They’re delving into the religious side of it in the reply to you. It is exactly like self delivering catholic guilt.
They’re delving into the religious side of it in the reply to you. It is exactly like self delivering catholic guilt.
Thanks for the source. I don’t expect I’ll switch to the diet soon, I’m open. The subsidized protein is really tasty, I’m not in favor of all factory farming. Some factory farms aren’t as bad as you think. I have family that farms and many of my friends are family farmers.
Maybe you’re in an area with greedy farmers or near something like Tyson.
I buy local when I’m able. Unable to control for everything. Same as any vegan thinking that their fertilizer is all vegan.
Provided Source: Trust me bro.
Watch it. It’s really there.
Starts shortly after 44:34 (39:00) on the timestamp. That should be enough context.
I searched for “One Rough Hour” in the transcript to find the section.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?538747-1/president-trump-campaigns-erie-pennsylvania
*edit: A Clip that I found the quote directly from: https://x.com/Acyn/status/1840483582433009711
*edit 2: I hate this speech. I hate C-Span’s Text Links to Video Anchors. They’re horrible. Another point at 39:00 exactly he says “See we have to let the police do their job, and if they have to be extraordinarily rough… <Crowd Applause>” *edit 3: At 41:00: “One Rough Hour…”
I’m not offended by it. I know of folks who would rank many of the words you’ve listed as much more harshly interpreted. In addition american broadcasting standards are a good starting point, if you’re asking in good faith for understanding the idea.
What is your first/preferred language?
The words you’ve suggested are more objectionable than the word you’re objecting to.
If you want to claim a position of supremacy and justice in linguistic expression, you should educate yourself on the words you’re choosing to use.
I’m not asserting that the word bitch is more objectionable than any other ‘curse’ word.
You’re claiming that.
Your ignorance is astounding.
I can’t read the article, first paragraph gives a subscription scroll over popup.
The cases are in an appeal position. Allegedly the bond is on holding by a bonding insurance company pending the results of the appeal.
deleted by creator
He did do it again. He actually never quit. It’s been part of his stump speech at several stops.
Trump Shouts Out ‘Late Great Hannibal Lecter’ in RNC Speech (Yes, Really)
Video Clip Very Short Excerpt, it’s in the clips of the full 90+ minute speech too.
All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent…
This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.
They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked… Colorado ballot decision ftr.
They’ve shown their hand. They’re willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.
It’s already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.
Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You’re of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)— puts you on equal footing with that majority?
I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.
Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You’re welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn’t helping you.
This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.
Do you also dospense medical advice?
Except in the future - If you’re part of the official staff for the president - A defense wouldn’t be needed. The fact that the president told them to do it wouldn’t even be able to come up. It’s privileged communication now.
yearse ?
Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?
You’re glossing over the fact that they’ve declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.
Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.
If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?
The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They’ve demonstrated that they’re not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.
Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race:
It’s ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president:
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions
It’s also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying:
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1198912764/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024
Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There’s a difference between laypersons and experts in some fields. I’m not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I’m deferring to people who have studied these field(s) and asking for their logic and expertise. You’re responding and relying on your logic.
The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.
Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.
They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.
The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what’s the big deal if a little bit more gets added?
Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.
As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court’s review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.
In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by ‘conservative’ interests.
Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.
So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can’t be reviewed or considered in prosecution.
Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn’t an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.
Fair. Thanks. Was mobile and trying to wade through and reply.
They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.
So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?
Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.
Fair point.
As a note, I don’t recall all of them saying ‘Windows Server’ in the top left of that page.