Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Post to this Topic

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 2:40pm

rgio wrote:

kurtster wrote:

The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes

or maybe... Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes? kurtster wrote:

I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.

We have all already lost having made him POTUS once. Now we're discussing destroying everything by letting him rape the place again for his ego and wealth.

Your thoughts regarding Trump are ridiculous. You and most others here (and have actually said so) really believe that if Trump is re elected he would not leave office after his term is over. Who is telling you this stuff ? I mean that you actually believe that tells me everything I need to know about you and matters regarding Trump. The only people I know who believe that suffer from TDS.

rgio

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 12:00pm

kurtster wrote:

The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes

or maybe... Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes?

kurtster wrote:

I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.

We have all already lost having made him POTUS once. Now we're discussing destroying everything by letting him rape the place again for his ego and wealth.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 10:32am

Proclivities wrote:

kurtster wrote:

From your article ... The case was dismissed only because the plaintiff lacked standing. In other words, it was never decided. A federal district court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff, Al-Aulaqi’s father, lacked standing to bring suit, and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised “political questions” that the court could not decide.

Yes, I read that part also. Obama had plenty of enemies in the Republican party; they could have brought impeachment proceedings against him but they didn't - even after he left office. Similar proceedings could've been brought against LBJ, Nixon, and G.W. Bush for wartime deceptions. Does that translate to 'immunity"? It's hard to say - depends who you ask, I guess..

Yeah. From what I've been getting from careful listening is that the SCOTUS has been avoiding the question of POTUS immunity for 30 or 40 years or more. Too big of a can of worms to open. Which I would have to agree. The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes and the areas that have yet to be decided are now being forced into decisions. How this ends, I do not know. I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 10:21am

kurtster wrote:

From your article ...

The case was dismissed only because the plaintiff lacked standing. In other words, it was never decided.

A federal district court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff, Al-Aulaqiâs father, lacked standing to bring suit, and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised âpolitical questionsâ that the court could not decide.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 9:39am

Proclivities wrote:

kurtster wrote:

Do you remember when Obama took this guy out ? I said the same thing then that I did now. I said he should have been impeached for that at the very least. You can go back and search if you like. Obama assumed that he was immune. He deliberately murdered this guy without a trial or conviction. A US citizen. Shows you how little democrats value the Constitution, citizenship and why they want open borders. They do not care about this country. They only care about holding onto their power.

FWIW:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

From your article ...

The case was dismissed only because the plaintiff lacked standing. In other words, it was never decided.

A federal district court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff, Al-Aulaqi’s father, lacked standing to bring suit, and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised “political questions” that the court could not decide.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 9:31am

kurtster wrote:

Vaguely, but since you were in a kerfuffle over all things Obama it didn't really stand out. Remember the whole Obama's brown ~~skin~~ suit thing you were all pissy about? Yeah, sort of makes the rest of your argument meaningless. See also all the other follow up here about involving congress/DOJ and being transparent about the whole thing.

rgio

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 8:45am

Proclivities wrote:

FWIW:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the governmentâs targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.

Not that it matters, but Obama got DOJ and Congressional acknowledgment before killing a sworn enemy of the US, who had successfully plotted and continued to plan ways to kill Americans.

He then unsealed the documents for transparency. Here is a link to his explanation (can't imbed...CBS News won't allow it).

If he'd have blown up a plane over the US, Kurt would have complained that Obama was soft on crime, and was making us a target for terrorism. This kid was no different than a serial killer reloading his gun in the mall. If it's geography that's the problem, we should also press charges for killing Bin Laden. If a US citizen is a known, active, proven risk to others... they forfeit their rights as a citizen. Kurt...look up the definition of citizenship. Rights and privileges come with duties. Stop doing your part, and the benefits are forfeited.

Immunity to protect the country and its citizens has nothing to do with immunity for personal benefit. Suggesting Trump was doing anything concerning his role as POTUS is foolish. He was attempting to maintain power by breaking the law.

Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 8:22am

kurtster wrote:

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 27, 2024 - 7:42am

haresfur wrote:

kurtster wrote:

You meant to say that, comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a US citizen without a trial to a riot on Capitol Hill is idiotic. I would have to agree with that. But given what you wrote, you would approve of Obama taking out Trump with a drone, because he deserved it, right ? It is about presidential immunity. Without it, Obama would be toast on that cold blooded murder of a US citizen. Enemy or not, a US citizen is entitled to due process and a trial. Period, end of story.

By your logic, the US shouldn't attack terrorists because there might be a US citizen in the vicinity. The arguments trump is putting forward is that he does have the right to take out Obama if he feels like it, not the other way around. Obama has never claimed presidential immunity from prosecution for crimes, unlike trump who is trying to avoid due process and a trial. Period, end of story.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 9:41pm

kurtster wrote:

You meant to say that, comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a US citizen without a trial to a riot on Capitol Hill is idiotic. I would have to agree with that.

But given what you wrote, you would approve of Obama taking out Trump with a drone, because he deserved it, right ?

It is about presidential immunity. Without it, Obama would be toast on that cold blooded murder of a US citizen. Enemy or not, a US citizen is entitled to due process and a trial. Period, end of story.

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 8:03pm
UN Charter, Articles 10 & 11 (and 5) No leader should be immune from the rule of law.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 7:49pm

rgio wrote:

Comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a sworn enemy in Yemen with organizing false electors, attempting to coerce your VP to ignore his Constitutional duties, and sitting with your thumb up your ass for 3 hours whilst your supporters attack the US capital is idiotic.

You meant to say that, comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a US citizen without a trial to a riot on Capitol Hill is idiotic. I would have to agree with that.

But given what you wrote, you would approve of Obama taking out Trump with a drone, because he deserved it, right ?

It is about presidential immunity. Without it, Obama would be toast on that cold blooded murder of a US citizen. Enemy or not, a US citizen is entitled to due process and a trial. Period, end of story.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 4:59pm

rgio wrote:

The layers of stupidity in your comments are a new low for you. Republicans supported the attack on a traitor who openly planned terrorist activities against the US, whilst the Democrats whined about free speech. Now that the leader of your cult wants protection of attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election, you suddenly worry that Obama is going to be tried?

Do it! File charges against him! Throw Obama in jail...right next to Trump. We can save on the Secret Service detail.

Comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a sworn enemy in Yemen with organizing false electors, attempting to coerce your VP to ignore his Constitutional duties, and sitting with your thumb up your ass for 3 hours whilst your supporters attack the US capital is idiotic.

Oh, they don't have to file charges, the next republican president can just have him assassinated.

Never mind that the policy at least since Bush has been to take the war on terror abroad and there has never been an asterix that no US citizens be harmed. I mean Richard probably has objections to the policy, and it is certainly legitimate to question both the implementation of policy and the morals of any particular action, But there is no way Obama's decisions were illegal. Funny how no previous president has had to claim immunity that trump is trying to claim. Kurt's whataboutism is grasping for straws.

rgio

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 3:44pm

kurtster wrote:

If immunity is removed then we can go after Obama for that drone killing of the US Citizen in Yemen.

Killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

That would be cool, eh ?

But then again, we couldn't prosecute Obama cuz that would be racist.

The layers of stupidity in your comments are a new low for you. Republicans supported the attack on a traitor who openly planned terrorist activities against the US, whilst the Democrats whined about free speech. Now that the leader of your cult wants protection of attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election, you suddenly worry that Obama is going to be tried?

Do it! File charges against him! Throw Obama in jail...right next to Trump. We can save on the Secret Service detail.

Comparing Obama's approval of a policy that resulted in the death of a sworn enemy in Yemen with organizing false electors, attempting to coerce your VP to ignore his Constitutional duties, and sitting with your thumb up your ass for 3 hours whilst your supporters attack the US capital is idiotic.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 9:01am
islander wrote: 13 districts should have 13 judges. Works for me.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 26, 2024 - 8:32am

rgio wrote:

The arguments made by the conservative side of the bench on the Presidential immunity discussion border on fantasy, all to ensure that Trump isn't tried before the election. There is no chance that eventually, they grant any sort of immunity for acts of insurrection, but their willingness to engage in far-fetched theory was embarrassing. Of course, Justice Thomas, best friend and spouse of an insurrectionist was there (ethics... recusal...that's for the other guys) to ask insightful questions like why wasn't JFK charged after "Project Mongoose" (to remove Castro from Cuba). One reason... he was dead the moment he left office asshole. Trump wants to claim these trials are election interference... while he has the highest court in the land running delay tactics to ensure we won't get answers before November. Trump's deep state is in place to ensure the next time, his coup will succeed.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 25, 2024 - 9:19pm
Red_Dragon wrote: I am fully for enlarging it and instituting term limits. I'm also in favor of senatorial and congressional term limits. Professional politicians are not conducive to democracy. 13 districts should have 13 judges.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan

Posted: Apr 25, 2024 - 6:58pm

rgio wrote:

I've been one who didn't think we should change the court size, or lifetime appointment rules, just because...

I'm coming around to term limits and rotation.

The arguments made by the conservative side of the bench on the Presidential immunity discussion border on fantasy, all to ensure that Trump isn't tried before the election. There is no chance that eventually, they grant any sort of immunity for acts of insurrection, but their willingness to engage in far-fetched theory was embarrassing.

Of course, Justice Thomas, best friend and spouse of an insurrectionist was there (ethics... recusal...that's for the other guys) to ask insightful questions like why wasn't JFK charged after "Project Mongoose" (to remove Castro from Cuba). One reason... he was dead the moment he left office asshole.

Trump wants to claim these trials are election interference... while he has the highest court in the land running delay tactics to ensure we won't get answers before November. Trump's deep state is in place to ensure the next time, his coup will succeed.

I am fully for enlarging it and instituting term limits. I'm also in favor of senatorial and congressional term limits. Professional politicians are not conducive to democracy.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 25, 2024 - 6:49pm

rgio wrote:

Robert's will have his legacy.

rgio

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male

Posted: Apr 25, 2024 - 3:20pm

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next