Official Trump Thread - Winners only

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

NO. Stop, you always say that when you get confused. It's annoying as fukk. You have so many tells. Speaking of which I can't believe the news of Susie Zhao. You didn't ask a legit question.

LMAO @wew lad has nothing

 

[wew lad 5,000+ posts]

LMAO @wew lad has nothing

What's your preferred system of government?

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

What's your preferred system of government?

Well, I live a capitalist country and prosper from capitalism. I think they all have their own positives and negatives. You're gonna say I didn't answer the question. I'm gonna say, yeah I know and I don't care.

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

Congress Was Already Broken. The Coronavirus Could Make It Worse. (Published 2020)

A new report says that a sweeping change in institutional culture is needed for Congress to regain public trust. The challenges of the coronavirus are feeding the dysfunction.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Lasherž]

Hmmm seems like I was RIGHT. The Federal Judge says these Federal officers in Portland can stay and the lawsuit brought to the courts didn't prove anything. Restraining order DENIED.

I guess the ACLU needs to brush up on the law.

The standard of a TRO is extremely high, yet now those feds are being denied qualified immunity. The ACLU stripped feds of QI... Do you understand how much bullshit you have to do as an officer in order to get your QI revoked? "Brush up on the law" lmao. The TRO requested by the ACLU to defend journalists from retaliation and grant right of access, by the way, was granted.

"1. The Federal Defendants, their agents and employees, and all persons acting under their direction are enjoined from arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force directed against any person whom they know or reasonable should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer, unless the Federal Defdants have probable cause to believe that such indvidiaul has commited a crime. For purposes of this order, such persons shall not be required to disperse following the issuance of an order to disperse, and such persons shall not be subject to arrest for not dispersing following the issuance of an order to disperse. Such persons shall however, remain bound by all other laws."

Just watch the whole thing from this lawyer's education channel or read it from his source if you don't like legal explanations as he reads through it.



Qualified Immunity revoking though is the big part, that means the officers didn't do their job within the law and not only that, but they didn't do it to within the degree that even a layman would know is the law, which is an extremely low bar. Now they can be sued in their individual capacity for violating these journalists' rights.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

The standard of a TRO is extremely high, yet now those feds are being denied qualified immunity. The ACLU stripped feds of QI... Do you understand how much bullshit you have to do as an officer in order to get your QI revoked? "Brush up on the law" lmao. The TRO requested by the ACLU to defend journalists from retaliation and grant right of access, by the way, was granted.

"1. The Federal Defendants, their agents and employees, and all persons acting under their direction are enjoined from arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force directed against any person whom they know or reasonable should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer, unless the Federal Defdants have probable cause to believe that such indvidiaul has commited a crime. For purposes of this order, such persons shall not be required to disperse following the issuance of an order to disperse, and such persons shall not be subject to arrest for not dispersing following the issuance of an order to disperse. Such persons shall however, remain bound by all other laws."

Just watch the whole thing from this lawyer's education channel or read it from his source if you don't like legal explanations as he reads through it.



Qualified Immunity revoking though is the big part, that means the officers didn't do their job within the law and not only that, but they didn't do it to within the degree that even a layman would know is the law, which is an extremely low bar. Now they can be sued in their individual capacity for violating these journalists' rights.

OF course they can sue... most news entities are left wing. Big brother (the Democratic Left) is gonna protect their media buddies. That's all well and good. They should be able to legally observe. Tell me, when they are legally observing crimes being committed, what is their legal obligation/duty if any to stop or aid in the stopping of the crime as American citizens?

 

[Lasherž]

OF course they can sue...

You don't seem to understand that most of the time they can't sue the officers. They could always sue the federal agencies, that's what they did. Also they're not seeking money, they're seeking access so that they can continue to do their jobs as they should have been allowed the entire time. That access was granted by the TRO, in other words, a victory for the plaintiffs.

The defendants (DHS) offered no standing to pursue any of those listed journalists, including some that were shot point blank range or beaten with batons for no constitutional reason. There was no suspicion after all for these suspects, despite what all of the conservatives said, because the defense would have given it. Even if there was a hint that maybe they were doing something wrong and so they were checking it out that would have been a defense, there was zero defense offered. The lack of defenses given by DHS is why QI was revoked, so in order for the journalists to have any standing for arrest you would also then have to conclude that DHS wanted to hang their agents out to dry, why?

most news entities are left wing. Big brother (the Democratic Left) is gonna protect their media buddies.

I don't see how that's relevant, or remotely true. However that depends on what your idea of left actually is. Check out how people voted for the millitary spending bill being cut by 10%, that's the left to right divide that almost the entirety of the media is clearly on the right of.

That's all well and good. They should be able to legally observe. Tell me, when they are legally observing crimes being committed, what is their legal obligation/duty if any to stop or aid in the stopping of the crime as American citizens?

None. They document it so people can see it for themselves. Nor does an officer, federal or state, have a legal duty to stop or aid in the stopping of any crimes, counter-intuitively.

What part did you think the ACLU played to doubt their legal analysis? They always wanted this result, which is to put feds under injunction to acknowledge constitutional rights. Why they need an injunction to make them do that is something everyone should have a problem with.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You don't seem to understand that most of the time they can't sue the officers. They could always sue the federal agencies, that's what they did. Also they're not seeking money, they're seeking access so that they can continue to do their jobs as they should have been allowed the entire time. That access was granted by the TRO, in other words, a victory for the plaintiffs.

The defendants (DHS) offered no standing to pursue any of those listed journalists, including some that were shot point blank range or beaten with batons for no constitutional reason. There was no suspicion after all for these suspects, despite what all of the conservatives said, because the defense would have given it. Even if there was a hint that maybe they were doing something wrong and so they were checking it out that would have been a defense, there was zero defense offered. The lack of defenses given by DHS is why QI was revoked, so in order for the journalists to have any standing for arrest you would also then have to conclude that DHS wanted to hang their agents out to dry, why?


I don't see how that's relevant, or remotely true. However that depends on what your idea of left actually is. Check out how people voted for the millitary spending bill being cut by 10%, that's the left to right divide that almost the entirety of the media is clearly on the right of.


None. They document it so people can see it for themselves. Nor does an officer, federal or state, have a legal duty to stop or aid in the stopping of any crimes, counter-intuitively.

What part did you think the ACLU played to doubt their legal analysis? They always wanted this result, which is to put feds under injunction to acknowledge constitutional rights. Why they need an injunction to make them do that is something everyone should have a problem with.

When I said "Of course they can sue" it was sarcasm. Most common news entities are more democratic or support the Democrats. It's relevant because one hand scratches the others back.

Screw the journalist. The ACLU didn't bring up a case just for journalist... I am sure they have their own lawyers. Either way, the Feds are still there... no restraining order which was their goal... to get the Federal Officers out of there. They did not get them out so good on them for having back up arguments for other stuff. As stated though, if they break the law, the Feds can act. Which is just common sense anyway... you know, that thing these rioters are lacking. Why the ACLU feels they need to step in as a parent figure for these idiots is beyond me. But then again, their mommy's and daddy's did a great job raising them.

Just so you know, if they are in Ohio and these journalist witness a felony and don't contact law enforcement, the journalist have now broken the law.

 

[Lasherž]

When I said "Of course they can sue" it was sarcasm. Most common news entities are more democratic or support the Democrats. It's relevant because one hand scratches the others back.

Screw the journalist. The ACLU didn't bring up a case just for journalist... I am sure they have their own lawyers. Either way, the Feds are still there... no restraining order which was their goal... to get the Federal Officers out of there. They did not get them out so good on them for having back up arguments for other stuff. As stated though, if they break the law, the Feds can act. Which is just common sense anyway... you know, that thing these rioters are lacking. Why the ACLU feels they need to step in as a parent figure for these idiots is beyond me. But then again, their mommy's and daddy's did a great job raising them.

Just so you know, if they are in Ohio and these journalist witness a felony and don't contact law enforcement, the journalist have now broken the law.

The ACLU has defended the KKK before, they defend those are who are objectively right in a given situation against government overreach, so how in the world is that a liberal bias? I don't know what you're yammering about with democrats and media figures. If you think they're all truly left wing then it's based in ignorance of what issues that they put forward and don't. Their bias is towards their advertisers' interests and conflict, even when there is none. Nothing excuses you from not having a point quite like the 2-party blame game I guess.

Read the case, their clients were all journalists. They sought an injunction to stop arresting non-offenders whom they had no probable cause to arrest. They achieved that, not just for journalists but for observers in general.

Someone who was putting their arms up and complying with one officer while another one shot them twice in the chest with pepper balls, or fractured their skull with a rubber bullet, or was hit by a baton for no reason and when they fell was hit by two other officers too, they're idiots, huh?... I think your idea of idiot is a little different than mine. There were no justifications made in the officer's defense by the federal government, why is that not enough for you to stop defending them?

Why the ACLU defends white nationalists' free speech

The ACLU has been supporting free speech for decades—even if that speech is hateful. But was Charlottesville a turning point?

www.cbsnews.com

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

The ACLU has defended the KKK before, they defend those are who are objectively right in a given situation against government overreach, so how in the world is that a liberal bias? I don't know what you're yammering about with democrats and media figures. If you think they're all truly left wing then it's based in ignorance of what issues that they put forward and don't. Their bias is towards their advertisers' interests and conflict, even when there is none. Nothing excuses you from not having a point quite like the 2-party blame game I guess.

Read the case, their clients were all journalists. They sought an injunction to stop arresting non-offenders whom they had no probable cause to arrest. They achieved that, not just for journalists but for observers in general.

Someone who was putting their arms up and complying with one officer while another one shot them twice in the chest with pepper balls, or fractured their skull with a rubber bullet, or was hit by a baton for no reason and when they fell was hit by two other officers too, they're idiots, huh?... I think your idea of idiot is a little different than mine. There were no justifications made in the officer's defense by the federal government, why is that not enough for you to stop defending them?

Why the ACLU defends white nationalists' free speech

The ACLU has been supporting free speech for decades—even if that speech is hateful. But was Charlottesville a turning point?

www.cbsnews.com

Here is the problem with your argument. These people getting pepper balled and hit with batons... "For no reason" is BS. There is ALWAYS a reason. Being that you and I were not there, we have no idea what made the officers react. One thing is for certain, you cannot break the law then just throw up your hands and it all goes away. People keep saying these idiots get attacked for no reason because that is what the media that was there said. Good news doesn't pull viewers, BAD news pulls viewers. The media is a business with sponsors. The more viewers they get, the more revenue they make. It is in their financial best interest to report "bad news" even if they have to make it up and they do.

 

[Lasherž]

Here is the problem with your argument. These people getting pepper balled and hit with batons... "For no reason" is BS. There is ALWAYS a reason. Being that you and I were not there, we have no idea what made the officers react. One thing is for certain, you cannot break the law then just throw up your hands and it all goes away. People keep saying these idiots get attacked for no reason because that is what the media that was there said. Good news doesn't pull viewers, BAD news pulls viewers. The media is a business with sponsors. The more viewers they get, the more revenue they make. It is in their financial best interest to report "bad news" even if they have to make it up and they do.

Where's the reason? Why isn't it in defense? You think the defense lawyers never talked to the officers and their supervisor? You think the defense is so stupid as to not try and defend themselves if they're able to? They themselves don't have one, so you're going to just assume they have one anyways? That's a dumb position to take bro. Generally when people are being sued, the right time to defend your actions is at some point during the legal proceedings or oral argument... right? There isn't a reason that was appropriate for the judge, so "for no reason" seems pretty apt at this point.

Preaching to the choir about media and viewers, but that's not what I was arguing with. You said they're left leaning and implied they're idealogues who specifically avoid certain topics that they know will hurt their "leftist agenda." Now you seem to be singing a different tune, that it's actually their sponsors and conflict who determine what they make a stink about, not catering to democrats. So I guess we agree?

 

[Slo_Ride 5,000+ posts]

They are determined to buy as many votes as they can with these measly $1200 checks. Very un-republican of them to be handing out money like this. The deficit is out of fukking control. Another four years will bankrupt this country.

Larry Kudlow: Next Coronavirus Stimulus Draft Will Include A Second $1,200 Check

"That is going to be part of the new package," the White House economic adviser told CNN's Jake Tapper.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Lasherž]

They are determined to buy as many votes as they can with these measly $1200 checks. Very un-republican of them to be handing out money like this. The deficit is out of fukking control. Another four years will bankrupt this country.

Larry Kudlow: Next Coronavirus Stimulus Draft Will Include A Second $1,200 Check

"That is going to be part of the new package," the White House economic adviser told CNN's Jake Tapper.

www.huffpost.com

They've all been very unrepublican since bush. The party of fiscal responsibility sure likes to expand the military budget, get baited into wars, and give huge tax breaks to the elite while leaving the rest of us out.

I'm curious to see the details of the new bill and how much goes to Kushner's business partners on this round. For every one dollar that goes to the people another 3 usually goes to the top. I wonder how the people earning between 75k and a million a year feel about getting excluded while the billionaires and poor get relief. Those business checks ran out within hours because Bank of America and Chase gave it to the businesses who were over-leveraged on their biggest loans. In other words it turned into a bank bailout.

If people want to know why the US is kissing China's *** all the time look no further than the national debt.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Where's the reason? Why isn't it in defense? You think the defense lawyers never talked to the officers and their supervisor? You think the defense is so stupid as to not try and defend themselves if they're able to? They themselves don't have one, so you're going to just assume they have one anyways? That's a dumb position to take bro. Generally when people are being sued, the right time to defend your actions is at some point during the legal proceedings or oral argument... right? There isn't a reason that was appropriate for the judge, so "for no reason" seems pretty apt at this point.

Preaching to the choir about media and viewers, but that's not what I was arguing with. You said they're left leaning and implied they're idealogues who specifically avoid certain topics that they know will hurt their "leftist agenda." Now you seem to be singing a different tune, that it's actually their sponsors and conflict who determine what they make a stink about, not catering to democrats. So I guess we agree?

Where is their reason on touching the "protestors" or the "Media"?

By sponsors I mean the Democratic Party. They are giving funds to these media groups. In return, they broadcast their agenda. Come on man, you know how this works.

 

[Lasherž]

Where is their reason on touching the "protestors" or the "Media"?

Don't know what you're asking. The feds had no reasoning for any of the offenses brought in the lawsuit.

By sponsors I mean the Democratic Party. They are giving funds to these media groups. In return, they broadcast their agenda. Come on man, you know how this works.

The DNC? They're small fries compared to what their real sponsors pull in. These are the companies who control what the companies say.

Here Are the Biggest Advertisers on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC

And how much are they spending?

www.adweek.com

Those and the interests of their CEOs, stockholders, and the CEO of the individual networks and their other business projects like how Bloomberg wouldn't be attacked by Bloomberg News or Bezos wouldn't be attacked by the Washington Post. Check out Anderson Cooper on that list for example. Do you think he's going to cover the merits of Net Neutrality? How about NBC who's owned by Comcast? How about CNN, do you think they're going to give socialized medicine or insurance premium stories a fair shake with that list? In terms of the DNC remember correlation doesn't equal causation, lobbyists from those companies are strong in Washington, they get to them in other ways and you bet your bottom dollar they're in bed with Republicans and Fox too. I'd never say the RNC is Fox's primary sponsor lol, and Fox is more relentlessly partisan than any other major network.