Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Somebody's hooked on his latest, word of the day.
Everyone now gets tagged with his hip, new, label.
It's not the words "show me" that makes your response the classic boomer response.
What makes it the classic boomer response is that you accused me of saying something (without proof) and then when I asked for proof I said those things you then put the burden on me to disprove it. That's like accusing me of rape then going, "prove you didn't".
Why can't you just prove the things your accusing me of?
It's too easy.
🎻
Wombat is right here. Put away your political affiliation for a moment and look at this from the perspective of a faceless, nameless president. The Supreme Court's decision just sent us a little bit further down the road to totalitarianism.
I don't mean to agree with Joe Biden here, but whoever wrote his speech the other day that "No one is above the law; not even the President of The United States" was right.
There must be checks and balances in our government, and the executive already has enough power to give legitimate orders within the scope of the law without fear of repercussion.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Not sure where y'all are getting that this makes a President above the law. It grants immunity from prosecution for official acts during the presidency.
The histrionics, pearl clutching, and downright dark fantasy projections over this are fucking retarded.
Absolutely fucking retarded.
Meanwhile these dark visionaries don't have shit to say about how our government is upping their game with this Tik-Tok banning crap and doubling down on their FISA game via the same POS legislation...nothing to say at all as they drink their Kool-Aid.
Unfuckingbelievable.
All the while a President that's a poster boy for dementia...again...nothing to say...at all. My favorite...is how their talking heads at their favorite media outlets...are all of a sudden aware "there's a problem".
The best part? Their back up plan is Kamala Harris. Classic! They must be so proud. DEI in action. Classic!
They've known of the "problem" all along.
Now that it can't be ignored, everyone is trying to distance themselves in order to keep their own grasp on power and control.
Or television pundit relevancy.
This is incredible to watch unfold.
And now the wokesters, and dei crowd are screaming, racism, if they bring up anyone but camela as a replacement for slojoe.
Can someone explain why this was even needed?
Has a president ever not done his job for fear of being prosecuted for it? Has one ever gone to jail for doing something in the line of his duties? Surely if this was needed so badly, there would be some examples?
It has always been that way, but just an understanding. Now we have vindictive people in the White House that would do anything to keep power.
That is why it was never needed before, but now it is.
What is telling the state leader to ‘find’ enough votes to win the state? Is that part of the job or personal?
I have no respect for either choice. They are both too old and only thinking about themselves Anyone else missing Bush Jr?
What hypothetical are you speaking of? Surely you're not basing your opinion of one of the many debunked lies of the left?
This was taken up by the supreme court when it became beyond obvious that "lawfare" was being used as a political weapon against an opponent.
Not so much about these ridiculous projections about crimes a president can now commit under the guise of official acts.
The 9-0 Colorado decision.
The raids on Trump's home in Florida.
The alvin braggo debacle.
And who could forget the tale of fanny down in Georgia ??
Hell, even the documents in joe's garage.
The shit has to stop.
I’m talking about the recorded phone call that was played over and over the day after it occurred.
Probably said by every incumbent who ever lost a state.
This is not some new rule. SCOTUS doesn't write legislation; they judge written laws on their constitutionality.
I can't wait to hear AOC's upcoming impeachment argument.
I get the feeling that there’s a few folks that haven’t read the documents that are the foundation of these various governing and judicial powers established by these United States.
Hey, I know! Let’s not understand what Executive Power is…and then lose our fucking minds when the courts lay it out for us!
Where is the crime?
Look, you don't have to tell me that Trump aint the sharpest taco in the happy meal but telling a governor to commit election fraud on a recorded conference call with 4 or 5 other people is dumber that getting a BJ from a homely intern in the oval office while being sued for sexual harassment.
In Trump's mind, he knew there was fraud and was simply asking them to find it. Really simple.
Pit Row
It wasn't in the context to find him votes, it was in the context the the margin was so small they didn't need to show very much fraud. Remember, the courts always say, "yes, you showed fraud but not enough to change the outcome." He was not telling them to commit fraud, only that the thresholdof fraud to show was very small. It's been completely debunked in the context you threw out/implied.
TM
In Trump's mind, he knew there was fraud and was simply asking them to find it. Really simple.
Which perfectly illustrates the problem with this latest ruling, "based on a presidents opinions and not facts he can now declare his actions presidential acts with immunity", which is exactly what Hitler did by declaring Jews the enemy of the German state. All opinion, zero facts, and covered by immunity.
Ya'll wanna talk about a slippery slope, we just covered the hill in grease.
As far as I know the ruling did not set a precedent. It simply relied on precedent to send this case back to be re charged. I did not read the entire ruling and I'm still not sure that I agree with the extent of the immunity it implies. I don't even agree with the Justice Dept. decision that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for a crime committed while in office.
Now the big BUT. I also think that utilizing the criminal and civil courts to harass or eliminate political foes is a far more dangerous precedent than the SCOTUS decision. You may not see it or want to acknowledge it, but that is what is happening here. Here is a link to a Greenwald vid where he describes the issue:
The thing I would like clarity on (in which I can't seem to find) is where do the checks come in? Before, during, or after a future president declares his actions "presidential"?
Playing hypothetical, if a future president declares his opponent a threat to the nation (even if there is zero proof of it), does he get checked before he acts to stop the threat, during his actions to stop the threat, or after he stops the threat?
This is what I worry about, I feel this precedent creates a slippery slope in which he gets to "shoot" first and ask questions later in which the damage will already be done.
Not a slippery slope, a very expected outcome. What is it you consider opinion vs fact here? Because it's not just him that believes there was fraud. Fact is there was fraud. The only thing to debate was the extent of the fraud.
TM
I'm not going to declare there wasn't fraud, because by this logic that one convicted felon who filled in the wrong ballot and sent it in proves there was fraud, but also by this logic I wouldn't say having one needle in a haystack is a haystack full of needles.
So the question then becomes, how many needles in the haystack do there need to be to declare the haystack full of needles?
Thus, when it comes to the most recent election of which roughly 150,000,000 people voted how many fraudulent cases have been proven and is that number high enough to declare fraud had any impact on the results of which has been proven time and time again in court... no, there wasn't (as proven by several organizations with one such being The Heritage foundation, a conservative organization).
But with this ruling, because there is one needle in the haystack (or one bad jew), the president can now declare the haystack is full of needles (Germany is full of bad jews), and act with immunity to protect the nation?
Not to be nitpicky but they did not set precedent. It does move up the precedent timeline which does make future decisions more likely to comply. I'll give you that and also agree that immunity that is decided with this much ambiguity is worrisome. I don't like ambiguity in law. Also, there is no such immunity granted to the president in the Constitution which will provoke me to research the issue a bit more.
BTW, wombat, a ruling established many years ago by a radio talk host, Joe Crummy, states that whoever invokes the name Hitler automatically loses the argument. So be careful. There is precedent.
Hahaha, as a jew who had 18 of the 20 members of my family killed because of Hitler, fuck Joe Crummy.
But yeah, exactly as you say, it's the ambiguity I don't like... even more so when it comes to the powers granted to the most powerful man on the planet.
Fun chat!
Your gas lighting just doesn't work. You want to talk about 1 needle but refuse to acknowledge major incidents. So unless you look big picture, you one needle argument is useless.
TM
How many proven cases of fraud where there? None of this, "yeah but these are only the ones we could prove", bullshit. I'm talking will / has held up in court like someone is going to be sent to death row for it. How many were there? No hypotheticals, no dodging, no avoiding, man / woman / LGBTQ+ the fuck up and give me an actual number of this wide spread fraud you so speak of.
I'm heading out but I'll check your response tomorrow.
Damn, this shit is eating you alive.
Post a reply to: Absolute immunity for acts in Presidential capacity