Jump to content

Why The Debate When The Parties Have Not Chosen Their Candidates?!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Your on record saying trump doesn’t lie… etc no 1 takes u serious

I'll change my ultimatum.

Please provide evidence that I said "Trump doesn't lie".

If you can't provide that evidence, then I feel you need to do the gentlemanly thing and provide a genuine, whole-hearted apology for disparaging my good character. This would be the right thing to do. I know what Trump would do. Let's see what happens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Sad days ahead! Started years ago and continue to trend downward! All we can do is pray, with either of these 2 running the show we’re doomed! The clowns who think what they got 4 years ago is going to be the same IF Don the Con is president has a rude awakening coming… I just hope they don’t disappear and come on here to defend all the actions their guy does… D’s need to get off Biden like years ago, Hillary bad choice, Biden bad choice… guess we’ll see.. manchin needs to save the day

Did we have a rude awakening his 1st 4 years?  Just curious why you made that statement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Englebert said:

So if he was sick, why did he go to Waffle House after the debate? What sadistic POS knows he will spread his germs...and decides, yes, let me go to a restaurant to get everyone there sick. How can you support someone that does this...on purpose.

I don't know why he went to the Waffle House. Why did Trump go to a debate knowing that he had COVID 19?

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I don't know why he went to the Waffle House. Why did Trump go to a debate knowing that he had COVID 19?

This is the hidden content, please

Wow. Do you consider this an effective tactic of not answering the question by deflection. Trump is good at it. I won't comment on your ability.

And thanks for the "whataboutism" you Liberals are so found of lobbing a people. It was comical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Wow. Do you consider this an effective tactic of not answering the question by deflection. Trump is good at it. I won't comment on your ability.

I said that I didn't know why he went to the Waffle House, if he did at all. 

This is the hidden content, please

There debate was on 9-29, he admitted that he had Covid on 10-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big girl said:

I said that I didn't know why he went to the Waffle House, if he did at all. 

This is the hidden content, please

There debate was on 9-29, he admitted ge have Covid on 10-2

Are you actually trying to make a point? Do you have the ability to stick to the topic of Biden using the excuse of being sick, then immediately going to a public restaurant? Can you debate without employing deflections and "whataboutisms"? Should I even pose any of these as questions instead of statements?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Hear me out… Biden has been greatly diminished over the last four years. That’s painfully obvious. 
 

Age is relative. One person at 75 can mirror somebody else at 81… heck, a fifty-six year old with early onset dementia behaves like 81-year old Biden. 
 

But if there’s one thing I’m sure of, Karma exists, what comes around goes around, and the people calling names and laughing at Biden while simultaneously nominating an equally geriatric candidate will no doubt get a taste of their own medicine if he gets elected.  
 

It’s just the way that the world works.  

I don't know why some people on this forum think that they have the knowledge to diagnosis someone with dementia. It is not a simple process, and should be done by a neurologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big girl said:

I don't know why some people on this forum think that they have the knowledge to diagnosis someone with dementia. It is not a simple process, and should be done by a neurologist.

Are you a neurologist? It seems you were the most active person on the thread giving your "undocumented degreed" opinion on the subject. Should we discuss the term "hypocrite"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Englebert said:

Are you a neurologist? It seems you were the most active person on the thread giving your "undocumented degreed" opinion on the subject. Should we discuss the term "hypocrite"?

I didn't diagnose him with Dementia. I stated,  using my, nursing knowledge, that he would not be able to remember the answers, if they were given to him via an apparatus in his ear, in a debate if he had end stage dementia, like some of you allege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I didn't diagnose him with Dementia. I stated,  using my, nursing knowledge, that he would not be able to remember the answers, if they were given to him via an apparatus in his ear, in a debate if he had end stage dementia, like some of you allege.

That is only for a neurologist to diagnose, not for a nurse. It seems you are just a guilty as those you disparage. Are you ashamed?

Why did you include me? I never gave a diagnosis on Biden, but you slander me in you scorn of others. Are you ashamed?

Shouldn't you apologize?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Englebert said:

That is only for a neurologist to diagnose, not for a nurse. It seems you are just a guilty as those you disparage. Are you ashamed?

Why did you include me? I never gave a diagnosis on Biden, but you slander me in you scorn of others. Are you ashamed?

Shouldn't you apologize?

You are confused. I didn't diagnose anything. I said that if a patient had end stage dementia (dementia was already a diagnosis) a person would not be able to etc etc. I apologize for including you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Big girl said:

You are confused. I didn't diagnose anything. I said that if a patient had end stage dementia (dementia was already a diagnosis) a person would not be able to etc etc. I apologize for including you.

You do not have a degree in neurology and are not a certified neurologist. You do not know all of the systems and factors that end stage dementia includes. Just like those you disparage, you are not qualified to make that assessment. You should now apologize for calling me confused. That was a personal attack. You need to watch your language.

I accept your first apology. I await the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Didn't he say at the debate that Democrats want to kill infants after birth? That is a lie from the pits of hell.

That’s not a lie… in the buildup to the reversal of Roe v Wade, some states (like Texas) were putting in very restrictive abortion bans that would take effect on the off chance that Roe v Wade was overturned.  

Other states (like Virginia) set in place rules even less restrictive than the ones in Roe v Wade…. And the Governor of Virginia was proud to say that abortion was legal right up until the baby was born.
 

This is the hidden content, please

FWIW, a state rep from Va authored a bill that would loosen restriction.  Asked to clarify, she said that a woman who was actively dialated would be able to request an abortion. After an uproar, she backtracked. 

This is the hidden content, please

The headline of the article incorrectly states that trump’s statement was a lie… it’s not, IMO. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for what it’s worth, can we stop calling something we don’t agree with “a lie?”

That’s literally what people are doing now, media included. If Trump says “I don’t think climate change is that big of a deal, some tree hugger will yell “he’s a liar!” And the talking heads will put another tic mark on the lie list. I saw the other day where some jerk researched trump’s presidency and said “he averaged 21 lies per day.” I agree that he’s a liar, but come on… 21 per day? They’re like “…then Trump said Biden is doing a bad job… another lie.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big girl said:

Didn't he say at the debate that Democrats want to kill infants after birth? That is a lie from the pits of hell.

That is because Virginia attempted to pass a law that allowed a single physician to allow an at birth abortion for as little as the mental health of the mother.

I believe the current law reads that three doctors had to concur that there was substantial risk of death to the mother before a third trimester abortion could be performed. The change would have made it up to birth, a single physician signing off on it and as little as the mental health of the mother.

It failed but the “want to” was clearly out there from Democrats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

That’s not a lie… in the buildup to the reversal of Roe v Wade, some states (like Texas) were putting in very restrictive abortion bans that would take effect on the off chance that Roe v Wade was overturned.  

Other states (like Virginia) set in place rules even less restrictive than the ones in Roe v Wade…. And the Governor of Virginia was proud to say that abortion was legal right up until the baby was born.
 

This is the hidden content, please

FWIW, a state rep from Va authored a bill that would loosen restriction.  Asked to clarify, she said that a woman who was actively dialated would be able to request an abortion. After an uproar, she backtracked. 

This is the hidden content, please

The headline of the article incorrectly states that trump’s statement was a lie… it’s not, IMO. 

 

I didn’t read your comment before I posted. I thought that Virginia was the test case for at birth abortions but it failed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I didn’t read your comment before I posted. I thought that Virginia was the test case for at birth abortions but it failed. 

There was a lot of chatter and i don’t remember the specifics. In my mind those Uber-progressive “restrictions” were either I response to, or the cause of, the hard push from the right to get Roe v Wade overturned.  
 

I liked the way that Trump framed his beliefs (exceptions to abortion bans for specified reasons… rape, incest, health of the mother).  His beliefs don’t line up with the radical right on the issue and for once it looked like he thought and tried to articulate his actual opinion instead of appeasing his followers. 
 

THAT dude would have more support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,994
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    janaxad4
    Newest Member
    janaxad4
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Read it all - good info - thanks
    • Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar…..  Is like two roosters fighting  and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken. 
    • Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work.  The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that……  To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 
    • I bet he has woodville in the top 2 in the region
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...