1. #87821
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    THIS is where the floodgates have been opened? Have you been in a coma? Care you comment on the four million inquiries into Hillary?

    - - - Updated - - -

    This is so incredibly dishonest...

    What is Trump's approval rating again?
    The concern troll's name is literally "somewhat concerned." Ignore it and move on.



    People haven't forgotten who Trump is and what he represents. Biden is polling low right now, yes. But saying you don't support Biden right now is literally meaningless. Saying you're willing to let a fascist back into office in 2024 is another matter entirely.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2023-12-21 at 12:42 AM.

  2. #87822
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Somewhatconcerned View Post
    Biden's approval rating is at like 34% and becoming unpopular even with factions within the Democrat party.

    He will get hammered on the border and economy. He could still win, but Biden should be considered a massive underdog at this point.
    Remember the end of 2011?
    • Obama's polling was an all-time low.
    • New York Times Magazine published an "analysis" giving Obama a 17 percent chance to win reelection.
    • Saudis were jacking up oil prices.
    • GOP threatened to tank the economy <again> and forced shutdowns.
    • Fox News was headlining border crises.
    • Certain Left factions wanted to primary Obama. Threatened to withhold votes.
    • Press spent most of the time crowning Romney.


    Sure Jan...
    Government Affiliated Snark

  3. #87823
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And pretty much any legal scholar will tell you that the president is an officer of the United States. If you hold an office, you are an officer.

    Here's one such example;

    https://missouriindependent.com/2023...ry%20discourse.
    Or, a popular Amendment that was brought up a LOT. 25th Amendment. https://constitution.congress.gov/br...e%20President.


    Some key points would be that the “President” is the position of “office of the president”, and talking about one’s ability to perform the actions of the office. So it would appear that “President” is shorthand for “office of the president”, so yes, the president is an “officer”.


    And quoting Cornell
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/offi...%20employment.
    officer

    In general, an officer is a person who has the obligation of carrying out the responsibilities and functions of an office, whether it be duty or charge, a position of trust, or the right to engage in public or private employment.

    A public officer is typically described as someone who has been elected or appointed to perform the duties of an office for the public good.

    So it’s not as ambiguous as it seems. It’s one of those situations where people are being disingenuous and saying, “he didn’t say ‘quid pro quo’ therefore he didn’t commit a crime”, so they use that logic to say, “this specific article didn’t say president, or call the president an officer, therefore it doesn’t apply.”

  4. #87824
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,729
    The Lt. Gov. of Texas wants to kick Biden off the ballot because, basically, his snowflake feewings are hurt.

    Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight … makes me think — except we believe in democracy in Texas — maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing 8 million people to cross the border since he’s been president, disrupting our state far more than anything anyone else has done in recent history
    "Did he mention how many people crossed the border while Trump was in the WH?"

    No.

    "Was it more or less than 8 million?"

    Well, for one, I think 8 million is made up. Actually, let me clarify. The NYTimes puts the number of illegal border crossings in 2022 at 2.2 million. So, I don't think it's been 8 million illegal crossings, especially not into Texas specifically. If he's talking about all crossings, including legal ones, then fuck that guy for his insinuations.

    "He talked about the damage in recent history. Did he mention the time his state froze solid and people died?"

    No.

    "Did he mention COVID?"

    No.

    "Did he mention the 2015 Dallas Cowboys?"

    No.

    "Does anything in the 14th suggest that he has a case here?"

    No, but the very fact that he's in Texas means they could probably do it anyhow. It would also need to go through SCOTUS, who would have to not only unpack everything Trump is already dealing with, but also, whether or not illegal crossings count towards the 14th when Texas recently signed into law the ability to attack the problem themselves directly.

    Meaning, anyone considering this to be a slippery slope might have a point, but this appears to be the best they have so far -- random accusations and yelling things at cameras.

    The Lt. Gov. of Texas can't kick Biden off the ballot. I'd like to see him try.

  5. #87825
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Somewhatconcerned View Post
    So you agree that a zero sum game has been going on. Good.

    Who cares what Trump's approval rating is? Biden hasn't even hit his floor yet. He's got another 11 months to continue to bleed support, which he will.

    Biden will still win the popular vote, but it certainly won't be as large of a gap next time. This will translate into a comfortable EC win for Trump.

    But let me guess, you got him THIS time, right?
    Considering how much Republicans kept getting thrashed in local elections the last couple of years, I think the turnout's going to be another case of voting against the Republicans' shitty policies than voting 'for' Biden. As much as I think it's a sad state of politics, I also think your own take about his inevitable defeat is hardly grounded in reality.

  6. #87826
    Quote Originally Posted by swiftowner View Post
    Or, a popular Amendment that was brought up a LOT. 25th Amendment. https://constitution.congress.gov/br...e%20President.


    Some key points would be that the “President” is the position of “office of the president”, and talking about one’s ability to perform the actions of the office. So it would appear that “President” is shorthand for “office of the president”, so yes, the president is an “officer”.


    And quoting Cornell
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/offi...%20employment.



    So it’s not as ambiguous as it seems. It’s one of those situations where people are being disingenuous and saying, “he didn’t say ‘quid pro quo’ therefore he didn’t commit a crime”, so they use that logic to say, “this specific article didn’t say president, or call the president an officer, therefore it doesn’t apply.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    And pretty much any legal scholar will tell you that the president is an officer of the United States. If you hold an office, you are an officer.

    Here's one such example;

    https://missouriindependent.com/2023...ry%20discourse.
    And yet the first ruling in this case, because this is the appeal, ruled that it does not apply to the President.
    So... again, not clear cut.

    And to remind folks, I'm just playing devils advocate here and showing the opening the SC has to resolve this with minimal involvement (because the other option involves ruling on whether or not Trump is guilty of insurrection). I agree it should apply to a former President.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  7. #87827
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you want to go to semantics, do we not speak of the "Office of the President of the United States"?

    The man who represents such an office is an "officer". That's the origin of the term.

    You can also just as easily read "and all other Officers" as referring to "officers other than the President doing the appointing".
    I wish I could find this clip from MSNBC last night. They actually found congressional discussion logs of when this was actually written. One of the senators objected to the writing of the amendment, because he thought there was wiggle room as to whether or not it included the president or not. The guy who actually wrote the damn amendment said something to the effect of "What are you talking about? it very plainly does" and the other guy says "Oh, I guess I was mistaken".

    I know this Supreme Court loves to go by "what they meant when they wrote it" and it can't be any more clear than the guy who wrote it saying yes, it includes the president.

    *edit, found it:
    https://youtu.be/JyRbAK_yXDw?si=fSKAhHFiDhumMMET&t=705
    Last edited by solinari6; 2023-12-21 at 02:00 PM.

  8. #87828
    Merely a Setback Teriz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Soul of Azeroth
    Posts
    29,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    And yet the first ruling in this case, because this is the appeal, ruled that it does not apply to the President.
    So... again, not clear cut.

    And to remind folks, I'm just playing devils advocate here and showing the opening the SC has to resolve this with minimal involvement (because the other option involves ruling on whether or not Trump is guilty of insurrection). I agree it should apply to a former President.
    Well here you go;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=fSK...ature=youtu.be

    The senators who wrote the amendment stated plainly that yes, it applies to the president.

  9. #87829
    Quote Originally Posted by solinari6 View Post
    I wish I could find this clip from MSNBC last night. They actually found congressional discussion logs of when this was actually written. One of the senators objected to the writing of the amendment, because he thought there was wiggle room as to whether or not it included the president or not. The guy who actually wrote the damn amendment said something to the effect of "What are you talking about? it very plainly does" and the other guy says "Oh, I guess I was mistaken".

    I know this Supreme Court loves to go by "what they meant when they wrote it" and it can't be any more clear than the guy who wrote it saying yes, it includes the president.

    *edit, found it:
    https://youtu.be/JyRbAK_yXDw?si=fSKAhHFiDhumMMET&t=705
    The Reich wing supreme court reasoning these days has simply been "cause we say so" not even a reinterpretation just straight out pulling reasoning out of their collective derrieres.

  10. #87830
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Well here you go;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=fSK...ature=youtu.be

    The senators who wrote the amendment stated plainly that yes, it applies to the president.
    And yet the first ruling in this case, because this is the appeal, ruled that it does not apply to the President.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  11. #87831
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    And yet the first ruling in this case, because this is the appeal, ruled that it does not apply to the President.
    Right… and as I stated, anyone claiming that it doesn’t is being disingenuous. Actually, with the given facts, they aren’t being disingenuous, they are *lying*

  12. #87832
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Somewhatconcerned View Post
    Who cares what Trump's approval rating is?
    Honest people.

    Biden hasn't even hit his floor yet. He's got another 11 months to continue to bleed support, which he will.
    Or he's got another 11 months for people to forget about how he handled the Gaza situation, 11 months for inflation to slow, and 11 months for the economy to grow which will improve his numbers. Either could happen - if you were interested in an honest assessment of things that is.

    Biden will still win the popular vote, but it certainly won't be as large of a gap next time.
    Sure. But as you know this means little other than the GOP is not a popular party.

    This will translate into a comfortable EC win for Trump.
    Oh good this again. We all heard this before in 2020. Your boy didn't fare so well now did he? I'm enjoying the predictions you are just pulling out of your ass with nothing to back them up though.

    But let me guess, you got him THIS time, right?
    But let me guess, Trump's going to win for sure THIS time, right?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    The concern troll's name is literally "somewhat concerned." Ignore it and move on.
    1) troll or not his views are shared by many in all seriousness. 2) when has this off-topic posting ever actually worked for you?
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  13. #87833
    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/21/p...tcy/index.html

    Rudy Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in federal court in New York on Thursday, just days after a jury ordered him to pay nearly $150 million to two former Georgia election workers for defamation.

    According to the filing, Giuliani listed debts between $100 million and $500 million, and assets worth up to $10 million.
    I thought the saying was, "Go woke, go broke"?

  14. #87834
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    "According to the filing, Giuliani listed debts between $100 million and $500 million, and assets worth up to $10 million."
    Hmm.

    If you do a Google search 1/1/2021-6/1/2023 for his net worth, you keep seeing the same range: $40 to $45 million. However, Giuliani has a history of lying about his net worth in legal context.

    The clearest picture of Giuliani's career net worth comes from his 2007 financial disclosure when he was running for the Republican nomination for president. In the disclosure, Giuliani reported assets of between $18.1 million and $70.4 million, a significant jump from the $7,000 in assets he reported to a divorce court during the end of his second marriage in 2001. At the time, Giuliani had reported a salary of $195,000 a year as mayor of New York and was due to a $3 million advance to write two books.
    I think Giuliani is lying about his net worth, and more importantly, he has no reason to. His honest net worth is still way less than he owes.

    Of course, he works for Trump, so, lying about the value of his businesses and real estate is probably something he's used to.

  15. #87835
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,674


    "Jack Smith's filing rebutting Trump's bid to see a sealed, ex parte brief on classified discovery has an interesting nugget on the highly sensitive nature of the docs in the case.
    They're apparently so secret that TS/SCI clearance isn't enough. Added read-ins are needed."

    https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status...04002932560023

    How cooked is Trump? Is he well done yet?
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  16. #87836
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post


    "Jack Smith's filing rebutting Trump's bid to see a sealed, ex parte brief on classified discovery has an interesting nugget on the highly sensitive nature of the docs in the case.
    They're apparently so secret that TS/SCI clearance isn't enough. Added read-ins are needed."

    https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status...04002932560023

    How cooked is Trump? Is he well done yet?
    Honestly the depths of just how fucked up this is and how Republicans refuse to talk about it because it makes their party and themselves look complicit and horrible galls me so much.

  17. #87837
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Honestly the depths of just how fucked up this is and how Republicans refuse to talk about it because it makes their party and themselves look complicit and horrible galls me so much.
    Wait so Trump cannot be privy to discovery in the case against him. ‘Just trust us bro it’s bad?’ You’re right that is messed up but maybe not in the way you’re thinking.

  18. #87838
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,438
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Wait so Trump cannot be privy to discovery in the case against him. ‘Just trust us bro it’s bad?’ You’re right that is messed up but maybe not in the way you’re thinking.
    “The things trump leaked were critical state secrets, and he and his lawyers aren’t privy to looking at critical state secrets.”


    Maybe he shouldn’t have leaked such heinous shit if he’s distraught that he can’t be told exactly what he leaked.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  19. #87839
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Wait so Trump cannot be privy to discovery in the case against him. ‘Just trust us bro it’s bad?’ You’re right that is messed up but maybe not in the way you’re thinking.
    The actual context of the image that was posted:

    From Newsweek:
    "The information at issue goes well beyond what even someone with a Top Secret SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] security clearance can lawfully access; many of the documents require additional read-ins," her submission states.

    "There is no reason that Nauta (or any valet) would have received such read-ins. Referring to Nauta as one of Trump's closest "advisors," is a misnomer; Nauta has described his role as a personal aide to Trump as taking care of items like Trump's wardrobe, food, schedule updates, itinerary, and appointments."

    She also dismisses as irrelevant Trump and Nauta's claim they are not "accused terrorists" and that their lawyers should therefore have access to the documents.

    She adds that, as Nauta is not charged with the willful retention of national defense information, he is "not similarly situated to Trump with respect to discovery."

    "The Government has said throughout this case, see, e.g., ECF No. 120 at 2, 8, that should counsel review any classified discovery and see a need to discuss it with their client, counsel could articulate that need for the Government's consideration."

    "Counsel have never done so, nor do they proffer any justification here, instead seeking blanket access for their uncleared clients to some of the nation's most critical secrets in the classified discovery," Edelstein adds.
    So no, you can't access classified shit that you were never supposed to have been able to see just because you're charged with handling and moving it around a place where it shouldn't have been in the first place. That would be insane.

    To be clear, this is about Nauta. The implication from that other poster that it had special significance for Trump is misleading.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2023-12-22 at 05:27 AM.

  20. #87840
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,729
    So apparently Trump told Michigan vote certifiers not to certify the votes and someone got it on tape.

    Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.

    On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look "terrible" if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.

    "We've got to fight for our country," said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. "We can't let these people take our country away from us."

    McDaniel, a Michigan native and the leader of the Republican Party nationally, said at another point in the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."

    To which Trump added: "We'll take care of that."


    Palmer and Hartmann left the canvassers meeting without signing the official statement of votes for Wayne County, and the following day, they unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their votes in favor of certification, filing legal affidavits claiming they were pressured.

    The call involving Trump, McDaniel, Hartmann and Palmer occurred within 30 minutes of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers meeting ending on Nov. 17, 2020, according to records reviewed by The News.

    The timestamp of the first recording was 9:55 p.m. Nov. 17, 2020. The time was consistent with Verizon phone records obtained by a U.S. House committee that showed Palmer received calls from McDaniel at 9:53 p.m. and 10:04 p.m.
    So that "we were pressured" is already on the record, and those phone records seem solid, so I'm inclined to believe this recording is real. When asked for comment, Trump admitted everything via spokesliar.

    Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, said Trump's actions "were taken in furtherance of his duty as president of the United States to faithfully take care of the laws and ensure election integrity, including investigating the rigged and stolen 2020 presidential election."

    "President Trump and the American people have the constitutional right to free and fair elections," Cheung said.
    "What role does the US President serve in tallying Michigan votes?"

    Literally less than zero, as he was one of the candidates running in that election.

    "Was the election rigged or stolen?"

    No.

    Trump went on to say

    "How can anybody sign something when you have more votes than people?" Trump asked the canvassers, according to the recordings.

    About 13 hours after the call, Trump posted on social media about Wayne County, again saying there were more votes than people.
    "My God, how did Michigan certify with such blatant fraud?"

    Trump was lying. There were not more votes than people. Took me a matter of seconds to find that, but let's be real here, "more votes than people" would be trivial to spot by literally any of the millions of people watching the Michigan news or billions of people watching the US election.

    Trump's claim about Detroit is demonstrably false. There are 670,000 people living in Detroit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's most recent estimate, and the city says that 250,138 ballots were cast there.
    Just a reminder, this is both Trump and the head of the RNC directly intervening in a fair and legal election, based on at best wild rumors and at worst known objective falsehoods -- like "more votes than people".

Posting Permissions

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