Killing a rival candidate? President may now be immune for that and more

[Alias Detective 1,402]

Killing a rival candidate? President may now be immune for that and more

Nice Headline.  Creepy focking Liberal rag.

 

[thegeneral 3,214]

I definitely trust people not to take advantage of this. Let’s just give this one job more and more power held in check only by other politicians. What could go wrong!

[MLCKAA 574]

41 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Killing a rival candidate? President may now be immune for that and more

Nice Headline.  Creepy focking Liberal rag.

 

“He could have sent the military in on January 6 to support the insurrection,"

Sheesh.  Thought continues to rot on the vine.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

Liberals always project on the republicans what they are actually doing. So be prepared 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Real conservatives would not have liked that ruling giving the president so much immunity. That is unchecked power, which y'all are supposed to be against.

It probably won’t be via killing a rival candidate, but this decision will have severe negative repercussions down the road. It is guaranteed 

[MDC 7,429]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Liberals always project on the republicans what they are actually doing. So be prepared 

Libs are killing a rival candidate.  

[thegeneral 3,214]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Liberals always project on the republicans what they are actually doing. So be prepared 

The reason this seems problematic to me is because the Prez regardless of who it is now gets more power. They then use it in some dubious way. They won’t be held accountable by members of their own party because that’s who we roll. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

Just now, MDC said:

Libs are killing a rival candidate.  

Next step is all I’m saying.  Every time democrats project nonsense they are doing it. Trump is gonna lock up political rivals. Oh wait.  Trump is committing quid pro quo.  Oh wait.  Trump is working with Russia. Oh wait. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

The reason this seems problematic to me is because the Prez regardless of who it is now gets more power. They then use it in some dubious way. They won’t be held accountable by members of their own party because that’s who we roll. 

No he doesn’t. Biden flat out broke a Supreme Court ruling. So don’t give me the nonsense about power 

[Mike Honcho 5,282]

Headline and article are correct. Future generations will compare this court and Chief Justice Roberts with the one that oversaw the Dred Scott case.  

I blame all of this on those consciousness voters who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hilary and cast that all-important 3rd party protest vote.  Congrats.  

[MDC 7,429]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Next step is all I’m saying.  Every time democrats project nonsense they are doing it. Trump is gonna lock up political rivals. Oh wait.  Trump is committing quid pro quo.  Oh wait.  Trump is working with Russia. Oh wait. 

That goes both ways. For example Trump crying about muh fraud. Four years and dozens of lawsuits later, the only fraud we can prove was committed by Dirtbag Don and his associates.  

[iam90sbaby 2,611]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Real conservatives would not have liked that ruling giving the president so much immunity. That is unchecked power, which y'all are supposed to be against.

It probably won’t be via killing a rival candidate, but this decision will have severe negative repercussions down the road. It is guaranteed 

What's a real conservative? What you're describing is libertarianism.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Just now, iam90sbaby said:

What's a real conservative? What you're describing is libertarianism.

I meant not Trumptards. Hth

[weepaws 3,193]

Immunity 

[iam90sbaby 2,611]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

I meant not Trumptards. Hth

I'm socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I want the government to force conservatism on you sh!theads.

[thegeneral 3,214]

14 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

No he doesn’t. Biden flat out broke a Supreme Court ruling. So don’t give me the nonsense about power 

If you think that is bad then you should really think this SC ruling is bad.

This isn’t a Dem or Republican thing. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

6 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

I'm socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I want the government to force conservatism on you sh!theads.

You are not a conservative. You are a fascist

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You are not a conservative. You are a fascist

And you're a communist. So what? You're two sides of the same coin

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

And you're a communist. So what? You're two sides of the same coin

I want state ownership of the means of production?

News to me.

[jerryskids 6,799]

1 hour ago, Alias Detective said:

Killing a rival candidate? President may now be immune for that and more

Nice Headline.  Creepy focking Liberal rag.

 

Headline has been changed.  I imagine they got a lot of comments telling them how stupid the original one was.   

[Mike Honcho 5,282]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Headline has been changed.  I imagine they got a lot of comments telling them how stupid the original one was.   

https://www.usatoday.com/

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

35 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I want state ownership of the means of production?

News to me.

You do.  You vote for the Party that does and is moving in that direction.  HTH.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

53 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

If you think that is bad then you should really think this SC ruling is bad.

This isn’t a Dem or Republican thing. 

I disagree. If the president does something and gets impeached he can still be charged 

I’m also in favor of the president getting no more than 5 eos per term and would have to spend his wow to overturn previous ones 

when you have a current president who doesn’t follow Supreme Court rulings it doesn’t matter either way 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

Headline and article are correct. Future generations will compare this court and Chief Justice Roberts with the one that oversaw the Dred Scott case.  

I blame all of this on those consciousness voters who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hilary and cast that all-important 3rd party protest vote.  Congrats.  

I cast a third party protest vote.  That did not deprive Hillary of my vote as that power hungry khunt was never getting my vote.

[seafoam1 3,027]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Libs are killing a rival candidate.  

They sure do dream of it at night. 

[weepaws 3,193]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

They sure do dream of it at night. 

Probably the alcohol.  Stupid drunks.  

[seafoam1 3,027]

10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I cast a third party protest vote.  That did not deprive Hillary of my vote as that power hungry khunt was never getting my vote.

I did that once with Ross Perot. Wasted voted was all it turned out to be. 

[seafoam1 3,027]

2 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Probably the alcohol.  Stupid drunks.  

I'm drinking a beer right now while getting ready to go to my catholic church. I'm getting the munchies, can't wait til communion. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

23 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I disagree. If the president does something and gets impeached he can still be charged 

I’m also in favor of the president getting no more than 5 eos per term and would have to spend his wow to overturn previous ones 

when you have a current president who doesn’t follow Supreme Court rulings it doesn’t matter either way 

Why would you trust politicians to convict a Prez? It’s essentially impossible. They fall back to their team and justify the behavior.

This ruling gives more outs, more bullcrap that position can pull.

[seafoam1 3,027]

What's clinton's body count up to these days?.

[weepaws 3,193]

21 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I'm drinking a beer right now while getting ready to go to my catholic church. I'm getting the munchies, can't wait til communion. 

catholic life style.  

[seafoam1 3,027]

1 minute ago, weepaws said:

catholic life style.  

It really is good. 

[HellToupee 1,778]

8 minutes ago, weepaws said:

catholic life style.  

Eat a d1ck you Jesus nutter

[weepaws 3,193]

36 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I'm drinking a beer right now while getting ready to go to my catholic church. I'm getting the munchies, can't wait til communion. 

 

12 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

It really is good. 

 

3 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Eat a d1ck you Jesus nutter

I think you attended this for foam.  Thanks 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

34 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Why would you trust politicians to convict a Prez? It’s essentially impossible. They fall back to their team and justify the behavior.

This ruling gives more outs, more bullcrap that position can pull.

Tell me what has prevented it in the past.  Nothing has stopped Biden from breaking Supreme Court rulings 

[cyclone24 1,913]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Real conservatives would not have liked that ruling giving the president so much immunity. That is unchecked power, which y'all are supposed to be against.

It probably won’t be via killing a rival candidate, but this decision will have severe negative repercussions down the road. It is guaranteed 

That’s not true. I don’t want to see Biden or any Democratic president brought up on litigation for every single decision they make.
 

this isn’t going to have any repercussions. The Supreme Court just had to legally verify what I thought pretty much. Everyone knew all along is that you’re not going to charge a president for mistakes made under the umbrella of the presidency. The only reason we had to do this was because liberals brought it up and tried to get a decision in before an election to try to win votes and the Supreme Court basically bent them over for it. 

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

8 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

That’s not true. I don’t want to see Biden or any Democratic president brought up on litigation for every single decision they make.
 

this isn’t going to have any repercussions. The Supreme Court just had to legally verify what I thought pretty much. Everyone knew all along is that you’re not going to charge a president for mistakes made under the umbrella of the presidency. The only reason we had to do this was because liberals brought it up and tried to get a decision in before an election to try to win votes and the Supreme Court basically bent them over for it. 

 

Well no you can’t sue em while they’re in office. That was already the rule.

The issue is if they’re out of office and if they tried to overthrow the government because they lost an election.

Mark my words, this decision will be bad. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

16 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Tell me what has prevented it in the past.  Nothing has stopped Biden from breaking Supreme Court rulings 

Nothing. Especially now.

So again, why would you think fellow politicians are going to hold the Prez of their own party accountable? 

[RLLD 4,230]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Nothing. Especially now.

So again, why would you think fellow politicians are going to hold the Prez of their own party accountable? 

I think this is a great question. The only one that really comes to mind would be Nixon. Aside from him, the party has always seemingly backed their guy, no matter what.

So for these Democrats to now be turning on him, I think speaks to their apprehension with regard to Trump.

[thegeneral 3,214]

Just now, RLLD said:

I think this is a great question. The only one that really comes to mind would be Nixon. Aside from him, the party has always seemingly backed their guy, no matter what.

So for these Democrats to now be turning on him, I think speaks to their apprehension with regard to Trump.

Nixon would be just fine these days