Liberal Forum

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:30 am

show one that has had full immunity.

---------------------------

The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct

Majik » 20 Jan 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:45 am

Name one that hasn't had full immunity for anything .....

there has never been one and that includes trump.


The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct

Fuelman » 20 Jan 2024, 11:36 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:36 am

For some reason I don't feel threatened by a 3rd world **** hole turning into a 2nd world **** hole.

Free world? You referring to Capitalism? The system that leaves 80% behind? I can completely understand why some would push back on such a system. From my limited knowledge, this is the underlying push from Schwab.

Then you are clueless ....regarding their goals and true intentions .....


 

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:46 am

there has never been one and that includes trump.

The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct

Was Trump still President when he gave that speech on Jan.6th .....
Yes or No?
 

Majik » 20 Jan 2024, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:49 am

Was Trump still President when he gave that speech on Jan.6th .....
Yes or No?

civil action includes the time they are president. tweeting to enrage insurrectionists would be a civil action, not a  presidential duty
 

Majik » 20 Jan 2024, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:49 am

Was Trump still President when he gave that speech on Jan.6th .....
Yes or No?

 However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 12:08 pm

civil action includes the time they are president. tweeting to enrage insurrectionists would be a civil action, not a  presidential duty

Was Trump still the President on Jan.6th when he gave his speech ...
which was an official act .....
yes or no?



 

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 12:10 pm

 However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct

His speech on Jan.6th was an official act.....

 

Bidencrimefamily » 20 Jan 2024, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:16 am

Exactly. Trumps own words.

his first day as dictator would be to declare himself as a permanent dictator and if anyone complains he would say  I told you what I would be a dictator and you elected me, so don't complain.

Majik » 20 Jan 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 12:13 pm

His speech on Jan.6th was an official act.....

no it was not  neither was his tweet about pence.
 
 

Didn't one of the *** judges say that presidents have presidential immunity when Congress tried to go after the *** for his war crimes against Americans and humanity?

Or was it scotus that ruled presidents have presidential immunity when Congress tried to go after the *** for his war crimes against Americans and humanity?

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm

his first day as dictator would be to declare himself as a permanent dictator and if anyone complains he would say  I told you what I would be a dictator and you elected me, so don't complain.

Remember when you and your low IQ ilk were herping and derping about Trump barricading himself in the Oval office and using the secret service and FBI to remain in power if he lost ? 

That was awesome!!     

Warcok » 20 Jan 2024, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 12:57 pm

Remember when you and your low IQ ilk were herping and derping about Trump barricading himself in the Oval office and using the secret service and FBI to remain in power if he lost ? 

That was awesome!!   

I never said a word about it. your iq is shown now to be about 70-- which is low just so you know.

Majik » 20 Jan 2024, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:47 am

Then you are clueless ....regarding their goals and true intentions .....

It's not that difficult to understand:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/what-is-the-great-reset/
The Great Reset aims to usher in a bewildering economic amalgam—Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism—which I have called “corporate socialism” and Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called “communist capitalism.” 
 In brief, stakeholder capitalism involves the behavioral modification of corporations to benefit not shareholders, but stakeholders—individuals and groups that stand to benefit or lose from corporate behavior. Stakeholder capitalism requires not only corporate responses to pandemics and ecological issues such as climate change, “but also rethinking  [corporations’] commitments to already-vulnerable communities within their ecosystems.” This is the “social justice” aspect of the Great Reset. To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant. 
 One of the WEF’s many powerful “strategic partners,” BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, is solidly behind the stakeholder model. In a 2021 letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that “climate risk is investment risk,” and “the creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.” The COVID pandemic, Fink wrote, accelerated the flow of funds toward sustainable investments:
 We have long believed that our clients, as shareholders in your company, will benefit if you can create enduring, sustainable value for all of your stakeholders. . . . As more and more investors choose to tilt their investments towards sustainability-focused companies, the tectonic shift we are seeing will accelerate further. And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock.Fink’s letter is more than a report to CEOs. It is an implicit threat: be woke or else.
 In their recent book on the Great Reset, Schwab and Malleret pit “stakeholder capitalism” against “neoliberalism,” defining the latter as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention, and economic growth over social welfare.” In other words, “neoliberalism” refers to the free enterprise system. In opposing that system, stakeholder capitalism entails corporate cooperation with the state and vastly increased government intervention in the economy.
 Proponents of the Great Reset hold “neoliberalism” responsible for our economic woes. But in truth, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries—what used to be known as corporatism or economic fascism—has been the real source of what Schwab and his allies at the WEF decry. 
 While approved corporations are not necessarily monopolies, the tendency of the Great Reset is toward monopolization—vesting as much control over production and distribution in as few favored corporations as possible, while eliminating industries and producers deemed non-essential or inimical. To bring this reset about, Schwab writes, “[e]very country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.
 
 

Majik » 20 Jan 2024, 11:47 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:47 am

Then you are clueless ....regarding their goals and true intentions .....

Part 2:Another way of describing the goal of the Great Reset is “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below. Several decades ago, as China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe its economic system. Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase was meant to rationalize the CCP’s allowance of for-profit development under a socialist political system. The CCP considered the privatization of the Chinese economy to be a temporary phase—lasting as long as 100 years if necessary—on the way to a communist society. Party leaders maintain that this approach has been necessary in China because socialism was introduced too early there, when China was a backward agrarian country. China needed a capitalist booster shot.Stripped of its socialist ideological pretensions, the Chinese system amounts to a socialist or communist state increasingly funded by capitalist economic development. The difference between the former Soviet Union and contemporary China is that when it became obvious that a socialist economy had failed, the former gave up its socialist economic pretenses, while the latter has not.The Great Reset represents the development of the Chinese system in the West, but in reverse. Whereas the Chinese political class began with a socialist political system and then introduced privately held for-profit production, the West began with capitalism and is now implementing a Chinese-style political system. This Chinese-style system includes vastly increased state intervention in the economy, on the one hand, and on the other, the kind of authoritarian measures that the Chinese government uses to control its population.

STOP IT! Now. Did any of you liberals here what he said? You are taking this out of context. He was joking!!! He meant on day one- he would shut down the border and undue bidens oil executive orders.. drill baby drill.
cnn tell you that. My gawd...

 

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:15 am

.“A President with ‘full immunity’ is a King, is a dictator,” 

I'm sorry - did a dick sucker say something about a DICTATOR?

Explain how Biden is NOT a dictator when he grandly signs into "law" the requirement that americans submit to boys invading their daughters' showers, sports and toilets, you **** fruit. 

Explain that - this challenge is NOT rhetorical. Explain to the class how it is NOT dictatorial for a senile pedophile pResident to make it a LAW that we have to submit to that ****, when no legislature has signed off on it.

Go ahead. Take your time. Think it through. We're all waiting. 
 

jerrab » 20 Jan 2024, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 11:30 am

show one that has had full immunity.

Obama murdered US citizens, without due process.
 

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2024, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 1:19 pm

I'm sorry - did a dick sucker say something about a DICTATOR?

Explain how Biden is NOT a dictator when he grandly signs into "law" the requirement that americans submit to boys invading their daughters' showers, sports and toilets, you **** fruit. 

Explain that - this challenge is NOT rhetorical. Explain to the class how it is NOT dictatorial for a senile pedophile pResident to make it a LAW that we have to submit to that ****, when no legislature has signed off on it.

Go ahead. Take your time. Think it through. We're all waiting.

again not a biden fan. I will vote for haley

sootedupCyndi » 20 Jan 2024, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024, 1:18 pm

STOP IT! Now. Did any of you liberals here what he said? You are taking this out of context. He was joking!!! He meant on day one- he would shut down the border and undue bidens oil executive orders.. drill baby drill.
cnn tell you that. My gawd...

he needs to be a dictator? he would have executive action,