ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
My hope is Trump tells Little Marco he’s going to pick him so Rubio packs up and moves out of Florida to avoid potential 12th Amendment issues, after which Trump actually picks somebody else.
-
Meh. Don’t love it, don’t hate it.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Fun fact about Jenna Ellis: she was fired from traffic court but was awarded unemployment benefits in part because the labor board felt that some of her mistakes were due to "deficiencies in her education."
Less than a decade later, she somehow became attorney to the president where her actions created significant legal exposure for herself.
Only the best people...
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
I will ask you to point out one prediction that was correct that was trumpeted? Simply showing temps have risen in the past 50 years shows me nothing. The fact that 7 billion people affect the planet and the climate is changing is obvious and will always happen but your solutions are not only ineffective but damaging to our economy
Aside from the 11 different sources I included in my post, I'll give you this: Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
I do find it interesting that you're bringing up whatever you think my solutions so dismissively since I personally don't have any climate solutions and my whole point is that the Right is rejecting the underlying truth (climate change is real and driven by humans) specifically because they don't like the solutions offered to combat it.
-
14 minutes ago, daz28 said:
The whole immunity thing is ridiculous. So is the pardoning himself thing. If either were true, a president could do ANYTHING they wanted. If they don't have immunity, they could just simply pardon themselves before or after they commit the crime. Complete nonsense, and we have a SCOTUS so corrupt, they're actually hearing it. Why did Ford pardon Nixon, when he could have just pardoned himself???
To believe the immunity argument that Trump's lawyers are pushing, you would have to believe that the Founders, having just finished a war against a King, created a president that could have their political opponents killed and threaten or coerce Congress into not impeaching them (which might be successful if they were on a murder spree) and there would be absolutely nothing anybody could do about it.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
Why would his business cover up *****'s purchase?
Luckily for Trump, he never did pay back the National Enquirer for the McDougal story catch-and-kill.
Unluckily for Trump, that meant that when the Stormy Daniels story was being shopped, he'd have to pay out for it because the National Enquirer wasn't going to front the money this time.
So the Trump Organization paid to kill the story to benefit the campaign. The company ledger was falsified to cover up this fact.
He should have just paid out of the campaign fund and avoided all of this. Bringing in his company was a bad move.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Definition of election interference.
Seems bad.
I sure hope that Trump didn't falsify any business records to try to cover that up.
-
1
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Goodness
Moving Noem up my rankings for potential Trump VP
-
2
-
-
On 4/25/2024 at 10:33 AM, The Frankish Reich said:
True. Trump's lawyer just conceded enough to make it clear that the case will be sent back to the District (trial) Court to decide what alleged actions constitute "official acts" and which are "private acts."
Makes you wonder why the Supreme Court saw any need to step into the process too early, thereby delaying the trial ...
This SCOTUS believes in states rights unless the state is doing something it doesn't like; originalism unless the original meaning of a law is something it doesn't like; textualism unless the text doesn't say what they want it to say; precedents are things to ignore or overturn; judges are historians, scientists, and medical experts...
Attempts to understand a consistent jurisprudence for this court fails against just thinking about what it is that the GOP would want.
-
1
-
-
Climate change is a pretty solid example of a specific way the political right is currently broken and living in a fantasy world.
The right doesn't like a lot of the left's solutions for combating climate change (and that's fair, it's ok to have policy differences and no plan is perfect) but instead of acknowledging reality and proposing their own plan, they just deny that climate change is a thing at all.
Then they point to anecdotes, highlight anyone with extreme positions as being representative of everyone, ignore predictions that were correct while highlighting predictions that were wrong, and try to evoke emotional reactions that distract for the factual realities.
It's a common thing across a lot of different issues today: deny reality and push emotional reactions to prevent any action to address problems. Create an "us vs them" scenario the conveniently supports whatever big moneyed interests want.
Anyway, if you don't believe that climate change is real despite the o v e r w h e l m i n g evidence, you're being played like a fool.
PS: If you're not a fan of immigration, you should be really concerned about climate change.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Anyone else who did what he did and is facing what he’s facing would already be in jail.
But it’s Trump, so he’s probably looking at nothing worse than a fine.
-
2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
Candidates and their campaigns have the right to challenge election results, and even take those challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, IMO
Absolutely 100% correct.
Candidates and their campaigns, however, do not have the right to tell people to sign fake elector certifications, order the DoJ to tell states not to certify elections, or tell DHS to seize voting machines.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
any candidate and their campaigns are in the process, right?
Anything done at the behest of a candidate or campaign is almost by definition not an official act.
Candidates cannot order the government to do anything. They can file suits if they think something is being done incorrectly or illegally (like Gore and Trump did). But they can’t do things like order the DoJ to tell states not to certify electoral slates (like Gore did not but Trump did). -
10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Gorsuch is making some good points here. He asks: "For every first term president, can't every action he takes be seen as in service of his own reelection."
There is a serious issue here, and it's about what are "official acts" and what aren't. Seems to me the SCt is going to send it back to the trial judge to make a determination on what alleged Trump actions were "official acts" and what were "private acts." The devil will be in the details of that decision - how to decide that issue. For example: "actions should be considered official acts if they arguably fall within the President's powers." That would be a huge Trump win. On the other hand, a decision like "actions that are undertaken for a primarily personal electoral motive should be considered private acts" would be a huge win for the Special Counsel.
Since POTUS has no role in administration of elections, what is the theory that Trump’s actions inserting himself into the election process are official acts?-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
Well, my caution to you and the dems, is that we'll shall see how your actions impact our future politics. We've already got an impeachment coming out of the repub controlled house. Now we have the dem controlled senate shelving the constitutionally required trial in regards to that impeachment.
We're circling the drain my friend. You're contributing to a ugly new normal.
Nah man, the Dems aren’t pulling all these strings behind the scenes, forcing law enforcement to do things.
If they were that competent, they would have never lost to an idiot conman in 2016. If they had that kind of power and desire to do away with Trump, he would have already been convicted of multiple felonies that he absolutely committed. They would have enforced the emoluments clause while he was in office taking in foreign money through his hotel.
What’s actually happening here is that a long time criminal committed a bunch of crimes and now he’s facing the consequences of that.
If the new normal is criminals get charged with crimes, I’m not sure why you’re so worried about it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Pokebball said:
You're making the bed!
I’m 100% fine with the law being enforced against people who break the law, even against Dems.
Do you oppose the laws being enforced? Or do you think that some favored people should be above the law?-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson just destroyed Trump's lawyer.
Trump’s lawyers know they are going to lose this battle. Their arguments are ridiculous.
But they are going to win the war. Their goal isn’t to win the cases, it’s simply to delay them. This hearing has already delayed the case despite the fact that the Special Counsel asked SCOTUS to hear this issue months ago but they declined.
What Trump’s team is hoping for here is a remand. It’d be pointless because there is no reading of the Constitution or law that makes overturning an election an official act, but it would mean that Chutkin would have to make that ruling. As soon as she does, Trump will appeal, eventually all of the way up to SCOTUS.
By then, it’ll be too late to have the trial by the election, depriving the public of knowledge as to whether or not Trump is guilty.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
What the dems are doing will have a much more significant impact to the health of America. Impeachment is now commonplace. Lawfare against political opponents will now be commonplace. Think back in history, even recent history. Clinton? Regan? Kennedy? Nixon? Johnson? Apply what is being normalized today to any of our past elected officlals? Holy shyt are we in trouble now!
The Dems are bad because law enforcement is enforcing the law.
We cannot allow them to normalize law enforcement enforcing the law! Can you imagine!?!?
-
1
-
-
“Where is the president’s statement on this!?!?!”
”Here it is”
”BRB, moving goalposts”
-
5 minutes ago, B-Man said:
-
4 minutes ago, T master said:
If the evidence was so damming & proof BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he indeed commited those crimes then why isn't he already in jail ?
I bet he bought off the judge right ? Or he knows somebody in high places is that it ? I just would like to know .
Because the Dems, by and large, are feckless cowards.
When Biden won, they thought to themselves “well, that’s the end of Trump” because they are dumb.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Pokebball said:
Reality is that the dems have been using lawfare against Trump for over 7yrs now. I really do not like Trump at all. But what you Dems have done to our country these past 7yrs is really sad. We'll never recover.
I’m glad we don’t actually live in the world you think we do.
Do crimes, get charged. If you didn’t want your president to get charged with crimes, don’t elect a criminal.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, T master said:
So how many times can you be tried for the exact same thing ? Come hell or high water these liberal SOB's will try to do anything to keep him from running, but don't follow up on the check Joe signed or find out where the cocaine came from that was in the white house or the documents illegally taken by then VP Biden none of that matters just pull out every way you can think possible to keep the orange man under raps ...
Now that's American governmental justice at it's best for you right there . And it might be different if those that are prosecuting him didn't blatantly say they were going to go after him with everything they had while being elected
He hasn’t been tried for election interference once.
He is slated to be tried for defrauding the US in DC but who knows when that’s actually going to happen.
52 minutes ago, Pokebball said:Yeah, keep trying harder
Sorry reality doesn’t match up to your fantasy. But that’s a you problem.1 hour ago, Doc said:Right. So instead they dredge up the Stormy Daniels thing from even longer ago...
Right. Makes absolutely no sense if there was a widespread conspiracy to get Trump. Just charge him with the crimes documented by Mueller and be done with it.
Could have had the guy already into his second year in jail not worrying about any of this today. -
7 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
a "ridiculous way" gonna need you to work harder
He has violated his gag orders so frequently that Judge Merchen could take him into custody today. When defending Trump, his lawyers could not point to any case that supported their theory that he hadn’t violated his gag order. It was that bad.
Aside from that, the entire second half of the Mueller Report is just documenting Trump crimes. Merrick Garland could have indicted Trump on day one and likely secured a conviction ages ago.
It’s incredible that people think that there’s a grand conspiracy to prosecute Trump when in reality he has been treated with kids gloves that none of us would ever have benefited from.
-
2
-
Who Will Be President Trump's Vice Presidential Pick ??
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Small and petty is how Trump works, so you have to consider it.