Liberal Forum

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 7:40 am

Huey » 26 Oct 2025, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 11:08 am

Well, prior to the rally, there were no kings in the US  thanks to the framers.  After the rally there were no kings in the US thanks to the framers.  It was a rally about a problem that does not exst.

Jujst a bunch of old white people protesting an issue that does not exist.

you really have a nerve to mention the framers, the framers are the ones trump is overturning.

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

Trump's claim of presidential immunity:

• Founding Fathers' Views: Historical evidence suggests the Founding Fathers would likely not have supported the notion of a former president being immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. They believed in presidential accountability through impeachment and criminal prosecution after leaving office. The Constitution itself includes mechanisms like impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution to ensure the President is not above the law.
• Trump's Argument: Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. -------------He suggests -----------that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king,----------- a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.----------------------------------
• Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court recently ruled on Trump's immunity claim in Trump v. United States. The court concluded that a former president has absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for other "official actions". The court's decision was seen by some, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, as potentially creating a "law-free zone around the President," effectively placing them above the law and contrasting with the Founders' intention to avoid creating an "elected king".
• "No Kings Act": In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Senators introduced the "No Kings Act" to reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions violating U.S. law. This proposed legislation seeks to restore the principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law. -----------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if people don't speak up today, tomorrow will be too late.
 
 

 

Speak up for what?  In 2024 we had an election in line with the constitution.  In 2028 we will have another.  Right now Trump is doing NOTHING that is king like.

You are not very smart.  And way to take my comments out of context, dum dum.

Huey » 26 Oct 2025, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:29 pm

Speak up for what?  In 2024 we had an election in line with the constitution.  In 2028 we will have another.  Right now Trump is doing NOTHING that is king like.

You are not very smart.  And way to take my comments out of context, dum dum.

how did I take your comments out of context?

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 1:35 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:35 pm

how did I take your comments out of context?

Just stop talking.  You are an embarrassment to the country.

Huey » 26 Oct 2025, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:29 pm

Speak up for what?  In 2024 we had an election in line with the constitution.  In 2028 we will have another.  Right now Trump is doing NOTHING that is king like.

You are not very smart.  And way to take my comments out of context, dum dum.

immunity-

what KINGS  had.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. -------------He suggests -----------that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king,----------- a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.----------------------------------

and the constitution did not give immunity to the president.

and with the supreme court more concerned about trump than the constitution, democracy is going out the window.

Huey » 26 Oct 2025, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:36 pm

Just stop talking.  You are an embarrassment to the country.

 you cannot show anything I took out of contextl.

 

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:20 pm

you really have a nerve to mention the framers, the framers are the ones trump is overturning.

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

• Founding Fathers' Views: Historical evidence suggests the Founding Fathers would likely not have supported the notion of a former president being immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. They believed in presidential accountability through impeachment and criminal prosecution after leaving office. The Constitution itself includes mechanisms like impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution to ensure the President is not above the law.

Two impeachments, a whole slew of court cases, attempted assassination, with just about zilch as a conclusion.

I guess a revolt by a bunch of middle aged white women is the next logical step. Funded by Open Society no border idiots.

I am curious why Democrats aren't smart enough to take Trump down.
 

SouthernFried » 25 Oct 2025, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Oct 2025, 8:16 pm

40-something year-old white women. Yeah, you're not winning some "revolution" with that.   

Guys like Johnny and BV.... they fall into the other category of these protestors.... the ***. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-kings-pro ... ic-experts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/lar ... 16497.html

It was the largest protest in US history. It was also embarrassingly irrelevant
Paul du Quenoy
Tue, October 21, 2025 at 5:37 PM

‘No Kings’ protests took place across America at the weekend - SGSAN

“I’m not a king... I’m not a king at all”. Donald Trump could be forgiven for being baffled at the “No Kings” protests that took place across America at the weekend. A sequel to the first and equally feckless demonstrations held in June, they involved what the organisers claimed to have been 7 million Americans, potentially making them the largest protests in American history.
Appearing to skew Boomer or above in age, they faintly recalled the anti-Vietnam War protests that some participants might very well have attended six decades ago. But unlike those popular, persistent, and issue-focused events, only a few days after “No Kings” hardly anyone seems to remember or care that they happened at all.
...
 
 

jerra » wrote:

02 Feb 1970, 7:40 am

Huey » 26 Oct 2025, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:29 pm

Speak up for what?  In 2024 we had an election in line with the constitution.  In 2028 we will have another.  Right now Trump is doing NOTHING that is king like.

You are not very smart.  And way to take my comments out of context, dum dum.

immunity-

what KINGS  had.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. -------------He suggests -----------that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king,----------- a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.----------------------------------

and the constitution did not give immunity to the president.

and with the supreme court more concerned about trump than the constitution, democracy is going out the window.

 

     

That's all you got?  We don't listen to the stupid **** you have been told for years.  Things like calling us racist, nazis, authoritarians wanna be KINGS, etc have lost any sting they once had.

You are a bunch of whiny adults NO ONE listens to anymore.

Bring it on, bitch.....

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 11:49 am

and bondi lied her *** off.

About what?
 

DeezerShoove » 26 Oct 2025, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:59 pm

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/lar ... 16497.html

It was the largest protest in US history. It was also embarrassingly irrelevant
Paul du Quenoy
Tue, October 21, 2025 at 5:37 PM

‘No Kings’ protests took place across America at the weekend - SGSAN

“I’m not a king... I’m not a king at all”. Donald Trump could be forgiven for being baffled at the “No Kings” protests that took place across America at the weekend. A sequel to the first and equally feckless demonstrations held in June, they involved what the organisers claimed to have been 7 million Americans, potentially making them the largest protests in American history.
Appearing to skew Boomer or above in age, they faintly recalled the anti-Vietnam War protests that some participants might very well have attended six decades ago. But unlike those popular, persistent, and issue-focused events, only a few days after “No Kings” hardly anyone seems to remember or care that they happened at all.
...

SouthernFried » 25 Oct 2025, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Oct 2025, 8:16 pm

40-something year-old white women. Yeah, you're not winning some "revolution" with that.   

Guys like Johnny and BV.... they fall into the other category of these protestors.... the ***. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-kings-pro ... ic-experts

The 3 minute video by the psychotherapist pretty much lays it all out on your link.

Head cases and Karen's!
 

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 12:33 pm

george clooney should run for president.

we can only hope he does

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 12:35 pm

making the no kings rallies about abortion, that is grasping at straws.

constantly cry about losing is what losers do

a role you seems well suited for

Blackvegetable » 26 Oct 2025, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 7:54 am

But you will make decisions for them, right?

You people are **** dung beetles..

 Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the CONSTITUTION did NOT give any explicit "rights" to murder a baby in the womb to be determined by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and that Roe was decided on EXTREMELY shaky ground. 

Sucks for you, huh??

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:20 pm

you really have a nerve to mention the framers, the framers are the ones trump is overturning.

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

Trump's claim of presidential immunity:

• Founding Fathers' Views: Historical evidence suggests the Founding Fathers would likely not have supported the notion of a former president being immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. They believed in presidential accountability through impeachment and criminal prosecution after leaving office. The Constitution itself includes mechanisms like impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution to ensure the President is not above the law.
• Trump's Argument: Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. -------------He suggests -----------that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king,----------- a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.----------------------------------
• Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court recently ruled on Trump's immunity claim in Trump v. United States. The court concluded that a former president has absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for other "official actions". The court's decision was seen by some, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, as potentially creating a "law-free zone around the President," effectively placing them above the law and contrasting with the Founders' intention to avoid creating an "elected king".
• "No Kings Act": In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Senators introduced the "No Kings Act" to reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions violating U.S. law. This proposed legislation seeks to restore the principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law. -----------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if people don't speak up today, tomorrow will be too late.

You REALLY have a lot of neve trying to sound relevant using AI to prove your point. Of which you proved NOTHING but that you are another **** LOSER PIECE OF LWNJ ****!!

Run along, Junior, you are not even in the minor leagues on this thread. Go suck your pacifier. 
 

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 1:20 pm

you really have a nerve to mention the framers, the framers are the ones trump is overturning.

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

Trump's claim of presidential immunity:

• Founding Fathers' Views: Historical evidence suggests the Founding Fathers would likely not have supported the notion of a former president being immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. They believed in presidential accountability through impeachment and criminal prosecution after leaving office. The Constitution itself includes mechanisms like impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution to ensure the President is not above the law.
• Trump's Argument: Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during his presidency. -------------He suggests -----------that the Constitution granted American presidents similar powers and immunities to the British king,----------- a claim disputed by historical and legal experts.----------------------------------
• Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court recently ruled on Trump's immunity claim in Trump v. United States. The court concluded that a former president has absolute immunity for actions within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for other "official actions". The court's decision was seen by some, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, as potentially creating a "law-free zone around the President," effectively placing them above the law and contrasting with the Founders' intention to avoid creating an "elected king".
• "No Kings Act": In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Senators introduced the "No Kings Act" to reaffirm that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions violating U.S. law. This proposed legislation seeks to restore the principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law. -----------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if people don't speak up today, tomorrow will be too late.

 https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71J ... _QL80_.jpg
 
 

Blackvegetable » 26 Oct 2025, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 7:54 am

But you will make decisions for them, right?

Like telling them they have to take experiMENTAL "medicines"?

You people are **** dung beetles..
 

What do you say to people who are ashamed that women are being imprisoned with male sex offenders because of democ rat policies?

Blackvegetable » 26 Oct 2025, 8:29 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 8:29 am

Be proud of your Misogyny

I see.

Fuelman » 26 Oct 2025, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 9:06 am

It would be hilarious to interview your x wife.

Find out exactly what your problem is!

Look at the feet.

Micropenis. 
 

jerrab » 26 Oct 2025, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

26 Oct 2025, 9:44 am

avoiding the issue like you usually do.

You are a past master of that particular art.