Everything, literally EVERYTHING in the Executive branch reports to the President.
So to be clear on your position, you believe Trump is immune from prosecution for executive acts while in office and he is in complete control of every part of the executive branch and can make partisan, selfish decisions directing the branch, correct?
So that means you can't bitch about your conspiracy theories about the Biden administration doing anything against Trump because Biden had immunity and was in total selfish control of the executive branch. Nothing you (often falsely) claim Biden did was illegal if your arguments in favor of Trump are true.
I eagerly await the pretzel logic you offer in response, though I'm guessing it'll be more of the "nuh uh!" variety with no citations as usual.
those audits were almost assuredly started just as an (extremely petty) part of the lawfare that the Biden admin tried to inflict
I love that you act like Trump getting audited is abnormal and clearly a Biden admin conspiracy when the origin of his refusal to release his taxes before the 2016 election was the bullshit "I can't release them, I'm being audited." Trump's own tax attorneys claimed in 2016 he had been audited since 2002. Did the Biden administration use the official American Government time machine to go into the past just to audit Trump's taxes during George W. Bush's administration?
Also notice your bullshit phrasing "almost assuredly," to note that you can't even claim it's factual. But sure, everyone else is the r-word because they don't believe your bullshit as wholeheartedly as you do.
That tends to trigger the "and I didn't read the rest of it because you said nothing of substance..." response, even if it would be necessary to read it to come to such a conclusion.
Granted it's not historically verified and is highly doubted, but:
"Did you hear that, ami? The queen said we could eat cake! We should not storm the Bastille! We're going to eat cake! They said so!"
The gnarled gummy worm you call a spine can't hold up the weight of your bullshit and sycophantry.
Ah yes, the party with the larger amount of minority politicians and elected officials, who nominated the first African American president, is the racist party that hates black people. Very logical. Was Obama racist against himself while holding power? Did he post pictures of himself and his wife depicted as apes? When a black politician votes for themselves in their own election, are they racist too?
But we know the playbook. You're trying to water down the meaning of the term. "Racist doesn't mean anything because you'll accuse anyone of being racist!" "Racist doesn't mean anything because I accused you of being racist too!" You might as well be Trump yelling, "No, you're the puppet!" You literally said, "literally, 'no U!'" on a previous comment.
All rulings have reasons. Otherwise, are you suggesting SCOTUS is just rolling dice or flipping a coin? They might not want to say the reasons, but there are reasons.
(mostly because there isn’t time)
You really don't understand the role of SCOTUS. They are the "supreme" court of the land, the last stop for legal issues. If they don't explain a ruling, then lower courts won't know how to rule in the future on similar topics. I know this doesn't matter to you because you only care about "winning" and not about a logical system of laws. There must be time because this is their goddamn job. You'd only not explain it if you didn't want to explain why you're just making shit up or ruling on bias rather than a legal interpretation.
It’s not like the facts he cited are just magically made false
It is, actually, for legal purposes.
Except it's literally not. You're being a dumbass here (more so than usual even). Only the ruling was overturned, not the facts. The superseding ruling may not reference the facts of the overturned ruling and, as has happened, sometimes gets the facts wrong itself. But unless the superseding ruling actually addresses those facts, they aren't "legally false," just ignored.
The other part of the issue is that you didn't even understand what I said. If a ruling says "because water is wet, x is my ruling," and SCOTUS overturns the ruling, water is still wet, including legally.
But as Bernardo said, you're admitting you don't care about the law, just winning. [The "You don't want the law enforced!" accusation-confession has entered the chat.]
Not partisan, you’re an idiot.
Oh, well, if you say so. Your well-sourced proof is overwhelming.
No, they don’t and no, they don’t.
"My propaganda sources haven't told me that, so it must be untrue!"
It is, actually, not least of all cuz you made it up.
I made it up? Me? Wow, I'm so influential!
But it’s kinds like how “affirmative action” is illegal.
Affirmative action isn't illegal. I'm guessing you're referring to the college admissions ruling, but that's not the only form of affirmative action.
No you, can’t just discriminate in the other direction cuz you think you were wrong before. (you weren’t, but anyway).
So wait, I wasn't wrong before but I made something up about me being wrong. This is so confusing. Is it possible I'm not the same as everyone you disagree with?!?
Everything you’re saying is wrong.
That's statistically unlikely. But I if everything I say is wrong, then I guess you're a wise, knowledgeable level-headed egalitarian who holds respect for everyone and contains not one ounce of bias or hate or irrational paranoia! Wait, did I just change actual facts? Is that how this works?
Not only is it wrong, much of it you KNOW is wrong, and you’re just pretending.
I'd say this is an accusation-confession, but all signs point to you actually believing the bullshit you spew.
Please go fuck yourself you r*****.
Absolutely, boss. Right after I plan a barbecue with my vegan friends, a rave with my Islamist allies, a klan rally with my black coworkers, and a communist party with capitalist corporate media employees...or whatever other weird, contradictory shit you imagine.
I wouldn't cite Wikipedia for academic research, but it's good enough for a summary of a topic about which you know little or nothing. The key is to look at the citations and read the sources if you actually want to understand the topic better.
As for bias, sure, but every human publication is biased. Trash? Depends on the editor and the article.
Language is descriptive. If you google the phrase "overturn precedent" you'll find a lot of uses where overturn and overrule are used interchangeably, including legal blogs. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the difference is relevant in commentary or likely to cause confusion among the audience.
Democrats are the party of violence. You are SO violent, you’re starting to suggest it’s strange that people are saying you shouldn’t be violent.
Perennial reminder that Democrats, liberals, leftists, non-partisan, and whatever other terms you conflate are not all the same thing.
Nothing like telling someone who they are when you can't even identify who you're talking about.
Lemme stop you there... Google AI is not a proper research tool and this isn't an obscure topic. You can just read the Wikipedia entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy are the only assassinated presidents. That's 4, not 8. Only Kennedy was killed in the last 100 years. No US presidents have ever been left wing. Eugene V. Debs never had a chance at getting elected.
But it is useful to see the threats to recent presidents. Trump had a few incidents, but that speaks more to failures of his security detail rather than a greater amount of violence "from the left," especially considering not every suspect is a leftist. But look at Obama's and Biden's lists. People are forgetting or never heard about these and pretending like them getting shut down before an actual attempt means they never happened.
refusing to understand even when it is explained to you.
Accusation-confession.
None of this matters, at all, he was overruled. Whatever he thought was true was not and is irrelevant. SCOTUS didn’t even really say WHY, btw, just that he was overruled.
Except the factual basis for a ruling is actually important. It's not like the facts he cited are just magically made false by a partisan ruling from conservatives on SCOTUS. It's important that they're ignoring the facts in the ruling, the same way it's important that you ignore facts when you comment here. You just don't have the power to overrule anything with your hallucinations like they do.
This is a lie. Nothing in the VRA was changed at all. What WAS overturned was court precedent essentially demanding racism based on the VRA. The VRA remains.
Except Republicans racially gerrymander (and admit to it). Fixing their racist actions isn't also racism.
No, you don’t get to be racist. Even if you claim you have a really good reason (you don’t).
Then why are you supporting Republican racist gerrymandering? Oh wait, it's fine if they do it...
Roberts isn’t partisan at all. In fact, I’d say he’s way to worried about appeasing liberals rather than doing what the law demands.
This is hilarious. The guy that can't do enough to enable Trump and rule from a shadow docket to avoid precedents that can be used by Democrats later is not partisan enough for your tastes. Roberts isn't appeasing anyone except Trump. That your Overton window is that far skewed, it can only mean:
YOU are partisan af.
Accusation-confession again.
You still haven't answered my challenge: Name at least one thing Trump has done that you think is unconstitutional or that he didn't have the legal right to do. Your answer, if you ever give one, will be telling. Your inevitable silence will tell us what we already know.
You have lost. You are losing. You are going to lose more. I’d say you don’t understand why you’re losing, but it’s more accurate to say you refuse understand. So you’re screaming into the void.
You're so confident in this claim that you have to keep coming back to tell us this, as if you recognize it's not true and the lie needs to be told again and again. "Please believe me that you're losing! It's really important that you need to know this!"
These accusation-confessions are just so blatant. Your life is supposedly so good and you're so happy about your side winning. It's so apparent in your actions. Definitely the behavior of a sound mind and content heart. You certainly don't have any major psychological issues...
The funny thing is, without punctuation, this could be read at least two different ways.
(People who disagree with you) (having a voice) or
(People) (who disagree with you having a voice)
I don't really care for people who think I shouldn't have a voice, i.e. the second interpretation of your poor phrasing. You, ironically, have a voice here, as has been pointed out, but you don't want anyone you disagree with to have a voice. So it's a completely expected accusation-confession for the first interpretation.
But yes, continue the schtick where you tell people you don't understand who they are and what they want. The writing is literally in every article and comment section, but you're just putting on Fox News glasses and hallucinating like an LLM trained on Truth Social.
It's a classic fascist tactic to accuse your opposition of anything you are guilty of. At worst, they muddy the waters and then later claim the term doesn't mean anything so you can't accuse them of it with any validity (which is something this particular racist fascist asshole has done a lot). At beat for them, they get into power and do this 1984 doublethink bullshit where they just declare opposites are true and they wield the power of government to crush you if you are honest about the big brother wearing no clothes. And then they'll claim that the lies they've told and the power they wield to punish people for telling the truth are actually proof that they're right and moral, in a circular logic bullshitstorm.
I'd say that's a cute accusation-confession, except you're not pretending to not understand things. You literally don't understand them.
Your dunning-kruger ignorance means you don't understand what you don't understand. It's so simple to you. Left bad, right good. Laws irrelevant. Everything Trump legal.
I'll again offer a challenge: cite something that Trump has done that angered Democrats (not leftists, because they're not the same thing) that is actually illegal. Do you think Trump has ever done anything he didn't have a legal right to do? Anything?
If you can't think of anything, it should be a giant red flag that you're bootlicking sycophant.
That tends to trigger the "and I didn't read the rest of it because you said nothing of substance..." response, even if it would be necessary to read it to come to such a conclusion.
Ah yes, the party with the larger amount of minority politicians and elected officials, who nominated the first African American president, is the racist party that hates black people. Very logical. Was Obama racist against himself while holding power? Did he post pictures of himself and his wife depicted as apes? When a black politician votes for themselves in their own election, are they racist too? But we know the playbook. You're trying to water down the meaning of the term. "Racist doesn't mean anything because you'll accuse anyone of being racist!" "Racist doesn't mean anything because I accused you of being racist too!" You might as well be Trump yelling, "No, you're the puppet!" You literally said, "literally, 'no U!'" on a previous comment.
I wouldn't cite Wikipedia for academic research, but it's good enough for a summary of a topic about which you know little or nothing. The key is to look at the citations and read the sources if you actually want to understand the topic better. As for bias, sure, but every human publication is biased. Trash? Depends on the editor and the article.
Language is descriptive. If you google the phrase "overturn precedent" you'll find a lot of uses where overturn and overrule are used interchangeably, including legal blogs. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the difference is relevant in commentary or likely to cause confusion among the audience.
I'd rename it: "The Brandon Pickle Fest is not a Picklefest Canada Picklefest," you know, to avoid confusion.
You just don't want the law enforced!!!!!11!!!
As they say, "a liar won't believe anyone else." People who peddle lies for a living don't want the truth. They just want to know who is disloyal.
Or you could use a different player and not relate these weird hacker fan fiction stories.
It's a classic fascist tactic to accuse your opposition of anything you are guilty of. At worst, they muddy the waters and then later claim the term doesn't mean anything so you can't accuse them of it with any validity (which is something this particular racist fascist asshole has done a lot). At beat for them, they get into power and do this 1984 doublethink bullshit where they just declare opposites are true and they wield the power of government to crush you if you are honest about the big brother wearing no clothes. And then they'll claim that the lies they've told and the power they wield to punish people for telling the truth are actually proof that they're right and moral, in a circular logic bullshitstorm.
I'd say that's a cute accusation-confession, except you're not pretending to not understand things. You literally don't understand them. Your dunning-kruger ignorance means you don't understand what you don't understand. It's so simple to you. Left bad, right good. Laws irrelevant. Everything Trump legal. I'll again offer a challenge: cite something that Trump has done that angered Democrats (not leftists, because they're not the same thing) that is actually illegal. Do you think Trump has ever done anything he didn't have a legal right to do? Anything? If you can't think of anything, it should be a giant red flag that you're bootlicking sycophant.
[citations needed]