|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on Apr 26, 2024 14:04:03 GMT
Well, the Constitutional Justices seem to be favoring limited immunity. But to indulge the hyperbole... if the woman president committed abortion in a state that recognized it as murder, then she could also be tried for such. Granted such a charge would be challenged and difficult to prove but this was simply a response to those looking to usurp all presidential immunity. If Trump wins, and they declare he has total immunity and that the impeachment process exists to handle abuse and law breaking, guess what the Democrats will do when they get control of the House?
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 26, 2024 14:11:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 26, 2024 14:15:00 GMT
You mad, Mike? If they don't do it - it means Obama can be charged with murder. And there is no Statute of Limitations for murder. Think about it - you dumbass fool. Well so could Trump by this logic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Apr 26, 2024 14:16:40 GMT
Well, the Constitutional Justices seem to be favoring limited immunity. But to indulge the hyperbole... if the woman president committed abortion in a state that recognized it as murder, then she could also be tried for such. Granted such a charge would be challenged and difficult to prove but this was simply a response to those looking to usurp all presidential immunity. If Trump wins, and they declare he has total immunity and that the impeachment process exists to handle abuse and law breaking, guess what the Democrats will do when they get control of the House? That's not even a remote possibility though. Whether it be the Constitutionalist or progressive judges... none of them gave the impression of blanket immunity. Some favored none and some seemed to favor limited.
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Apr 26, 2024 14:28:06 GMT
Yeah... no. At worst he was an unintended casualty, and most likely was a terrorist and a traitor.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Apr 26, 2024 14:34:53 GMT
Yeah... no. At worst he was an unintended casualty, and most likely was a terrorist and a traitor. You can be the child of a terrorist and not be a terrorist too. Bin Laden's son is a painter.
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Apr 26, 2024 14:44:44 GMT
Yeah... no. At worst he was an unintended casualty, and most likely was a terrorist and a traitor. Part of the rebel alliance and a spy, undoubtedly.
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Apr 26, 2024 14:46:29 GMT
Yeah... no. At worst he was an unintended casualty, and most likely was a terrorist and a traitor. You can be the child of a terrorist and not be a terrorist too. Bin Laden's son is a painter. Is Bin Laden's painter son in the same house as a terrorist leader?
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Apr 26, 2024 14:47:42 GMT
Yeah... no. At worst he was an unintended casualty, and most likely was a terrorist and a traitor. Part of the rebel alliance and a spy, undoubtedly. Maybe. He was at a terrorist location. Should we not target terrorists in the chance that someone else might be there?
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Apr 26, 2024 15:02:41 GMT
Part of the rebel alliance and a spy, undoubtedly. Maybe. He was at a terrorist location. Should we not target terrorists in the chance that someone else might be there? Yes. Though that can get a little gray, imo. What if the guy is in a large crowd, with family, heck.... in a public bathroom with others? Im all for elimination. But if it's a low level guy, wouldn't it be worse to take out 10 innocents if the guy killed only 1?
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 26, 2024 15:12:02 GMT
Yeah... no. At worst he was an unintended casualty, and most likely was a terrorist and a traitor. Part of the rebel alliance and a spy, undoubtedly.
Is this like that tradesmen and union workers on the Death Star discussion?
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Apr 26, 2024 15:31:49 GMT
Maybe. He was at a terrorist location. Should we not target terrorists in the chance that someone else might be there? Yes. Though that can get a little gray, imo. What if the guy is in a large crowd, with family, heck.... in a public bathroom with others? Im all for elimination. But if it's a low level guy, wouldn't it be worse to take out 10 innocents if the guy killed only 1? I see your point. If it is at a private residence with only the usual people there I would say it is legit. If he is in the stands at the World Cup final, maybe wait for a better opportunity? But then again, the only losses would be soccer fans...
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Apr 26, 2024 15:36:32 GMT
You mad, Mike? If they don't do it - it means Obama can be charged with murder. And there is no Statute of Limitations for murder. Think about it - you dumbass fool. Well so could Trump by this logic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-AwlakiWhy you gotta screw up their talking point? They love that talking point!
|
|
|
Post by mr_self on Apr 26, 2024 15:44:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by averagejoe2021 on Apr 26, 2024 16:06:56 GMT
Yes. Though that can get a little gray, imo. What if the guy is in a large crowd, with family, heck.... in a public bathroom with others? Im all for elimination. But if it's a low level guy, wouldn't it be worse to take out 10 innocents if the guy killed only 1? I see your point. If it is at a private residence with only the usual people there I would say it is legit. If he is in the stands at the World Cup final, maybe wait for a better opportunity? But then again, the only losses would be soccer fans... Isn't that how Harry Skywalker bought it?
|
|