- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill introduced to end Secret Service Protection for Trump
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:15 am to CGSC Lobotomy
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:15 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Name one instance to support this shite take.
Agreed, that is the key issue. Groups of people have had gripes with Presidents and we have even faced big issues with sitting Presidents, but corrective actions are almost always after the end of the term,
e.g. Pendleton Civil Service Act, 22nd Amendment, 25th Amendment
We may have had situations like Clinton being forced into a deposition and not being able to line item veto, or Nixon losing the ability to impound. Nevertheless, we did not try to creatively enforce different statutes or target legislation with a stated intent to affect one party until this series of acts against Trump.
We currently have politicians running with a major platform position of "Get Trump" not reverse his reforms, repeal his tax cuts, etc. We have legislators that are announcing their proposed legislation specifically citing its punitive applicability toward Trump.
If there was just a single or small number or actions pursuant to existing laws, people might still view it as partisan (i.e. if we were only dealing with any recent disputes on document retention, it would at least have the color of legitimate action).
0
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:19 am to dukkbill
quote:The OP chose an article that PARAPHRASED the sponsor of the bill as saying that it was specific to Trump ("Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, ... said it’s about making sure Mr. Trump doesn’t get special treatment"). The problem that I highlighted on page one is that Thompson simply did not say that.
My initial point was that the OP was written in such a way is to make it appear that the legislation was written in order to apply only to Trump, which is patently false.quote:
No, the OP quotes exactly from the newspaper story itself showing the specific motivation and the specific applicability.
What he actually SAID was that the Bill would apply to ANY protectee convicted of a felony ("current law doesn’t anticipate how Secret Service protection would impact the felony prison sentence of a protectee — even a former President").
The article's author very specifically DID NOT quote from the actual statement. Perhaps you believe that this was inadvertent. Maybe you also think that the OP did not intentionally link an article that included that ... sleight of hand posing as "paraphrasing," rather than actual quotes.
No personal offense intended, but if that is what you believe ... I see it as being naive. I am confident that both choices were completely intentional.
This post was edited on 4/20/24 at 11:37 am
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:21 am to TigerVespamon
what is next, Joe & Mika announce a bill to tar and feather Trump at dawn?
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:40 am to DaBeerz
quote:
Are there any freaking patriots left besides Trump who will stand up to these assholes?
They are making an example of Trump. Anyone brave enough to stand up to them will get the Trump treatment. They've been hating on Elon Musk but they also need his knowledge and technology.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:46 am to cajunangelle
quote:
what is next, Joe & Mika announce a bill to tar and feather Trump at dawn?
Hank: "I see no problem with this, as Trump isn't specifically mentioned in the bill and you wouldn't have a problem with it if they were to tar and feather Biden or Obama. You are a fool and I, as usual, am the smartest person in the room. Just ask me."
SFP: Wait just a minute... you have a valid point on Trump... but let's talk about that "smartest person in the room" comment...
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:47 am to Nikki_T
quote:
They are making an example of Trump.
Teflon Don has their number though. He haunts them.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:51 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
The OP chose an article that PARAPHRASED the sponsor of the bill as saying that it was specific to Trump ("Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, ... said it’s about making sure Mr. Trump doesn’t get special treatment"). The problem that I highlighted on page one is that Thompson simply did not say that.
What is your source that Thompson "never said that." (we need to find ooga for this one). Newsweek has a source from the office specifically stating, "Nobody should have special treatment, and that happens to include the former president." Newsweek. The Bill's fact sheet specifically mentions Donald Trump. Fact Sheet. Indeed, it states that Trump presents a special exigency, and spends most of its text talking about Donald Trump.
Do you have a source showing that Thompson denies making this statement? Even if you do, are you denying that Thompson (whether individually or through his office) is denying that its relating to special treatment?
quote:
The article's author very specifically DID NOT quote from the actual statement.
The article's author does include the same PR statement that your chosen source includes. Indeed, its write after the sentence that you take issue with.
Most important, that seems to be lost in your sophistry, we are talking about a former President of the United States and the current de facto leader of a major political party. A person fitting that profile already does have special treatment. Moreover, that special treatment is warranted to protect the interests of the United States of America. We do not want persons assassinating our heads of state (whether its only affect is symbolic or not).
We as a society should not want persons to escape from justice, but there isn't anything in our history, heritage, or law that should require the former President of the United States to be in genpop. We already account for special situations for persons of less import or symbolism to have special protections. We already have an act promising President's secret service protection. If we have some weird accurance where a former head of state has to be punished then we need to account for all the above in the event of any incarceration.
This post was edited on 4/20/24 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:55 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
The OP is a bit disingenuous. The bill does not direct itself specifically to Donald Trump. It would remove Secret Service protection from any individual convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison.
What a load of nonsense
Posted on 4/20/24 at 12:19 pm to scottydoesntknow
Bennie needs to be investigated by FBI for promoting the asassination of Trump by taking away his SS protection. It is hate speech as a minimum according to the dictates of WOKE.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 12:21 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:You may want to delete your post. At least three posters above have insisted that everyone (which would presumably include you) was fully aware of this fact.
The OP is a bit disingenuous. The bill does not direct itself specifically to Donald Trump. It would remove Secret Service protection from any individual convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison.quote:
What a load of nonsense
Posted on 4/20/24 at 12:36 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
The OP chose an article that PARAPHRASED the sponsor of the bill as saying that it was specific to Trump ("Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, ... said it’s about making sure Mr. Trump doesn’t get special treatment"). The problem that I highlighted on page one is that Thompson simply did not say that.
Completely irrelevant. The intent, as you have admitted, was the point of the op. This is just dumb to argue.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 1:06 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
You may want to delete your post. At least three posters above have insisted that everyone (which would presumably include you) was fully aware of this fact.
You, again, miss the point. He is saying your deflection and claim of a disingenuous OP is a load of bullshite. You’re the only poster in here being disingenuous. Nobody thought Trump was named in the bill. Surely you can link me to a single post stating otherwise.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 1:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You’re the only poster in here being disingenuous.
By his mere presence.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 1:52 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:
What goes around will come back around and it might bite "them" in the arse.
I don't think anyone has the balls any more to do what our founding fathers would have already done...
Posted on 4/20/24 at 2:02 pm to TigerVespamon
That's the equivalent to a death sentence.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 3:56 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
You may want to delete your post. At least three posters above have insisted that everyone (which would presumably include you) was fully aware of this fact.
No, it may apply to everyone but its 100% directed at Donald Trump. Your post is still a load of nonsense
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News