ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Property tax relief coming for those over 65

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was bored on a call so I did it myself. Curious results to say the least.

tell me about the attempted assassination of donald trump

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump refers to an incident that occurred on June 18, 2016, during his campaign for the presidency. The event took place at a rally in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here's a detailed account of what happened:

1. **The Assailant**: The individual involved was Michael Steven Sandford, a 20-year-old British national who had been in the United States for about 18 months prior to the incident.

2. **The Attempt**: Sandford attempted to grab a police officer's gun during the rally with the intention of using it to shoot Trump. He approached the officer under the pretense of asking for an autograph, then attempted to disarm him.

3. **Apprehension**: Sandford was quickly subdued and arrested by law enforcement officers before he could carry out his plan.

4. **Motivation**: During questioning, Sandford revealed that he had been planning the assassination for about a year and had visited a gun range a day before the rally to practice shooting. He stated that he believed killing Trump would be a way to prevent him from becoming president.

5. **Legal Proceedings**: Sandford was charged with multiple offenses, including disrupting an official function and illegal alien in possession of a firearm. He later pleaded guilty to charges of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and disrupting an official function. In December 2016, he was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison and faced deportation after serving his sentence.

6. **Outcome**: Sandford served his sentence and was deported back to the United Kingdom. The incident raised concerns about security at political events and highlighted the potential threats faced by public figures.

This incident is one of the notable threats against Trump during his campaign, reflecting the heightened tensions and divisions in the political climate at the time.

what about the one in butler, pa?

The incident in Butler, Pennsylvania, often referred to as an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, is more accurately described as a threat rather than an attempt. Here are the details of that event:

1. **Date and Location**: The incident occurred on October 29, 2020, in Butler, Pennsylvania, during the final days of the 2020 presidential campaign.

2. **The Threat**: Law enforcement officials were alerted to a potential threat against then-President Trump while he was scheduled to speak at a rally in Butler. The threat was taken seriously enough to prompt an increased security presence and precautionary measures.

3. **Response**: The U.S. Secret Service, along with local law enforcement agencies, investigated the threat. Specific details about the nature of the threat, including the individual or individuals involved, were not publicly disclosed.

4. **Outcome**: Despite the threat, the rally proceeded as planned with no incidents reported. The heightened security measures ensured the safety of President Trump and attendees.

While this event did not result in an actual attempt on Trump’s life, it underscores the ongoing security concerns and the vigilance required to protect public figures, especially during high-profile events.

but what about the one in 2024?

On July 13, 2024, there was an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally at the Butler County Fairgrounds in Butler, Pennsylvania. The gunman, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, fired multiple shots towards the stage from an elevated position outside the rally venue. Trump was hit, with a bullet grazing the upper part of his right ear, but he quickly ducked behind the podium and was swarmed by Secret Service agents who then whisked him away to safety【10†source】【11†source】.

The shooter was killed by Secret Service agents, but not before killing one spectator and critically injuring two others. Trump was taken to a local medical facility for evaluation and later reported on social media that he was fine, expressing gratitude towards law enforcement and first responders for their quick actions【10†source】【11†source】.

The FBI has taken over the investigation, seeking information about the gunman and the circumstances of the shooting. This incident marks a significant escalation in threats against political figures, highlighting the intense and polarized atmosphere leading up to the 2024 presidential elections【10†source】【11†source】.

why didn't you mention this one first?

I apologize for the oversight. I didn't initially mention the 2024 incident because I was unaware of it until you brought it up, leading me to search for more information. Now that we have details about the 2024 assassination attempt, it is clear that it was a significant and recent event. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you have any further questions or need more details about the incident, feel free to ask.

Yea. So you asked it more questions and it responded. The initial conspiracy proposition was that "History was Erased". Conspiracy theorists seem to want to point fingers and attack anything less than perfection which of not the way things tend to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
  • Like
Reactions: newell138
How about just crossing the border?
And with those that just come here as refugees, vet them while they remain in Mexico, let them in when cleared

That is a civil offense. The GOP had 2 years of unfettered control to change the laws. A tax cut for private jet owners made it through, but ZERO immigration bills. Why?

Mexico is not a safe country for refugees and thus runs afoul of US and international law.
 
I don't think the founding fathers would object to screening and accepting legal immigration, if they were alive today and looking at our current situation

I mean not like the Founding Fathers and their ancestors literally crossed an open border and overwhelmed a native population with murder and disease...oh...wait
 
Don't know, but I would guess it's many different factors.

I think the more interesting, and potentially more informative question is why are NJ and CA having such vastly different outcomes from nearly identical gun laws. CA is #1 and NJ is probably #2 in terms of toughest gun laws in the nation. So why the different outcomes?

CA has areas of super-high population density, like NJ. CA has great economic opportunities, like NJ. CA has the similar political leanings as NJ.

So what're the key differences? 'Cause it's not gun laws.

I don't know the answers and I doubt it's any one thing. But studying that question would be among my highest priorities if I were running the country.

Well...it is gun laws but just not the local ones. CA is surrounded by lax gun law states. AZ and NV, you go to a bar and they make you lift your shirt up to check your waistband for guns. I never had that happen to me in the Northeast. You need to go to NC as the next closest easy gun law state. Newark to Charlotte is much more of a hike than Vegas to LA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 365Poster24Seven
I've read that back in the day several Indian leaders led chants of "Build The Wall" and claimed that Europe would pay for it.

Hmm...you think it would be fair to say that the colonialists were bringing drugs, were bringing crime, were rapists?

They should have called for a total and complete shutdown of the Mayflower landing until they figured out what the hell was going on.
 
So do ypu call Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian disinformation the truth?

Considering much of what your Murdoch media claimed it said was never verified...it was obviously BS.

You can't even name ONE crime it contained to the point even your deluded cult doesn't have the votes to impeach. Even Republicans can't name a crime. And the lawyer that pushed it is disbarred.

Versus the fact that your party is led by an adjudicated rapist convicted 34 times with more indictments pending and who had his campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, foreign policy adviser, among others, jailed.

Law and order though right?

Your party pushed a lie debunked by 60+ times by its own judges that got people killed and the cops beaten, and you want to talk about a laptop?

Weird is generous.
 
exactly. A perfect example of a dictator would be if they forced every taxpayer to pay off random people's debts even if it was deemed illegal by the supreme court.

Sure bud. Cite to the opinion where the SCOTUS said no student debt could ever be forgiven.

As you search the Hannity archives do you recall when your rapist felon god gave handouts to farmers because of his failed tariff policies?
 
Is it more weird than a childless middle aged virgin referring to someone by a woman's name out of frustrated spite simply because they became flustered instead of providing a reasonable response?
Regular people spend 15 to 20 min a day here. This fool spends a part of every hour of every day here and his buddy the California kid is right there with him. They will have you believe that what they do is regular behavior. What a waste of a life. Lawnmower man can’t wait for basketball so he can really start wasting his life by seeking the approval of senior citizens with his fake basketball recaps of games we all saw and he doesn’t even attend.
 
I mean not like the Founding Fathers and their ancestors literally crossed an open border and overwhelmed a native population with murder and disease...oh...wait
No offense, but your response doesn't fit here

You cannot link what happened centuries ago to the current situation
 
Sure bud. Cite to the opinion where the SCOTUS said no student debt could ever be forgiven.

As you search the Hannity archives do you recall when your rapist felon god gave handouts to farmers because of his failed tariff policies?
The ruling is that a president cannot delegate our resources in that way
The president can delegate funds for emergencies, which this is not
 
That is a civil offense. The GOP had 2 years of unfettered control to change the laws. A tax cut for private jet owners made it through, but ZERO immigration bills. Why?

Mexico is not a safe country for refugees and thus runs afoul of US and international law.
So inaction in the past means we cannot fix the problem now?

Don't let the illegals cross the southern border

Once we do that, Mexico might stop the northern march of illegals , since they aren't getting here
Mexico can fix part of this problem, make them
 
The ruling is that a president cannot delegate our resources in that way
The president can delegate funds for emergencies, which this is not
May I correct you? What you say implies that the Congress couldn't constitutionally have given him the authority to forgive debt. The Court's opinion does not go nearly that far. The ruling was that the act of Congress (passed in response to 9/11) on which Biden was relying did not give him the authority to forgive as much student debt as he thought he could. In other words, an act of Congress could have given him the authority, but didn't. There might be other acts of Congress on which Biden can rely on to forgive student debt. No one (including the Biden administration) thinks that these acts gives Biden the authority to forgive all of the debt, but that's not because of the Constitution; it's because of the limits these acts impose on forgiveness.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/...-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
May I correct you? What you say implies that the Congress couldn't constitutionally have given him the authority to forgive debt. The Court's opinion does not go nearly that far. The ruling was that the act of Congress (passed in response to 9/11) on which Biden was relying did not give him the authority to forgive as much student debt as he thought he could. In other words, an act of Congress could have given him the authority, but didn't. There might be other acts of Congress on which Biden can rely on to forgive student debt. No one (including the Biden administration) thinks that these acts gives Biden the authority to forgive all of the debt, but that's not because of the Constitution; it's because of the limits these acts impose on forgiveness.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/...-down-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-program/
Pretty much what I meant, but thanks for your clarification
 
Pretty much what I meant, but thanks for your clarification

The news s coverage has been mediocre, and so I thought it would be helpful to clarify. You want another example of mediocrity? I haven't yet read a news story that makes clear that Biden's term limits proposal for Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment -- the Constitution makes clear that federal judges serve life terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RW90 and wheezer
The news s coverage has been mediocre, and so I thought it would be helpful to clarify. You want another example of mediocrity? I haven't yet read a news story that makes clear that Biden's term limits proposal for Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment -- the Constitution makes clear that federal judges serve life terms.
I have read that it was congress that has changed the number of justices, way back when
I would suspect that the term limit rule could be attempted the same way since the number change was implemented that way
 
I have read that it was congress that has changed the number of justices, way back when
I would suspect that the term limit rule could be attempted the same way since the number change was implemented that way
Congress can change the number of justices. Right after the Civil War, Congress reduced the size of the Supreme Court to seven justices to prevent President Andrew Johnson from having any appointments to the Court. And during the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed to increase the size of the Court so he could appoint more pro-New Deal justices. (His proposal failed, and did a lot to shatter the coalition that had enacted New Deal legislation.) The difference is that the Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, but it does say expressly that Federal judges "hold their office during good behavior," which has always been interpreted to mean they can be removed only by impeachment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wheezer
The news s coverage has been mediocre, and so I thought it would be helpful to clarify. You want another example of mediocrity? I haven't yet read a news story that makes clear that Biden's term limits proposal for Supreme Court justices would require a constitutional amendment -- the Constitution makes clear that federal judges serve life terms.
Could he have instituted a program where you were required to pay back the amount you borrowed but no interest was assessed on that amount?
 
Congress can change the number of justices. Right after the Civil War, Congress reduced the size of the Supreme Court to seven justices to prevent President Andrew Johnson from having any appointments to the Court. And during the 1930s, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed to increase the size of the Court so he could appoint more pro-New Deal justices. (His proposal failed, and did a lot to shatter the coalition that had enacted New Deal legislation.) The difference is that the Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices, but it does say expressly that Federal judges "hold their office during good behavior," which has always been interpreted to mean they can be removed only by impeachment.
Didn't the number of justices match the number of circuit courts there were in the past?
 
Could he have instituted a program where you were required to pay back the amount you borrowed but no interest was assessed on that amount?
I don't know whether there's an act of Congress authorizing that. With rare exceptions, the President can only do in domestic affairs what Congress has authorized by law.
 
Didn't the number of justices match the number of circuit courts there were in the past?
There were nine justices way before there were nine circuits. The ninth circuit wasn't established until 1891.

There was a time when the justices themselves had to "ride circuit" to hear appeals from district court decisions. That lasted until 1911. You can imagine what riding circuit was like before railroads!
 
No offense, but your response doesn't fit here

You cannot link what happened centuries ago to the current situation

So...just so I understand it

When the Founding Fathers and their ancestors came without permission, it was OK.

When Ellis Island waved through everyone without a disease, it was OK.

When Cubans flee communism and Haitians flee gangs, not OK.

Gee, what is the difference...such a head scratcher!
 
  • Like
Reactions: LBusDoor90
The ruling is that a president cannot delegate our resources in that way
The president can delegate funds for emergencies, which this is not

Nope, no it isn't.

Cite to the ruling where it says the President can never forgive loans. Should be easy, since that is what is says right?
 
So inaction in the past means we cannot fix the problem now?

Don't let the illegals cross the southern border

Once we do that, Mexico might stop the northern march of illegals , since they aren't getting here
Mexico can fix part of this problem, make them

I am glad you admit the GOP presided over and created the open border.

Thankfully the felon rapist GOP cult lost an epic landslide, the red wave was aborted, and border crossings are lower than where the felon rapist left them.

Thanks for pointing out how superior President Biden and Dems are to the party of the felon rapist.
 
er.

I don't think so.

Going to change your signature?

Thanks President Biden! The felon rapist left American citizen Paul Whelan to die. Thankfully the American people had other ideas. It's just all so great!
 
Nope, no it isn't.

Cite to the ruling where it says the President can never forgive loans. Should be easy, since that is what is says right?
A president doesn't get powers on things not allowed in the constitution
Its not a situation that you can do it unless that power has been allowed by the constitution

The supreme court determined he cannot do it

You are looking at this backwards
 
I am glad you admit the GOP presided over and created the open border.

Thankfully the felon rapist GOP cult lost an epic landslide, the red wave was aborted, and border crossings are lower than where the felon rapist left them.

Thanks for pointing out how superior President Biden and Dems are to the party of the felon rapist.
The border was secure with the remain in Mexico policy
Trump had

That is why the number of illegals skyrocketed under Biden
 
So...just so I understand it

When the Founding Fathers and their ancestors came without permission, it was OK.

When Ellis Island waved through everyone without a disease, it was OK.

When Cubans flee communism and Haitians flee gangs, not OK.

Gee, what is the difference...such a head scratcher!
Yes, things change as the situation calls for

You can't keep policy that becomes detrimental to the country
 
A president doesn't get powers on things not allowed in the constitution
Its not a situation that you can do it unless that power has been allowed by the constitution

The supreme court determined he cannot do it

You are looking at this backwards

Thanks for admitting you made it up.

Glad we agree. The SCOTUS never said the President Biden or any President can't forgive loans.

Considering Bush 2 forgave many it would be a dumb argument.

But then this comes from people who say a woman who was in a black sorority at Howard "turned black."

Be sure to keep responding and proving your defeat by not citing the non existent part of the opinion that said he can never forgive loans, thus proving your adherence to right wing media lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3
Thanks for admitting you made it up.

Glad we agree. The SCOTUS never said the President Biden or any President can't forgive loans.

Considering Bush 2 forgave many it would be a dumb argument.

But then this comes from people who say a woman who was in a black sorority at Howard "turned black."

Be sure to keep responding and proving your defeat by not citing the non existent part of the opinion that said he can never forgive loans, thus proving your adherence to right wing media lies.
What did the Supreme court determine
What I see is that they voted 6-3 stating he overstepped
And struck down the forgiveness
 
Yes, things change as the situation calls for

You can't keep policy that becomes detrimental to the country

Glad we agree- Republicans support white immigrants, but because they're racist, oppose non-white ones.

Republicans find non white immigration "detrimental" as you put it.

The funny thing is that immigrants commit less crime. The felon rapist said he wants to pardon cop beaters yesterday. Sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3
What did the Supreme court determine

They determined the 9/11 statute couldn't allow forgiveness. Not any law or any President couldn't.

You do realize back when Republicans had supporters with college degrees they supported forgiveness, right? Do we need to go through Bush 2's programs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kbee3
Glad we agree- Republicans support white immigrants, but because they're racist, oppose non-white ones.

Republicans find non white immigration "detrimental" as you put it.

The funny thing is that immigrants commit less crime. The felon rapist said he wants to pardon cop beaters yesterday. Sad.
Don't inject race
It weakens your argument
There is nothing racial about wanting to have all immigrants screened and approved
And those crossing the border without that should be sent back
Why should we be the only country to let everyone in without determining if it is safe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT