The Swamp

Posted: **Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:14 am**

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 12:23 am
sancarlos wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:30 pm
I mean, it’s fun to suggest he might’ve been able to stop Trump, but short of him putting a bullet in his head, Paul Ryan wouldn’t have mattered at all. All the prostrate rubes who we thought might’ve made a difference? Nope.

Trump is the result of 30 years of Fox News blaming all their audience’s fears on darkies, gays, and foreigners. Oh, and also the Clintons, Muslims, Obama, and those who oppose Christmas. The entire point of Fox News’ existence is to create paranoia by selling dysfunction in politics, and to validate fears.

Yep.

Posted: **Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:28 am**

A_B wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:12 am Hey constitutional scholars. Was reading up a bit on the Trump insurrectionist cases and appeals, etc. And it occurs to me that there is almost no way that the Supreme Court can rule in trump's favor without basically undercutting the 2nd amendment (and maybe many more!). A real cut off the nose to spite the face situation.

I'm thinking if the Supreme Court tries to say "that was meant to be related only to the Civil War insurrectionist and not meant to be all encompassing" then couldn't many arguments be made that the founders "right to bear arms" was consistent only with the guns of the day and so that the new Americans of 1887 or whenever should be able to protect themselves against the British, should they come back? It's not a perfect apples to apples, but it just seems if you have an originalist court (We do!) that says that the 2nd amendment still covers defense of ones self and property and isn't bound to just muskets and flintlocks, then don't you also HAVE to say that the 14th covers any insurrectionist to this day - which then of course just means that the crux of the issue is if Trump is truly considered by the law to be an insurrectionist.

I am certainly not a legal scholar, and of course there's a high chance I'm misreading something, but I wonder if the 2A crowd would jump off the Trump train if they thought they might also lose their precious assault rifles. And of course I mean the lobbying and power part of the 2A movement not the bottom end "GUNZZ" people who likely can't be reasoned with. At the very least it will bring up further arguments about originalism interpretation of the Constitution, right?

The issue with this analysis is assuming the current Court would actually care about logical consistency or be bound by precedence. They've shown repeatedly that they will decide individual cases completely disregarding 100s of years of accepting precedence without even acknowledging it. They will decide cases on the Shadow Docket to avoid explaining their rulings. If they created the precedence you described, they would just ignore it when another case tried to use their reasoning in a 2A case. It's appalling how the Supreme Court is corrupted, both ethically (looking at you, Thomas), the stolen seat, the political ideologs who don't belong on the bench (Coney Barrett, Kavenaugh and Gorsuch). Although Alito is arguably the worst at ignoring precedent, he at least has the pedigree and experience and was never a political operative.

Posted: **Thu Jan 04, 2024 10:31 am**

Fair, I was assuming that they would be consistent, but that's not a great assumption. Would then just reinforce how fucking corrupt it all is. I also now wonder if when they packed the court with Originalists because they thought it would be good for abortion and the 2A that they never considered the 14th amendment being the one that will have more impact on this election than either of those two.

Posted: **Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:03 am**

There could be an amendment saying you can't run after losing or can't run as a non-incumbent over 75 years old or whatever and it wouldn't matter with this SCOTUS. Something as open as the 14th amendment is kids play.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 11:58 am**

Bro, wut? This is the dude that Markwayne Mullin wanted to fight. Is this just playing politics since Trump can win in November?

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:17 pm**

Very odd. Didn't Trump butt heads with unions, probably including the Teamsters, a lot when he was building shit?

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:49 pm**

But wouldn't you consider this part of O'Brien just doing his job?

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:53 pm**

Pruitt IV wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:49 pm But wouldn't you consider this part of O'Brien just doing his job?

I do. It'd be malpractice for him not to meet with Trump. I don't see this as an endorsement, it's a union leader presenting his union's concerns to a very likely Presidential nominee during the campaign, at a time he has the most leverage over the candidate. Not sure why this is an issue.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:56 pm**

It would look bad for O’Brien if it came out later that he refused a requested meeting.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:42 pm**

Is he doing some union hand-signs?

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:58 pm**

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:42 pm Is he doing some union hand-signs?

He just feels dirty and disgusting for having met with Trump.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:05 pm**

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:56 pm It would look bad for O’Brien if it came out later that he refused a requested meeting.

Judging by the Twitter comments from Teamsters, I'm not sure they'd agree. But yes, part of being a leader of an organization like that is taking meetings with any potential presidents. Fair enough.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:13 pm**

duff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:58 pm
mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:42 pm Is he doing some union hand-signs?
He just feels dirty and disgusting for having met with Trump.

And endure a completely nonsensical conversation.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:28 pm**

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:13 pm
duff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:58 pm
mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:42 pm Is he doing some union hand-signs?
He just feels dirty and disgusting for having met with Trump.
And endure a completely nonsensical conversation.

Yup, that's what I do when I'm stuck in a conversation with my Mom or someone else who rambles and rambles in circles.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:39 pm**

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:28 pm
P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:13 pm
duff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:58 pm
mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:42 pm Is he doing some union hand-signs?
He just feels dirty and disgusting for having met with Trump.
And endure a completely nonsensical conversation.
Yup, that's what I do when I'm stuck in a conversation with my Mom or someone else who rambles and rambles in circles.

That's why you gave her grandchildren, to distract her and shift the conversation. Whenever she brings up politics, just say, "Giffette said the cutest thing today..." It's like dangling a shiny object in front of her.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:42 pm**

Considering he’s in Texas I would assume it’s Giffitta and Giifitto.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:47 pm**

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 3:39 pm
Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:28 pm
P.D.X. wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 2:13 pm
duff wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:58 pm
mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:42 pm Is he doing some union hand-signs?
He just feels dirty and disgusting for having met with Trump.
And endure a completely nonsensical conversation.
Yup, that's what I do when I'm stuck in a conversation with my Mom or someone else who rambles and rambles in circles.
That's why you gave her grandchildren, to distract her and shift the conversation. Whenever she brings up politics, just say, "Giffette said the cutest thing today..." It's like dangling a shiny object in front of her.

Oh, we don't talk politics anymore. It's just rambling stories about her neighbor's daughter's roommate's dog's previous owner who, could you believe it, grew up 100 miles away from her hometown in Oklahoma and did I tell you it was about her neighbor's daughter's dog's previous owner who, and you still won't believe this, grew up ONLY 100 MILES FROM HER SMALL HOMETOWN IN OKLAHOMA!

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:55 pm**

I'm sure a man with a history of walking through picket lines had a lot of productive comments for the Teamsters' president.

Posted: **Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:40 pm**

Who ever could have seen this coming?

Posted: **Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:51 am**

Yeah cause they’re fucking idiots who lack logic. He didn’t give a single fucking reason why Biden shouldn’t be on the ballot when there’s a god damn good reason why trump shouldn’t be.

Posted: **Sat Jan 06, 2024 12:40 pm**

Giff wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:51 am Yeah cause they’re fucking idiots who lack logic. He didn’t give a single fucking reason why Biden shouldn’t be on the ballot when there’s a god damn good reason why trump shouldn’t be.

The border!!

Posted: **Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:35 am**

Trump's counsel really said he could order someone kill a political rival? I don't care what qualifers they put on it, that is insane. Sure, people have been doing it for millennia, but most don't say so in court!

ETA: This guy gets it:

Posted: **Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:41 am**

Do they realize they’re arguing to give Biden limitless power for the remainder of his term?

Posted: **Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:46 am**

Then there's this...

“It’s time to do it,” Stone said, according to Mediaite, which cited a recording the outlet reported was made at a Florida restaurant.

“Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit any more.”

Posted: **Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:48 am**

P.D.X. wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:41 am Do they realize they’re arguing to give Biden limitless power for the remainder of his term?

Except the difference here is that if Biden sent Seal Team 6 to put TFG out of our nation's misery, there'd be at least 17 Democratic Senators who would vote to convict on an impeachment. The other side wouldn't if the situation was reversed.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:44 pm**

$83.3m

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:55 pm**

I’m sure he’s writing the check out as we speak.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 5:01 pm**

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:44 pm$83.3m

Trump is such a great businessman, he turned $5 million into $83.3 million just by continuing to speak!

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 5:18 pm**

The thing about witch hunts is, they're a really good way to catch witches.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:36 pm**

Trump will appeal and drag it out until he dies but can a judgment like this be paid by his estate?

(I can’t be the only one who thinks it is hilarious that Trump’s dumb kids aren’t gonna get shit when he finally croaks.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:46 pm**

For some reason I thought this was the appeal.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:54 pm**

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:46 pm For some reason I thought this was the appeal.

No this was the jury awarding the judgment. (Though he’s lost two lawsuits to Carroll now - one for rape and this one for defamation so that might be what you’re thinking.)

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 9:34 pm**

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:54 pm
A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 8:46 pm For some reason I thought this was the appeal.
No this was the jury awarding the judgment. (Though he’s lost two lawsuits to Carroll now - one for rape and this one for defamation so that might be what you’re thinking.)

Ah. Got you. Did think that was all related.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 9:49 pm**

Weren't both of these trials for defamation? Dumbass loses the first one then doubles down. Or rather x16.66s down.

Posted: **Fri Jan 26, 2024 9:49 pm**

This case was about the dumb shit he Truth Socialed about her AFTER losing the other one.

Posted: **Sat Jan 27, 2024 12:22 am**

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 9:49 pm This case was about the dumb shit he Truth Socialed about her AFTER losing the other one.

This is about a guy who has never once had to own what he's done.

If he dies? I'm sure his heirs will want to inch these judgments to a probate court or something like that.

Posted: **Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:08 am**

He's a rich, white former (and possibly future) president. None of this matters.

Posted: **Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:07 pm**

Posted: **Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:11 pm**

And women will still vote for him because, like the punchline from the Chris Rock joke about hip hop artists calling women bitches and hoes yet they'll still dance to it in the club, "he ain't taking about me."

Posted: **Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:27 pm**

I just want to say... After all these years... I think Mr. D can actually say this is what actually brings him down... Because he's going after Taylor Swift.

Idiocracy.

The Swamp

To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years

Re: To the extent it comes up: Trump crap post-WH years