Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

Image may contain: 2 people, text

"New photos" from 30 years ago. (Before The Hair had fully ripened.)  Lots has changed since then, including the "$hlthole countries" remark, etc.  

Do you think The Donald  would softly caress Rev Al's hand like that if they met up today? His opinion of those two gentlemen obviously has also changed since that long ago day when this warm and fuzzy snapshot was taken. Perhaps they all just know each other's true character better now days?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

"New photos" from 30 years ago. (Before The Hair had fully ripened.)  Lots has changed since then, including the "$hlthole countries" remark, etc.  

Do you think The Donald  would softly caress Rev Al's hand like that if they met up today? His opinion of those two gentlemen obviously has also changed since that long ago day when this warm and fuzzy snapshot was taken. Perhaps they all just know each other's true character better now days?

Was this before the lawsuit against him for housing discrimination? Or is it the same time frame of 30 years that we were told was too long ago to matter when it came to the Kavanaugh hearing? In the words of Vinny Barbarino... "I'm so confused". 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swordfish said:

Image may contain: 2 people, text

I will remind you that past actions many years ago do not exonerate a person who eventually engages in racist activity. 

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us-world-news/racist-sword-killer-james-jackson-sentenced

FTA:

A white supremacist who killed a black man with a sword wanted to ignite a worldwide race war, a prosecutor told a judge who sentenced the man Wednesday to life in prison without parole.

...

Jackson's attorney, Frederick Sosinsky, said his client had marched with family members to protest racial injustice, had served honorably alongside blacks in the military, and had never committed a crime before "the worst day of his life."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the Roberts Court Save Donald Trump from an Impeachment?: https://reason.com/2019/04/24/can-the-roberts-court-save-donald-trump-from-an-impeachment/

Quote

President Donald Trump is a nearly inexhaustible source of constitutional puzzles. I've practically organized a class around it. One never knows what new gifts he is going to bestow on us. Today, in his morning tweetstorm, he offers us the thought that he could appeal an impeachment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Can he do that? One would think not, but I suppose hope springs eternal. There are both legal and political reasons for thinking the Court would stay out.

Legally, the text of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the House of Representatives possesses the "sole" power to impeach and the Senate possesses the "sole power to try all impeachments." When Judge Walter Nixon tried to appeal his impeachment and conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the procedures that the Senate followed were defective, the Rehnquist Court unanimously rejected that effort.

The parties do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist even speculated about the problem of judicial review of a presidential impeachment.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that opening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos." . . . This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence his effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.

The modern Court does not often seem inclined to invoke the political question doctrine, but here at least the justices were willing to admit that the Constitution had committed this question into the hands of the legislature, not the judiciary.

Perhaps there are circumstances that might tempt the justices to assert judicial supremacy over impeachments as well. After all, the Court is fond of reminding us that it is emphatically a judicial task to say what the law is, and what if Congress seemed to be riding roughshod over the Constitution in how it used the impeachment power? Imagine a Congress willing to impeach a president on grounds that no reasonable person could think constitutes an impeachable offense. Donald Trump apparently prefers to eat his steaks well-done with ketchup. To be sure, this is a grievous offense, but presumably no one thinks it is a high crime or misdemeanor. Imagine further that two-thirds of the Senate is willing convict such a president with no semblance of a trial. "Convict first, go through due process second," declares the Senate majority leader. The Court might well think that such a Congress has badly abused its constitutional powers and is not even making a pretense of adhering to a good-faith interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe a Court confronted with such a runaway Congress would be tempted to ride to the president's rescue and discover the limits to the political question doctrine.

But that's when politics comes into play. A Congress willing to impeach and remove a sitting president on the pretext that he routinely dishonors his steaks could hardly be trusted to sit idly by while the justices attempted to reinstall that president in the White House. If a Court were to attempt to intervene in such a scenario, the justices might well find themselves next on the chopping block. The justices might at this point recall the words of Chief Justice Salmon Chase when the Court was asked to order the president not to enforce the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi after the Civil War.

Suppose the bill filed and the injunction prayed for allowed. If the President refuse obedience, it is needless to observe that the court is without power to enforce its process. If, on the other hand, the President complies with the order of the court and refuses to execute the acts of Congress, is it not clear that a collision may occur between the executive and legislative departments of the government? May not the House of Representatives impeach the President for such refusal? And in that case could this court interfere, in behalf of the President, thus endangered by compliance with its mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate of the United States from sitting as a court of impeachment? Would the strange spectacle be offered to the public world of an attempt by this court to arrest proceedings in that court?

"These questions answer themselves," Chase observed. Indeed. Sorry, Mr. President, you are on your own on this one.

Only somebody like Mr. Trump, who believes the government ultimately serves him, would seriously consider such a thing.  Pitiful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Will this now prove that Mayor Pete is not racist? 

Buttigieg plans meeting with civil rights activist Sharpton

https://www.wthr.com/article/buttigieg-plans-meeting-civil-rights-activist-sharpton-1

I don't know - Trump met Sharpton.......multiple times......got awards and all......Gave him lots of money.....BUT later became labeled as a racist......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, gonzoron said:

59286048_2184923118230289_2882791270369984512_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=d02e5f45d3cbb91b8aeff037634a21ed&oe=5D324D71

Because the Baylor women's basketball team is so above this slop.......We are soooo much better than the Clemson Men's football team, and deserve more than the North Dakota State Bison teams.......Kind of elitist isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

Because the Baylor women's basketball team is so above this slop.......We are soooo much better than the Clemson Men's football team, and deserve more than the North Dakota State Bison teams.......Kind of elitist isn't it?

It's an insult, and it truly is slop. It was an insult to Clemson, and anyone else who is invited to a White House dinner. At least Clemson didn't get a dose of sexual harassment while they were there like Baylor did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

Because the Baylor women's basketball team is so above this slop.......We are soooo much better than the Clemson Men's football team, and deserve more than the North Dakota State Bison teams.......Kind of elitist isn't it?

This shtick again?  The fact that a visit to the White House for a one-time event might have an air of sophistication/imagination to it doesn't seem to be too much to hope for.  The bar has been set low when someone not being excited about a warmed-up fast food meal is considered "elitist."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, swordfish said:

Because the Baylor women's basketball team is so above this slop.......We are soooo much better than the Clemson Men's football team, and deserve more than the North Dakota State Bison teams.......Kind of elitist isn't it?

Keep rationalizing the lowest bar of class imaginable....the new normal for Trump apologists.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, gonzoron said:

That Shtick again?  So the Baylor coach's comments before and after the President's comment weren't said?   You give the President a women's jersey - The whole exchange was absolutely nothing but friendly conversation.  Inappropriate?  Grow up people.....

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, swordfish said:

That Shtick again?  So the Baylor coach's comments before and after the President's comment weren't said?   You give the President a women's jersey - The whole exchange was absolutely nothing but friendly conversation.  Inappropriate?  Grow up people.....

The shtick is serving slop to national champions.  Everyone expects him to be a classless boob in personal interactions....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

iThe  Democrats struck out with their superman Robert (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Mueller. The Democrats super hero Michael (I guarantee Trump will resign) Avenatti has been featured on CNN and MSNBC over 300 times in 2018 is also a big joke.

 

Edited by Howe
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

Milton Bradley?

 

Naw ... Bradley's a pauper.  Rich Uncle Pennybags ... this guy

image.png.7c6170ea109f9e06e023434292789869.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hilarious to ridicule and laugh at these ridiculous libtards after two years of non stop lies. Most career democrat politicians and their mainstream media fake news propaganda machine are the scum of humanity. Their libtard minions are easily manipulated, gullible fools.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Howe said:

It is hilarious to ridicule and laugh at these ridiculous libtards after two years of non stop lies. Most career democrat politicians and their mainstream media fake news propaganda machine are the scum of humanity. Their libtard minions are easily manipulated, gullible fools.

 

As opposed to several on "the other side" ...

https://psmag.com/news/new-study-confirms-again-that-race-not-economics-drove-former-democrats-to-trump

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton mocks: ‘China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns?’: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/hillary-clinton-china-tax-returns-1296868

Quote

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night suggested that if the Justice Department was going to let Russia get away with interfering in the 2016 presidential election, it might be OK if one of the 2020 Democratic candidates enlisted China for help.

The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate offered a seemingly tongue-in-cheek hypothetical to Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show.

“Imagine, Rachel, that you had one of the Democratic nominees for 2020 on your show, and that person said, you know, the only other adversary of ours who is anywhere near as good as the Russians is China,” Clinton told Maddow. “So why should Russia have all the fun? And since Russia is clearly backing Republicans, why don't we ask China to back us?”

And not only that, China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns?” Clinton continued. “I'm sure our media would richly reward you."

Her phrasing echoed a statement by Donald Trump about Clinton’s emails during the 2016 campaign. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said at a July news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Blasted for inviting a foreign power to interfere in an American election, Trump subsequently claimed he was not serious. However, the Mueller report indicated Russian hackers — clearly paying close attention to the U.S. campaign — did go after Clinton’s emails within hours of Trump’s remarks.

....

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...