Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[Laava]

Funny .are those pizza boxs
With news paper clipings
Sets of wigs

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

No they are not wigs, they are toilet paper. But I can see how that could be misconstrued in Trumps case.

[pritch]

Things are happening in the US. The Special Counsel's team has been talking to former Secretary of State for Georgia, Raffsenberger. "I just need 11,780 votes." The guy on that phone call.

Rudy Giuliani had a meeting with the prosecutors which leads experts to believe he is cooperating with the prosecutors. So also has Mark Meadows Trump's former Chief of Staff.

All of this leads various prominent legal experts to believe Trump is about to be indicted on another raft of charges (up to 45 more?). Likely charges are conspiracy to commit fraud against the US, or conspiracy to overthrow the US government. If found guilty of the latter Trump would be forbidden to seek any future public office but that charge would be more difficult to prove. A case could be made that because Biden had not been inaugurated there was no government to overthrow. That seems a stretch but there is a 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court so...

[TheDemonLord]

Speaking of the conservative SCOTUS - Bye Bye Racist Uni entrance requirements.

I've been loving the tears on the left at how upset they are that they can no longer discriminate against Asians on the basis of their race for University.

Just goes to show that the Party switch myth is a myth and the party of racism, is still the party of racism.

[sugilite:Me]

You are a very unusual individual. On one hand you seem very concerned that Asians should have equal opportunities to get into college, and on the other hand, very accepting of dozens and dozens of school children to have their brains splatted on school walls and floors in mass shootings without an ounce of government effort to stop that shit.

Anyhoo.....
I wonder which billionaire sponsored this latest result you speak of?

Pollies in drag on the take:

1. Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances.

2. Neil Gorsuch's property sale - Justice Neil Gorsuch sold a property he co-owned shortly after becoming a justice. He disclosed the sale, but omitted that the property was sold to the chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one the country's biggest law firms. Greenberg Traurig frequently has cases before the high court. Gorsuch, who joined the court in 2017 and also has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in book deals with the publisher, declined to disqualify himself from the more recent case when it came before the court for consideration.

3. John Roberts wife's work as a legal recruiter raised ethics concerns for the chief justice. Jane Roberts was reportedly paid millions of dollars for placing lawyers at firms, including some with business before the Supreme Court.

4. Clarence Thomas has been especially busy with corruption - Harlan Crow Trips:Thomas has for years accepted trips from GOP megadonor and developer Harlan Crow, including on his private jet and superyacht, without disclosing them on financial disclosures as federal law requires.

Harlan Crow Tuition: Crow also paid two years of tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew Mark Martin, whom the justice has custody of, to attend two private schools in the 2000s, which cost $6,000 per month at one of the schools and were similarly not disclosed—even as Thomas did disclose a tuition payment a different friend made years earlier.

Harlan Crow Real Estate: Thomas and his family also sold a string of properties in Savannah, Georgia, to Crow in 2014 without disclosing that as required, ProPublica reports—including the home where his mother still lives—which Crow told the publication he purchased so he could eventually build a museum dedicated to the justice.

Ginni Thomas Conservative Activism: Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, is a right-wing activist, which has raised considerable ethics concerns about overlap between her and her husband’s work—particularly as the New Yorker reported groups she’s been involved with have submitted briefs before the Supreme Court, including a group that has weighed in on the court’s pending case about affirmative action in university admissions.

Ginni Thomas Leonard Leo: Leo, a conservative judicial activist who’s spent billions on efforts to reshape the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, told then-conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway to give Ginni Thomas “another $25k” through a nonprofit group he advises—which then filed a brief with the Supreme Court—but conceal that the payment was for her, the Post reports, telling Conway, “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

Ginni Thomas 2020 Election: Thomas pushed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as her husband was hearing cases on it, including sending text messages to then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, which fueled calls for Thomas to resign or face impeachment over the perceived conflict of interest.

January 6: Ginni Thomas has also confirmed she briefly attended the rally on January 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol building and publicly criticized the House January 6 Committee, and the justice has come under fire for failing to recuse himself in a case concerning former President Donald Trump’s records being turned over to the committee—in which he was the only justice to dissent and believe the records should have been withheld.

Ginni Thomas Funding: The Post reported in March that a conservative group Ginni Thomas formed in 2019 had raised nearly $600,000 from anonymous donors funneled through a right-wing think tank that filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court during the same time, and ethics experts said Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from that case if his wife was paid by the group.

Financial Disclosures: Thomas has made a series of other “errors and omissions” on financial disclosure reports, includes reporting real estate income for decades from a company that shut down in 2006 and has in the past had to amend his financial disclosures multiple times, including after failing to report his wife’s income in the 2000s.

Sanctioned corruption wins the day in a 4 to 3 split decision by the supreme court "justices"

[TheDemonLord]

You are a very unusual individual. On one hand you seem very concerned that Asians should have equal opportunities to get into college, and on the other hand, very accepting of dozens and dozens of school children to have their brains splatted on school walls and floors in mass shootings without an ounce of government effort to stop that shit.

It's almost like there's something in the Constitution about both those things. One that says 'Shall not be infringed' and one that says 'nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'

There's nothing unusual about wanting the Government to play by it's own rules.

Speaking of though - I did see I think one of the California Democrats propose repealing 2A - we'll see what sort of support he gets for this. That'll be the real test, do the majority of Americans want change?

Anyhoo.....
I wonder which billionaire sponsored this latest result you speak of?

Pollies in drag on the take:

1. Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances.

2. Neil Gorsuch's property sale - Justice Neil Gorsuch sold a property he co-owned shortly after becoming a justice. He disclosed the sale, but omitted that the property was sold to the chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one the country's biggest law firms. Greenberg Traurig frequently has cases before the high court. Gorsuch, who joined the court in 2017 and also has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in book deals with the publisher, declined to disqualify himself from the more recent case when it came before the court for consideration.

3. John Roberts wife's work as a legal recruiter raised ethics concerns for the chief justice. Jane Roberts was reportedly paid millions of dollars for placing lawyers at firms, including some with business before the Supreme Court.

4. Clarence Thomas has been especially busy with corruption - Harlan Crow Trips:Thomas has for years accepted trips from GOP megadonor and developer Harlan Crow, including on his private jet and superyacht, without disclosing them on financial disclosures as federal law requires.

Harlan Crow Tuition: Crow also paid two years of tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew Mark Martin, whom the justice has custody of, to attend two private schools in the 2000s, which cost $6,000 per month at one of the schools and were similarly not disclosed—even as Thomas did disclose a tuition payment a different friend made years earlier.

Harlan Crow Real Estate: Thomas and his family also sold a string of properties in Savannah, Georgia, to Crow in 2014 without disclosing that as required, ProPublica reports—including the home where his mother still lives—which Crow told the publication he purchased so he could eventually build a museum dedicated to the justice.

Ginni Thomas Conservative Activism: Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, is a right-wing activist, which has raised considerable ethics concerns about overlap between her and her husband’s work—particularly as the New Yorker reported groups she’s been involved with have submitted briefs before the Supreme Court, including a group that has weighed in on the court’s pending case about affirmative action in university admissions.

Ginni Thomas Leonard Leo: Leo, a conservative judicial activist who’s spent billions on efforts to reshape the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, told then-conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway to give Ginni Thomas “another $25k” through a nonprofit group he advises—which then filed a brief with the Supreme Court—but conceal that the payment was for her, the Post reports, telling Conway, “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

Ginni Thomas 2020 Election: Thomas pushed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as her husband was hearing cases on it, including sending text messages to then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, which fueled calls for Thomas to resign or face impeachment over the perceived conflict of interest.

January 6: Ginni Thomas has also confirmed she briefly attended the rally on January 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol building and publicly criticized the House January 6 Committee, and the justice has come under fire for failing to recuse himself in a case concerning former President Donald Trump’s records being turned over to the committee—in which he was the only justice to dissent and believe the records should have been withheld.

Ginni Thomas Funding: The Post reported in March that a conservative group Ginni Thomas formed in 2019 had raised nearly $600,000 from anonymous donors funneled through a right-wing think tank that filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court during the same time, and ethics experts said Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from that case if his wife was paid by the group.

Financial Disclosures: Thomas has made a series of other “errors and omissions” on financial disclosure reports, includes reporting real estate income for decades from a company that shut down in 2006 and has in the past had to amend his financial disclosures multiple times, including after failing to report his wife’s income in the 2000s.

Sanctioned corruption wins the day in a 4 to 3 split decision by the supreme court "justices"

I followed the Clarence Thomas 'corruption' claims for a while - There's a few instances where I'll agree it looks somewhat improper - but what turned it into a nothing-burger for me was that in those instances, there wasn't a case before the court where Justice Thomas and his friendship for Mr Crow (which IIRC they have been friends for nearly 30 years) has a conflict of interest.

All-in-all what I found in the reporting of it was basically a bunch of butthurt lefties attacking the most conservative judge on the court. Reading Justice Thomas' opinions - you would be hard pressed to say that he has been 'swayed' in decisions, he's been pretty consistent in his textualist positions and deferring strictly to the Constitution over his tenure as a SCOTUS Judge.

It's funny how all the talk of 'representation' goes out the window, when it's a minority that doesn't agree with leftism

[R650R]

Speaking of the conservative SCOTUS - Bye Bye Racist Uni entrance requirements.

I've been loving the tears on the left at how upset they are that they can no longer discriminate against Asians on the basis of their race for University.

Just goes to show that the Party switch myth is a myth and the party of racism, is still the party of racism.

Thanks now I can make sense of the Babylon bee meme. They had a picture of the black judge in Supreme Court with words “ democrats go crazy after racially appointed judge bans racism”.

Back to topic Trumps about to maybe get charged with something else…. yawn wake me up when he’s FOUND guilty of something outside of being bombastic.

[TheDemonLord]

Every US President had a descendant who owned slaves....




Except Trump.

[Pursang]

Every US President had a descendant who owned slaves....Except Trump.

I think the term you need is "antecedent".

Though..... when the SCOTUS repeals the 'Emancipation Act', I'm sure the Trump kids will be sitting in the first row at the Auction!

Come to think of it, Harlan Crow already 'owns' Clarence Thomas.

[TheDemonLord]

I think the term you need is "antecedent".

Good point, I was lazily going from Reuters.

Though..... when the SCOTUS repeals the 'Emancipation Act', I'm sure the Trump kids will be sitting in the first row at the Auction!

I think there's some confusion here.

There has been talk of amending the 14th amendment (which is the Emancipation/Equal rights Amendment) - but specifically the part that deals with US Citizenship by birth. The 'talk' has been around that if someone illegally enters the US and gives birth, their offspring (due to that Amendment) is now a US Citizen.

However, I put talk in quotation marks because no one has genuinely suggested an amendment to it, only hypothetical. Probably because if the Right touches the 14th amendment, the left will go after the first and second.

Come to think of it, Harlan Crow already 'owns' Clarence Thomas.

See above - it's a massive nothing burger.

And it's hilarious - because the moment someone who is (in accordance to leftist 'thought') 'Diverse', but holds a conservative opinion, the diversity requirements disappear in a puff of smoke.

[husaberg]

You are a very unusual individual. On one hand you seem very concerned that Asians should have equal opportunities to get into college, and on the other hand, very accepting of dozens and dozens of school children to have their brains splatted on school walls and floors in mass shootings without an ounce of government effort to stop that shit.

Anyhoo.....
I wonder which billionaire sponsored this latest result you speak of?

[TheDemonLord]

A Bunch of pictures

The fact that all the graphs conflate an Assault Rifle with a Semi-Automatic, and all from left-wing outlets tells me that the questioners probably didn't know what they were talking about and that the results are likely bunk.

However - if we take the polls as accurate, we find an interesting problem.

67% of people oppose repealing 2A - that would be the law that says 'Shall not be infringed' - and considering that same group, by 68% are wanting to infringe on those rights tells me that the people being asked probably would need a map to navigate their way from their asshole to their elbow.

[R650R]

A common line from the anti gun crowd is “why do you need guns, why do you need so many, just how many ene irs do you have????”

To which I reply “why do you fear someone else having guns? Is it because of the way you treat other people?”

History has shown us repeatedly that those who seek to disarm their populations are the first to do them great harm….

[sugilite:Me]

OK, so the 2A needs amending to reflect modern times, not repelling. Just make an AMENDMENT to insert some common sense gun laws in there that I listed elsewhere that you (tdl) agreed was sensible. Doing nothing is beyond stupid - and mind numbingly selfish.

Supreme court judges are there for life and represent the pinnacle of justice in arguably the most important democracy in the World, so they better be fucking squeaky clean. The four I listed are not - not even close.
Just the fact that Clarence has had a billionaire pay for very expensive paid holidays for years, his god child nephew or whatevas tuition paid for, and his mothers house purchased that she still lives in it stinks to high heaven. These people need to be beyond reproach. I give not one shit what colour, race, or sex or political team they belong to.

It seems to have eluded you that Crow is a businessman, and he could well be offering a judge in his pocket as a paid service to other businessmen with a vested interest in a certain outcome. If Clarence wasn't accepting shit he REALLY ethically should not be, then it would not be an issue.
Really, 90% of your diatribe could at best be (very charitably) described as flailing flatulence.

Oh and Trump does own slaves - 271 of them in fact. That is the number of gop senators and congressmen/women who were too stupid to get rid of Trump when they were given the chance in 2019, then again in 2021 \
Looks like trump will steamroll his primary as meatballs numbers have only gone down since he declared his run officially. Your best hope is Biden runs, and going off how the mid terms went, the gop will still be toast - again.
Biden is so hard to watch now, his speech, the way he walks - looks like he will be lucky to make it to the end of next week, yet alone another 4 years. And the invisible woman VP Harris is about as popular as a soggy sandwich.
Trump and Biden =

And R650R, you don't have to wait, Trump is already been found guilty of sexual abuse, and the big mouth will get a second helping thanks to his comments made in the CNN town hall
He is far more effective at incriminating himself than defending himself, so he will eventually end up in the clink. Probs from jan 6th and or Georgia. Not the documents one though, he will get a mulligan for that shit.

[pete376403]

A common line from the anti gun crowd is “why do you need guns, why do you need so many, just how many ene irs do you have????”

To which I reply “why do you fear someone else having guns? Is it because of the way you treat other people?”

History has shown us repeatedly that those who seek to disarm their populations are the first to do them great harm….

No doubt referring to the "Nazi gun control" story that is a cornerstone of anti-gun control proponents, even though it has been shown to be largely false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

[TheDemonLord]

No doubt referring to the "Nazi gun control" story that is a cornerstone of anti-gun control proponents, even though it has been shown to be largely false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

From the Wikipedia article:

When the Nazi party gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened for Nazi party members only. The laws were tightened in other ways, such as specifically banning ownership of guns by Jews. Nazi laws systematically disarmed so-called "unreliable" persons, especially Jews while relaxing restrictions for Nazi party members.  The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries. 

So, which bit exactly is false?

If I look at the Criticism section, there's nothing that debunks the factual basis of the claim: The Nazis restricted access to firearms to the Jews and this helped in their persecution of them.

Some people are trying to make the claim that the Weimar republic had heavy restrictions (which doesn't disprove the point) or that it's based on a hypothetical (Do you think the Nazis would have been as successful at rounding people up to go to Death Camps if every Jewish person was armed equal to the SS?) or that they only made up a small percntage of the population that it wouldn't have made a difference. They say that Jews were 1% of the population. However, the SS (in 1939) only made up 0.3% of the population.

And let's say we don't like invoking 1930s germany - we could look at the Soviet Union, or China or Uganda.

There's a book on the subject called Lethal Laws.