It's clear that you as a "practicing " Attorney don't understand the legal differences between Article 2 and Article 3.
current events thread
- Thread starter bung23
- Start date
I have a compulsion to correct your false or ill=informed posts.
But I have the grace to call it TDS 3.0 !
Orange man bad! It’s smarter to drink a different colored koolaid of forever wars, deep state and selling out American workers. The Republican Party today is out-gaining Dem voter registrations despite the dreaded TDS version 2.025. Perhaps TDS is helpful to an evolving Republican Party that has been in need of evolving for decades.
She was calling for the guard while the resurrection was underway and stormed the Capitol. She can be seen calling for the Guard as well as Shumer was. Again Flynn stopped it and Trump would not help, he was enjoying the police getting beat. She claimed she took responsibility for the Capitol Police not taking sufficient pre-cautions, however she has very limited input over Capitol Police and security. She appoints one out of the three officials that control those.
Secret Service didn't stop people from using the bathroom, or looking at the documents that Trump was showing them to impress them. Give it up. Trump acted improperly.
LOL, you don't recall Gore giving a concession to Bush after the SC stopped the count, that went down in history of one of the greatest examples of putting country above oneself.
You may want to rewatch what she actually says and get back to me. It might hurt on the doll where you put all the knowledge downloaded from MSNBC, but in her words, she admits it was her.
As much as I do not like flag burning, it is a method of freedom of expression. I don’t particularly care for this executive order and I doubt it would stand up in a court of law.
edit: I see a younger person from the right is irritated with this EO, as well.
edit: I see a younger person from the right is irritated with this EO, as well.
Last edited:
Welp. Look at this California Democrat get owned. Very fitting last name for him, too.
Well, that is your opinion. My normal person view is sending someone who is here illegally to their HOME country is just fine.
The Dems have no law, so I guess you choose to live in pixie dust land with the boys and will continue to sit it out
ACT OF A DICTATOR. I guess he doesn't care that he can't create a law. Dumb as well.
There are 30 States that track Party registrations, NOT just 6 !
Dems Down 2.1 MILLION, Reps up 2.3 or 2.4 MILLION.
If you want to destroy an old torn/ripped US flag and recycle to a new flag on your porch.
You can turn in the old flag at your local VFW Post !
That is not my opinion. He literally had an order of "no removal" to El Salvador. Your opinion is that the law intervened with Trump's behavior, so you are cool with disregarding the law.
Again, I'm cool not affiliating with you in the political party that venerates this behavior. We all have standards.
The law has been perverted and abused. Lawyers like those in NY are changing the law to go after their enemy. Judges are making **** up and ignoring the supremes. Gorsuch has rebuked them.
I’m very happy not to associate with you. The Democrats are completely lawless. Last I checked this wife beating, gang banging, human trafficking scumbag is in Maryland so it appears my president is following the law.
You being morally superior will never be able to vote for president again.
You are misrepresenting what I have said. Pelosi(when not scripted) admitted she was to blame for the lack of NG and therefore the chaos. Neither TJ or I blamed the security forces. We do blame the lack of security as a major piece. Do you really believe the capital is breeched with NG troops on the doors? Have you noticed the street criminals have shaped up in DC quite a bit just because of the NG presence?
So, Trump riled people up by telling them to peacefully protest? Your point appears to be he had control of this mob and it got out of hand because he didn't post on X sooner. Doesn't that conflict with your claim when Trump(who had control of this mob per you) gave these specific instructions:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
So, which is it? Did he have control of the mob as you claim by saying, "he did virtually nothing to reign it in when he of all people had considerable control over the cultists running wild" or did he literally encourage peaceful protest and they did NOT listen so he had no control of the mob like you claim?
It is hard to have both ways, no?
You can feel free to provide the evidence of Nancy Pelosi admitting that it was her fault January 6 occurred. Another topic on which I will wait forever. The Capitol Police are the ones who would have been responsible for advising her to call out the Guard (this is pretty obvious). If there's documentation that they did and she declined, I'd love that as well. This is as I understand things:
Numerous government investigations have established that law enforcement agencies gravely misjudged the threat that the Jan. 6 protests could turn violent. They have also come to general agreement on one fact: Law enforcement and military officials planning for Jan. 6 thought that proactively mobilizing the National Guard was a bad idea. The image of armed troops surrounding the Capitol, they believed, was incongruous with a ceremony cementing a peaceful transfer of power.
As I believe I stated/implied, Donald Trump had every opportunity to make his way over to the Capitol (or even get on TV) and demand the rioting stop to allow the vote on the transfer of power to proceed. Instead he dithered for hours before the Guard was dispatched (by then I believe the rioting had been quelled and some of the lack of coordination did not rest entirely with Trump). Trump had control over the crowd because they believed they were acting on his behalf (now perhaps you have a different insight than I do and you think something else was driving the riot, I'm all ears).
But let me lay out the sequence of events: (a) Trump goes on national TV at 3 a.m. the morning after the election and declares himself the winner (btw, I basically knew he'd lost by this time); (b) Trump spends two months filing failed lawsuits, demanding a re-vote and recounts, and otherwise spinning lies about the election; (c) Trump and his people coordinate a rally on January 6th, 2025 near the Capitol, the exact day Congress votes to certify Trump's loss; (d) Trump speaks at said rally; (e) rallygoers quite literally leave the speech and flood towards the Capitol, upon which a massive riot breaks out; (f) Trump dithers for 4 hours before taking action, by the conclusion of which the riot is over; and (g) the guy with horns sacks the Capitol and some dude with a beard steals Pelosi's lectern. OK ... (g) is only half true and the lectern dude was hilarious.
That said, the sequence of events I've laid out isn't really disputable. You are arguing that the cutoff for Trump responsibility is (d), absolving him from (e) because he didn't call for a riot (stipulated ... he didn't call for a riot). I am stating that I firmly believe that (e) naturally flowed from (a) to (d), and that Trump absolutely had an obligation to act quickly if he didn't want responsibility for (e). He did not do so, and with the benefit of hindsight he's pardoned almost everyone involved with (e). To me, this defines morally culpable and as I genuinely do believe the violent rioters were committing treason (not the idiots milling around the Capitol entrance of the Pelosi lectern guy).
Obviously you are far more charitable to both Trump and presumably the rioters. I don't think the verdict of history will ultimately agree with that, hopefully were both around to know.
He turned himself into a steaming pile of shaving cream.
That “Maryland Man” can’t even speak English despite having been in the US for years. His lawyer tried to argue no bueno on Uganda because he doesn’t speak the language. He had plenty of time to learn English. Glad he’s getting moved on.
No he said "you have to fight like hell or we won't have a democracy". Remember?
This is a very general statement and you know it. His specific statement of peaceful protest was clear.
CB might need to gain some new customers to make money, but they can’t lose the customers they already have. Very short sighted.
A bright CEO and Board would understand their customer base and want to grow it. They don't.
Cracker Barrel is headed to the graveyard if it doesn’t substantially broaden its appeal. That doesn’t mean being woke or sponsoring pride, but they sure as heck need to attract the same minority economic demographics as their white customers.
It’s just a fact that blue collar white America is declining in raw numbers. You’d better get blue collar minorities too.
Where I think the problem for them is that they can’t say this. And the “woke right” is playing the hits that applied to lots of absurd lefty identity politics from a few years ago, as the influencers and talking heads made a fortune from hitting wokeism.
You might be correct, I may well no longer be voting for either craptastic party or not voting in a lot of races.
Are you sober or is this like the other night?LOL Give me a break with that nonsensical attempt at distinction. Clown like.
You could be right as I am too lazy to figure out what is real here. It appears they may have a large stockholder(on their board) that is massively woke. Assuming that is real, put a fork in them.
I prefer to be more laconic like in My Cousin Vinny; "Everything he just said is BS !"
I hated this song. From the time it was on the radio to today. I understand the sentiment. I’m smart enough to understand it doesn’t work like this in real life.