The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Well look at that. That windmill is a giant after all:

Homeland Security listed pro-life moms as ‘radicalization suspects’ docs reveal

Noooooope. 

I wouldn't recommend that anyone read the NY Post, but if you had read your own link you would know:

A. Nowhere does it call anyone a domestic terrorist for having anti-choice views. 

B. Nowhere is the full force of the government "coming after" someone for participating in a conversation. 

Rather, it says that if someone has become an impassioned believer in a cause, and has started to justify or rationalize the use of violence in support of that cause, then they are worth keeping an eye on. That's just common sense. 

Again, here's the hypothetical profile:

“This is Ann, a resident of Elkville in rural America,” one profile reads. “Ann has always been religious but since the death of her mother, she’s become increasingly devout. She’s a regular in the small-town community, active in several church groups. While she has always been protective of her four kids, she has become increasingly more concerned about the welfare of other children including the unborn.”

The document, obtained by American First Legal, then tells employees to consider ways to address the fictional Ann’s behavior after she questions whether “the bible justifies violence in defense of life” during a prayer group meeting and calls the mayor of her small town a “baby killer” at a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

^^So, this person states that a mayor who supports a woman's right to choose, is a baby killer, while also asking whether the bible would support someone using violence against this mayor because of his views.

Yeah, anyone who thinks they have a biblical mandate to kill those with whom they disagree politically should be on all the watch lists. 

 

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, I was absolutely correct and no that was not the set of circumstances. There was no definitive statement that it can't live. Even still, there was an implications that it would be killed.

If you shoot a man having a heart attack, is that murder or natural causes?

Lol. Read the first two sentences of you quote you posted. 

And no, there was no such implication. 

[West]

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You're tilting at windmills. Nowhere has anyone been called a domestic terrorist for having a point of view on abortion, and nowhere has the government's "full force" come after people for participating in a discussion. 

Seriously, why are you even posting this nonsense? 

I believe you've got your head in the sand if this is your view. 

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, West said:

I believe you've got your head in the sand if this is your view. 

Yet you will repeat these claims without a shred of evidence. Not even one example. You can't cite where anyone was called a domestic terrorist for having an opinion on abortion.  You can't cite even one example of the "full force" of the government coming down on someone for participating in a discussion. 

So what gives? These are obviously baseless claims. Why are you pushing them as if they are real?

[West]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yet you will repeat these claims without a shred of evidence. Not even one example. You can't cite where anyone was called a domestic terrorist for having an opinion on abortion.  You can't cite even one example of the "full force" of the government coming down on someone for participating in a discussion. 

So what gives? These are obviously baseless claims. Why are you pushing them as if they are real?

I have already explained how I base my opinions:

1. Joe Biden makes up a vague boogeyman. Last election cycle it was "alt right" now its "Christian nationalists

2. Joe Biden ascribes mainstream views to Christian nationalists

3. Joe Biden justifies targeting Christian universities and pro life groups with IRS audits and everything else because they are Christian nationalists

If you stand for that injustice then I'm sorry 

[gatomontes99]

27 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Read the first two sentences of you quote you posted. 

And no, there was no such implication. 

I posted it because it changes nothing. If it is alive enough to resuscitate, then it is being killed.

[gatomontes99]

31 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Noooooope. 

I wouldn't recommend that anyone read the NY Post, but if you had read your own link you would know:

A. Nowhere does it call anyone a domestic terrorist for having anti-choice views. 

B. Nowhere is the full force of the government "coming after" someone for participating in a conversation. 

Rather, it says that if someone has become an impassioned believer in a cause, and has started to justify or rationalize the use of violence in support of that cause, then they are worth keeping an eye on. That's just common sense. 

Again, here's the hypothetical profile:

“This is Ann, a resident of Elkville in rural America,” one profile reads. “Ann has always been religious but since the death of her mother, she’s become increasingly devout. She’s a regular in the small-town community, active in several church groups. While she has always been protective of her four kids, she has become increasingly more concerned about the welfare of other children including the unborn.”

The document, obtained by American First Legal, then tells employees to consider ways to address the fictional Ann’s behavior after she questions whether “the bible justifies violence in defense of life” during a prayer group meeting and calls the mayor of her small town a “baby killer” at a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

^^So, this person states that a mayor who supports a woman's right to choose, is a baby killer, while also asking whether the bible would support someone using violence against this mayor because of his views.

Yeah, anyone who thinks they have a biblical mandate to kill those with whom they disagree politically should be on all the watch lists. 

 

Right, because Honeland Security investigating people for having controversial options is aok?

How about when the FBI does it?

FBI whistleblowers say pro-life groups, Catholics were 'target of the government'

You made two statements claiming your side isn't radical. You got proven wrong. Are you going to renounce their actions or try to cover for them?

[Hodad]

59 minutes ago, West said:

I have already explained how I base my opinions:

1. Joe Biden makes up a vague boogeyman. Last election cycle it was "alt right" now its "Christian nationalists

2. Joe Biden ascribes mainstream views to Christian nationalists

3. Joe Biden justifies targeting Christian universities and pro life groups with IRS audits and everything else because they are Christian nationalists

If you stand for that injustice then I'm sorry 

1. Joe Biden didn't make up the concept of Christina nationalists, lol. Or the alt right. 

2. Christian nationalists likely have many views that overlap with mainstream Christianity. That does not mean that they are the same. Many Christians are perfectly fine to let other people live as they believe. 

3. No evidence of any such activity. Please cite an example of any entity being audited by the IRS under Biden solely because of religious affiliation.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Right, because Honeland Security investigating people for having controversial options is aok?

How about when the FBI does it?

FBI whistleblowers say pro-life groups, Catholics were 'target of the government'

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Right, because Honeland Security investigating people for having controversial options is aok?

How about when the FBI does it?

FBI whistleblowers say pro-life groups, Catholics were 'target of the government'

You made two statements claiming your side isn't radical. You got proven wrong. Are you going to renounce their actions or try to cover for them?

 

You made two statements claiming your side isn't radical. You got proven wrong. Are you going to renounce their actions or try to cover for them?

Dude, since when is endorsing violence against political opponents a "controversial opinion"? We used to all agree that using violence--terrorism--as a means of shaping political process was wrong. But apparently that's now controversial in your view? Geez.

And yes, it is definitely A-Okay for homeland security and the FBI to scrutinize anyone who would endorse political violence. 

Including the 3 conspiracy nutball "whistleblowers" Jordan rounded up.  

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

I posted it because it changes nothing. If it is alive enough to resuscitate, then it is being killed.

Absolutely false. Allowing something to die is NOT the same as killing it. 

And what kind of sick fark would want to keep a brainless newborn on life support? To what end? 

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ah Ha! That's it isn't it?

You Libbies are all freaked out about Christians because they can get a hard-on, and you freaks can't.

^Projection, AGAIN.

No, "freaked out" about violating the CONSTITUTION.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Apr 21, 2023

 

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription - National Archives

 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Easier for...ILLEGALS and easier to CHEAT.

There will be Republican overseers at every polling station. Every ballot cast will be scrutinized. Your election rigging is over.

That's the excuse being used but...its not floating. Your desire to kill babies is disgusting.

^YOUR LYING is DISGUSTING. 🤮

Or maybe it's just TOTAL IGNORANCE.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Here

“[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

There. Nothing changes. Baby is born alive and yes, it can be killed. That's what he said.

IF it's nonviable. Just like my mother was allowed to die, because there was NO HOPE of her ever getting off a ventilator and it was HER CHOICE. In this case, it is the PARENTS CHOICE, NOT YOURS or anyone else's.

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, I was absolutely correct and no that was not the set of circumstances. There was no definitive statement that it can't live. Even still, there was an implications that it would be killed.

If you shoot a man having a heart attack, is that murder or natural causes?

It's a FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Duh

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, West said:

I believe you've got your head in the sand if this is your view. 

You've mistaken your BELIEF for FACTS.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Aw, you silly, silly man. There are always monitors from both parties at polling stations. Nothing different there. 

And the only verified voter fraud to swing a federal election in the last 50 years was republicans--and they got caught because the system works just fine. 

I propose that you are among those easily fooled by this kind of disinformation. When you saw this claim, did you go watch or read the full quote in context? That should be the absolute first response to any crazy claim you see. 

You will need you ID. You will not have illegals voting.

Now that your main vehicles for cheating are gone, you Libbies they to jail your opponent. The result...Trump gets a bigger lead.

You little girls are so stupid.

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Dude, since when is endorsing violence against political opponents a "controversial opinion"? We used to all agree that using violence--terrorism--as a means of shaping political process was wrong. But apparently that's now controversial in your view? Geez.

And yes, it is definitely A-Okay for homeland security and the FBI to scrutinize anyone who would endorse political violence. 

Including the 3 conspiracy nutball "whistleblowers" Jordan rounded up.  

It's only controversial inside the MAGA CULT. Trump has normalized violence against political opponents.

Trump: 'Knock the Crap Out' of Protesters, I'll Pay Legal Fees

The Daily Beast

https://www.thedailybeast.com › trump-knock-the-crap-o...

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump encouraged supporters to rough up potential protesters Monday at his final pre-Iowa caucus rally.

"

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You will need you ID. You will not have illegals voting.

Voter ID is a state issue, NOT Federal. Duh

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Now that your main vehicles for cheating are gone, you Libbies they to jail your opponent. The result...Trump gets a bigger lead.

No evidence of "vehicles for cheating." In FACT there is $800M worth of evidence that is LIES.

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You little girls are so stupid.

You're so childish.

[Nationalist]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^Projection, AGAIN.

No, "freaked out" about violating the CONSTITUTION.

 

And? What's your point?

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You will need you ID. You will not have illegals voting.

Now that your main vehicles for cheating are gone, you Libbies they to jail your opponent. The result...Trump gets a bigger lead.

You little girls are so stupid.

Lol. Illegals have never been allowed to vote in federal elections. Honestly, you're like a child. You don't understand even the basics of our electoral process, but you've picked a team and you're rooting for it like crazy!

Voter fraud isn't a problem. It very rarely happens, and when it does, people get caught--because our system works just fine, thanks. 

Didn't stop Republicans from trying, but they got caught.  Because the system works.   -- Serial actually did a great podcast series about these events. 

[gatomontes99]

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Dude, since when is endorsing violence against political opponents a "controversial opinion"? We used to all agree that using violence--terrorism--as a means of shaping political process was wrong. But apparently that's now controversial in your view? Geez.

And yes, it is definitely A-Okay for homeland security and the FBI to scrutinize anyone who would endorse political violence. 

Including the 3 conspiracy nutball "whistleblowers" Jordan rounded up.  

That's not what happened. Just stop. You are endorsing the Banana Republic lic b.s. Just own it. Don't try to hide from it while you openly do it.

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^YOUR LYING is DISGUSTING. 🤮

Or maybe it's just TOTAL IGNORANCE.

No. Killing babies is disgusting.

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Illegals have never been allowed to vote in federal elections. Honestly, you're like a child. You don't understand even the basics of our electoral process, but you've picked a team and you're rooting for it like crazy!

Voter fraud isn't a problem. It very rarely happens, and when it does, people get caught--because our system works just fine, thanks. 

Didn't stop Republicans from trying, but they got caught.  Because the system works.   -- Serial actually did a great podcast series about these events. 

And you don't understand.

You will not be able to cheat in this election.!

[Hodad]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

That's not what happened. Just stop. You are endorsing the Banana Republic lic b.s. Just own it. Don't try to hide from it while you openly do it.

Bullshit. That's exactly what happened.

A hypothetical story was presented in which a hypothetical woman was asking if the bible would justify violence in defense of life, and she's already identified a public target (mayor) as a threat to life.

Of course that person should be scrutinized as a possible domestic terrorist. But you want to pretend she's being singled out and persecuted. Again, bullshit. Anybody talking about political violence should be scrutinized.

There's nothing controversial about it. 

It's  bad enough that you're up in arms about a hypothetical scenario, but if you take a closer look it's just you trying to normalize that which we once all believed was radical: open talk about committing political violence.

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Voter ID is a state issue, NOT Federal. Duh

No evidence of "vehicles for cheating." In FACT there is $800M worth of evidence that is LIES.

You're so childish.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/voter-identification-states-law-map-rcna137555

Too bad Libbie.

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

You will not be able to cheat in this election.!

Great. Cheating wasn't an issue in the last election either. That's why you fools can't furnish even a shred of evidence, despite this being the most scrutinized election in history. That's why automated recounts and hand recounts and forensic analyses all came to the same conclusion. It's why Fox paid $800 million for lying about election fraud. It's why Trump was laughed out of court 60+ times. 

The worst part is that you don't even know enough to feel embarrassed by braying on about these baseless claims. You may not have my respect, but you do have my pity.

[robosmith]

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/voter-identification-states-law-map-rcna137555

Too bad Libbie.

Yes, it's too bad that 10% of citizens live in states that have been bamboozled into WASTING MONEY and VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Anyone INTELLIGENT knows that voter impersonation fraud is ineffective at stealing elections.

That's why Republicons concentrated on VOTER SUPPRESSION.

Edited April 29, 2024 by robosmith