I know you don't give a shit about basic rules if they conflict with your worldview, that's the point.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I'm the one who managed to find a half dozen sources corroborating my conclusion. You denigrated and dismissed them for no good reason, then failed to find a single one to corroborate yours, substituting your own dogshit analysis.
Everything you're saying here applies tenfold to yourself, and everybody can see it.
"You can't possibly think differently from me because I'm just so right. Therefore you're just lying so you don't have to admit how right I am."
Indeed, your weak attempt to shift the conversation when you were challenged to provide sources is part of the problem.
Nope, talking about you not being able to admit you were wrong on something very objectively true.
I can see good arguments for the President having immunity for things done during his term that are connected to his duties. I can see good arguments for delaying prosecution until end of term while he's in office. I can't see any good arguments for the President having immunity for things done outside his term as President being prosecuted outside said term, or things done during his term but unrelated to his duties being prosecuted after said term.
It's not like you can just accidentally the whole felony.
Your shoddy amateur conclusions/ the opinions of politically-appointed judges =/= "objectively true".
The judges are irreverent, it's just the basic understanding of the law. Hence, why I linked to a routine play in baseball, I bet you still don't get the parallels.
I want the Office to be prosecuted for any action taken that kills thousands of innocent lives (not in self-defence). The problem with Kavanagh's whole idea is that the chilling effect is INTENTIONAL. It's called Checks and Balances. It's the desired effect
Whether the target of the action is the person or the Office, I can leave that to the courts. I could be persuaded to leave it until the end of a term, as long as they are immediately removed. But it needs to be there
Ok, but no pro-lifer has ever told you that they loved controlling women's bodies, where every pro-choice person talks about women's rights and bodily autonomy. Why are those arguments being made? What are those things being prioritized over?
Secret document says Iran security forces molested and killed teen protester
Revolutionary Guards' papers passed to the BBC give chilling details of Nika Shakarami’s last movements.
www.bbc.com
Iran in a nutshell.
This is an interesting one. Imagine an executive of a company committed a crime as part of company business, or directed his company to commit a crime. What would we do then? I think there would be significant dissatisfaction if they had "immunity", and only the company could be penalised. Nevertheless, I would perhaps agree and lean to the idea that the complexity of government means that a certain level of immunity for work "connected to his duties" is the most practical option. However, the key issue then that needs to be addressed is where, precisely, "connected to his duties" ends.
My feeling about SCOTUS here is they simply want to de facto absent themselves. We started off with the majority decision argument on the insurrection case, which was to claim that a president would only be barred by an active vote by Congress, rather than a bar automatically applying if a relevant conviction was secured. Sure, this is a very dubious argument given apparent wording of the Constitution, but in the end, their word is law so why do they care?
Then all the other cases, the conservative justices appear to me to be delaying, or crippling, the cases. I think not because they're protecting Trump per se, but because they don't want the courts to deal with it. They want to protect themselves from suspicions that they could play as kingmakers, interfere in democratic process. Trump might be as guilty as sin, but as far as they are concerned that's the business of Congress to deal with: it's got the tools and should use them. Even if outrageous to halt the cases outright, subtly sabotaging them means the prosecutions fail and that suits them fine. If delayed until after the election that is great, because it takes the electoral interference annoyance away from them. The fact that it means a man who has potentially committed crimes is left free to assume the presidency (and by extension presumably others in the future) is a triviality. Nor do they feel there is any pressing need or democratic value for voters to know whether a candidate accused of crimes has committed them. If this makes presidents de facto immune because deadlocked Congress will nearly always mean no-one can be successfully convicted in impeachment, that's just up to Congress and the voters to dwell on. That is how they want it in order to protect themselves and their institution.
That's not entirely true.
For instance, take Steven Crowder, anti-abortionist, and who was a topic of conversation on these forums months ago raging at his wife for failing to fulfill her wifely duties and admonishing her that the Bible tells women to obey their husbands. There are lots of ways that anti-abortionists openly advocate forms and degrees of control over women and their bodies.
Now, if you want to say that anti-abortionists don't usually make a direct argument that women can't have abortions because society (i.e. them) has a right to control women's bodies, okay. But it's not credible to think that these attitudes don't form a very substantial part of their reasoning on abortion.
Why? Those are not as related as you think they are. Not allowing abortions would be far less controlling than forcing abortions, if the goal was control over your wife, why would you advocate for the state to make the decision to take that control away from you?
And better yet, allowing abortions allows for those who want to have an abortion and those who don't to live side by side in peace and harmony. Gee wiz, what an excellent solution, I sure hope no one overturns it.