Donald Trump 2020

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I’ve been reading about the dotard app and it seems a lot of people are scared that it’s going to brainwash even more idiots.  Does anyone really think anyone other than the “cult” is going to download that app?

I have to admit I’m so morbidly curious about it, that I may download it.  Probably won’t make a huge difference to the sponsors but I Like to see what the mentally retarded of this country read on a daily basis.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

Trump himself is not the overall problem. He is the overall problem right now because he is the current president, which is bad.

The overall problem is America doesn’t want to educate or provide health care to ALL its citizens. 

 

I suppose this mindset, as ignorant as it is,  could have made sense back when America had scarce resources. But the fact is we have more Money than God ever thought possible. Certain people just would rather keep it to themselves 

This is where Moscow Mitch and trump step in.

They will try to continue to deceive you based on abortion and guns and whatnot. In the meantime they will continue on fleecing you to benefit themselves. Carry on morons. 

[Cairn Horn88 8264]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

There’s no Praetorian Guard YET.

 

These fuckers strapped up with bazookas to buy a philly cheese steak sandwich at gross ass Subway might be interested in the job.

 

 

 

 

 

Rambo needs to go there, grab that bazooka from that clown and shove it up his ass.....hold the mayo.

[Cairn Horn88 8264]

12 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Trump himself is not the overall problem. He is the overall problem right now because he is the current president, which is bad.

The overall problem is America doesn’t want to educate or provide health care to ALL its citizens. 

 

I suppose this mindset, as ignorant as it is,  could have made sense back when America had scarce resources. But the fact is we have more Money than God ever thought possible. Certain people just would rather keep it to themselves 

This is where Moscow Mitch and trump step in.

They will try to continue to deceive you based on abortion and guns and whatnot. In the meantime they will continue on fleecing you to benefit themselves. Carry on morons. 

If you want to stroll thru a sea of morons, go over to secrant/politics....what in the world are these folks smoking in the South?  I’ve already been banned for posting a few political cartoons.  I may never go East or South again.  So, no....Horns will never be a part of the secsec.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Unbelievable sad that the incessant grift/sales pitch that violates enough ethics laws to land Walter Shaub in a state of permanent HBP is the new 'normal.' I see this and am appalled but place this in a right leaning message board and many will say, 'what a wonderful businessman he is,' and never stop to consider how and why this is wrong on multiple levels.

[Dnaguy 11964]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Unbelievable sad that the incessant grift/sales pitch that violates enough ethics laws to land Walter Shaub in a state of permanent HBP is the new 'normal.' I see this and am appalled but place this in a right leaning message board and many will say, 'what a wonderful businessman he is,' and never stop to consider how and why this is wrong on multiple levels.

 

This is how numb we are as a country.

The President, during a national pandemic and when the death toll is about to pass 80,000 ppl, just tweeted an advertisement HIS eponymous company that he never dissolved his interest from.... and no one is going to do shit about it.

[Message Board User 12395]

Happy Mothers Day!

 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Unbelievable sad that the incessant grift/sales pitch that violates enough ethics laws to land Walter Shaub in a state of permanent HBP is the new 'normal.' I see this and am appalled but place this in a right leaning message board and many will say, 'what a wonderful businessman he is,' and never stop to consider how and why this is wrong on multiple levels.

I'll mention one thing.

The governmental ethics laws in this country generally do not apply to the President, rather to congress and agency officers/members.

The one exception is the Emoluments Clause.

But the thing that people don't anticipate is that many/most provisions of the Constitution are not "self enforcing."  Which means that an individual or entity can't sue the government or a governmental officer and say "you are violating the Constitution."  Usually, there needs to be a law made pursuant to the Constitution, that defines who can sue and how.  None has been made respecting the President, which is why the Emoluments cases haven't gone anywhere,yet.  They present tons of novel issues and because Emoluments isn't the subject of an "enabling act" or similar, viewed with some skepticism by the courts.

Because the preceding paragraph will freak a lot of people out, let me give you an example.  As a general rule, you can't sue the government for making a law that abridges your speech (1st Amendment), or infringes your right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), or subjects you to unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), or deprives you of your right to trial by jury (7th Amendment), despite the fact that that is exactly what those amendments say the government can't do.

Without enabling legislation, what those provisions provide is a DEFENSE against the government attempting to take those actions against you.  If you look at the many cases on those amendments, Congress or someone made a law, accused someone of violating it by criminal or civil action, and the case presents the constitutional issue as a matter of defense:  you cant do this to me because your law violates the Constitution.

In other cases, Congress has created a law that permits individuals to sue for violations of their civil rights, usually pursuant to the 14th Amendment.  Until Congress passed those laws, people couldn't sue the government for doing exactly what the 14th proscribes.

By its nature, action violating the Emoluments Clause hasn't been taken against a citizen, providing the citizen with the opportunity to raise the constitutional defense.  So it hasn't come up that way.

Of course in 200 plus years and 45 presidencies, we've never had much of a need for ethics laws applied to the President, or an explicit application of the Emoluments Clause:  the dignity of the office and respect for it by Presidents created substantial compliance.  Until this fucking guy.

Edited May 10, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

9 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I’ve been reading about the dotard app and it seems a lot of people are scared that it’s going to brainwash even more idiots.  Does anyone really think anyone other than the “cult” is going to download that app?

But that’s the point - he wants his voters isolated from unfavorable news

[safe sex 11725]

Thank you, @TwiceHorn. This has been driving me crazy.

Edited May 10, 2020 by trauma babe

[TwiceHorn 31470]

18 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Thank you, @TwiceHorn. This has been driving me crazy.

Welcome.  I had mentioned that in passing several times, finally decided to try to explain it.

That the Emoluments cases may be getting trashed by conservative judges and given a pass by liberal judges (I'm not 100% sure that's what's happening), is not a result of pro-Trump judiciary, necessarily.  The struggle between those who think the constitution ought to be self-executing and those who believe congress needs to act before it is has been going on for more than a century.  It's not strictly a "liberal v. conservative" issue.  The "not self-executing or -enforcing" view has been pretty settled law for a long time.

The way the courts have to tackle the issues is quite counterintuitive, even for a lawyer, and the cases are full of oddball, possibly irreconcilable results. Not on Emoluments specifically, but when people try to sue to enforce the Constitution without a law from Congress saying they can.

Edited May 10, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23469]

33 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Happy Mothers Day!

 

 

 

His mom must have really fucked him up. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Anastasis

[Jive Turkey 12598]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

But that’s the point - he wants his voters isolated from unfavorable news

His voters want that too.

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

Ugh. I saw a new Trump ad this morning. It was an obscene cutup of quotes taken out of context from people like Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom. Grand claims of his success against the pandemic. Greatest economy ever. Shots of fighter jet flyovers for the health care workers. It was a farce. 

[HenryJames 66052]

McEnany’s full answer: “This president is regularly tested; this president will make the decision as to whether to wear a mask or not. I can tell you those veterans are protected, they made the choice to come here because they've chosen to put their nation first. They wanted to be with their commander-in-chief on this momentous day. And it was their choice to come here. And I can tell you the president always puts the safety of our veterans first and of the American people first."

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

24 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

For the life of me I can’t decide what is worse.  The fact that he actually tweeted that out or the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Americans that read that and believe it.  I think its the second one.

[safe sex 11725]

The former wouldn't exist without the latter.

[texas08 1599]

Full on propaganda and disinformation.

We are who we used to save countries from (and take ours of course).

Pathetic.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

11 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

For the life of me I can’t decide what is worse.  The fact that he actually tweeted that out or the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Americans that read that and believe it.  I think its the second one.

The fact that he can point to one, a single, belated half-measure as the identifiable Trump response to the pandemic, is really telling.

[Red Five 40858]

Thank goodness for the BAN. Otherwise the virus might have come here and spread like wildfire. Whew, crisis averted. 

[Bullneck 19090]

20 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

 

The President’s preferred news source, everybody.

OK, let's assume Trumpers don't care about the Chinese.  But in Merica, the population control options would be:

1. Old people.  They gone die anyway. Just a little sooner.

2. Blacks - /mr.burns EXCELLENT /mrburns

3. Trumpers who are too dumb (or freedomy or poor or don't have healthcare) to SIP. 

Don't make much sense.  So, rock on, OAN.

[Bullneck 19090]

 

 

[Bullneck 19090]

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Thank goodness for the BAN. Otherwise the virus might have come here and spread like wildfire. Whew, crisis averted. 

No one could see that coming.  Except for the people who study epidemics.  Who knew a virus would go . . . viral?

(I stole all that from Twitter)

[Bullneck 19090]

43 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Ugh. I saw a new Trump ad this morning. It was an obscene cutup of quotes taken out of context from people like Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom. Grand claims of his success against the pandemic. Greatest economy ever. Shots of fighter jet flyovers for the health care workers. It was a farce. 

 

49 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

His voters want that too.

By November there won't be any way for them to hide.  One guy has made all the calls and cast all the blame, and guess what, the problems still exist.  The people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her persona will certainly look at Biden and say, "Seems like a decent guy.  Let's give him a chance."

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

 

By November there won't be any way for them to hide.  One guy has made all the calls and cast all the blame, and guess what, the problems still exist.  The people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her persona will certainly look at Biden and say, "Seems like a decent guy.  Let's give him a chance."

I hope so. I worry that there are a lot of Republican voters who have known Biden for decades and never heard anyone accuse him of corruption. But along comes Donald Trump and he's the first to make the allegation, without evidence, and they believe...Donald Fucking Trump of all people. 

[Jive Turkey 12598]

Cross posting. I know this is a parody account but I’m convinced it’s from an insider. And this does make sense given Trump’s paranoia. 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

But that’s the point - he wants his voters isolated from unfavorable news

His voters were going to stay his voters no matter what.  This app does nothing to get more voters to join the cult (hopefully).

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

1 hour ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

An estimated 12,000 deaths from H1N1 vs 80,000 from the Dotard Virus.  But yeah, ratings are what matter?

This motherfucker.

[Red Five 40858]

We have five times more cases than any other country on earth. But yeah, H1N1 was the real disaster.

He is so hilariously transparent.

[Message Board User 12395]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll mention one thing.

The governmental ethics laws in this country generally do not apply to the President, rather to congress and agency officers/members.

The one exception is the Emoluments Clause.

But the thing that people don't anticipate is that many/most provisions of the Constitution are not "self enforcing."  Which means that an individual or entity can't sue the government or a governmental officer and say "you are violating the Constitution."  Usually, there needs to be a law made pursuant to the Constitution, that defines who can sue and how.  None has been made respecting the President, which is why the Emoluments cases haven't gone anywhere,yet.  They present tons of novel issues and because Emoluments isn't the subject of an "enabling act" or similar, viewed with some skepticism by the courts.

Because the preceding paragraph will freak a lot of people out, let me give you an example.  As a general rule, you can't sue the government for making a law that abridges your speech (1st Amendment), or infringes your right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), or subjects you to unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), or deprives you of your right to trial by jury (7th Amendment), despite the fact that that is exactly what those amendments say the government can't do.

Without enabling legislation, what those provisions provide is a DEFENSE against the government attempting to take those actions against you.  If you look at the many cases on those amendments, Congress or someone made a law, accused someone of violating it by criminal or civil action, and the case presents the constitutional issue as a matter of defense:  you cant do this to me because your law violates the Constitution.

In other cases, Congress has created a law that permits individuals to sue for violations of their civil rights, usually pursuant to the 14th Amendment.  Until Congress passed those laws, people couldn't sue the government for doing exactly what the 14th proscribes.

By its nature, action violating the Emoluments Clause hasn't been taken against a citizen, providing the citizen with the opportunity to raise the constitutional defense.  So it hasn't come up that way.

Of course in 200 plus years and 45 presidencies, we've never had much of a need for ethics laws applied to the President, or an explicit application of the Emoluments Clause:  the dignity of the office and respect for it by Presidents created substantial compliance.  Until this fucking guy.

So what you are saying is that although he is advertising his company that he still owns and from which he can draw money from the holdings trust at any time w/o our knowledge (while shady) isn't illegal?

Poor Jimmy Carter. Should have advertised the hell out of Presidential Peanuts. Goobers for the Gullible.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

21 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

 

The President’s preferred news source, everybody.

I have one question for OAN.  If it is in fact a deep state/Chinese plot to reduce our population, why are Trump and Trumpists like Danny Goeb wholeheartedly going along with it?

Note Bene that they don't contend that it's a deep state plot to ruin our economy.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

So what you are saying is that although he is advertising his company that he still owns and from which he can draw money from the holdings trust at any time w/o our knowledge (while shady) isn't illegal?

Poor Jimmy Carter. Should have advertised the hell out of Presidential Peanuts. Goobers for the Gullible.

I tend to use the term "illegal" for criminal violations.  I use "unlawful" for civil and non-criminal things, and "unconstitutional" for things that are that.  YMMV.

What I am saying is that in some instances, the Constitution creates rights without remedies.  It's up to Congress to create remedies for violations of rights.

One of the other problems with the Emoluments Clause is that, unlike the first 10 amendments, which mostly create individual rights, the Emoluments Clause creates a "collective right."  The right of the American people to be free of a an executive who accepts favors and bribes and compensation is one way to put it.  A serious legal question then arises, which American people are actually injured by its violation?  All of them?  Only some?  How specific is the injury that must be suffered?  Et cetera.  Congress could have bypassed all of this by passing an emoluments law applying to the President.  But it never has.

Another example.  The Constitution says that the President must appoint Supreme Court justices and cabinet members with the advise and consent of the Senate.  Lets say the President appoints a justice and never submits the appointment for confirmation, and somehow the justice is seated and begins ruling along with the rest of the Court.

Not just anyone can sue and say "this is unconstitutional."  But someone who is the subject of an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court, on which this unconstitutional justice sat could sue and say the ruling is invalid because the justice wasn't legally seated.  Can't sue for removal, but can invalidate the decision.  And every loser could thus invalidate the Supreme Court's decisions applying to them, indirectly forcing that justice off the Court or to a Senate confirmation hearing.

Congress might be able to pass a statute that says any American with a case before the Supreme Court may file a lawsuit questioning the validity of a justice's appointment and seeking his removal from the Court.  But no such statute exists, so you're left with the above.

Same with Emoluments.

Edited May 10, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

20 minutes ago, Red Five said:

We have five times more cases than any other country on earth. But yeah, H1N1 was the real disaster.

Damn those incompetent governors. 

[BrickHorn 18234]

24 minutes ago, Red Five said:

We have five times more cases than any other country on earth. But yeah, H1N1 was the real disaster.

He is so hilariously transparent.

Coronavirus is fake news. Also it was a plandemic orchestrated by Fauci, George Soros, and Hillary’s private email server. 

[DixonHur 11304]

Ouch

[otisdog 365]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

His mom must have really fucked him up. 

Ya think?

[TwiceHorn 31470]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to use the term "illegal" for criminal violations.  I use "unlawful" for civil and non-criminal things, and "unconstitutional" for things that are that.  YMMV.

What I am saying is that in some instances, the Constitution creates rights without remedies.  It's up to Congress to create remedies for violations of rights.

One of the other problems with the Emoluments Clause is that, unlike the first 10 amendments, which mostly create individual rights, the Emoluments Clause creates a "collective right."  The right of the American people to be free of a an executive who accepts favors and bribes and compensation is one way to put it.  A serious legal question then arises, which American people are actually injured by its violation?  All of them?  Only some?  How specific is the injury that must be suffered?  Et cetera.  Congress could have bypassed all of this by passing an emoluments law applying to the President.  But it never has.

Another example.  The Constitution says that the President must appoint Supreme Court justices and cabinet members with the advise and consent of the Senate.  Lets say the President appoints a justice and never submits the appointment for confirmation, and somehow the justice is seated and begins ruling along with the rest of the Court.

Not just anyone can sue and say "this is unconstitutional."  But someone who is the subject of an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court, on which this unconstitutional justice sat could sue and say the ruling is invalid because the justice wasn't legally seated.  Can't sue for removal, but can invalidate the decision.  And every loser could thus invalidate the Supreme Court's decisions applying to them, indirectly forcing that justice off the Court or to a Senate confirmation hearing.

Congress might be able to pass a statute that says any American with a case before the Supreme Court may file a lawsuit questioning the validity of a justice's appointment and seeking his removal from the Court.  But no such statute exists, so you're left with the above.

Same with Emoluments.

Tl; dr.  What appears to be a straightforward application of the language of the Constitution is anything but.  And it's not because the judiciary under Trump is corrupt.  Without a law from Congress, the issues presented would be thorny no matter who is President and what judges we have.

[mchookem 16335]

2 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

i literally hate his fucking guts. i wish he would die, for the good of the country and the world. i said it.

[Red Five 40858]

H1N1 killed 284,000 worldwide. 12k in the US.

Covid has killed 280k worldwide. 80,000 in the US and that ratio won’t get any better going forward.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

 

By November there won't be any way for them to hide.  One guy has made all the calls and cast all the blame, and guess what, the problems still exist.  The people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her persona will certainly look at Biden and say, "Seems like a decent guy.  Let's give him a chance."

This will never happen.  Wait until the Republican Machine really starts "swift boating" Joe Biden.  By November you will think he is the most corrupt politician ever, has one foot in the grave, is controlled by Putin, is a alien from another planet, or a thousand other lies.  Instead of just rumors like "McCain has a black baby " being put out over there they can put these stories out on Fox News, OAN and social media so they appear to be the truth versus an anonymous phone call back in the day of the Bush V McCain primary.  I really don't know how you defeat "state media" mixed with a "dumb as a rock" population.  It's no Bueno.

[DDD Dad 14339]

I tend to use the term "illegal" for criminal violations.  I use "unlawful" for civil and non-criminal things, and "unconstitutional" for things that are that.  YMMV.
What I am saying is that in some instances, the Constitution creates rights without remedies.  It's up to Congress to create remedies for violations of rights.
One of the other problems with the Emoluments Clause is that, unlike the first 10 amendments, which mostly create individual rights, the Emoluments Clause creates a "collective right."  The right of the American people to be free of a an executive who accepts favors and bribes and compensation is one way to put it.  A serious legal question then arises, which American people are actually injured by its violation?  All of them?  Only some?  How specific is the injury that must be suffered?  Et cetera.  Congress could have bypassed all of this by passing an emoluments law applying to the President.  But it never has.
Another example.  The Constitution says that the President must appoint Supreme Court justices and cabinet members with the advise and consent of the Senate.  Lets say the President appoints a justice and never submits the appointment for confirmation, and somehow the justice is seated and begins ruling along with the rest of the Court.
Not just anyone can sue and say "this is unconstitutional."  But someone who is the subject of an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court, on which this unconstitutional justice sat could sue and say the ruling is invalid because the justice wasn't legally seated.  Can't sue for removal, but can invalidate the decision.  And every loser could thus invalidate the Supreme Court's decisions applying to them, indirectly forcing that justice off the Court or to a Senate confirmation hearing.
Congress might be able to pass a statute that says any American with a case before the Supreme Court may file a lawsuit questioning the validity of a justice's appointment and seeking his removal from the Court.  But no such statute exists, so you're left with the above.
Same with Emoluments.

One might argue that the second amendment acknowledges a collective right.

You know, if one were to be arguing.

[RomaVicta 29907]

We're getting great marks. The presidency as second grade. The teacher pinned a note on your shirt so your mother could see what a good boy you are. Or, you steal a note off her desk, fill in the grade yourself then pin it on your own shirt, and skip home showing it off to every indifferent person you meet.

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by RomaVicta

[TwiceHorn 31470]

25 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

One might argue that the second amendment acknowledges a collective right.

You know, if one were to be arguing.

Based on your earlier comment, I didn't specifically say that.

But as a general proposition, most of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to individual rights, and then the sort of savings clauses of the 9th and 10th.

[DDD Dad 14339]

Based on your earlier comment, I didn't specifically say that.
But as a general proposition, most of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to individual rights, and then the sort of savings clauses of the 9th and 10th.

Sorry. I wasn’t pointing at you. Nor did I mean to imply that you had characterized it as such.

I was merely speaking generally.

[Mo Horn 8840]

Can't you just feel the sincerity and love in this heartfelt expression? 

[4th&Five 41550]

He’s gotta say it loud because the white trash piece of shit has 3 baby mama’s. 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

32 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Sorry. I wasn’t pointing at you. Nor did I mean to imply that you had characterized it as such.

I was merely speaking generally.

No worries.  I'm not familiar with 2nd Amendment scholarship that isn't infected by the modern gun control debate and/or Heller one way or another.

And, I hated general con law as taught by Wright. Only D I received in a class in anything, ever.* It seemed indeterminate.  It probably is.  But I really enjoyed my second con law class on presidential power.  Now I like to talk around con law a bit to solidify my understanding, if any, on the theory that if you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

*I was mollified by the fact that Wright gave the eventual Grand Chancellor a D in his Federal Courts class the same semester.

Edited May 10, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Tl; dr.  What appears to be a straightforward application of the language of the Constitution is anything but.  And it's not because the judiciary under Trump is corrupt.  Without a law from Congress, the issues presented would be thorny no matter who is President and what judges we have.

I have little knowledge of that area so I defer to your legal and general background. My take, which is completely baseless and unsubstantiated, would likely fall under either the 'I know what it is when I see it,' aka "is that porn? I think that is porn." or the "if Dan Patrick can somehow get an entire group of people outraged over bathrooms, then outrage against a President pimping his golf resorts is allowable" defense. In other words, you're dealing with the finite and precise, I'm just gonna be mad about it and say it's wrong.

*Add--I don't care what bathroom people use, but I do prefer that they attempt to aim properly wherever they go.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
addition