TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
175. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    35 20.00%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    62 35.43%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    51 29.14%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    6 3.43%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    21 12.00%
Page 704 of 705 FirstFirst ... 204454604654659664669674679684689694699700701702703704705 LastLast
Results 17,576 to 17,600 of 17615

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dumped! ✮✮✮

  1. #17576
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    That's precisely why Medveded say "anglo-saxons" and never "americans".

  2. #17577
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    Many Americans do but tRump loves the "poorly educated". As do all fascists. They love people who are poorly informed, hate the work of thinking, believe experts to be inherently corrupt, and want Daddy to tell them what to do, all the while crowing about liberty.

    Americans aren't alone in this. The problem is, while most countries internalise the problem, the USA has the clout to export it at an industrial scale.
    There is no need to export, it's growing organically everywhere in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    That's precisely why Medveded say "anglo-saxons" and never "americans".
    You might be reading too much into that. I'm from the US, but I lived in Australia for 3 years and briefly in England, and I've traveled to the UK and Canada many times and New Zealand once. To me, the cultural similarities are obvious. I felt more at home in Sydney than in half of the US, so I understood what Julian Assange was talking about when he said that Australia is a suburb of a country called Anglo-Saxon.

  3. #17578
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    As I've said before, it's all about varangian guard origin (anglo-saxons+proper varangians that russian elites are "instructed" by the cultural elites to see as their proper ancestors, just like romans for italian fascists), being the Varangian Guard the "praetorians" of bizantyne emperor.
    Russian elites see theirselves as "legitimate cultural heirs" of byzantine empire "thanks" to Orthodoxy, it's why Putin love so much the "spiritual" (not strictly religious) aspect of all this situation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

    It's just XXI century "noble" racism where "anglo-saxons" refused their cultural legacy (->jews corrupted them, it's what tsarists like Girkin believe) and now they're "decadent" but "varangians" (today hypothetical ethnic russians) reclaim that heritage for the "good of humanity".
    Now corrupted "anglo-saxons" want to extend corruption to the little russians (ukrainians) and that's why this war is a necessity (=not avoidable)

    They really believe in this shit, when you'll realize this you'll know what enemy we are facing.....
    Last edited by lowenz; 22nd Feb 2024 at 13:34.

  4. #17579
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    That terminology is used widely outside of Russia too.

  5. #17580
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    That terminology is used widely outside of Russia too.
    It's why i must disambiguate for silly anglo-saxons

    It's not by chance that Medvedev nominated Berlin, London and Washington (german+english+american people=anglo-saxons) as targets for russian nuclear wrath menace if they continue to "corrupt" ukrainians (aka "little russians").
    You must decode their mindset to really understand the dangers they actually pose.

    Founding mythology is really a devastating tool to cultivate political elites (Putin is nothing compared to the ones that will come if Russia win the *holy* war).....those dumbasses really start to believe in it once plunged in it for long. Human mind loves this kind of conditioning.
    Last edited by lowenz; 22nd Feb 2024 at 15:15.

  6. #17581
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/02...tee-candidate/

    MassGOP warns against voting for Republican committee candidate: ‘Reprehensible rhetoric’
    ... they found the limit at least. This one was too much even for the GOP. Which is saying something, because overt white supremacists and not-that-subtle Nazi conspiracy theories aren't too much for them. You can say it all as long as you use dog whistles for plausible deniability.

    What it took for them to say "too much" was her constantly saying how great Hitler is, and that she's going to get rid of all the Jews if elected. Here's a picture of her proudly holding up her Nazi books:

    https://crooksandliars.com/2024/02/r...district-woman

    A tough choice awaits republican voters next week in Boston's First Suffolk district: a woman with a doctorate who works in social work - or a nazi.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 28th Feb 2024 at 07:55.

  7. #17582
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    Here's a picture of her proudly holding up her Nazi books
    KaufmaN (1 N) is not a german name, but yiddish trying to sound german. She's a jew So yes, she's the classic nutcase of jews adoring the "greatness" of Third Reich.

  8. #17583
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Springtime For Hitler

  9. #17584
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2024
    Location: Egyptian Afterlife
    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/28/p...ban/index.html

    Thou dried meat's wag!

    Illinois judge removes Trump from ballot because of ‘insurrectionist ban’

    In a surprise move, an Illinois judge has removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot based on the 14th Amendment’s so-called “insurrectionist ban.”

    The decision is paused, giving Trump a short period of time to appeal.

    Wednesday’s unexpected decision comes as a similar anti-Trump challenge from Colorado is pending before the US Supreme Court, which is widely expected to reject arguments that Trump is barred from office.

    Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter heavily relied on the prior finding by the Colorado Supreme Court, calling Colorado’s “rationale compelling.”

    “The court also realizes the magnitude of this decision and its impact on the upcoming primary Illinois elections,” Porter wrote. “The Illinois State Board of Election shall remove Donald J. Trump from the ballot for the General Primary Election on March 19, 2024, or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed.”

    The judge stripped Trump from the Illinois ballot one month after the anti-Trump challenge was dismissed by the Illinois State Board of Elections.

    A retired Republican judge who was tapped by the election board to examine the matter held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Trump should be barred from the ballot because he engaged in the January 6, 2021, insurrection. But he determined that only courts, and not the board, had the power to implement his recommendation.

    The election board tossed the anti-Trump case in a unanimous and bipartisan vote because it said it didn’t have jurisdiction to review the matter.

    Illinois is now the third state where Trump was booted from the ballot, after Colorado and Maine. But those decisions were paused pending the appeal of the Colorado case to the US Supreme Court.

    Trump can appeal the judge’s decision in Illinois state courts.

    He has already beaten back similar lawsuits in many other states.

    The Illinois challenge was filed by a group of voters in coordination with Free Speech For People, a legal advocacy group that previously tried, but failed, to remove Trump from the ballot in Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon.

    At a hearing in late January, Porter pressed Trump’s lawyers on the difference between a “riot” and an “insurrection,” and whether Trump must first be convicted of a crime before he is barred from office.

    “Is it important to understand why this mob of people came together and what they were actually trying to do?” Porter asked Trump’s lawyers, referring to the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
    Trump attorney Nicholas Nelson described the events of January 6 as a “political riot,” comparing it to an angry mob, rather than a group with a specific series of legal aims.

    “It was about one government act, and there’s no indication that the rioters had any plan,” Nelson said. “They were just angry.”

    Illinois law requires candidates to certify that they are “qualified” for the office they’re seeking, which Trump did when he filed to run in the state’s GOP primary. Porter asked another Trump attorney, Adam Merrill, if Trump would need to be convicted of insurrection beforehand for his filing to be false.

    “It would be much more difficult for us if that had happened,” Merrill said. “Here you don’t have that.”

    Porter had previously declined Trump’s request to pause the proceedings until the US Supreme Court rules on the similar Colorado-based case challenge that barred him from the ballot in that state.

  10. #17585
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    The Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, that only Congress has the power to remove Presidential candidates from the ballot. Which is the correct decision, in my opinion.

  11. #17586
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    So, what about "conspiracies" now that a real one is not so important?

  12. #17587
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    The Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, that only Congress has the power to remove Presidential candidates from the ballot. Which is the correct decision, in my opinion.
    I agree with the outcome for practical reasons, but not the majority opinion which had 4 dissenting judges. If you read the text of the 14th Amendment, it only gives Congress power to override disqualification by 2/3 majority. It does not give Congress the power to disqualify. Since that is not a power granted by the Constitution to the Congress, per the 10th Amendment, it is reserved for the states or the people. Further, I can't find anything in the Constitution that remotely implies that disqualification requires legislation. Originalists are only originalists when it suits them.

  13. #17588
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    That's exactly what section 3 of the 14th amendment says:

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
    A finding of insurrection or rebellion is enough to disqualify you on its own, Congress is not in fact required to vote FOR someone to be disqualified. But if both houses of Congress have a vote and 2/3 of each chamber say "well that guy's ok actually" then they can override the legal disqualification.

    Also this was from the original debates on the section:

    During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice-Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”
    So it was already understood that the disqualification disqualified you from running for President or Vice President, and that these were covered under the term "civil office".

    The claim that Trump is automatically excluded is 100% based on the idea that Trump was not a "civil officer". How can the President not be a "civil officer" if the presidency itself is a "civil office"?
    Last edited by Cipheron; 4th Mar 2024 at 18:36.

  14. #17589
    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.



    So, the time to disqualify Trump was when he was impeached after January 6th 2021. During that trial, Trump was ultimately acquitted by a vote of 57-43. Thus, not disqualified. The Dems also fucked up by not allowing the Chief Justice to preside over the trial as judge, which might have opened the door to further challenges.

    So, the issue was taken to Congress already, and was decided. All else is just clickbait to get you all outraged.

  15. #17590
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    Allowing states to remove presidential candidates for crimes they haven't been convicted of would have set a really bad precedent. If the SC had ruled the other way, you know damn well a pile of states would have tried to get Biden removed from the ballot too.

  16. #17591
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    All else is just clickbait to get you all outraged.
    For what? It is clear that the system is NOT "conspirating" against Trump (a NOT viceversa), so every word from his mouth about that is just a prove he's acting to play smoke and mirrors together with his electors.

  17. #17592
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: The other Derry
    RippedPhreak - Impeachment has nothing to do with this. Impeachment is the process to remove someone already in office. A candidate for office cannot be impeached.

    Jason - That's what SCOTUS should have decided, and that was the reasoning of 4 of the justices. But the majority of the justices (5) ruled that the Congress has to enact legislation to disqualify a candidate. That's a made up rule that didn't come from the Constitution. The Constitution strongly implies the opposite, that disqualification is automatic and it takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to override it.

  18. #17593
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Maupertuis
    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    All else is just clickbait to get you all outraged.
    Cool, but our lack of outrage is what gets you outraged. Net win for the TTLG Dems.

  19. #17594
    Impeachment has nothing to do with this. Impeachment is the process to remove someone already in office.
    Read it again.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.



    So clearly if he had been impeached and then convicted by the Senate, he would have not only been removed from office, he would have been disqualified from holding future office. So Congress had its chance to DQ him and didn't. The Rachel Maddow/Jon Stewart/Keith Olbermann types are simply lying to you.

  20. #17595
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    Read it again.

    So clearly if he had been impeached and then convicted by the Senate, he would have not only been removed from office, he would have been disqualified from holding future office. So Congress had its chance to DQ him and didn't. The Rachel Maddow/Jon Stewart/Keith Olbermann types are simply lying to you.
    This is true as far as impeachment for insurrection. A partisan congress would never impeach him. But it still does not hold true for the crime of insurrection. That has yet to be decided in court. It's why that trial should have been settled first before some states barred him from the ballot. If he is convicted then the supreme court will have to choose whether to uphold the 14th amendment or break the constitution for a man they are beholden to for many of their jobs.

  21. #17596
    Or they might rule that the question was already put before Congress in January 2021 (as per the Consitution), and was decided then: Not Guilty.

    But in any case, Congress could simply vote TODAY to disqualify Trump from running. That they aren't doing it tells me they don't have the votes.

    And to say the SC members are "beholden to" Trump for their jobs is absurd. It's not like they need to suck up to him to get a glowing quarterly review. SC is a lifetime position, so whether Trump gets re-elected, dies in prison, or drops dead tomorrow the justices still have their jobs.

  22. #17597
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by RippedPhreak View Post
    SC is a lifetime position, so whether Trump gets re-elected, dies in prison, or drops dead tomorrow the justices still have their jobs.
    So the system is NOT hijacked by some "big powers", so why all that "high school politics" rhethorics made by stupid conspirancies about the impending doom of US system? Oh wait, because that's the level of the average elector.....silly democracy preying on incompetence.

  23. #17598
    Many say that Congress is hijacked by big powers (donors with a lot of money who basically purchase politicians and can dictate laws) and I agree. The rumor is that giant corporations often write the bills in the first place, and Congress passes them into law without even reading them. This is not too hard to believe.

    Yes, there is a lot of fear-mongering going on right now, that to re-elect Trump would bring the doom of the US system. First of all this is silly stuff meant to scare CNN-watching boomers into voting Democrat. But even if it's true, the US system is so corrupt, wasteful and broken that I would almost welcome its doom anyway.

  24. #17599
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Lobbying is the heart of american democracy vs the european "socialist" model. So what? Are you antiamerican?
    Just make money - with your hard work - to buy favors.....it's how "freedom" (to gain power and influence) works in the american way.....by design.

    I repeat, it's how the system is designed to sustain itself.
    Last edited by lowenz; 7th Mar 2024 at 17:03.

  25. #17600
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Republicans are the ones who pushed for Citizens United and got it. That allowed congress to be bought. Republicans are the ones who let the rich write their laws. The fist passed when there was no Democrat president to stop it was the tax cuts for the rich. The very first one under Trump. They had it loaded in case he won. Biden wants to repeal that one and institute a 15% tax on them to help get the deficit under control. Did you see the state of the union? Biden nailed it and nailed Republicans with it.

    Yes there is a lot of fear mongering about the border when Republicans let an orange moron talk them out of a border deal that would help tremendously just so he would have something to run on. Trump has promised a day of dictatorship and I've come to understand he means what he says. He has shown he cares about the US only when he wins. If he loses he will gladly burn all our laws and institutions to get himself in office. And sure you may welcome it's doom but as long as we can get enough Democrats in to override Republicans fealty to the ultra wealthy I still have hope for the US.

    Did anyone catch senator Britts rebuttal to the State of the Union? LOL I have never seen a worse acting job in my life and the contradictions were mind boggling. First she says how we should keep the immigrants in Mexico then goes on some tear stained speech about the cartels there raping and trafficking women. Well duh. You want to keep those women over there on that side for that! Then she says how proud she is of her state for the invitro fertilization mess. Mind boggling. Then she talks about credit cards but forgets that Biden has a bill to cut the percent they can charge if only Republicans will pass it. She must think we are as nutty as she is. And the wheedling tear stained acting and appeals to kitchen table gawd bless American values bullshit was so over the top. I was blown away that she thought that crap could fly to anyone with a brain.

    Biden looked great and got some good jabs in. I must admit I was a little afraid. By the end of his speech I came to realize I had somehow allowed myself to be bamboozled by Republicans decrying his age. How? I know they lie.

Page 704 of 705 FirstFirst ... 204454604654659664669674679684689694699700701702703704705 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •