Jump to content

Trump is not a king


Big girl

Recommended Posts

That has to be one of the stupidest articles I have read. CNN and their Trump hatred stinks all through it. What a sheltered life people lead who would believe one shred of that biased crapola.

Please list any president who has revealed their tax return. Next, list all the presidents whose birth certificate was questionable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, baddog said:

That has to be one of the stupidest articles I have read. CNN and their Trump hatred stinks all through it. What a sheltered life people lead who would believe one shred of that biased crapola.

Please list any president who has revealed their tax return. Next, list all the presidents whose birth certificate was questionable. 

Carter, Reagan, Bush l, Clinton, Bush ll, Obama. Obama’s birth certificate was questioned only by those seeking to delegitimize his presidency, his successor being chief among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

Thank you for your bravery in posting that in here. Kings have always despised courts and judges they could not control.

I guess we will have a sham hearing to figure out if Trump said he was a king.  As with the other hearing, there will be no evidence found.  Keep trying dims, keep trying!!

TRUMP 2020!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Carter, Reagan, Bush l, Clinton, Bush ll, Obama. Obama’s birth certificate was questioned only by those seeking to delegitimize his presidency, his successor being chief among them.

I should have asked who had been “forced” to reveal their tax return. It is not a requirement, just like yours and mine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, baddog said:

I should have asked who had been “forced” to reveal their tax return. It is not a requirement, just like yours and mine

No one has had to be forced. They volunteered. It’s called transparency. As for requirements, check Section 6103 (f) (1) and (2) of the tax code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transparency is only required of the right.   And, remember, that Mr. Obama assured us all that his was the most transparent administration in history.  ( That ranks right up there with "shovel ready jobs" and "the Benghazi attack was caused by an internet video", and " Bowe Bergdahl served his country with honor and distinction")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

No one has had to be forced. They volunteered. It’s called transparency. As for requirements, check Section 6103 (f) (1) and (2) of the tax code.

What would Trump showing his tax return do that the IRS hasn’t already done? I mean really. You’d just go to another topic. Dead end here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as if the Dems dont already know everything they need to know about Trumps tax returns.  Can you say Lois Lerner?  It's not different than the " Muller Investigation" and the "quid pro quo" debacles.  They knew there was nothing to either one of them( just like Supreme Court battle) but they also counted on fomenting a lot more hate and resentment with the  hope of something turning up during all of the "investigations".  The current "investigation" is a total sham.  NOBODY has any direct evidence of quid pro quo ( or Bribery as the polls suggested was better understood).  All statements have been nothing more than conclusions, many of which were third and fourth hand.  My favorite part is most of the witnesses were asked "how they felt about various circumstances"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stevenash said:

It's not as if the Dems dont already know everything they need to know about Trumps tax returns.  Can you say Lois Lerner?  It's not different than the " Muller Investigation" and the "quid pro quo" debacles.  They knew there was nothing to either one of them( just like Supreme Court battle) but they also counted on fomenting a lot more hate and resentment with the  hope of something turning up during all of the "investigations".  The current "investigation" is a total sham.  NOBODY has any direct evidence of quid pro quo ( or Bribery as the polls suggested was better understood).  All statements have been nothing more than conclusions, many of which were third and fourth hand.  My favorite part is most of the witnesses were asked "how they felt about various circumstances"

The hypocrisy of the right is astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...