Congress can still block Trump from going into office. - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] blue1981 (8013) 23 days ago

A failed impeachment in 2020 doesn't count and Jack Smith fled his cases against Trump. Keep dreaming buttercup.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

What failed impeachment? Trump was actually impeached twice; 2019 and 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump

The impeachments actually happened, the Senate voted to acquit each time. But the impeachments are still a matter of record as are the acquittals.

Congress does not have to give any reason other than "insurrection". They do not need to refer to any court case at all.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

"Impeachment hearings" do not equate to "impeachment" without a conviction. In other words, he was accused, but not impeached. Convicted = Impeached

reply

[–] blue1981 (8013) 23 days ago

They were both bogus too. The first impeachment was basically from the actions of the Demented Retard who still thinks he's President for a few more weeks.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

As much as you, or anyone else dislikes Biden, he is still the president.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

Biden is a puppet president, not the real president.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

The Constitution does not recognize puppet presidents. What else you got?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

The Constitution has been violated since 1871.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

Proof to support that claim? Are you referring to "the United States incorporated in England in 1871" nonsense?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

The Supreme Court has declared numerous acts of Congress unconstitutional.

According to the "Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States" from the US Constitution Annotated on Justia, there have been many instances where the Court found laws to violate specific constitutional provisions.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

No kidding. So what? Which decisions are the most significant in your mind?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

The Constitution does not recognize puppet presidents.

Show me where the Constitution explicitly defines or addresses puppet presidents? ...

It doesn’t, which is why Biden is a puppet president.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

So, you're defining what a puppet president is, and for some reason, we should believe you?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 22 days ago

No, your precious "Wokepedia" does.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Really? Got a link or should I just assume that you are lying again?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 22 days ago

Do you require spoon feeding again? ... I'll throw you a bone since you're so inept, or pretending to be: a "puppet president" is analogous to a "puppet ruler"

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Lying it is. You're so predictable.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 22 days ago

Evasion and Deflection noted ... as usual.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

An impeachment is an indictment. Are you trying to tell everyone on the forum you have no clue how anything legal actually works?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

Indictment = Accusation

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

[–] tvfan (13256) 3 hours ago
"Impeachment hearings" do not equate to "impeachment" without a conviction. In other words, he was accused, but not impeached. Convicted = Impeached

You are the only idiot here who thinks that an impeachment is equal to a conviction. The House impeaches, the Senate holds the trial and convicts or acquits.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

Those are hearings and trials only (a legal process), not an impeachment.

It doesn't matter if they are labeled "impeachment trials"; unless the accused is convicted, than he isn't impeached.

"Impeachment" occurs only if the accused is convicted.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

No, the impeachment occurs when the House votes to impeach. It is just that simple. Trump is still twice impeached even if he is twice acquitted.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

They voted to "formally accuse" (once again; a legal process only).

Stop believing nonsense propaganda.

reply

[–] DonenWoods13 (490) 23 days ago

Please, allow me to girl 'splain it to you. An impeachment results in removal from office.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-9/ALDE_00000035/

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

Prepare for deflections, evasions and sophistries from Ranb.

reply

[–] DonenWoods13 (490) 23 days ago

I will remand him back to "Blocked." Should I feel the urge to have extended conversations with the mentally disturbed, I will volunteer at my local Happy Acres. ;D

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

Coward.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

No, not even close. Read your own link;

.... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of ....

A conviction is required for removal from office. Trump was impeached twice, and never convicted.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

Trump was accused twice and acquitted twice.

It's an acquittal of an "accusation" vs. an impeachment (conviction).

No conviction means No impeachment.

Once again; impeachment trials do not equate to an actual impeachment unless there's an actual conviction. No amount of internet scriptures will change that fact.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

[–] tvfan (13269) 9 hours ago
Trump was accused twice and acquitted twice.

That is exactly the same as saying Trump was impeached twice and acquitted twice

The law says an impeachment is merely an indictment, no amount of irrational claims by you will change that.

Who conducts this "impeachment trial" you're referring to?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 22 days ago

That is exactly the same as saying Trump was impeached twice and acquitted twice

Translation: Unimpeached twice

The law says an impeachment is merely an indictment

Indictment = Accusation

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Tell me the truth, you're just pretending to be this stupid.

reply

[–] ewd76 (1376) 20 days ago

[deleted]

[–] Darren (1387) 23 days ago

Failed impeachments mean "it goes nowhere." You can be impeached, and not found guilty, in exactly the same way it means to be tried for a criminal offense and found not guilty. It means people brought charges against you and failed to prove the validity of those charges. Charges can be brought for political purposes. Convictions can only be obtained with enough evidence to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. Trump's accusers -- Trump's politically motivated accusers -- failed to provide that level of proof.

In short... being accused is not the same thing as being guilty.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

I know that. But some people like to claim that an impeachment followed by an acquittal means the impeachment never happened, or "doesn't count".

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 20 days ago

A.) The accusation happened

B.) The impeachment trials happened

C.) A verdict happened

D.) A not guilty verdict was reached = Not Impeached

The impeachment trials took place to impeach him, he was found not guilty; therefore, he wasn't "impeached."

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

It's just a trial in the Senate. There is still a record of the impeachment even after he was acquitted. Trump will always be know as the twice impeached, 34 time convicted felon and former game show host.

His family will probably engrave that on his tombstone when they bury him in the weeds at the golf course next to his ex-wife.

Here lies Donald J. Trump

Father
Proud Rapist
Gun Grabber
34 Time Convicted Felon
Former Game Show Host

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 20 days ago

You seriously need help for your TDS.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

No, I love to make fun of Trump. You should too.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 23 days ago

That ship has already sailed for them.

Raskin will have to cope.

If somehow, they try to prevent him from taking office, the “Trump card” will be used and the majority members of congress will be served with those sealed indictments.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

Who is going to serve the members of Congress with sealed indictments?

reply

[–] liscarkat (19031) 23 days ago

You moron. Trump never "engaged in an insurrection or rebellion". He cannot and will not be prevented from taking office.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 23 days ago

Is a personal attack the best you can do? I think it is. Good luck with that.

I think Trump did engage in insurrection. But you are free to disagree if you like. https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-politics_prosecutors-theres-clear-overwhelming-evidence-trump-incited-insurrection/6201923.html

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

Yeah with a speech where he clearly said to be “peaceful and patriotic”. Keep reaching you butthurt libtard.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Why are you ignoring Trump's words encouraging the rioters? https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111341161/how-trumps-will-be-wild-tweet-drew-rioters-to-the-capitol-on-jan-6

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

You posted nothing even suggesting he wanted the crowd to “overthrow the government” and hang Mike Pence. You’re just connecting the dots illogically in the direction you want them to go in because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. In the meantime you are literally suggesting that the left overthrows the government and the election. You’re a traitor as is Kamala.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Do I need to hold your hand all the time? The evidence is out there. Man up.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

There is no evidence you liar traitor. You don’t respect our democracy, you are an insurrectionist as is your God Kamala.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Ohhhh, insult me some more, see if it makes me change my mind.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

All I’m hearing from you is more loser talk. You are completely and utterly pathetic. You owe it to your president and your country to unite around President Trump. You should be cheering him on and wanting him to succeed because when he succeeds, America succeeds. You a sore loser and neither I nor Trump have any respect for losers like you. You are suggesting that we overthrow Democracy, you are a traitor and you should be damn lucky you aren’t in solitary confinement.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

You have it completely backwards. American citizens owe our elected officials absolutely NOTHING. They work for us; they serve us. We need to expect that they (president, Congress, etc) provide the best possible service to their country and their constituents. Almost every other American knows this, why don't you?

Trump succeeds by using the office of president to line his own pockets. Trump cannot even be bothered to keep his "hire Americans" promise and instead stands by silently while his people like Musk and Ramaswarmy encourage that aliens be hired instead of Americans. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/musk-and-ramaswamy-defend-foreign-worker-visas-sparking-maga-backlash/ar-AA1wzGIk

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

No I have got it completely right. Donald Trump is your president and you owe him your respect whether you like him or not. You’re going to sit there, shut your mouth and give him the respect he deserves. You are also going to admit that you were wrong and that Kamala was an unqualified slut. Trump knows what’s best for you, he’s going to take care of you, you just need to stay out of the way and toe the line and quit spreading negativity, hate and conspiracy theories.

Also quit bitching about the broken windows, you sound like a 5 year old girl when you do that. Trump has turned the page, I have turned the page and it’s time for you to get with the program.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

I owe Trump nothing. Is there some law that says I owe the president anything at all? Of course not, except in your imagination. Perhaps you can show me the law you read that supports your claim?

I'm going to do what? You're making me laugh.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

It is your patriotic duty to support your president, unless of course you are willing to admit that you don’t have any patriotism?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

No it is not. My patriotic duty is to my country. The government represents the country; they are not the country. The trash you're posting is why we rebelled against England in the 1770's.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

President Trump won the election fair and square, he is yo ur leader. To try to overthrow the election and the government the way you are is the literal definition of being a traitor. You aren’t patriotic, you’re just a sore butthurt loser.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

Trump has not won yet, the electoral vote still needs to be counted and certified. It is legal for Biden to disregard any electoral votes he wants now. He can give the election to Harris as long as it an official act.

That sounds very bad and I hope it does not happen, but Trump's judges said it is legal now.

Biden is still president. Will you respect his decisions like you have demanded that I respect Trump's? Unlike you, Biden and Trump will get no respect from me.

Can you link to the literal definition of what a traitor is? I think you're just making it up as you go along.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

LOL you are so reaching you moron. The SCOTUS ruling does not say that a sitting president can overturn a fair election. Yes it has to be certified for Trump, he won fair and square. You are literally talking about overthrowing a fair election.

Trump’s judges said no such thing and they are not “Trump’s judges” they are the US Supreme Court. You should have more respect for our institutions.

Brandon is a traitor, he doesn’t deserve any respect, you however are not even willing to give Trump a chance, you are a hypocrite and a loser.

On a more serious note Trump needs to have a lot of beefed up security when the election is certified, I am really scared that BLM and Antifa are going to show up and try to murder him with Kamala leading the way. She already tried to have him assassinated during the election season and almost succeeded twice.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

The court said much more than that. https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

I gave Trump a chance four years ago. Trump blew it.

Trump had every chance to have proper security at the Capitol in 2021, but he decided to let others interfere with the election instead. You think Biden will do the same thing?

So if Harris tried to have Trump killed twice, do you think Trump will hold her accountable? If Biden is a traitor, will Trump have him held accountable? Of course he will not do any such thing.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Some key words you conveniently ignored “for actions within his conclusive and preclusive CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY”. It would be a violation of the constitution for Trump to not be given the presidency at this point. You want to overthrow the constitution and democracy. Trump did not engage an insurrection, if he did then Brandon and Kamala did over 500 times and tried to have him assassinated twice.

Trump didn’t blow anything, you’re just a snowflake Trump hater. You want to hate him because he offends your fragile little ego. You’re a very emotionally fragile and sheltered little pussy.

It wasn’t Trump’s job to secure the capitol, that was all Pelosi and she ignored his requests for additional security. It’s also not his job to call anything off and while we’re on the subject, Brandon and Kamala have still not “called off” or even denounced the summer of BLM carnage.

Trump should hold them both accountable. Whether he will or not is a different story but both of them should rot for the rest of their lives in federal prison, sitting in their own piss and shit.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

The president is the commander in chief. The National Guard belongs to him when he wants it. You just want to think Trump was too much of a pussy to call out the Guard. That does not help your case.

Trump will never hold anyone accountable, he even refused to put Clinton in prison as he promised. Trump is a pussy.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 21 days ago

Trump doesn’t do everything directly; he’s not a micromanager. He delegates to others.

He informed Pelosi to call the NG and she refused since her and others planned and orchestrated J6 to frame Trump.

Trump will never hold anyone accountable

Is Trump a judge? Is Trump the DOJ? Is Trump a DA? … You’re a hypocritical moron and the biggest imbecile on this site.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

The president does not tell others to get out the Guard, the president informs the NG himself through his own staff.

Trump has boldly claimed, many times, that he can do anything as president. Why do you think he is suddenly powerless to do anything when his own reputation is on the line?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 20 days ago

Nancy Pelosi on January 6, 2021:

“We have totally failed. We have to take some responsibility for not holding the security accountable for what could have happened.”

“Oh my god, I cannot believe the stupidity of this. And I take the full responsibility”

Following the release of this footage, Chairman Loudermilk issued the below statement:

"This batch of unaired HBO footage is nothing new," said Chairman Loudermilk. "For over three years, Nancy Pelosi has refused to take responsibility for her failure to secure the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. Instead, she has pushed the focus of the failure on President Trump. As Speaker, she controlled House operations and security on the House side of the Capitol - which she acknowledges in this HBO footage."

"For the past 3 years, Pelosi and House Democrats pushed the narrative that Trump was solely responsible for the events of January 6, 2021.
But on January 6, Pelosi herself acknowledged three times on camera that she was responsible for Capitol security and ultimately, she was the one that should be accountable for the security of the capitol."

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Good for Pelosi to take responsibility for her own failures. Trump needs to be man enough to do the same.

Why can't Trump have as much balls as Pelosi? :)

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

So then Pelosi should be brought up on charges for her role in that shame J6 committee correct? She admitted she abused the justice system and wasted federal resources just to attack Trump. If she truly were to take responsibility she would put on a prison jumpsuit and go to federal prison for the rest of her miserable existence. Sorry cupcake but actions speak louder than words.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Got a link for these accusations? Yes, investigate and bring her up on charges if required. I look forward to holding them responsible.

Why do you think I care about the welfare of any politician at all? Screw them all.

If actions speak louder than words, why didn't Trump call out the National Guard instead of asking the rioters to go home, then tell them that he loves them?

Are you saying that the Commander in Chief does not have that authority? Trump repeatedly claimed he had that authority.

So why didn't he do it even if someone else could? It was because he did not want to interrupt the election interference that was in progress.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

It’s not accusations, it’s her own admission. Good I’m glad you agree with me that Pelosi should sleep in her own shit for the rest of her life. Join me in calling on her to brought up on charges. So far you’re not doing much to stand up for what’s right.

It’s not Trump’s job to manage any of his supporters and 1/6 wouldn’t have been a problem had Pelosi listened to Trump and done her job.

Trump did tell the protestors to stop, you’re just butthurt because he didn’t do it quickly enough which is quite odd because to this day neither Pelosi, Brandon, Schumer, Waters, AOC, Kamala, etc. have ever told the BLM rioters to stop. Why wouldn’t they tell the rioters to stop? I know why, it’s because they wanted BLM to “burn the country down”

Your last sentence is nothing more than a conspiracy theory and it won’t be considered.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

So no link? You just made it up. Fine by me. I'm not going to defend Pelosi.

That did not relieve Trump of his responsibilities as president.

So you're saying that as president, Trump had no responsibility to do anything at all, about any violence in the country, ever?

Even though it is usually state governors that do so, presidents have called out the military to quell violence. Trump could have done it, but he didn't want to. https://www.military.com/military-life/6-times-military-was-used-suppress-civilian-uprisings-us.html

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

What responsibilities as a president? He did everything he reasonably could. Again you people first attack him for being a “tyrant” then you attack him for not using his power enough. Which is it?

Pelosi was in charge and denied Trump additional security: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-alleges-pelosi-turned-down-10000-soldiers-capitol-riot-responsible-jan-6

Yes we have a little thing called jurisdiction and delegated powers in this country, educate yourself. It was the responsibility of the DC mayor and Pelosi to secure the capitol, if Trump did their job you’d call him a “tyrant” and a “fascist” again. Heck he tried to do something about Hunter Biden’s illegal foreign dealings and you people literally impeached him for that.

Did Brandon, Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Kamala, etc. ever denounce the BLM insurrections? No, they actively encouraged it and got off Scott free for their incited insurrections because we live in society of liberal privilege. Yet you people dragged Trump through the mud for telling an unarmed crowd to be “peaceful and patriotic”.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Trump could have called out the National Guard, but he refused.

Pelosi did not have the authority to turn away soldiers ordered out by the president.

Did you forget the Trump was the Commander in Chief?

Why are you claiming security at the Capitol was the responsibility of anyone other than the Capitol Police?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

As I just demonstrated that was Pelosi’s job. I thought Trump shouldn’t overextend his power or else he would be a tyrant? Which is it?

The president isn’t a king, he can’t just do whatever he wants to and you people constantly call him a “fascist” for allegedly overextending his power. So it sounds like no matter what Trump does he’s going to be attacked by you people. You might want to get your talking points straight.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

You claimed it was her job, you demonstrated nothing. If I claim that you're a criminal, have I also demonstrated that you are a criminal? No.

Trump says he can do it. So perhaps Trump is lying? Perhaps he is deranged?

Why are you okay with Trump claiming he can do anything he wants?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

I literally posted proof that it was her job. She refused to provide additional security because she was in “defund the police” mode. She didn’t care if anyone died, she just wanted to perpetuate her lies. She’s a piece of shit sho needs to go to prison.

Oh so now Trump can’t do whatever he wants? You keep changing your mind and it’s quite hard to keep up with your constantly shifting narrative.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

You posted a link to a Fox article containing unsupported claims by Trump. Zero proof.

I was asking you for your opinion on the matter and you just respond with another accusation.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

I posted proof that she was responsible for providing security. She was the one who was in charge of the Capitol Building. Not Trump, just like he’s not in charge of the local parking laws of Bumfuck, US. You just don’t like the answer.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

You post BS, not proof. try again.

As the Commander in Chief, the president is the highest authority on security in DC or anywhere else in the country.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

I did post proof, you just don’t like the answer.

So that means he’s not a dictator, correct?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

Not yet, Trump wishes he was a dictator though.

Why do you think Trump was too weak to protect the Capitol?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

So then he isn’t a dictator? How could you possibly know whether he will or won’t be a dictator? The only evidence you have is one quote he made where he was clearly poking fun at the far left and he said his act as a “dictator” would be to secure the border, something you said you agreed with. You are so fucking pathetic.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 20 days ago

Dumbass, it was her responsibility and her deliberate failure since she setup and orchestrated the entire J6 bake sale.

She admitted not taking responsibility only after proof was shown in the oversight hearing that she was contacted "three times" about calling the NG. Until then, she lied and denied it.

Stop deflecting everything on Trump.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

So why didn't Trump have her arrested? He was president for a while after the riot ended.

It was because Trump knows that as Commander in Chief, he did not want to call out the National Guard to interrupt the riot.

Trump was president then, it is not deflecting when he is the big big boss.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 20 days ago

Once again:

Is Trump a judge?

Is Trump the DOJ?

Is Trump a DA?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Trump said he could hold her responsible. Are you calling Trump a liar?

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 20 days ago

He's already held her responsible. Keep up.

Trump is still not the DOJ, not a Judge and not a prosecutor.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Funny how these people bitch and moan about Trump allegedly being a “tyrant” yet when he does the complete opposite of being a “tyrant” they now call him ineffective. No matter what Trump does these people are going to have a problem with it. If Trump came out tomorrow in favor of oxygen these people would be in favor of carbon dioxide.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

He held her responsible and let her get away with it even though he brags he can bring her to justice?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

He wasn’t President during that time, he couldn’t. Hopefully he does hold her accountable but again are you conceding that Pelosi needs to face the justice system? This has to be like the 5th time I’ve asked you.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

Trump was president until January 20th 2021. Plenty of time to hold them accountable, or so he claimed. Why did you let trump slide on that promise?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

Trump was out of office shortly after 1/6, not enough time to do anything. Why are you so obsessed about Trump apparently not doing anything while not caring that Pelosi caused the broken windows you’ve been complaining about for 4 years?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

According to Trump, he had enough time to bring the perps to justice. Calling Trump a lair again?

Trump was the president who claimed he could do anything per the Constitution. Pelosi was just the Speaker of the House

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

See here you go, now you’re attacking Trump for not going far enough. Way to prove my point you fragile little snowflake cuck.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

When Trump says he will do something, then he needs to make an effort. Right?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

So that means that Trump isn’t a fascist, correct?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Securing the Capitol was Pelosi’s job, Trump requested additional security and Pelosi denied it because she didn’t want to contradict that idiotic “defund the police” bullshit. Pelosi brought 1/6 on herself.

Brandon refused to hold China, Russia, the Taliban, etc. accountable. We were the laughing stock of the world when Brandon was in charge. The world actually respected us when Trump was in charge. And now you’re arguing that Brandon, Kamala and Hillary need to be in prison? Sounds like you’re conceding that I’m right and you were wrong. Thanks, admitting it is the first step.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Securing the Capitol is the job of the Capitol Police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Police#Capitol_Police_Board

Why do you want the Speaker of the House in charge of anything related to security when the president is the ultimate authority in the US military?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Because it was her job, she was literally the Speaker of the House (unfortunately).

OK so that means that Brandon, Kamala and Hillary need to be “held accountable”. Sounds good to me, I’m glad you agree with me that they are all corrupt pieces of human garbage.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

What evidence do you have that it is the Speaker of the house that is responsible for Capitol security?

Why are you so resistant to the idea that the commander in chief might be responsible for security of any place in the country?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

It’s literally the Speakers job. Trump requested additional security and Pelosi stood in his way because at the time it was the cool thing to hate on cops and allow criminals to do what they want, all because some lowlife drug dealer ODed. Pelosi even admitted that it was her responsibility. She has no one but herself to blame for J6, Trump A) Did not tell the crowd to be violent and B) The crowd wasn’t violent. The left’s lies about J6 are now being exposed and Liz Cheney at least is looking at serious jail time for witness tampering.

So you are admitting that Pelosi, Kamala and Brandon need to be held accountable? I’ve asked you this at least three times and every time you’ve dodged like a little pussy. It’s obvious you don’t want to answer the question.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

[–] Ranb (9993) 4 hours ago
Everyone needs to be held accountable. Do you think Trump is going to lift a finger to hold anyone accountable for anything at all?

If it is the Speaker's job, then prove it. Is there any legal document that says the speaker of the House is responsible for security and that the President is not able to call out any military forces to protect the country?

Where are you getting your BS info from anyway?

Yes, hold everyone accountable for their failures. How many times do I have to say this?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Pelosi literally admitted that she didn’t do her job by providing additional security which was requested by Trump and that she took responsibility. Are you calling Pelosi a liar?

You didn’t’ really answer my question, you cowardly threw in “everybody”. Typical liberal pussy.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

I am not calling Pelosi a liar. I saying that as Commander in Chief, Trump was also responsible for the security at the capitol.

Will you blame Biden if there are security problems at the capitol this upcoming January? I will blame Biden.

Everyone else surely understands that the word "everyone", includes Pelosi. Why don't you?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Trump was not responsible, Trump did his job and requested additional security. Pelosi refused because she was still riding the “defund the police” bullshit.

A lot will depend on the circumstances.

So then you should have no problem calling out Pelosi specifically, correct? You know without deflecting to Trump or “everyone”. So far you’ve refused to.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

If Trump actually made a request, then the additional security would have been called out. Who refused Trump's request? Can you prove he made the request?

Sounds like you're calling Trump a candy-ass piece of sh*t that no one respected at all, especially law enforcement.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

I’ve told you repeatedly that Pelosi denied his request, but don’t take my word for it, the bitch literally admitted it.

Your second paragraph is a strawman and I’m not entertaining it.

Are you going to call out Pelosi specifically and individually and ask for her to be held accountable or are you going to dodge like a little pussy again?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

The president is more powerful than the Speaker. Are you denying that Trump was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

Let's hold Pelosi accountable. Too bad Trump is too much of a coward to do it even though he brags he can do anything.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

The president is also more powerful than the mayor of bumfuck, US but again there are things that would fall under the mayors jurisdiction that the president isn’t allowed to interfere in. So which is it, is Trump a fascist tyrant who overextends his authority or is he a coward he doesn’t extend his authority enough. You people keep changing your minds.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

But Trump claimed he could do anything, that included bring out the National Guard.

Why do you keep implying that Trump was too weak to secure the Capitol?

He was the commander in chief of the military you know.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

So now Trump should have extended his authority? Now he’s weak if he doesn’t exceed his mandate? Just 2 minutes ago you were saying the exact opposite.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

I did not say Trump should do anything.

Trump is weak, period. He makes broad claims about how powerful he is, but he refuses to lift a finger to hold anyone accountable.

Tell me more about the Trump mandate?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

So then why did you criticize him earlier for overstepping his authority?

Your position is all over the place, you’re just a Trump hater who is going to have a problem with him no matter what he does.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

Grabbing guns is always a good reason to criticize a person. Don't you agree? Or did you support the Bush, Biden and Trump gun grabs?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

So then Trump is not a coward, and actually does stuff, correct?

You can’t have it both ways, pops.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

Trump is a coward.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

So then he isn’t a dictator? Correct?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Everyone needs to be held accountable. Do you think Trump is going to lift a finger to hold anyone accountable for anything at all?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

I never said that anyone should be in prison. I said that Trump will never hold anyone accountable. Is English so hard for you to understand?

reply

[–] old3eyes (343) 22 days ago

I think if they were somehow able to prevent Trump from taking office it would be civil war 2.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

And it would have been a literal insurrection.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

Really? Who is going to fight for the MAGA's? Meal Team 6, the Gravy SEAL's? The same people who got arrested after claiming the walls of the Capitol (instead of using the steps) then bragged about their exploits on social media to make it easier to round them up? The ones who showed up to a gun fight without guns?

In the event of Civil War 2, are you going to lead from the front or from MovieChat?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9379) 19 days ago

He certainly gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists by promising to pardon them.
He is guilty, not to mention incompetent and only supported by people who have bribed him and the other who are too stupid to understand American politics.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 22 days ago

That would have the effect of disenfranchising millions of voters and destroying the legislative institution for good. It would be the equivalent of “election denialism” of which Trump was so heavily criticized and a de facto insurrection rather than the mere accusation of which Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment trial.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

Trump never engaged an insurrection so no they can’t block Trump from going into office. There’s nothing you can do except mope and meltdown. You’re utterly pathetic and it sounds like you’re trying to overturn an election which is literally treason. Get in line you loser.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

I think Trump engaged in insurrection; so do some people who have the power to affect the transition. It might suck to be Trump, but probably not.

I'm complaining, but not moping. :) I do not have the power to overturn an election. Overturning an election is not treason. look it up some time.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

He did not “engage” an insurrection and it’s pretty stupid to suggest he did considering J6 wasn’t even an insurrection. On the other hand Kamala engaged over 500 insurrections during the BLM “summer of love” so in that case Kamala shouldn’t be allowed to take office. Your are trying to overthrow an election, you’re a butthurt liberal loser terrorist and you need to be investigated by the FBI, I would also suggest solitary confinement without trial for you.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

I don't want Harris in office either. Who do you think you're talking to anyway?

What do you think the FBI is going to find when the FBI wastes their time investigating me?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

I’m going to give you some very helpful advice and you should take it: Quit complaining, quit moaning and accept reality: Trump will be your president whether you like it or not. We won, you lost. You’re a loser, you’re a crybaby loser. The adults are back in charge to clean up your mess and the least you could do is sit down, shut your damn mouth, and learn your place. You will be sitting in the back seat for the next 4 years. Unite around your President, quit being so negative and thank whatever God you pray to that you aren’t in solitary confinement every day for the rest of your life. You don’t matter anymore.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

You're wasting your breath. I'm not some ass kisser who will not complain when a politician is a screw-up.

What do you think Trump is going to clean up? Trump has already backed down on lowering prices. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-walks-back-grocery-prices-promise-hard-bring-things-down-1999876

Who is going to put me in prison? No one. Don't be such a legend in your own mind. It will do you no good at all

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

You are a sore ass kisser, you figuratively ate out Brandon and Kamala for the past 4 years, it was utterly pathetic.

You people ran the country into the ditch, Trump is back to pull it out yet you are standing at the top of the ditch trying to kick it back down, you are a traitor.

You probably won’t go to prison, we live in a society of liberal privilege that is systematically designed to favor Democrats. In a fair system though you would be looking at jail time.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

I never had a kind word for Biden or Harris, other than they did not brag about sexually assaulting women as a perk of wealth. I think Trump's proud rapey ways are what make you so proud of him.

The ditch? The GNP is higher now than it has ever been. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

That was fast. How much more can you backpedal? Hope you got a rear view mirror.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

Show me one instance where you criticized Brandon or Kamala for any of the following:

A) Inflation
B) The Border
C) Afghanistan Withdrawal
D) Gas Prices

I’ll wait…. Until then you are nothing more than a gutless Brandon/Kamala sycophant.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

[–] KingBob (2368) 16 minutes ago
You are a sore ass kisser, you figuratively ate out Brandon and Kamala for the past 4 years, it was utterly pathetic.

I'll wait while you prove your claim above. You suck at debating. Try it your way face to face and you might be beaten up.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

You not showing proof that you criticized Brandon and Kamala for the same things you pitch a fit about Trump for is all the evidence I need.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

I have criticized Biden's gun grab and Harris's proposed gun grab. How often do I need to do that so you remember it?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Show me where you did. Because I tried to get you to criticize Harris for grabbing guns and you ran away like a little pussy.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

I don't have to show you. I can say it again, for the tenth time right here. Biden is an anti-gun gun grabber POS. But no one is trying to convince us that Biden is pro-gun. But people like you try to say Trump is pro-gun and never grabbed any guns.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Yeah you’re probably just saying that now because you’ve been called out on it. I don’t believe you.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

I don't care if you believe me or not.

Feel free to look at the Biden section of the forum for my posts. I never had a good thing to say about Biden, ever, except that he was not the same kind of proud rapist that Trump was and grabbed fewer guns than Trump.

That is not praise.

reply

[–] [deleted] 21 days ago

"and grabbed fewer guns than Trump."

Thats misleading, bump-stocks are not guns. Its an accessory. I dont recall anything else of significance. I dont think bump stucks are significant.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Oh Ranb will argue to the death that bump stocks are guns even though they clearly don’t fire projectiles which is the literal definition of a gun. Ranb is a very special kind of stupid. He’ll attack Trump for allegedly not being conservative enough yet will make excuses for scum like Kamala who is the most radically far left candidate we’ve ever seen.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Trump and the ATF said bump stocks are guns. Who are you to claim that you're the authority on firearms and not the federal government.

Are you calling Trump a liar?

Trump ordered the confiscation of bump stocks from half a million law abiding Americans without compensation.

Trump's gun grab was so unconstitutional that the Supreme Court struck it down. Does that mean nothing to you?

Trump also called for gun confiscation without due process and raising the age to buy guns from 18 to 21.

Trump is an anti-gun zealot.

Trump's gun confiscation plan without due process.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4717030/user-clip-donald-trump-take-guns-first-due-process-second

Trump gun grab.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf

Trump wants to raise age to buy guns.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-endorsees-raising-minimum-age-to-21-for-more-weapons

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

No I’m calling you a liar. You’re the one who said they were guns, a gun fires a projectile, you cannot fire a projectile with a bump stock or a suppressor. Derp derp.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Trump said bump stocks were guns. Why isn't Trump a liar? The ATF called bump stocks guns; are they telling the truth?

A firearm is whatever the feds say it is. It is more than a thing that fires a projectile. Are you saying federal law does not count if you disagree with it?

Here is a link for you with definitions of a firearm. Do you understand that not all firearms are capable of firing a projectile? https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-ammunition-gun-control-act-definitions

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

So therefore if Trump and the feds say it’s true then it’s true? Your narrative is all over the place cupcake and buahahahaha like the feds have never lied before. Firearms eject projectiles, a bump stock by itself does not you idiot.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

The law is the law. Until is is amended or overturned by the courts. It really is that simple. Why don't you understand?

I have never changed my narrative that Trump is a gun grabber. Are you calling Trump (he is one of the feds) a liar?

Trump was the one who ordered the ATF to ban bump stocks by classifying them as contraband machine guns. It is all right here; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

So therefore if Trump and the feds say it’s true it’s true? I noticed you dodged my question the first time (however at least you are rather consistent).

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

If there is a written law or regulation, then it actually exists.

So I am staying it is true that bump stocks were classified as firearms from 2018 to 2024.

Do you think federal law and the CFR (as ordered by the presidents) are a hoax?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

So the feds always tell the truth, correct? That’s your premise, correct? Also all laws are just now? I thought it was you people’s premise that the laws on the books were specifically designed to persecute black people? Or have you all decided that it’s not politically advantageous to exploit and politicize black people and “systemic racism” anymore?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

No, the feds do not always tell the trust. Duh. I never said the bump stock ban was just. I did say it existed.

How do you think Trump accomplished the bump stock ban without making it a gun grab?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

OK glad you’re conceding then that the ATF allegedly saying that bump stocks are guns (which I highly doubt they actually said but whatever) isn’t proof they are guns. Case closed, I’m glad I have pointed you in the direction of common sense.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

I did not say that. Did you read this link? https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf

It details how Trump ordered the ATF to ban bump stocks.

What part of "bump stocks are machine guns" did you not understand?

You're making it sound like you think the bump stock ban was a hoax and the Supreme Court was part of it when they struck down the ban. Really?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

That’s exactly what you said, you just said the feds are not always trustworthy therefore them alone saying Bump Stocks are guns (which I am still very skeptical of, btw) isn’t proof they are guns.

I dare you to join the national guard or the police force (you definitely won’t though because you’re a chickenshit) and only care a suppressor or bump stock. You wouldn’t last 30 minutes.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

So you do not abide by any federal laws then?

I'm an old man, I retired from the US Navy decades ago. I cannot qualify to join the NG even if I was not disabled.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Got it, so you’re too much of a pussy to join the NG with your bump stock firearm.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

I told you that I'm too old to re-enlist.

Why does my pro 2nd Amendment stance anger you so much? I think it is because trump is an anti-gun zealot and you agree with him.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

Your 2nd amendment stance doesn’t anger me, I’m just not going to let you get away with spreading lies and disinformation. You’re too much of a pussy to use a bump stock to defend yourself, I thought they were guns?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

Just because a bump stock was classified as a machine gun from 2019 to 2024, does not mean I'm willing to even own one.

I have not told a single lie. I have supported my claims with links to the law. Why can't you do the same with your claims?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

For me to accept your premise you’re gonna have to take the position that the government always tells the truth. Are you seriously willing to go there? Because I seem to remember you calling Trump a liar and even stating that all presidents lie? So which is it?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

What does passing laws and regulations have to do with telling the truth?

All presidents lie. That does not mean that the regulations they enact are a hoax.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 17 days ago

Work on your reading comprehension. Your premise is that they are guns because the feds say so. Yet you openly admitted that they lie constantly. So which is it? You’re again trying to have this both ways, pops.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 17 days ago

Duh, the government defines what guns are, not the likes of you.

So which federal laws are lies in your opinion? Got a list?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 17 days ago

The government doesn’t decide what definitions are. Are you saying the government defines what a “woman” is? If Trump comes in and defines a woman as an individual that has an XX 23rd set of chromosomes will that mean that “trans women” are NOT women???

Also you just admitted that Trump never lies.You might want to rethink your premise, pops.

It also wasn’t’ my premise that laws are lies, it was your premise that the government doesn’t lie which is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier. I’m not taking a stance one way or another, I’m just not allowing you to have it both ways. Derp Derp.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 16 days ago

The law does define what words mean.

If you go to the law called the GCA of 1968, it has paragraphs that are labeled "definitions".

Have you ever read a federal gun control law? I think you have not.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 16 days ago

And the government passes the laws, so that would mean that they always tell the truth. That’s not what you said earlier. Pick a lane and stay there.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 16 days ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 20 days ago

[–] Ranb (9997) 13 minutes ago
"The ATF called bump stocks guns; are they telling the truth?"

Is this the same ATF that went postal at Ruby Ridge and Waco? Those maniacs?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

No. The ATF that murdered people at Ruby Ridge and Waco were enforcement agents.

The ATF that amended, in 2018, on Trump's orders, the CFR that classified bump stocks as machine guns, were lawyers.

So was Trump lying or not?

Is this the same Trump that bragged about sexually assaulting women as a perk of wealth and was convicted 34 times of felonies in a NY court? :)

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

LOL, your entire premise is built upon the assumption that the feds don’t lie. You know you don’t even believe that so quit pretending you coward.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Show me the lie? So far all you're doing is making up your own definitions instead of using the official laws and regulations.

So was Trump lying or not? Why can't you man up and say if Trump was lying?

What don't I believe? That Trump classified bump stocks as machine guns? I do believe that he did exactly that. Are you claiming the bump stock ban was a hoax?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Wait are you seriously trying to argue that the feds always tell the truth? Before we go any further I need that on the record.

I never said Trump lied, I said you lied. Get the difference? This is your premise that bump stocks are firearms when they are clearly firearm accessories. Try to defend your home against an intruder with just a bump stocks, I dare you, I double dare you.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

I did not say the feds always tell the truth. I said there was a federal regulation amended by Trump that made bump stocks classified as machine guns.

You keep on claiming that bump stocks were not firearms; as if the amendment to the CFR was a hoax and Trump lied.

Did Trump ban bump stocks by making it into a gun grab or not?

Can you tell me what part of "bump stocks are machine guns' that is beyond your understanding? That is what Trump and the ATF said.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

So even if I accept your premise that there was a federal regulation that wouldn’t prove that they are guns because you just admitted the feds don’t always tell the truth so therefore them allegedly saying they are guns isn’t proof.

Thank you for conceding that I’m right and you’re wrong.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

Who defines what a gun is in the USA? The government? You?

Are you above the law?

I'll bet you were the kind of brat who would take his bat and ball and go home because you were not granted a home run after striking out.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

The literal definition of a gun you idiot. not the feds and you just said the feds lie sometimes.

I bet you were the kind of brat who would start crying because he didn’t get his participation trophy after finishing dead last in the special Olympics.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

What is the literal definition of a gun? It seems it is whatever you say it it, right?

Why not use the federal law as the definition instead of something that you make up?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

I have posted the literal definition of a gun many times. Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

Your definition of a gun is incomplete, it does not include all of the other stuff that the government (including Trump) says is a firearm.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

Nope my definition is complete. You’re just twisting the definition in whatever direction you have to to give you the answer you want. I see you are not willing to make a commitment to the national guard and only carry a bump stock. You’re such a coward.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

Your definition of a firearm is incomplete.

The US government definition of a firearm also includes frames, force reset triggers, certain spring loaded bump stocks and other parts.

This is not twisting the definition, it is the law. Why are you so resistant to learning anything about the law?

Are you willing to make any kind of commitment to the US military? I made my commitment to the military already, 20 years worth.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

As previously stated a gun fires a projectile, suppressors and bump stocks cannot fire projectiles without A GUN!!!! Your entire premise is based on the assumption that the US government always tells the truth which is complete and utter bullshit.

Your last paragraph is irrelevant, I’m not the one claiming that a bump stock is a gun. I have done my part for society if you even care.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

Why are you insisting that guns are limited to devices that shoot projectiles?

How is it that you do not understand that it is the government legally defines what a firearm is, and not you?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 17 days ago

Because that’s the literal definition you idiot. Ive been discussing this with Filmflaneur and what is it with you leftists and constantly trying to rewrite definitions to fit your worldview? You people don’t even know what a “woman” or a “theory” are, now apparently you don’t even know what a woman is”gun” is.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 17 days ago

Not even close. So we are supposed to believe anything you say? Why not quote the laws instead?

I'm not a leftist.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 17 days ago

Yes, you are 100% a leftist.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 17 days ago

Again for your premise to be valid we would have to agree that the feds always tell the truth and you admitted that the feds lie sometimes. You are a leftist, you aren’t fooling anyone so quit playing dumb (we’ll maybe you don’t have to pretend)

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 16 days ago

The premise is that laws exist.

You claim these laws do not exist.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 16 days ago

You’re the one claiming the government never lies. I don’t think even you believe your own bullshit.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 16 days ago

You’re the one claiming the government never lies. I don’t think even you believe your own bullshit.

Since Trump is about to be President and he has stated that “trans women” are not women I guess that puts an end to the gender debate by your retard logic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 20 days ago

"So was Trump lying or not?"

He might of been, hell if I know.

Unless I was a fly on the wall or there is an investigatoin I have no idea what the circumstances were. I know politicians make conessions all the time, they barter their leverage (if you scratch my back then I will pass a bill for you, kind of stuff).

There is a flaw in your logic thinking that everyone who voted for Turmp is in the Trump Cult (which i dont beleive there is one). I know he lies, his lies are just not as big or meaningful as other politicians lies.

I always referrence Chris Rocks bit about "Men lie the most but women tell the biggest lies" like "ITS YOUR BABY!!!" to make a comparison between when Trump tells a lie and when career politicians lie.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

So is it your position that the bump stock ban was a hoax? Or was it real?

I cannot get KingBob to actually admit that the bump stock ban happened at the behest of Trump.

I don't think every Trump voter is a cult member.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

You’re a far left Brandon/Kamala lover. You’re a complete and total joke and now you’re having a meltdown because Trump just smashed your fragile little bubble to pieces. Go find a safe space you coward.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Not melting down at all; no need for me to do that. What is Trump or any other politician going to do to me? Nothing.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

I know nothing will happen to you, nothing ever happens to liberals because our system is systematically rigged to favor you people.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Then why are you telling me to find a safe place?

I'm not a liberal. I'm far more conservative than gun grabber Trump. :)

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Because you seem quite triggered, a safe space seems like the right place for you. I’m only trying to give you some helpful advice, the least you could do is thank me. You are not conservative, you are not a patriot, you’re a pathetic, butthurt liberal loser.

reply

[–] Jinx (3813) 22 days ago

"HE" isn't trying to overturn an election. That is what Trump tried to do and it's the reason why congress may follow the constitution. You literally spelled it out and you are blind to what you are saying.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

Trump did not try to overturn an election. He attempted to expose the far left overthrowing an election. Big difference there, cupcake.

Ranb is trying to overthrow the election and our democracy. He’s a traitor and a Trump hater aka America Hater.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

You're giving me way too much credit. Perhaps you can look up the legal definition of traitor? It does not apply to me at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States The link I provided has additional links you need.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

I didn’t say you were going to come anywhere close to being successful, but you are attempting (albeit pathetically) to overturn a fair election.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

So you really think an obscure little forum like MovieChat makes a difference anywhere or at any time?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 22 days ago

Again I never said you were going to come anywhere close to being successful but the fact still remains that you are a traitor, you are unpatriotic and you are trying to overthrow an election.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

Where is your evidence that I am a traitor? Surely you would not be making baseless claims? If you were a prosecutor, what evidence would you bring to court to get an indictment?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

You are literally on here trying to overthrow an election. Your posts are all the evidence I need.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

I'm literally talking about the legal options. That is legal, therefore not treason. You keep on using that word, I think you do not know what it means

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

It’s not legal because he did not engage an insurrection. You are trying to overthrow a fair election, you are a traitor to suggest such a thing.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

Freedom of speech, look it up some day.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Yet you want to punish Trump for exercising his freedom of speech. Can’t have this both ways.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

Inciting insurrection is not covered by the 1st Amendment. I can have it both ways. Who is going to stop me? :)

reply

[–] [deleted] 21 days ago

"Inciting insurrection is not covered by the 1st Amendment."

He didnt incite an insurrection though. There was no insurrection except in the eyes of our corrupt media and corupt politicians. Its the same thing as pissing on my leg and trying to convince me its rain. There was no insurrection and it cant be said enough, you dont attempt an insurrection unarmed.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

LOL, the left actually thought that an unarmed crowd were going to over throw the government with signs and in one instance a guy had a baseball bat. What a bunch of cowards.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

It was in the eyes of those who brought the charges. Don't like it, then get elected or appointed to office. :)

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

WTF are you talking about?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Figure it out. I'm tired of explaining the really basic stuff to you.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

So in other words you can’t even explain your own premise. You suck.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 21 days ago

Except Trump clearly said to be “peaceful and patriotic”. You’d have to be mentally retarded or a complete pussy to someone connect the dots to conclude that that is somehow “inciting an insurrection”. This whole insurrection bullshit was a far left lie that they bitched and moaned about for four years. Trump has turned the page on 1/6, get with the program and forget about it.

You however are clearly trying to overthrow an election which is not covered by the first amendment.

Brandon and Kamala directly told their mob to go murder Trump, that is not covered by the 1st amendment either.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Interrupting an election, even peacefully, can be considered to be an insurrection. It is always peaceful until someone uses force to gain entry into a secure area where votes re being counted.

Got a link to the words they used to "directly tell a mob to go murder Trump"? It think it is only in your imagination. Good luck testifying to that in court.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Nope an insurrection is a “violent overthrow”, the crowd did not have any weapons on them. You people have been reaching with this whole “insurrection” bullshit for the past 4 years and it’s utterly pathetic. They broke a few windows that was the worst that happened. You people are utter cowards if a couple of broken windows gets you that bent out of shape.

Brandon and Kamala both said Trump was a threat to democracy and compared him to Hitler. As I’ve said many times if you legitimately believe that then it is your moral and ethical duty to do something about it. I didn’t do anything because I knew they were lying but there are enough unhinged, far left radicals out there who actually believed Brandon and Kamala’s lies.

You are literally suggesting that Trump, who won fair and square be overthrown because of a couple of broken windows and lies about “insurrections”. There was no “insurrection” and your constant moaning about it is exposing nothing more than your own immaturity.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Insurrection is defined as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

It is BS that anyone would make up definitions of a word to try to win an argument. You can do better.

The crowd used weapons like blunt objects. Just because no one was brandishing guns does not mean they did not arm themselves. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

I'm not recommending that Trump be overthrown. I'm saying that Congress could legally block him from taking office. Biden could do so as an official act (arrest, deportation, etc) and the Supreme court says it would be legal.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

All the J6 protestors did was exercise their 1st amendment rights and a few bad apples broke a couple of windows. No one tried to revolt against an established government. If that was truly their intention they would have brought weapons. No one is going to be able to “Take over the government” with “blunt objects” and most of the “blunt objects” were signs and one guy had a baseball bat. If that seriously scares you that badly then you need to be in therapy. You are recommending Trump be overthrown, there is no legal precedent to keep him from taking office meaning you are trying to overthrow the election. You’re a traitor.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

I am not scared, I was not at the riot.

So the police officers who were injured by the rioters would agree with you?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

As I said there were a few bad apples, and when you stand in front of a crowd there’s a good chance accidents can happen. At least they didn’t kill the cops like the BLM terrorists tried to do.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

If you let a bad apple do bad things in front of you, then you are one of the bad apples.

Surely you know the saying; "one bad apple can spoil the barrel". If you know the bad apple is there, throw it out.

Are you expecting me to defend BLM terrorists? I will not.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

Not at all, you are not responsible for anyone except yourself or your children if they are under 18.

I’m saying that the BLM terrorists did far far far worse than the window breakers on 1/6 yet for some reason the left only selectively cared about the broken windows. I did not see any impeachments, expulsions for the high profile Democrats who actively encouraged BLM to riot, loot, murder, etc. And why did they? Over some lowlife drug dealer who ODed. It’s a shame they didn’t’ care that much about Laken Riley.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

So you would stand by and let a kid assault and rob a little old lady? I hope not.

Why didn't Trump hold BLM accountable for their crimes? He actually said he could, why didn't he?

I don't think you give a damn about Riley at all. She is just a talking point for you.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 20 days ago

I wouldn’t personally but if I did allow it I wouldn’t be responsible unless that was my underage son.

It was the responsibilities of the liberal mayors and governors to hold the terrorists accountable. Of course they won’t do anything because like Tim Walz’s wife, they enjoyed the smell of the burning tires and carnage.

I care very deeply about Laken Riley and every other innocent American who has been murdered by illegal immigrants. You people never gave a good fuck about George Floyd, he was just a means to an end for you people. Pelosi even thanked him for dying so she could politicize his death.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

I think you care nothing, for anyone at all.

reply

[–] [deleted] 20 days ago

"I don't think you give a damn about Riley at all. She is just a talking point for you."

People can only care so much for people they dont know. Doesnt chang the facts.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

Well, KingBob claims to "care very deeply" about some people he has never met.

What facts are you talking about?

reply

[–] [deleted] 20 days ago

"What facts are you talking about?"

That she was murderd.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

Yes, she was murdered. You really believe that KingBob gives a damn about anyone who is murdered?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

I give a damn about everyone who is murdered, they aren’t just political talking points to me like that scumbag drug addict was to you people. Laken Riley’s death was a national tragedy that was 100% preventable if Brandon and Kamala had actually enforced the federal border laws.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

Can't fool me, I think you don't care at all.

You are dancing on her grave to promote the political agenda of a man (Trump) who will work to ensure that illegals are kept in the country to work for low wages.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

You see, I care about all lives, you only care about lives that can be exploited for your political points. You’re a complete fraud and you don’t care one bit about Laken Riley or anyone else who was murdered/raped by Brandon and Kamala’s illegal aliens.

Also why do you always have to deflect to Trump? Why can’t you stand on your own two feet and denounce Brandon and Kamala for the death of Laken Riley and many others.

You’re a coward and a far left sycophant.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

So you feel for the women that Trump raped also?

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

Funny how you can’t denounce Laken Riley’s murder or anything without deflecting to Trump. Typical liberal go to strategy. That bitch Kamala openly refused to apologize for her murder on Brett Bair, totally disgraceful.

I’m not answering that right now because I know you’re trying to deflect the conversation and send me down a rabbit hole.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 18 days ago

I have repeatedly denounced all violent crime in the past, including Laken's murder.

I think you refuse to answer becaue you think Trump is entitled to sexually assault women as a perk of his wealth, and you wish you could too

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 18 days ago

Why can’t you just make a stand and denounce Laken Riley’s murder specifically? You’re tap dancing around the issue and trying to weasel your way out of this. I didn’t ask you about all violent crime. Why couldn’t Kamala apologize for Laken Riley’s murder? Why was she such a coward?

And you don’t give a damn about sexual assault, if you did you’d have something to say about Brandon’s inappropriate shower sessions with his daughter.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

How am I trying to overthrow an election on this forum? You claim is very lame.

reply

[–] blue1981 (8013) 22 days ago

So say Dems would be stupid enough to stage an actual Insurrection. Who would they think they could install as President? Kamala Harris? They would bring about Civil WAR just so a Woman can President? No one is that stupid.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

If Trump is blocked from taking the oath of office, there is a line of succession.

Here is a link you can educate yourself with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act#Table_of_statutory_successors

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 22 days ago

I don’t see why you’re condescendingly telling blue1981 to educate himself on the presidential line of succession when the hypothetical in your OP was clearly timed to be occurring before Congress certifies the electoral votes. Even your OP says the president under your hypothetical would be installed by the House of Reps (not the presidential line of succession) pursuant to the 12th Amendment. Am I missing something that justifies you taking the “you’re uneducated” shot at blue1981 for suggesting the same mechanics for selecting the president as your OP?

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

You don't see why? It is because he obviously knows nothing about succession.

My OP was about blocking Trump. Blue1981 is talking about a Democrat insurrection. Even if Trump does not become president, Biden cannot remain president past January 20th. There is also a line of succession if Congress does not act soon enough to fill the office of president.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 22 days ago

I have to say, the byzantine Constitutional and legislative rules are very difficult to comprehend and prioritize in the president-elect hypothetical you propose.

But, I read the article you cited from The Hill for your hypotetical. There, the two (admittedly left wing) authors concluded just as blue1981 suggested: that the House of Representatives would install Kamala Harris as President. The authors said nothing about President-elect Trump’s line of succession being the solution to the hypothetical in your OP.

So I think your “uneducated” shot at blue1981 is unfair in this exchange

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 22 days ago

They could install Harris, if they went the route of not counting electoral votes for Trump. But that is not the 12th amendment route of selecting a president.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 22 days ago

I have to think about it further. I thought your original 12th Amendment solution in your OP was accurate: the House would vote to install the presidential substitute (just as the Hill article had suggested). I’ve always assumed this is what Trump was likewise hoping would happen in his favor in the J6 debacle.

I understood that the “presidential line of succession” solution only applied in favor of the president-elect via the 20th Amendment: when the electoral votes had been counted and had qualified the president-elect who was then unavailable at inauguration.

It’s a very interesting thread you started as proven by the number of responses. It’s a disappointing time in American politics when your hypo is not outside the realm of plausibility. I’m amazed however that the founders envisioned these possible crises and at least gave feasible solutions in the 12th Amendment.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 21 days ago

The 12th Amendment was proposed in 1803, so it seems they had a while to think about improvements since 1789.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 22 days ago

Agree 100%. I said the same thing a little differently above.

reply

[–] tvfan (13745) 22 days ago

Yes but keep in mind that tyrants and dictators would rather rule over ashes than to relinquish their power/control.

reply

[–] NukeDude (830) 20 days ago

Dude, you really need to get a life.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 20 days ago

I have a nice life. I'm retired, I travel between Asia and the US and live in two states. I spend about 15-20 minutes a day on MovieChat to pass the time while I watch a bit of TV.

reply

[–] NukeDude (830) 19 days ago

"Having" a nice life and "getting a life" are two different things. You need the latter.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9379) 19 days ago

Implying that your life is somehow better than someone's life who you disagree with proves your life is crap ... and probably you are an AI troll-bot construct so you have no life at all.

reply

[–] NukeDude (830) 19 days ago

LOL...nice try at a pitifully weak and pathetic anonymous internet insult, bud. You can go fuck yourself. Happy New Year, asshole.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

I do love my life; it is a real life I was working since i was 12 and retired at 60. I earned this the good old American way. No handouts, just constant work and living frugal.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9379) 19 days ago

It might be that now everyone knows what a liar and incompetent he is, most Americans would be fine with that - I certainly would.

reply

[–] Ranb (10310) 19 days ago

Well most of the MAGA have known what a liar Trump was since he backpedaled on putting Clinton in prison in 2016. Lying is one of Trump positive attributes, in their eyes.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9379) 19 days ago

That does seem to be true. Also, they just dismiss the toxic stuff he says like he doesn't really mean it or is joking. Out of the 70+ million people who voted for him, how many of them are going to be really hurt by these tariffs and other policies? Probably most of them.

I just found out about the historian Heather Cox Richardson who was interviewed for a podcast on The Bulwark podcast. Bulwark is a very good podcast by former Republicans Tim Miller and William Kristol with very good podcasts and guests.

Here is Heather Cox Richardson's interview:
Heather Cox Richardson: The Reality Show-ification of the Government
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/heather-cox-richardson-the-reality-show-ification/id1447684472?i=1000681017303

Excellent.

reply

[–] KingBob (2742) 19 days ago

LOL, sounds like loser talk. President Trump is coming back and there’s nothing you can do but whine and moan. Suck on the next 4 years!!!!

MAGA 2024!!!!

reply