Free Republic

I am to accept at face value that judges are now better experts on what a vaccine is than the scientists who actually study vaccines?

I learned in the last few months that judges are now:

• Better experts on the value of real estate than real estate developers who actually build the real estate.

• Better experts on campaign finance law than the head of the Federal Election Commission who actually oversees the law.

-PJ

The President is the embodiment of the Executive Branch. He lives in the same building as the Oval Office. As the single elected Executive branch officer, he should have immunity for all acts whatsoever unless impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Perhaps Presidential immunity would finally put some backbone into the Senate to convict someone if properly impeached in the House, because impeachment conviction overrules Presidential immunity?

In essence, without immunity it would be like asking the President to keep a daily timesheet like a factory worker who clocks in when he goes on the line and then clocks out when goes to lunch.

To me, identifying a "core" from a "personal" act is a retroactive look-back at something; in the moment the President is just being the President.

Example:

When President Bush was reading a storybook to kindergartners on the morning of 9/11, was that a Presidential or personal act? I'd say it was presidential as the President is out meeting the people. Was it a "core" presidential act? I think many people could debate both sides of this, saying that "core" presidential acts are those that interact with Congress or involve meeting with foreign leaders, or when acting as Commander-in-Chief.

So, if President Bush reading books to children is not a "core" Presidential act, would he not have immunity for doing it? Suppose that a parent didn't like the story Bush was reading and wanted to sue him for exposing their child to content not appropriate to the beliefs of the parents?

And then, when aides interrupted President Bush with the news of the plane crashes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, did Bush suddenly "snap" into core Presidential mode? In other words, is there a switch that flips on and off outside of the President's control that categorizes his minute-to-minute existence as core, non-core, and personal, or do we just say the President is in a very fluid, dynamic, and often stressful role as the sole elected official of the Executive branch, and everything he does is core to the role?

That's my take. If events beyond the President's control determines when he is or is not performing a "core" Presidential act, then the President must have full immunity for all acts while President, unless impeached and convicted by Congress.

-PJ

Sorry... I did post that quote. LOL!

But I was referring to the count, not the characterization of the people, which I thought was clear by my response.

-PJ

If that's what you were referring to, you should have put it into the text that you sent to me, because I posted nothing to do with that and had no idea what you meant.

-PJ

1. That wasn’t the article. That was an X user. It was embedded in the article showing the departing people along with the commentary.

   What's your point? The author of the article cited that X users because he had a video. The citation was used to make the author's point. The author had complete control over what was in his article, and he based it on the X user's video.

   They are one and the same. It was obviously something the Newsweek author wanted us to see.

   Are you going to argue that anything you cite in one of your posts isn't endorsed by you but just happens to be what some other person posted somewhere?

2. I do see similar commentary here toward the current President.

   I'm not aware of articles about scores of people leaving Biden rallies.

   I AM aware of articles about scores of people ATTENDING Biden rallies.

-PJ

Maybe they will pay Hamas for the right to report from inside Gaza, just like they did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

-PJ

Basically, the "Intel" community admitted that they will openly lie to the American people if it is deemed to be in their personal self interests.

But not the country's best interests.

Got it.

-PJ

"Thousands of people leaving the Trump cult rally right in the middle of Cheeto Jesus making his speech," [Brian] Shapiro wrote. "Bizarre don't you think?

Notice that it's "scores" and "thousands" of people when the left reports on the people leaving Trump rallies.

But when they report on the size of Trump rallies, it's "the local police don't report on headcount estimates" or something.

-PJ

Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States, has a backlog of over 260,000 cases that were not being investigated due to incompetence in the police leadership and lack of manpower.

These cases are not being reported to the FBI.

-PJ

Here is the Hunter Biden argument that nobody wants to make:

For decades, the left has been pushing for tough gun control laws.

Here is a case, plain as day, of a gun control law that was enacted -- keeping guns away from drug addicts -- and what is the left doing?

They want to nullify the law!!! They want to ignore the gun control law because it's Hunter Biden who got trapped by it.

This should tell us all everything we need to know about the seriousness of the left when it comes to regulating guns. It's only those on the right whom they want to keep guns from, the left gets a pass from their own gun laws.

-PJ

Here is the Hunter Biden argument that nobody wants to make:

For decades, the left has been pushing for tough gun control laws.

Here is a case, plain as day, of a gun control law that was enacted -- keeping guns away from drug addicts -- and what is the left doing?

They want to nullify the law!!! They want to ignore the gun control law because it's Hunter Biden who got trapped by it.

This should tell us all everything we need to know about the seriousness of the left when it comes to regulating guns. It's only those on the right whom they want to keep guns from, the left gets a pass from their own gun laws.

-PJ

Here is the Hunter Biden argument that nobody wants to make:

For decades, the left has been pushing for tough gun control laws.

Here is a case, plain as day, of a gun control law that was enacted -- keeping guns away from drug addicts -- and what is the left doing?

They want to nullify the law!!! They want to ignore the gun control law because it's Hunter Biden who got trapped by it.

This should tell us all everything we need to know about the seriousness of the left when it comes to regulating guns. It's only those on the right whom they want to keep guns from, the left gets a pass from their own gun laws.

-PJ

Here is the Hunter Biden argument that nobody wants to make:

For decades, the left has been pushing for tough gun control laws.

Here is a case, plain as day, of a gun control law that was enacted -- keeping guns away from drug addicts -- and what is the left doing?

They want to nullify the law!!! They want to ignore the gun control law because it's Hunter Biden who got trapped by it.

This should tell us all everything we need to know about the seriousness of the left when it comes to regulating guns. It's only those on the right whom they want to keep guns from, the left gets a pass from their own gun laws.

-PJ

It seems that all of the European leaders whom Biden says keep coming up to him asking about President Trump are losing their seats.

-PJ

Reposting my post from the other thread here.

---

I've pushed the abuse button a few times, but only on posts that used extremely offensive profanity or were over-the-top personal attacks on another poster that were not germane to the topic being discussed. In rare cases, I've pushed it when people who lost an argument descended into nasty ad hominem tirades against the other person.

From the Free Republic Home Page:

Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience...

Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We're here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We're not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.

Free Republic does not advocate or condone racism, violence, rebellion, secession, or an overthrow of the government. Free Republic advocates a return to constitutionally limited government, reserving all government powers not expressly delegated by the constitution to the United States to the States respectively, or the people, emphasizing sovereign state governments, local government, self-government and self-rule, while restricting government powers to only those enumerated in the constitution...

This is why I personally try to find a constitutional aspect to whatever issue or thread that I choose to participate in.

I try to write in the third person indefinite style and avoid direct personal statements (like how Congress has rules that debate must be directed at the Chair and not other members).

I try to state my case concisely (but completely) so that others have the opportunity to understand my complete thought process before engaging me. I find that short, terse fragments of thoughts only leads the reader to fill in blanks that were not intended but that provoke unwanted responses.

I believe that once I speak on a matter and complete a dialogue with another reader to make my thinking clear, I am done with the matter. The reader is free to decide who made the better point; hounding the other person into submission to my opinion is pointless.

And I avoid the ad hominem at all costs. Name-calling, taunts, profane accusations, and closing posts with insinuations or putting words in the other person's mouth goes against everything that a reasoned debate should be about.

---

-PJ

Ranked choice voting is unconstitutional. It violates equal protection because only the people who voted for the loser gets to change his vote between rounds. Nobody else can change their minds now that the field has changed.

Also, as opposed to run-off elections, ranked choice voting doesn't allow for people who didn't vote in the general election to cast votes in subsequent "rounds." Only the general election voters who "ranked" their vote get to have votes counted in "run-off" rounds.

Ranked-choice voting actually disenfranchises most voters.

-PJ

29 Electoral College votes is not something to just hand-wave away. Splitting the Florida vote could very well lead to a Trump/Harris administration.

-PJ

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
Where Canada can be tropical
Except for Scotia
Sco-Sco-Sco-Sco-Scotia

-PJ

I don't think it's you.

I think that ever since 9/11 and the crazy conspiracies about bombs having been planted ahead of time, or that the burning jet fuel melted the steel beams, the reaction was a new coined term of "truther" that was applied to adherents of those conspiracy theories -- people who claimed to know the "truth" of what really happened.

In 2008, the "truther" term was converted into "birther" to attack people who questioned the authenticity of Barack Obama's on-line birth certificate.

Ever since then, the suffix "-er" as applied to any noun is used as an ad hominem to attack or discredit someone's support or beliefs. That's why using a term like "Trumper" can be seen as having its roots in the birther/truther movement, and is therefore seen by some as a personal attack.

Others might use it as a shortcut to represent a general area of support, but personally I abhor "thought" shortcuts because it leaves things open for interpretation.

-PJ

we all know the truth here

I love these "we all know..." statements that offer up no proof of their assertions because it is something they say is so plain to see that "we all know" it to be true.

Democrats expect full benefit of doubt from the LAAP-dog media for everything they say, while Republicans must withstand a barrage of "fact checks" and accusations of lying for anything they say.

-PJ