Liberal Forum

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 2:41 pm

                                                                                                 

Once again.

Me, facts.

You....Fee-fees

 
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:03 pm

Once again.

Me, facts.

You....Fee-fees

Sorry, still no evidence of "dictator like" policies.  

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:03 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:03 pm

Once again.

Me, facts.

You....Fee-fees

"but.. but... muh captions!"

 
 
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 06 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm

"but.. but... muh captions!"

Don't be so modest.

Share your gift...

There will be serious internet fame if you do.


You'll no longer toil in obscurity..
 

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm

Sorry, still no evidence of "dictator like" policies.

That's the advantage of refusing to look at facts you're told to avoid.

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:11 pm

Don't be so modest.

Share your gift...

There will be serious internet fame if you do.

You'll no longer toil in obscurity..

Unlike you, I don't seek "internet fame" Rico... just making you look foolish on this little obscure corner of the web is plenty for me.

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 06 Feb 2024, 3:16 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:16 pm

Unlike you, I don't seek "internet fame" Rico... just making you look foolish on this little obscure corner of the web is plenty for me.

Whooooooaaaaa...

That sound like a qualified "obviously".

They are duty bound to print a retraction if in error.

With far less effort than you've expended trying to convince me to believe your eyes, you can make it happen....


But you won't, because you're "humble"...


 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:12 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:12 pm

That's the advantage of refusing to look at facts you're told to avoid.

 

I'm good.  You can't come up with any "Dictator lie" policies and yet you keep repeating what you are told, that he is a dictator.  I understand.  

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:22 pm

I'm good.  You can't come up with any "Dictator lie" policies and yet you keep repeating what you are told, that he is a dictator.  I understand.

I have...

But you've been told not to look and you won't.

Anderson v. Griswold established Grifty's culpability for the Insurrection of Jan 6th as fact...

Even if you can't be made to understand that.
 

You got a demented liver spot in the Oval office trying to lock up his political opponent and they call the opponent a dictator, a fascist and a threat to democracy      
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 2:59 pm

no I didn't.

Apologies...you used the word "checks" rather than constraints

R. Suave

ConsRule » Today, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑Today, 1:59 pm And the appeals court cannot stop the trial judge from postponing the trail until after the en banc decision.  Maybe he should appeal the part that says he cannot fully exercise his legal options part of the ruling, saving the appeal of the ruling on the fact until later.  Seems these three judges have a problem with some parts of due process.  I wonder where they feel the get the authority to suspend due process.

Just as there is Due Process, as you should have learned from Flynn, there are checks on the abuse of Due Process. 



Of course, when used as a noun (as in your post), it means "a stopping or slowing of progress".  So show us where the get the authority to slow or stop a constitutional right.
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:21 pm

Whooooooaaaaa...

That sound like a qualified "obviously".

They are duty bound to print a retraction if in error.

With far less effort than you've expended trying to convince me to believe your eyes, you can make it happen....

But you won't, because you're "humble"...

"duty bound"?

You really have no idea how the world works do ya Rico.


 

RedheadedStranger » 06 Feb 2024, 3:32 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:32 pm

"duty bound"?

You really have no idea how the world works do ya Rico.

Yes...duty bound.....it's "obvious", isn't it?

Let your courage rise to the level of your humility.
 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:25 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:25 pm

I have...

But you've been told not to look and you won't.

Anderson v. Griswold established Grifty's culpability for the Insurrection of Jan 6th as fact...

Even if you can't be made to understand that.

I don't see that as the act of a dictator.  Plus, he was acquitted in the senate.  And we are waiting for the USSC.  

So ya got nothing.  Not one policy...

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 1:26 pm

Not here to discuss his hearings. 

Signing an EO is not being a dictator.

Proclaiming his intent to become one is a pretty good indicator.  I do not intend to give him the benefit of the doubt given the fate of our democracy may very well hang in the balance.

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm

Sorry, still no evidence of "dictator like" policies.

How many dictators signaled their intention to become one in advance?

ConsRule » 06 Feb 2024, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:30 pm

Apologies...you used the word "checks" rather than constraints

R. Suave

Just as there is Due Process, as you should have learned from Flynn, there are checks on the abuse of Due Process. 

Of course, when used as a noun (as in your post), it means "a stopping or slowing of progress".  So show us where the get the authority to slow or stop a constitutional right.

We know that the jurists have imposed the condition. 

We, and they, are cognizant of the strategy employed by Team Grifty in an effort to delay the trial past the election. They are declining to become his tool for so doing.

There is no Due Process reason not to proceed immediately following his en banc curbstomping.

He has a right to a SPEEDY trial, not one scheduled at his liking 

ConsRule » 06 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 1:19 pm

How the **** do you know he wasn't?  Liberals have been saying for years he constantly lies but they pick and choose what they call a lie and what they choose to treat as the gospel truth coming out of his mouth.

I don't KNOW he wasn't.  I just don't intend to take the chance that he wasn't.  

He has lied about tons of stuff, starting with the crowd size at his inauguration and has continued ever since.  Do you honestly think he didn't KNOW the square footage of his Trump Tower apartment????

Huey » 06 Feb 2024, 3:39 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:39 pm

I don't see that as the act of a dictator.  Plus, he was acquitted in the senate.  And we are waiting for the USSC.  

So ya got nothing.  Not one policy...

Since you made your vision thing the issue....

Describe what you see


 

R.Suave » 06 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2024, 3:43 pm

We know that the jurists have imposed the condition. 

We, and they, are cognizant of the strategy employed by Team Grifty in an effort to delay the trial past the election. They are declining to become his tool for so doing.

There is no Due Process reason not to proceed immediately following his en banc curbstomping.

He has a right to a SPEEDY trial, not one scheduled at his liking
 

There hasn't been anything en banc with this court yet.

He also has the right to pursue all legal measure during the appeals process, and that includes requesting an en banc hearing before he appeals to the Supreme Court.  Oh...and in case you forgot, the defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial.