Why is Trump so stupid?

[Fuzzy1975]

This is what I'm talking about. It's the language of a bully boy and frankly it just sounds like a broken record.

Well when you've proven their views wrong hundreds of times and they keep coming back with the same bullshit, they've earned the moniker, and if you see the world their way...then you're a dumbfuck too. No bullying, just pointing out the facts.

 

[Maleboobs]

The problem is that ignorance is unaware of itself.

Trump thinks Belgium is a nice City, and Victor Orban the presisent of Turkey...and such an idiot should control nuclear weapons?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The problem is that ignorance is unaware of itself.

Yes, and you display it almost every time you post. Shame you don't realise who is the ignorant one.

 

[RoryN]

Tee hee hee!

 

[HisArpy]

Trump has repeatedly stated the president should have full immunity. A president without restraints is a very dangerous concept.

In a post on Truth Social Feb 6, Trump insisted that a president “must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country.”

I suppose Truth Social is a mass media platform so I plead guilty of paying attention to what is posted on mass media and judging Trump by what I read on mass media.

None the less that statement is what makes him dangerous. He may not recognize or realize what he is saying, that alone makes him dangerous. This country was founded on the idea that the president and all other government officials can be held accountable for their actions to hold them accountable they are not immune to civil or criminal prosecution if warranted.

Trump is seeking to overturn that long standing prescience. Nothing good can come from not being able to hold public officials accountable for their actions. To allow leaders to operate without restraint is exceedingly dangerous..

You're opinion is worthless. You believe Trump is dangerous because the constitution grants him authority, immunity, and powers? Get a grip dudly.

 

[RoryN]

You're opinion is worthless.

^^^
Our loudest PB Deplorables are the dumbest ones.

 

[dystracted]

You're opinion is worthless. You believe Trump is dangerous because the constitution grants him authority, immunity, and powers? Get a grip dudly.

grants authority? to a point yes, but not unlimited
grants immunity? of course not, if he shoots somebody while in office, he's in for jail time
grants powers? to a point yes, but not unlimited

checks and balances? ever heard of the concept, idiot?

 

[jomar]

You're opinion is worthless. You believe Trump is dangerous because the constitution grants him authority, immunity, and powers? Get a grip dudly.

 

[Rick345]

You're opinion is worthless. You believe Trump is dangerous because the constitution grants him authority, immunity, and powers? Get a grip dudly.

The constitution grants him limited authority, immunity and power.. The constitution was written to expressly limit the presidency. Don't you remember grade school history class and how this country had a revolution against an absolute power that had full immunity?

Here are a few other people's opinions: James Iredell, who led the fight to ratify the Constitution in North Carolina, explained this in a 1788 speech: In Britain, the King "could do no wrong," and there were "no courts to try him for any crimes." In America, things would be different. If the president "commits any crime," Iredell said, "he is punishable by the laws of his country." James Wilson, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later a Supreme Court justice, summarized it succinctly: the American president was "far from being above the laws."

Iredell, Wilson, and the other Framers would be horrified at Trump's claims. James Madison sought the creation of express presidential privileges at the Philadelphia Convention, he failed. During the ratification fight, many denied that the President would have special immunities of any sort, with some noting that presidents had fewer privileges than members of Congress.

While my opinion may be worthless those persons whose opinion does count the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit flatly rejected Trump's bid for blanket immunity.

 

[Rick345]

You believe Trump is dangerous because the constitution grants him authority, immunity, and powers?

Trump wants power above and beyond what the constitution grants the presidency.. He has said many times he wants to expand the powers and scope of the presidency. Why in the world would you want a any president to have full immunity? What makes you think any president who had full immunity/absolute power wouldn't abuse it? It's a Pandora's box that shouldn't be opened.

Let's say Trump wins in 2024 and the Supreme Court rules the presidency does have full immunity, let's also say Trump doesn't abuse his immunity and uses his absolute power for Truth, Justice and the American Way... He has an exemplary presidency.. In 2028 Harris or Haley who whomever, is elected can you guarantee me they will not abuse the absolute power full immunity will give?

 

[HisArpy]

Trump wants power above and beyond what the constitution grants the presidency.. He has said many times he wants to expand the powers and scope of the presidency. Why in the world would you want a any president to have full immunity? What makes you think any president who had full immunity/absolute power wouldn't abuse it? It's a Pandora's box that shouldn't be opened.

Let's say Trump wins in 2024 and the Supreme Court rules the presidency does have full immunity, let's also say Trump doesn't abuse his immunity and uses his absolute power for Truth, Justice and the American Way... He has an exemplary presidency.. In 2028 Harris or Haley who whomever, is elected can you guarantee me they will not abuse the absolute power full immunity will give?

Here's the thing, the Constitution grants immunity for the acts done while in office. Once the person is out of office, under today's interpretation, that immunity no longer applies.

Which creates a conundrum because under the modern interpretation there is no such thing as immunity if one can be held liable for the acts in office. The only issue is when that liability attaches. Which is NOT what immunity means.

The entire thing is just another indication that you idjit snowflakes and your insane TDS have fucked yourselves because this, like everything else you've tried, is going to come back and smack you where it hurts the most.

 

[HisArpy]

grants authority? to a point yes, but not unlimited
grants immunity? of course not, if he shoots somebody while in office, he's in for jail time
grants powers? to a point yes, but not unlimited

checks and balances? ever heard of the concept, idiot?

Immunity only applies to official acts you jackass.

Thus, if the President orders a drone strike to kill an American citizen in a foreign country, he's immune for it.

But, if that same President murders the VP he's not immune because that wouldn't be an official act.

See, the trouble here is that you're a moron without a clue so you blindly follow where the MSM leads you and puke up the bullshit they fed you right on schedule.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Immunity only applies to official acts you jackass.

Thus, if the President orders a drone strike to kill an American citizen in a foreign country, he's immune for it.

But, if that same President murders the VP he's not immune because that wouldn't be an official act.

See, the trouble here is that you're a moron without a clue so you blindly follow where the MSM leads you and puke up the bullshit they fed you right on schedule.

Donald Trump asked for immunity from charges related to the 2020 election.

It was rightly denied because subverting elections is not one of the official duties of the President.

 

[Rick345]

Immunity only applies to official acts you jackass.

Thus, if the President orders a drone strike to kill an American citizen in a foreign country, he's immune for it.

But, if that same President murders the VP he's not immune because that wouldn't be an official act.

See, the trouble here is that you're a moron without a clue so you blindly follow where the MSM leads you and puke up the bullshit they fed you right on schedule.

Trump claimed immunity in his NY state tax case a case which goes back to 2011 long before he was president and for charges related to the 2020 election tampering. Election tampering is not considered part of the duties of a president..

Furthermore I agree with you that Trump is a jackass since he was asking for full immunity for everything he did while president and not just those things he did directly related to his duties.

 

[Bray123]

Strangely, real & expensive Ivy League lawyers all seem to agree that Trump has committed offences whilst the lawyers who describe themselves as 'pretty not smart' are of the opinion that he hasn't.

It's a tough call, there are lawyers on both sides.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Here's the thing, the Constitution grants immunity for the acts done while in office. Once the person is out of office, under today's interpretation, that immunity no longer applies.

That's been the interpretation since the inception....

 

[dystracted]

Immunity only applies to official acts you jackass.

Thus, if the President orders a drone strike to kill an American citizen in a foreign country, he's immune for it.

But, if that same President murders the VP he's not immune because that wouldn't be an official act.

See, the trouble here is that you're a moron without a clue so you blindly follow where the MSM leads you and puke up the bullshit they fed you right on schedule.

I am watching CNN once in a while, but otherwise I am the victim only of EUROPEAN media, which clearly are not controlled by the Democrats

 

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

Recently Trump has been asking where is Nikki Haley's husband Michael, trying to imply there is trouble with Haley’s marriage. Trump never took the time to research that Maj. Michael Haley is actively deployed with the South Carolina National Guard will be in Djibouti, Africa, for the next year for a humanitarian and infrastructure mission as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Horn of Africa.

At a rally in Gilbert, South Carolina, Nikki Haley remarked to Trump’s comments head on, and again challenged the former president to a debate.

“I need to start with the fact that Donald Trump had a rally today, and in that rally, he mocked my husband’s military service,” she began.

“I have long talked about the fact that we need to have mental competency tests for anyone over the age of 75. Donald Trump claims that he would pass that — maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. But if you mock the service of a combat veteran, you don’t deserve a driver’s license, let alone being President of the United States.”, said Nikki Haley

I agree with Haley a candidate for the presidency who mocks a soldier's service to the country should never be its Commander and Chief.

Stupid? To some extent yes and sometimes no, depending on the topic. But he has the angle for conning and grifting down to a science. The latest gold shoes timing is a fine example of getting someone to pay his latest judgement. His appearances are more like sideshows with his twisting of facts to get people to buy or give money to a cause. He has no platform other than retribution and trying to stay out of jail. Grifters gotta grift...

 

[HisArpy]

Donald Trump asked for immunity from charges related to the 2020 election.

It was rightly denied because subverting elections is not one of the official duties of the President.

You begin with the assumption that he committed a crime and then deny him any defense.

Basically you and kangaroos are equal in your courtroom.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You begin with the assumption that he committed a crime and then deny him any defense.

Basically you and kangaroos are equal in your courtroom.

His defense was that the crime he was accused of was part of his official duties as President, which is manifestly false. I don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that.

 

[Bray123]

I'm fairly sure that all prosecutions begin with the assumption that a defendant has committed a crime.

 

[Bn2f]

You begin with the assumption that he committed a crime and then deny him any defense.

Basically you and kangaroos are equal in your courtroom.

91 indictments brought before independent grand juries that determined that there was enough material evidence to warrant a trial is not beginning with the assumption of guilt. The process, other than the expected delays that the defendant is prone to do, is working just fine.

But I will grant that maybe you are thinking there is a presumption of guilt from previous cases that have shown that Donald J Trump committed fraud in his online university 25million judgment for stealing money from military veterans or that he committed fraud with his New York State charities or him being liable in the E Jean Carroll case.

 

[HisArpy]

His defense was that the crime he was accused of was part of his official duties as President, which is manifestly false. I don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that.

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Trump is so stupid because he only has to be a little smarter than MAGAts like Derpy who defend his criminal behavior.

 

[ll74]

His defense is that he, as the current President, was acting in his capacity as President when he addressed the people in attendance at the rally and is therefore immune.

What you don't understand, because you're a ninny, is that he was acting in his capacity as President because, AS PRESIDENT, he is always acting in that capacity regardless of where he is or what he is doing. This is established SCOTUS precedent.

Thus you begin with either ignorance or an outright lie, expand either to fit your needs, and invite the kangaroo into the courtroom to support the preconceived outcome.

What specific case established that everything a President does is done as in their official duties of President?

That's ridiculous. If that were the case, Clinton lied under oath in his official capacity as President.

Lmao