont all presidents do that?In the interim trump is seeking a way to provide pre-emptive pardons for his family for crimes for which they have yet to be charged. What a joke.
As far as I know Clinton was the only one who pardoned a family member, his half-brother, but that's for a crime he had committed, and was found guilty. It's one thing to pardon someone for something they've done, which is commonly done by presidents. Either they pardon or commute a sentence, however, it's quite another to pre-emptively pardon. So, if a year from now one of his kids is found guilty of doing something during whatever predefined period he gets a free pass. Messed up.dont all presidents do that?
Not my theory but it makes sense.
The reason they are rejecting it so quickly is to get it up to SCOTUS asap. Thus actually aiding Trump.
I’m not a lawyer so I just interpret and regurgitate. But I think your victory dance is a bit premature.That theory, like nearly all conspiracy crap floating around was proven false tonight.
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case, but said they would “not grant other relief.” None of Trump’s appointees indicated they saw any merit in the lawsuit.
I love it how the trump appointed justices were of the majority who threw out the case, refusing to even allow it to be brought before the court. There's the due process all those idiot american's have been waiting for. Your own judiciary, and many other trump appointed judges have tossed every one of his idiotic, baseless cases.
This was the endgame from the very beginning. tRump is quoted in Oct that the election would be decided by the supreme court, and he got his wish. Now go have a stroke in a sand-trap you fat fuck! lol
This was the 2nd of two motions rejected by the supreme court. You're right about the jurisdiction, but the win was the fact that they tossed it without even giving it consideration.I’m not a lawyer so I just interpret and regurgitate. But I think your victory dance is a bit premature.
I believe it was dismissed because of jurisdiction not based on evidence. That and the fact that there are a few other paths headed to SCOTUS.
I have to assume that anything that dribbles down to us lay folk, be it theory or plan of action is only the tiniest spec of the whole.
Time will tell.
Wait. Are we discussing integrity or politics??This was the 2nd of two motions rejected by the supreme court. You're right about the jurisdiction, but the win was the fact that they tossed it without even giving it consideration.
Monday is the deadline when the electoral college meets. It amazes me how republican's can continue to make unsupported claims. No evidence, that's reality. I guess it pays to be a spineless lackey. I laughed when I read that Ted Cruz was on board, he's a pathetic little man. Search for his interviews on his opinion of trump. That's what these people think, but they are cowards. Integrity is everything.
I have yet to see any evidence of any election tampering. One of the latest examples, the hearing with that blonde idiot claiming that there were 100000 or whatever ballot errors, however, none have been found. Or, what about the signature replicated on 2000 ballots? False.Wait. Are we discussing integrity or politics??
Semantics maybe, but I don’t view it so much as a win but more so, not a loss. Or vice versa depending on perspective. They did consider it. Not the evidence or merit of the case but strictly the jurisdiction.
I truly do not understand the “unsupported claims” angle. Unless it is the angle being pushed by msm to intentionally mislead the masses. To me, there seems to be a mountain of evidence. On many different levels. If, like you stated, the intention is to get in front of SCOTUS to let them decide, then the fact that the evidence hasn’t been presented to the court for them to rule it proof doesn’t make the evidence not real.
I always enjoy reading your arguments. They are always supported with details. But I have to say, it seems to me, when it comes to Trump, you argue from a position of hate. Again, to me, this does not strengthen your position at all but adds blinders.
I am in no real position to debate politics. For 47 years I could give a fuck about politics. It’s filled with rich, corrupt lying hypocrites. To really understand it, requires delving deeper than I ever wanted to go. I am sure as hell not a poly sci guy. My only interest in foreign affairs was literally the affairs with foreign women.
I would never try to convince anyone that Trump was a good guy. Or not unlike any other business magnate or politician. I accept the fact that people that are in power are in it for a reason.
But I do think Biden (and Harris) is a slap in the face to not only both parties but also the entire US population. Pick an analogy, but you don’t send a chump in to take out the champ unless the fix is in.
Things aren’t adding up these days and it deserves attention.
The fat lady aint singin and my money is still on Trump. And say no to rdna vaccines!!
Is this poking fun at the elderly, or perhaps the disabled. I don't get it?
Whaat? See, that’s VP Biden. And he’s in the white house. Joe thinks he’s going to be President. If he is, then the chair lift that makes the White House more accessible and inclusive will get a cool name. Because all the vehicles that transport the President gets a cool name.Is this poking fun at the elderly, or perhaps the disabled. I don't get it?
Whaat? See, that’s VP Biden. And he’s in the white house. Joe thinks he’s going to be President. If he is, then the chair lift that makes the White House more accessible and inclusive will get a cool name. Because all the vehicles that transport the President gets a cool name.
It’s funny because Chair Force One sounds like Air force One.
He’s definitely to old to be in the office I agree we need someone how’s more focused, mentally can give a speech, someone that does not have dementia and breaks laws they already starting to investigate him it’s crazy they’re saying he might be impeached before he gets in the office. White House is not a nursing home it’s for the leaders. Back in the day they used to test psychologically and physically before getting in the office I wonder what happened to that?
I have to be careful how I answer that. Apparently it’s ok to joke about predatory behaviors or the sexualization of women and children but making a joke about age is way past the line.Obvious to me who you think won the election, but be honest, who do you think would win a foot race?
I have to be careful how I answer that. Apparently it’s ok to joke about predatory behaviors or the sexualization of women and children but making a joke about age is way past the line.
Who's made such jokes? I started this thread and have seen every post, and I know that no one has made any such comment, nor do I think anyone would as that is clearly unacceptable and would merit a strong reprimand.I have to be careful how I answer that. Apparently it’s ok to joke about predatory behaviors or the sexualization of women and children but making a joke about age is way past the line.
A) I do not idolize Trump. My political position, much like yours is based on a dislike for the alternatives.Who's made such jokes? I started this thread and have seen every post, and I know that no one has made any such comment, nor do I think anyone would as that is clearly unacceptable and would merit a strong reprimand.
If you want to idolize trump that's your business, but don't make claims that are clearly false.
A) I do not idolize Trump. My political position, much like yours is based on a dislike for the alternatives.
B) There are more threads than this one. So if humour goes "unmoderated" in this or other threads while some is singled out, my statement stands.
C) For a research based guy such as yourself, you really came short on this one. Unless of course you don't think being a pedophile or joking that someone likes kids constitutes predatory behaviours or the sexualizing of children. If you like I can cite the incidences just in this thread for you.