Supreme Court rules President is immune for “official acts”

[RLLD 4,242]

8 hours ago, thegeneral said:

FFS. Its not how I see it, it’s what occurred

 

I get that. often we perceive things and that becomes our reality, happens to me as well on occasion. The important thing is that you really believe it......so run with that.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

This may be the most idiotic, Slingblade-level post I've ever seen from you here.  So congrats I guess.  It manages to capture your utter inability to understand a single word I said, and yet come off as the Leftie pseud that you are.   

I love how you think you're smarter or better than the uneducated minions that you stand with and parrot the same bullsh1t that you're all told.

But to your credit you take it a step further.  I've had many conversations with election deniers like yourself, and it always goes the same way, which is basically "show me your work" and that's where it ends since they can't.  You've taken it a step further and now claim that it's impossible to show your work because the "system" won't allow it.  So not only was the election rigged, but the ability to catch the rigging was also rigged.  How convenient.  It's a good tactic to protect yourself.

If you are an engineer and possess an analytical mind, then your natural inclination is the CER method, claim evidence reasoning.  You've made your claim but have no evidence so your reasoning is missing.  Instead of adjusting your claim you're just saying it's impossible to get evidence lol.  It's a convenient, lazy excuse.

And it's not GIGO, something I understand having worked in software for 30 years.  There is nothing inherently wrong with our election process, paper ballots or drop boxes.  And it was never a problem until trump cried that he lost.  Every recount, audit, study, analysis has shown zero evidence of fraud.  Grown adults need to accept that.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

7 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

I’m impressed you guys ever sleep at all with all the boogie men you guys create. My God, if he murders a hooker, we can convict him. Good Lord.

I don't care if he murders a hooker.  I do care if he murders his VP or others in an official act as president in order to protect America from a stolen election.

[thegeneral 3,236]

37 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I get that. often we perceive things and that becomes our reality, happens to me as well on occasion. The important thing is that you really believe it......so run with that.

It’s what happened. It’s what Pence said happened. Don talked about it aloud. His lawyers told him that it was illegal. He didn’t give a fock.

I get that you have this odd reaction to it. Coping mechanism.

[RLLD 4,242]

15 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

It’s what happened. It’s what Pence said happened. Don talked about it aloud. His lawyers told him that it was illegal. He didn’t give a fock.

I get that you have this odd reaction to it. Coping mechanism.

Sure, I understand that people consistently apply intent and context to situations around Trump, and those are consistently proven wrong....so by all means, take his statements as you see fit.  I think its fine. Not going to suggest you should only see things my way.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

9 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The point is liberals such as yourself only care about holding anyone on the other side accountable, especially the fantasy version of Trump you have conjured up in your head. Obama clearly broke the law, and there was no call to hold him accountable. 

As I mentioned in my post to Raiders and RLLD that is nonsense that there was no call to hold Obama accountable. There absolutely was at the time. 

[thegeneral 3,236]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Sure, I understand that people consistently apply intent and context to situations around Trump, and those are consistently proven wrong....so by all means, take his statements as you see fit.  I think its fine. Not going to suggest you should only see things my way.

What was the intent of Trump telling Pence to not certify the election? How do you take that? 

[RLLD 4,242]

2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What was the intent of Trump telling Pence to not certify the election? How do you take that? 

Oh I will pass on that, I am reticent to ascribe intent to people....  particularly negative intent.  That is how we end up with CNN paying Sandman, or CNN having to admit the "very fine people" hoax.

In fact, it happens here rather consistently.  Someone posts something, then someone strides in and makes some cartoonish comment in return, based on their assessment of intent, and is often wrong about that intent.

I think it might come with age and experience, to be more inquisitive and less apt toward application of intent all the time.  I think your hate for Trump is coloring your decision-making paradigm.  Years in the military solved that flaw for me.

[thegeneral 3,236]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Oh I will pass on that, I am reticent to ascribe intent to people....  particularly negative intent.  That is how we end up with CNN paying Sandman, or CNN having to admit the "very fine people" hoax.

In fact, it happens here rather consistently.  Someone posts something, then someone strides in and makes some cartoonish comment in return, based on their assessment of intent, and is often wrong about that intent.

I think it might come with age and experience, to be more inquisitive and less apt toward application of intent all the time.  I think your hate for Trump is coloring your decision-making paradigm.  Years in the military solved that flaw for me.

Oh boy. How convenient.

  It’s not like this is some secret. 

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

I finally understand the judicial theory of originalism---it means they are judges who are way more original thinkers than those scrubs who came before them.

[RLLD 4,242]

2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Oh boy. How convenient.

  It’s not like this is some secret. 

Notice that I am not insistent that you accept my position....notice how you are behaving

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,121]

9 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Anytime their hypocrisy is confirmed they screetch “what about ism”. Every time. 

It's like clockwork.  It's as expected as the sun rising and falling each day.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

25 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Oh I will pass on that, I am reticent to ascribe intent to people....  particularly negative intent.  That is how we end up with CNN paying Sandman, or CNN having to admit the "very fine people" hoax.

In fact, it happens here rather consistently.  Someone posts something, then someone strides in and makes some cartoonish comment in return, based on their assessment of intent, and is often wrong about that intent.

I think it might come with age and experience, to be more inquisitive and less apt toward application of intent all the time.  I think your hate for Trump is coloring your decision-making paradigm.  Years in the military solved that flaw for me.

I don't have a dog in the fight but this is a huge cop out. Additionally- you regularly prescribe intent to what people say here but you don't want to do it now. 

In the case of Trump and the election of 2020- how many things would need to happen before you at least entertain "Well maybe his intentions were bad here"? For example- here is a look at the call with Brad Raffensperger of Georgia in January of 2021

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fact-check-trumps-georgia-call-raffensperger

According to this- Trump made 15 claims in trying to say they should relook at the voting- is 15 enough to say "Hey maybe this guy isn't on the up and up on this"?

[RLLD 4,242]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I don't have a dog in the fight but this is a huge cop out. Additionally- you regularly prescribe intent to what people say here but you don't want to do it now. 

In the case of Trump and the election of 2020- how many things would need to happen before you at least entertain "Well maybe his intentions were bad here"? For example- here is a look at the call with Brad Raffensberger of Georgia in January of 2021

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fact-check-trumps-georgia-call-raffensperger

According to this- Trump made 15 claims in trying to say they should relook at the voting- is 15 enough to say "Hey maybe this guy isn't on the up and up on this"?

I investigate what people are saying, attempt to hold a discussion, and sometimes arrive at a conclusion to be sure....but since I do not have the luxury of doing it elsewhere, I will restrain....particularly when it arises that MSM is pronouncing intent; given their clear bias and propensity for being wrong.

So yeah, I see the consistent malignment of Trump statements, so here we are again.....just another attempt to apply intent....mostly to denigrate the guy, which I sorta understand.

[thegeneral 3,236]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Notice that I am not insistent that you accept my position....notice how you are behaving

The thing here is this is public record. Trump said it, Pence said it. The lawyers said it. 

I did get a bit of a chuckle at the bit where you talked about not applying intent to people.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I investigate what people are saying, attempt to hold a discussion, and sometimes arrive at a conclusion to be sure....but since I do not have the luxury of doing it elsewhere, I will restrain....particularly when it arises that MSM is pronouncing intent; given their clear bias and propensity for being wrong.

So yeah, I see the consistent malignment of Trump statements, so here we are again.....just another attempt to apply intent....mostly to denigrate the guy, which I sorta understand.

That was a lot of words that didn't really address the question I asked or the article I linked.

At some point- when someone takes 15 different stands to try and get a person to relook at an election (note I'm not using the word "overturn" here) you have to question the motives. If someone keeps on the same path forever it's probably for a reason.

And you'll notice I'm not "applying intent"- I'm asking a question of "how long do you have to be told something by someone before you question them"?

[RLLD 4,242]

Just now, thegeneral said:

The thing here is this is public record. Trump said it, Pence said it. The lawyers said it. 

I did get a bit of a chuckle at the bit where you talked about not applying intent to people.

I get it, I also have the experience of watching this game be played.....

[RLLD 4,242]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

That was a lot of words that didn't really address the question I asked or the article I linked.

At some point- when someone takes 15 different stands to try and get a person to relook at an election (note I'm not using the word "overturn" here) you have to question the motives. If someone keeps on the same path forever it's probably for a reason.

And you'll notice I'm not "applying intent"- I'm asking a question of "how long do you have to be told something by someone before you question them"?

I appreciate the link of course.  But the application of intent I leave to you....

Now, if you are seeking to assert we can apply intent, I might suggest that is not a winning path....for you....

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Just now, RLLD said:

I appreciate the link of course.  But the application of intent I leave to you....

Now, if you are seeking to assert we can apply intent, I might suggest that is not a winning path....for you....

You're avoiding the question. I'm not asking or prescribing intent to anything. I'm simply asking you:

"how long do you have to be told something by someone before you question them"?

[RLLD 4,242]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You're avoiding the question. I'm not asking or prescribing intent to anything. I'm simply asking you:

"how long do you have to be told something by someone before you question them"?

I like to question things early on, to better understand.

[thegeneral 3,236]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I get it, I also have the experience of watching this game be played.....

You can just say what you think Don was saying when he was telling Pence not to certify the election or asking DoJ to just say it was corrupt and he’d take care of the rest. This isn’t “The People’s Court” here.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Just now, RLLD said:

I like to question things early on, to better understand.

So if someone makes 15 claims trying to get someone to do something you would question that then and wonder if their intentions were honorable at least

[RLLD 4,242]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

So if someone makes 15 claims trying to get someone to do something you would question that then and wonder if their intentions were honorable at least

I do not understand your question

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Just now, RLLD said:

I do not understand your question

This isn't hard and please stop being obtuse.

You want to excuse someone from something and say "I don't want to apply intent..." but if someone does something 15 different times their intentions should be clear correct?

[RLLD 4,242]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

You can just say what you think Don was saying when he was telling Pence not to certify the election or asking DoJ to just say it was corrupt and he’d take care of the rest. This isn’t “The People’s Court” here.

You could say multiple things, you could point to his clumsy way of expressing himself over and over and over, as we have seen over and over.... or....you could say, well, THIS TIME.....we know what he means.

That is up to you. Each of us will decide for ourselves.

[RLLD 4,242]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

This isn't hard and please stop being obtuse.

You want to excuse someone from something and say "I don't want to apply intent..." but if someone does something 15 different times their intentions should be clear correct?

Oh I see, you want to suggest that the frequency of a statement changes its context....I mean, I am not aware of that factor changing the intent, but I guess you could make an argument for it, sure.... you do you

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Just now, RLLD said:

Oh I see, you want to suggest that the frequency of a statement changes its context....I mean, I am not aware of that factor changing the intent, but I guess you could make an argument for it, sure.... you do you

Again you are choosing to be obtuse. I'm not saying for me. Please stop trying to apply intent to what I'm saying.

I'm asking you- because you are the person who says "I am reticent to ascribe intent to people....  particularly negative intent."----how far does that go? If a person tries to get you to do something 15 different ways how long do you let that go gleefully saying "I don't want to ascribe intent here"? How many times would you let it happen before you start to think "Hmmm, maybe this person isn't on the up and up."

It's not about ascribing intent. 

[thegeneral 3,236]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

You could say multiple things, you could point to his clumsy way of expressing himself over and over and over, as we have seen over and over.... or....you could say, well, THIS TIME.....we know what he means.

That is up to you. Each of us will decide for ourselves.

Uh yeah. It’s crystal clear. It’s fine I see you don’t want to answer. 

[RLLD 4,242]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Again you are choosing to be obtuse. I'm not saying for me. Please stop trying to apply intent to what I'm saying.

I'm asking you- because you are the person who says "I am reticent to ascribe intent to people....  particularly negative intent."----how far does that go? If a person tries to get you to do something 15 different ways how long do you let that go gleefully saying "I don't want to ascribe intent here"? How many times would you let it happen before you start to think "Hmmm, maybe this person isn't on the up and up."

It's not about ascribing intent. 

How far does it go?  Not sure, I have never sat back and defined some limit. I guess I would take it on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situational factors....rather than apply some broad brush to everyone and everything.

[RLLD 4,242]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Uh yeah. It’s crystal clear. It’s fine I see you don’t want to answer. 

And I think it is great we can have differing opinions 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

How far does it go?  Not sure, I have never sat back and defined some limit. I guess I would take it on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situational factors....rather than apply some broad brush to everyone and everything.

Would you agree though that regardless of the situation- having something happen 15 times is probably a good place to say "Yeah maybe this person has bad intentions" (or good intentions depending on the scenario)

[thegeneral 3,236]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

And I think it is great we can have differing opinions 

You didn’t give an opinion of what Trump meant when he repeatedly asked Pence to not certify the election results - including the speech on Jan 6th when he got the rubes all wound up.

[RLLD 4,242]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Would you agree though that regardless of the situation- having something happen 15 times is probably a good place to say "Yeah maybe this person has bad intentions" (or good intentions depending on the scenario)

No, that is probably not a standard I would use

[RLLD 4,242]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

You didn’t give an opinion of what Trump meant when he repeatedly asked Pence to not certify the election results - including the speech on Jan 6th when he got the rubes all wound up.

And I do not need to

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

No, that is probably not a standard I would use

So you'd allow someone to try to intimidate you 15 times without questioning intent?

[thegeneral 3,236]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

And I do not need to

Right, you don’t want to imply intent here.

[WhiteWonder 2,751]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

You've taken it a step further and now claim that it's impossible to show your work because the "system" won't allow it.  So not only was the election rigged, but the ability to catch the rigging was also rigged.  How convenient.  It's a good tactic to protect yourself.

I do not believe the election was stolen. Somewhat rigged? maybe. I do think there was some shadiness with mail in ballots but not enough to change the outcome. 

My issue with your statement is that hypothetically, if an election was rigged, stolen, etc the people rigging it are not going to do so in a way that lets the other side "show their work". They are not going to leave open the possibility of being caught (to the best of their ability).  So your argument is pointless. You've got 2 parties that own politics and if one does indeed pull something like that off, they are big enough and influential enough to make sure it is never proven. 

So you can call those people silly, stupid all you like but the nonsense about it being a tactic to protect yourself is dumb and you can stop.

[RLLD 4,242]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

So you'd allow someone to try to intimidate you 15 times without questioning intent?

Intimidate, how would they do this intimidation?

[RLLD 4,242]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Right, you don’t want to imply intent here.

Correct, as I stated, particularly in this situation

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Intimidate, how would they do this intimidation?

However they see fit in this scenario.

That isn't the point of the question- the question is "so you'd allow someone to try to intimidate you 15 times without questioning intent"