- Thread starter Woodson Bible & Guns
- Start date
yimyammer
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,934
- Reaction score
- 3,711
lighten up Nancy, he asked if anyone pointed out a lie, I passed along what I heard
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,821
- Reaction score
- 2,207
You're voting for Kamala Harris.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,821
- Reaction score
- 2,207
Agreed. I think the point is everyone in politics lies. Suddenly, because it is Trump we have to play the absolute game. Biden never lies! Biden told the truth all night while Trump lied every 90 seconds! Such crap. But what makes this all particularly bad is it is coming from the media, the very people charged with protecting Democracy by telling the truth.
I have no doubt Trump told some untruths during the debate, like all politicians. But Biden told many demonstrable lies. Like, no soldier died while he has been president. That is such a horrible lie because it disrespected the soldiers who died on his watch - coupled with the fact he was checking his watch when their bodies returned to the US it shows how little he respects the lives of the men and women who serve to protect our country.
Trump can fix his lying problem by avoiding Superlatives, and absolutes. Instead of using words like all, and every use words like many and numerous. Instead of saying the greatest ever, best ever, just say the best in a long while, or better than what Joe has done. Instead of saying, the biggest crowd ever, say a huge crowd, bigger than I have seen. They parse Trump's words like no one else and this is where they get their ammunition to claim he lies all the time.
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,821
- Reaction score
- 2,207
Flying a little under the radar, the Supreme Court ruled on the use of a Sarbanes Oxley law the DOJ twisted into an obstruction crime in order to prosecute Jan 6 protesters and give them harsher jail sentences. In a 6-3 ruling, with 5 conservatives and one liberal on the majority, the court ruled the DOJ misused this law to charge obstructions. If you recall Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted to resolve some legal issues stemming from the Enron financial disaster. It was intended to allow prosecutors to charge obstruction when companies under investigations destroyed or altered documents that might be called into evidence.
The DOJ used these provisions to charge protesters for obstructing an official proceeding - the certification of the election on Jan 6. Jack Smith used this same provision to charge Trump with 2 felonies. The Supreme Court said, not so fast fellas.
No one should be surprised that the DOJ would do this. Look at what Alvin Bragg did to Trump in NY. Letitia James did the same thing in the civil suit that cost Trump over $400 million. And why not? E Jean Carroll took advantage of a law that ended the statute of limitation for 1 year to sue Trump. This is lawfare. It is abusing power and the law to target political opponents. The Supreme Court said no this time. I suspect they will do the same with all of Trump's cases once they arrive on the SCOTUS docket.
If you want to know how important this coming elections is, look no further at the last barrier to total corruption of our government. The next president may wind up appointing enough judges to swing the court in the opposite direction. If Trump loses, Democrats will take control of government, and those that are charged with curtailing government. Bloodbath is the right word.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/wha...an-6-prosecution-supreme-court-fischer-ruling
The DOJ used these provisions to charge protesters for obstructing an official proceeding - the certification of the election on Jan 6. Jack Smith used this same provision to charge Trump with 2 felonies. The Supreme Court said, not so fast fellas.
No one should be surprised that the DOJ would do this. Look at what Alvin Bragg did to Trump in NY. Letitia James did the same thing in the civil suit that cost Trump over $400 million. And why not? E Jean Carroll took advantage of a law that ended the statute of limitation for 1 year to sue Trump. This is lawfare. It is abusing power and the law to target political opponents. The Supreme Court said no this time. I suspect they will do the same with all of Trump's cases once they arrive on the SCOTUS docket.
If you want to know how important this coming elections is, look no further at the last barrier to total corruption of our government. The next president may wind up appointing enough judges to swing the court in the opposite direction. If Trump loses, Democrats will take control of government, and those that are charged with curtailing government. Bloodbath is the right word.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/wha...an-6-prosecution-supreme-court-fischer-ruling
- Messages
- 57,714
- Reaction score
- 8,431
Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution
The Supreme Court weighed in on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for conduct allegedly involving official acts.
www.foxnews.com
- Messages
- 57,714
- Reaction score
- 8,431
Michigan governor warned Biden campaign her state is no longer winnable: report
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer reportedly warned President Biden's campaign that Michigan is no longer winnable following Biden's debate performance.
www.foxnews.com
Creeper
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,821
- Reaction score
- 2,207
Of course Democrats are distorting the ruling. The ruling says the president, and only the president, has immunity from prosecution for official acts. It leaves the decision on what is an official act to the courts, but bars them from considering motive when it looks at the acts. It also says the courts have to follow due process to determine if the president's act was an official act of the executive branch or something else. Remember, Judge Tanya Chutkan made an arbitrary decision against Trump claiming he was not immune because his acts were not in his official capacity. But she held no hears, gathered no evidence not did she accept arguments from both sides. The SCOTUS did not say Trump is immune, it only said she needs to determine if he is immune by first determining if he is acts could be his executive responsibility. Now Judge Chutkan will have to hold hearings where both sides will present arguments. It's called due process.
The fact is we all know the president has certain powers no one else has. The power to pardon, for example. He has executive privilege. He can classify or declassify any information for any reason. Immunity is nothing new and it has been exercised by the government in the past. Clinton lying under oath for example. Obama droning American citizens. Nixon bombing Hanoi. There are probably tons of other examples. In the past, both parties exercised restraint and deference when it came to p residents. Blame the Democrats for using lawfare to attack Trump. That is what brought this ruling about.
And by the way, those Democrats calling for Biden to kill Trump should ask themselves this question. Even before this ruling, if Biden had used Seal Team 6 to kill Trump would his DOJ even try to prosecute him? Of course they wouldn't. But if they did, they would have to go to court and prove Biden was not acting in an official capacity when he ordered the murder.
- Messages
- 5,694
- Reaction score
- 4,617
There's s/t in the ruling that says that courts cannot judge the intent of Presidential actions, based on assumptions or hypotheticals.
So, to me, that means that if Trump calls Ga and asks if they can "find 10,000 votes," then that is not evidence that Trump called Ga and asked for 10,000 illegal votes.
So, to me, that means that if Trump calls Ga and asks if they can "find 10,000 votes," then that is not evidence that Trump called Ga and asked for 10,000 illegal votes.
This is about how I see it. Trump's hyperbolic and imprecise language leaves him open to "misinterpretation" that sends the NPCs into a frenzy. For those who are fairly well informed, figuring out what he was talking about and trying to say, is usually not too difficult. However, for those who believe the kind of things like "Trump said to drink bleach," anything he says has to be taken to the worst possible extreme.
His strength in a debate is that he's relaxed, confident, and not afraid of a fight/challenge. He's still not a great debater though. He can be very repetitive, gloss over important details, and misses a TON of opportunities. But, smart people don't really focus on debates to decide who they'll vote for.
Smart people do research. Smart people have principles that they've thought (and prayed) about, and vote based on those principles and ideas. They don't have to be tied to a specific person. They can feel free to vote for the person who is most in line with their principles and ideas at any given time.
A smart person also doesn't let stupid and inconsequential nonsense dictate what is best. NPCs and irrational people (aka leftists) do that.
Biden on the other hand is an avid liar. He gets off on making up BS. He can't handle a challenge. His response to people not agreeing with him, or things going his way is to get dismissive, get angry, and then lie some more. This is not something new with his mental decline. Now, he just glitches when his brain tries to process all his nonsense and respond to it. While it amuses me as a conservative, that understands the terrible things he's done throughout his life, to see him fail so hard, but as a Christian, I feel sorry for him and the abuse his terrible wife and those around him are putting him through.
- Messages
- 5,694
- Reaction score
- 4,617
The House Judiciary Committee on Monday sued Attorney General Merrick Garland in order to obtain the audio tapes of special counsel Robert Hur's interview of President Joe Biden related to his handling of classified documents after exiting the vice presidency.
The civil action lawsuit filed Monday in federal court in Washington requests, among other things, an injunction to order Garland "to produce the audio recordings of the Special Counsel's interviews with President Biden and Mark Zwonitzer," the president's book ghostwriter, to the Republican-lead House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
www.upi.com
The civil action lawsuit filed Monday in federal court in Washington requests, among other things, an injunction to order Garland "to produce the audio recordings of the Special Counsel's interviews with President Biden and Mark Zwonitzer," the president's book ghostwriter, to the Republican-lead House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
House Republicans sue attorney general in federal court over Biden audiotapes - UPI.com
House Republicans sued the attorney general in federal court to obtain the much-desired audio tapes of special counsel Robert Hur's interview of President Joe Biden related to his handling of classified documents.
www.upi.com
- Messages
- 7,291
- Reaction score
- 4,197
Dems Stick With Biden As It Would Be A Real Pain To Reprint These Ballots They Already Filled Out
U.S. — Despite a significant majority of the nation now believing President Biden mentally unfit for office, the Democratic Party has decided to stay with Biden as its nominee as it would be a huge pain to reprint the tens of thousands of ballots they already filled out.
babylonbee.com