Liberal Forum

Mirabeau » 01 Jul 2024, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 1:08 pm

Who else but Trump could have LOST the 2020 election to Joe Biden?


 

Lost?
The MSM threw that one to Biden. Dems (or somebody) needed a cheat and got it.
The "or somebody" got the assist from MSM to help hide, distract, scour as needed.
I've rendered this down to a small exercise in typing.
You won't read much more than a couple phrases anyway.

Mirabeau » 01 Jul 2024, 4:45 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 4:45 pm

Yes.

Dear sir. The way the country is right now is thanks to the contribution of men like them.

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 2:30 pm

and do you think tthink any of these great representatives you speak of would agree with your idea of abolishing parties?

what do you think the founding fathers would think of the supreme court establishing the country as  dictatorship? explain your answer in at least 20 words.

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 7:58 pm

Dear sir. The way the country WAS is thanks to the contribution of men like them.

 

jerrab » 01 Jul 2024, 8:04 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 8:04 pm

what do you think the founding fathers would think of the supreme court establishing the country as  dictatorship? explain your answer in at least 20 words.

I am not aware of any such ruling. But if there was i suppose it would depend on which one you are talking about. Hamilton would be okay with that.

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 8:49 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 8:49 pm

I am not aware of any such ruling. But if there was i suppose it would depend on which one you are talking about. Hamilton would be okay with that.

it happened  today. and hamilton would not be okay with it.

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 8:49 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 8:49 pm

I am not aware of any such ruling. But if there was i suppose it would depend on which one you are talking about. Hamilton would be okay with that.

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

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 8:49 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 8:49 pm

I am not aware of any such ruling. But if there was i suppose it would depend on which one you are talking about. Hamilton would be okay with that.

--------------------------------
“A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
― Alexander Hamilton--------------------------------------

and what did trump say? 

jerrab » 01 Jul 2024, 9:03 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 9:03 pm

--------------------------------
“A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
― Alexander Hamilton--------------------------------------

and what did trump say?

Trump touts Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling as 'big win for our Constitution and for democracy'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... -democracy
 

jerrab » 01 Jul 2024, 8:55 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 8:55 pm

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

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

This quote implies that he places responsibility on the people, not the Supreme Court, to avoid dictatorship. People can rebel whenever they like regardless of the form of government, so the implication is that he does not oppose dictatorship.

I still don't know what you think the Supreme Court did today to create a dictatorship.

But I think you should be clear about the fact that I am not much of a fan of the founding fathers and I do not hate dictatoship...so you might be wasting your effort here lol

Mirabeau » 01 Jul 2024, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 4:46 pm

^^^ Written while looking in the mirror.

 

When a bitch-made sissy like you can ask ME a question I duck, punk, I will leave the board in shame. 
 

Mirabeau » 01 Jul 2024, 4:45 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 4:45 pm

Yes.

Its the *** party vs the CORRUPTOCRAT party!
Can we agree on that?      
@Mirabeau  
 

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 9:13 pm

This quote implies that he places responsibility on the people, not the Supreme Court, to avoid dictatorship. People can rebel whenever they like regardless of the form of government, so the implication is that he does not oppose dictatorship.

I still don't know what you think the Supreme Court did today to create a dictatorship.

But I think you should be clear about the fact that I am not much of a fan of the founding fathers and I do not hate dictatoship...so you might be wasting your effort here lol

I take it that you have lived in a dictatorship, or live in a dictatorship. whatever, hamilton had trump pegged.

-------------------“A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people

-------------------------
Trump touts Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling as 'big win for our Constitution and for democracy'
 

if you did not have idiot presidents, usa would be worst than they are. elect babbling fools. let them argue between each other. better than electing a leader who might give you something you would not want.

FOS » 01 Jul 2024, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 7:58 pm

Dear sir. The way the country is right now is thanks to the contribution of men like them.

Listen up about evolving as individually living eternally separated each rotation between specific rotation conceived by male and female parents, rotation of birth after 0-9 months of living in a female womb, rotation of birth in series parallel time until rotation becoming permanently dead between 1-100 years living in series parallel adapt or become extinct environment established for everything alive in this atmosphere.

Artificial facts by theories and theologies sustain reasonable doubt all 5 generation gaps living historically and current events every reality does same thing day in and day out every generation achieved so far.

Shared event horizons conceived to dead regardless lifetime in the kingdoms of plant or animal categories, predatory or prey nature per ancestor within the ancestral lineages of each species of combined chromosomes streaming down DNA lineages of direct relative time alive since inception of each lifetimes ancestral lineage living this rotation.

You are a principal denier ignoring the simple principles of compounding chromosomes existing in plain sight in chronological order of arriving per rotation of the planet conceived until rotation of the planet dead.

Separation of whom you believe you as an exception to naturally alive today and which what you are since rotation of conception.

Humanity sells borrowed time(184 seconds a rotation) to each homo sapien ancestor alive living factually here so far. Obey rule of law or else.

jerrab » 01 Jul 2024, 11:39 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 11:39 pm

I take it that you have lived in a dictatorship, or live in a dictatorship. whatever, hamilton had trump pegged.

-------------------“A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people

-------------------------
Trump touts Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling as 'big win for our Constitution and for democracy'

You haven't developed the proper amount of cynicism to really understand how power works or understand the words of politicians and judges in the proper context. 

The Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with allowing dictatorship. If there was no presidential immunity, then Trump could have been charged with murder for the assassination of general soleimani. You or I certainly would have, if we had decided to kill him as private citizens. Presidents would not have access to classified information. Etc. Basically presidents would be unable to perform their job at all if they were not exempt from certain laws. I can assure you that this Supreme court ruling does not give the president a free hand to abolish the Supreme Court or the house of representatives.

but a clause for that does exist in our constitution, and the founding fathers were fine with it. In a 'state of emergency' the president can abolish the 'checks and balances' in our government and rule as a dictator. And what conditions are necessary for a 'state of emergency'? Well...that is open to interpretation. Based on the letter of the law that currently exists, any president could just tell some lies and acquire dictator powers. 

The founding fathers just wanted to be independent of the British crown. It was politically useful for them to complain about dictatorship and the institution of monarchy. But a common theme you will note is that they ultimately make it the responsibility of the people to avoid it. They expect some violent armed rebellion to take down a dictator. But that is always just a given. Nobody needs to grant permission to the people to revolt...they can try that any time they want....regardless of what government they are in or whether it is illegal. 'Permission' from the founding fathers is irrelevant. The reason revolution is rare is because organizing one is difficult and people don't want to die. It is about as useful as telling people they have freedom of speech but they might be killed for things they say. That is just a roundabout way of not having freedom of speech.

FOS » 02 Jul 2024, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jul 2024, 8:33 am

You haven't developed the proper amount of cynicism to really understand how power works or understand the words of politicians and judges in the proper context. 

The Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with allowing dictatorship. If there was no presidential immunity, then Trump could have been charged with murder for the assassination of general soleimani. You or I certainly would have, if we had decided to kill him as private citizens. Presidents would not have access to classified information. Etc. Basically presidents would be unable to perform their job at all if they were not exempt from certain laws. I can assure you that this Supreme court ruling does not give the president a free hand to abolish the Supreme Court or the house of representatives.

but a clause for that does exist in our constitution, and the founding fathers were fine with it. In a 'state of emergency' the president can abolish the 'checks and balances' in our government and rule as a dictator. And what conditions are necessary for a 'state of emergency'? Well...that is open to interpretation. Based on the letter of the law that currently exists, any president could just tell some lies and acquire dictator powers. 

The founding fathers just wanted to be independent of the British crown. It was politically useful for them to complain about dictatorship and the institution of monarchy. But a common theme you will note is that they ultimately make it the responsibility of the people to avoid it. They expect some violent armed rebellion to take down a dictator. But that is always just a given. Nobody needs to grant permission to the people to revolt...they can try that any time they want....regardless of what government they are in or whether it is illegal. 'Permission' from the founding fathers is irrelevant. The reason revolution is rare is because organizing one is difficult and people don't want to die. It is about as useful as telling people they have freedom of speech but they might be killed for things they say. That is just a roundabout way of not having freedom of speech.

I have often made the case that the people of Stalin's USSR had freedom of speech. They could say anything they wanted without fear of retribution. It was being heard that would get them killed. 

This observation may seem a smart aleck's play on words at first blush. But a larger argument is being made. An argument against big tech's censorship and biden's Office of Truthiness. 
 
The framers cared jack **** for the freedom of speech. Talk is cheap, and they knew this well.

It was the freedom to be heard that they valued - the freedom of others to hear and consider your argument.
 

jerrab » 01 Jul 2024, 8:04 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jul 2024, 8:04 pm

what do you think the founding fathers would think of the supreme court establishing the country as  dictatorship? explain your answer in at least 20 words.

That didn't happen.

That'll do for word count, kid.
 

FOS » 02 Jul 2024, 8:33 am » wrote: ↑

02 Jul 2024, 8:33 am

You haven't developed the proper amount of cynicism to really understand how power works or understand the words of politicians and judges in the proper context. 

The Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with allowing dictatorship. If there was no presidential immunity, then Trump could have been charged with murder for the assassination of general soleimani. You or I certainly would have, if we had decided to kill him as private citizens. Presidents would not have access to classified information. Etc. Basically presidents would be unable to perform their job at all if they were not exempt from certain laws. I can assure you that this Supreme court ruling does not give the president a free hand to abolish the Supreme Court or the house of representatives.

but a clause for that does exist in our constitution, and the founding fathers were fine with it. In a 'state of emergency' the president can abolish the 'checks and balances' in our government and rule as a dictator. And what conditions are necessary for a 'state of emergency'? Well...that is open to interpretation. Based on the letter of the law that currently exists, any president could just tell some lies and acquire dictator powers. 

The founding fathers just wanted to be independent of the British crown. It was politically useful for them to complain about dictatorship and the institution of monarchy. But a common theme you will note is that they ultimately make it the responsibility of the people to avoid it. They expect some violent armed rebellion to take down a dictator. But that is always just a given. Nobody needs to grant permission to the people to revolt...they can try that any time they want....regardless of what government they are in or whether it is illegal. 'Permission' from the founding fathers is irrelevant. The reason revolution is rare is because organizing one is difficult and people don't want to die. It is about as useful as telling people they have freedom of speech but they might be killed for things they say. That is just a roundabout way of not having freedom of speech.

yesterday's ruling was presidential immunity on steroids, to the 50th power. complete immunity. not in the constitution.