A repository for Ican'ts incessant whining about Trump's conviction

[Fuzzy1975]

You’re beyond being lectured. Your paranoia is quite comical, unfortunately you and people like can assume powerful positions in our government and nothing good can come from that. Your existence must be a lonely one. Your atheist secular beliefs is a sad commentary on your existence. Millions of Americans believe in a life after and for them it gives them hope and courage to live life to its fullest and not in vain. Christians are a happier bunch as demonstrated by lit postings. You and people like you take great pride in tearing things down but never build. You’re unhappy with the composition of the court so just destroy it and replace it with a system that aligns with your ideology regardless of how others that don’t align with your depraved cultist views believe. Nov 5th can’t come fast enough.

And fortunately, people like you for the most part are too stupid to get elected, unless you're willing to act like Trump or MTG or Gym Jordan....

 

[PaxNurgle]

Icanhelp1/Hisarpy is not a Christian, and he certainly doesn't seem like a very happy or well-adjusted individual. As evidenced by his multiple screen names and his irrational hatred of gays, transgendered people, people of color, and women.

Sure, he may in fact claim to be a Christian, but unless he espouses the values that Jesus actually taught (instead, he espouses the OPPOSITE set of values) then he is about as Christian as Alister Crowley.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Tears of a Clown??

They did on several occasions.

Are we opening the door to political tit for tat

John Yoo opinion;

“American leaders of the past understood, perhaps only implicitly, that prosecuting past presidents would undermine the very purpose of the executive power. Presidential power is meant to be exercised in situations that legislation cannot anticipate, such as crises, emergencies, and war. In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton explains why the Founders chose to concentrate federal executive power in a single president — recall that the Articles of Confederation had diluted executive power by locating it in a Congress composed of the states. “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” he wrote. “It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws.” For the president to wield this power effectively, he must have the ability to act alone with “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” If others could veto or review executive action, only paralysis would follow. Constraining a single executive “might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state,” cautioned Hamilton.

For 235 years, American political leaders heeded Hamilton’s warning. They understood that the benefits of executive independence outweigh the need to enforce the criminal law against presidents. They knew that political stability precluded the use of prosecution to settle scores with partisan rivals. They appreciated that presidents should spend their time in office leading the American people into a better future rather than relitigating the past. This was no principle enforced by the courts or mandated by legislatures; it instead found expression in the wisdom of presidents, attorneys general, and prosecutors.

Repairing this breach of constitutional norms will require Republicans to follow the age-old maxim: Do unto others as they have done unto you. In order to prevent the case against Trump from assuming a permanent place in the American political system, Republicans will have to bring charges against Democratic officers, even presidents. A Republican DA will have to charge Hunter Biden for fraud or corruption for taking money from foreign governments. Another Republican DA will have to investigate Joe Biden for influence-peddling at the behest of a son who received payoffs from abroad. Only retaliation in kind can produce the deterrence necessary to enforce a political version of mutual assured destruction; without the threat of prosecution of their own leaders, Democrats will continue to charge future Republican presidents without restraint.


Tit for tat will produce benefits beyond shoring up executive independence. While pursuing their political self-interest, Republicans will generate the greater social benefit of repairing the rule of law. Whether it results in a conviction or acquittal, the Trump trial underscores a fact not often appreciated by the public. The rule of law — in this case, the idea that like cases should be treated alike — depends today on executive leaders as much as it does on the courts. It is the executive branch of the federal government, headed by an elected president, that bears the responsibility to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” It is the attorneys general of the states and the elected district attorneys of cities and counties that hold the power of law enforcement. The executive branch of the federal and state governments decides whom to investigate and prosecute long before a judge ever sees the case.”

 

[Fuzzy1975]

OLD MAN CRANKY AT 3AM THREAD

What is the underlying reason for celebrating Juneteenth. Is it a joyful holiday for all Americans, a celebration like Saint Patrick’s day, or maybe even Christmas. I find Juneteenth is more of a negative celebration casting a wet blanket on America’s past. I find the underlying reason is more of a negative connotation, negative reminder specifically aimed at reminding us of a dark past. I’ve researched the founding of Juneteenth and nowhere in my research was there any positive joyous reason for celebration by all, more of a celebration by a small minority, a holiday forced onto the majority by disingenuous politicians. Juneteenth could be celebrated by all as a joyous event that should be an all inclusive holiday celebrating the Emancipation proclamation where we as a country outlawed slavery making Juneteenth a cause for celebration rather than a racist event.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

ican't's tear jerking whine about the unfairness of Trump's trail and conviction....

They will appeal, however, the reversible errors, due process violations, restricting expert testimony by someone who could clarify campaign finance laws for the jury, a judge that allowed irrelevant, salacious and prejudicial testimony with little to no probative value, steered the jury down a path that a conviction by an uninformed and confused jury could only lead to an incorrect verdict. And now democrats can use what they hoped for, a conviction on false pretense that would provide campaign slogans that "Trump is a convicted felon" and possible sentencing which will also interfere with the election process. James, Merchan, Bragg, Engoron should be disbarred for judicial misfeasance and judicial misconduct; Bias or the appearance of bias, impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, abuse of authority, failing to disclose a conflict of interest and improper communication about a case. imho

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Oh this deserves to be here all on it's own...

And yet only democrats pretending to protect and defend democracy by eliminating a leading candidate from their ballots, attempting to deny millions of Americans their constitutional right to choose, can justify their perverted vision of democracy.

ican't claims Democrats are trying to subvert the will of the people.

Where is your evidence of this?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

ican't then sources the Colorado 14th amendment suit brought by 5 Republicans

So you cite a case brought by Republicans, but you blame the Democrats for bringing it....Fuck you're an idiot.

The case in Colorado was brought by 5 Republicans.

Fuck you're stupid. Man just beyond belief....

"The lead plaintiff in the case is a 91-year-old former state lawmaker and diehard Republican. Norma Anderson says she never dreamed she would be part of an effort to keep her own party's leading candidate off the ballot. That is, until Jan. 6, 2021."

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/ne...off-ballot-colorado-republican-supreme-court/

Of course it was challenged by republicans. Take a nap.

ican't then claims the Republicans challenged the Colorado court decision.

Five Republicans put forward the 14th amendment case in Colorado. If you claim otherwise, get a citation.

Note I already have cited the case....and please read this again....

The lead plaintiff in the case is a 91-year-old former state lawmaker and diehard Republican. Norma Anderson says she never dreamed she would be part of an effort to keep her own party's leading candidate off the ballot. That is, until Jan. 6, 2021.

Plaintiff meaning: a person who brings a case against another in a court of law

So a Republican launched the 14th amenmendt case in Colorado.....

Which in the end means Republicans brought the case and Republicans appealed the case....so where are the Democrats???

ican't, can you answer???

 

[PaxNurgle]

Hisarpy cannot help, or answer. Maybe call the Wizzard. Oops, sorry, it's all the same guy.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oh this deserves to be here all on it's own...


ican't claims Democrats are trying to subvert the will of the people.



ican't then sources the Colorado 14th amendment suit brought by 5 Republicans





ican't then claims the Republicans challenged the Colorado court decision.

Which in the end means Republicans brought the case and Republicans appealed the case....so where are the Democrats???

ican't, can you answer???

You are some special kind of stupid!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You are some special kind of stupid!

I'm not the one blaming Democrats for Colorado's 14th amendment saga, you are.

 

[icanhelp1]

Oh this deserves to be here all on it's own...


ican't claims Democrats are trying to subvert the will of the people.



ican't then sources the Colorado 14th amendment suit brought by 5 Republicans





ican't then claims the Republicans challenged the Colorado court decision.

Which in the end means Republicans brought the case and Republicans appealed the case....so where are the Democrats???

ican't, can you answer???

On January 5, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling in Anderson v. Griswold on an accelerated pace; oral arguments were held on February 8, 2024. On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling reversing the Colorado Supreme Court decision. All nine justices held that an individual state cannot determine eligibility under Section 3 for federal office holders, and that such power is conferred exclusively to the federal government. A majority of the court also ruled that only Congress can enforce Section 3: the courts (federal or otherwise) cannot therefore declare a candidate ineligible for office under the said Section 3 unless an Act of Congress explicitly grants them that power; four justices disagreed with the latter decision and expressed concern in concurrences that this ruling went farther than needed at the time.

It was a small group of Colorado republicans that petitioned the Colorado supreme court {ANDERSON VS GRISWOLD} that denied Trump access to Colorado ballot. By writ of certiorari the Trump legal team petitioned SCOTUS to an emergency review challenging the Colorado Supreme court decision.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It was a small group of Colorado republicans that petitioned the Colorado supreme court {ANDERSON VS GRISWOLD} that denied Trump access to Colorado ballot. By writ of certiorari the Trump legal team petitioned SCOTUS to an emergency review challenging the Colorado Supreme court decision.

So you now admit the Democrats had nothing to do with this:

And yet only democrats pretending to protect and defend democracy by eliminating a leading candidate from their ballots, attempting to deny millions of Americans their constitutional right to choose, can justify their perverted vision of democracy.

And your example below, is of Republicans. Both bringing the case and appealing the case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html

So where is your example of Democrats only pretending to protect and defend Democracy? I'm still waiting.....

 

[icanhelp1]

So you now admit the Democrats had nothing to do with this:


And your example below, is of Republicans. Both bringing the case and appealing the case.


So where is your example of Democrats only pretending to protect and defend Democracy? I'm still waiting.....

The Colorado Supreme Court, which barred former President Donald J. Trump from the state's primary ballot, is composed of seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The Colorado Supreme Court, which barred former President Donald J. Trump from the state's primary ballot, is composed of seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors.

Did the same Democratic Governor appoint them all? Are the Justices themselves all registered Democrats???

Questions, Questions Questions....

Oh they're not all Democrats....funny how if you look at the information how it doesn't jive with your "proof".

Still waiting for you to back up your claim ican't...

"Still, the chief justice, Brian Boatright, is a Republican, while three justices are Democrats and three are listed in voter registration records as “unaffiliated” with a party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/colorado-supreme-court-barred-trump.html

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The Colorado Supreme Court, which barred former President Donald J. Trump from the state's primary ballot, is composed of seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors.

Did the same Democratic Governor appoint them all? Are the Justices themselves all registered Democrats???

Questions, Questions Questions....

Oh they're not all Democrats....funny how if you look at the information how it doesn't jive with your "proof".

Still waiting for you to back up your claim ican't...

"Still, the chief justice, Brian Boatright, is a Republican, while three justices are Democrats and three are listed in voter registration records as “unaffiliated” with a party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/colorado-supreme-court-barred-trump.html

Still no answer eh?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

*chuckles*

More of ican't's cock-gobbling defence of his orange god....

This a litany of fuckups just from the Afghanistan debacle Leading to even more problems with Russia, Iran.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...753/a-year-of-bidens-foreign-policy-failures/

The Afghanistan debacle looms largest here. In March, Biden said that when it came to withdrawing U.S. military forces, “We’re going to do so in a safe and orderly way.” He explained, “We’re in consultation … with our allies and partners in how to proceed.”

That did not happen. Instead, Biden insisted, against military advice and basic logic, on withdrawing all U.S. forces from Afghanistan. This meant the departure of 2,500 troops and associated contractors who were providing Afghan security forces with irreplaceable logistics, maintenance, intelligence, and air support. With the U.S. in full flight, the Afghan military quickly collapsed. The Afghan political class retreated in fear and disorder. The Taliban stormed toward Kabul. The terrible scenes from Kabul’s international airport were the result of Biden’s poor planning.

Top U.S. allies were ignored when they begged Biden to extend the Aug. 31 withdrawal deadline. The truth is that thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Afghan allies were abandoned by a president who ultimately cared nothing for “a safe and orderly” evacuation.

whole bunch more there in that thread as well.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Here ican't says the deal was the worst, and Trump was right to kill it (JCPA), then in the next breath he is also claiming Iran was cheating..

The Iran deal was the biggest foreign policy debacle ever conceived by a president.

Iran was cheating their asses off dummkopf.

 

[icanhelp1]

Here ican't says the deal was the worst, and Trump was right to kill it (JCPA), then in the next breath he is also claiming Iran was cheating..

More double talk.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

More double talk.

You ever going to answer this?

Did the same Democratic Governor appoint them all? Are the Justices themselves all registered Democrats???

Questions, Questions Questions....

Oh they're not all Democrats....funny how if you look at the information how it doesn't jive with your "proof".

Still waiting for you to back up your claim ican't...

"Still, the chief justice, Brian Boatright, is a Republican, while three justices are Democrats and three are listed in voter registration records as “unaffiliated” with a party.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/colorado-supreme-court-barred-trump.html

You fuck up so consistently, and just turn tail and run.....

 

[icanhelp1]

You ever going to answer this?


You fuck up so consistently, and just turn tail and run.....

I don’t have a clue and I don’t give a fuck. Colorado leans democrat. My point was Trump petitioned the high court on constitutional grounds. The subject was beaten to death.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don’t have a clue and I don’t give a fuck. Colorado leans democrat. My point was Trump petitioned the high court on constitutional grounds. The subject was beaten to death.

No your point was about Democrats.

See below to refresh your memory...

And yet only democrats pretending to protect and defend democracy by eliminating a leading candidate from their ballots, attempting to deny millions of Americans their constitutional right to choose, can justify their perverted vision of democracy.

When I asked for an example, you gave the Colorado 14th amendment case. When I pointed out it was lead by Republicans. You said the judges were also ALL appointed by Democrats, and they were, but the Head Justice is a Republican and 3 of the other 6 are not registered to any party.

Now you can't even remember what point you were trying to make. Fuck you're an idiot.....

 

[icanhelp1]

No your point was about Democrats.

See below to refresh your memory...


When I asked for an example, you gave the Colorado 14th amendment case. When I pointed out it was lead by Republicans. You said the judges were also ALL appointed by Democrats, and they were, but the Head Justice is a Republican and 3 of the other 6 are not registered to any party.

Now you can't even remember what point you were trying to make. Fuck you're an idiot.....

Colorado was just one of many.

Zoom in: Challenges in more than 30 states have been filed citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which holds that nobody should hold office if they "engaged in insurrection" or have "given aid or comfort" to insurrectionists.

• More than a dozen of the challenges are still awaiting a ruling or a decision on an appeal, according to the nonprofit publication Lawfare.
• Voters in two other states — Illinois and Massachusetts — filed 14th Amendment challenges to Trump's candidacy last month.
• The Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission later dismissed the challenges to Trump's candidacy in the state.

Between the lines: Even if a challenge has been rejected in a state, it does not preclude other challenges from being brought in the same state in the future, Lawfare notes.

Almost all democrat controlled states.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Colorado was just one of many.

Zoom in: Challenges in more than 30 states have been filed citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which holds that nobody should hold office if they "engaged in insurrection" or have "given aid or comfort" to insurrectionists.

• More than a dozen of the challenges are still awaiting a ruling or a decision on an appeal, according to the nonprofit publication Lawfare.
• Voters in two other states — Illinois and Massachusetts — filed 14th Amendment challenges to Trump's candidacy last month.
• The Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission later dismissed the challenges to Trump's candidacy in the state.

Between the lines: Even if a challenge has been rejected in a state, it does not preclude other challenges from being brought in the same state in the future, Lawfare notes.

Almost all democrat controlled states.

None of this proves what you posted. Republicans have attempted this, Democrats have attempted this, and so have Independents. All this proves is a whole bunch of people in the US feel Trump engaged in an "insurrection". Courts have then ruled.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

*chuckles*

Then after being reminded of what he was arguing about, he comes back with this....

Colorado was just one of many.

Zoom in: Challenges in more than 30 states have been filed citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which holds that nobody should hold office if they "engaged in insurrection" or have "given aid or comfort" to insurrectionists.

• More than a dozen of the challenges are still awaiting a ruling or a decision on an appeal, according to the nonprofit publication Lawfare.
• Voters in two other states — Illinois and Massachusetts — filed 14th Amendment challenges to Trump's candidacy last month.
• The Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission later dismissed the challenges to Trump's candidacy in the state.

Between the lines: Even if a challenge has been rejected in a state, it does not preclude other challenges from being brought in the same state in the future, Lawfare notes.

Almost all democrat controlled states.

Reality is stranger than fiction.....

 

[icanhelp1]

None of this proves what you posted. Republicans have attempted this, Democrats have attempted this, and so have Independents. All this proves is a whole bunch of people in the US feel Trump engaged in an "insurrection". Courts have then ruled.

The majority were democrats.​

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The majority were democrats.​

Proof? I'm not digging through your citations to do the math. You do that, that is what is called proof. Yet even if you find that more cases were lead by Democrats than either of the other two groups, it still doesn't prove your original claim.

We're looking at a handful of people, and there are Millions of Democrats,Republicans and Independents. you cannot paint all with the same brush, no matter how hard you try.