- 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 8:47 am to OzonaOkapi
Posted on 4/20/24 at 8:47 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
Bookmark, and let’s discuss in June.
Hank, you’ll be banned again long before June.
0
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:43 am to Godfather1
quote:The timing is not surprising at all. Congress tends to act when current events grab its attention. As I said several pages ago:
You don’t find the timing of this a tad curious?
quote:And if Michelle Obama were on trial for murdering the sous chef, the GOP would have introduced identical legislation. That is DC.
Did Trump‘s behavior give rise to this legislation? Of course.
A lot of posters are confusing the motivation (which is clearly partisan) with the applicability (which is general).
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.
As the thread evolved, we started addressing the merits of the legislation itself. There are arguments both for and against continuing the protection of a convicted felon, regardless of whether we are discussing Donald Trump or Michelle Obama. Because we are discussing Donald Trump, a significant number of posters found themselves incapable of undertaking a rational discussio of those considerations. It is what it is
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:46 am to TigerVespamon
If Trump is elected Bennie is in danger of going to jail along with all of the J6 Committee members.
This is an effort by Bennie to kill Trump in order to save his own hide.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:47 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
Because we are discussing Donald Trump, a significant number of posters found themselves incapable of undertaking a rational discussio of those considerations.
Says the guy whose TDS caused him to create this, yet ANOTHER, alter.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:48 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
A lot of posters are confusing the motivation (which is clearly partisan) with the applicability (which is general).
That was the point of the OP which you called disingenuous. Don’t back track now, Hank. You bit off more than you could chew on this one.
You aren’t educating anyone when you say it’s generally applicable. No shite. Don’t think people think the bill names Trump personally? That is a really really dumb thing to think. It might make you the dumbest poster in this thread.
The OP is correct. A bill was introduced to end Secret Service Protection for Trump. That is the intent of the bill. Just like New York retroactively changing SOL rules to get Trump. Sure some people got caught in the crossfire, but the purpose was to “get Trump”. You know this and have admitted it.
All of your bloviating in this thread has just proven once again what a disingenuous, obtuse poster you are who flames the board until he is once again banned. Rinse and repeat. You aren’t smart or special. You’re a dime a dozen.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:49 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
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.
Nobody thought that, you moron. Everyone realized it was the intent of the bill. Your inability to grasp that very simple fact does not speak well to your intelligence. You getting up there in years, Hank? Starting to slow down a bit?
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:54 am to TigerVespamon
One of the worst aspects of Lawfare will be the left throwing the right in jails to be abused by the animals.
Look at the January 6th trespassers.
Look at the January 6th trespassers.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:56 am to bird35
quote:
One of the worst aspects of Lawfare will be the left throwing the right in jails to be abused by the animals.
The left is literally cheering the tactics of the Nazis and the Russian communists. It is so disgusting.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:56 am to BBONDS25
quote:
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:
Nobody thought that
This post was edited on 4/20/24 at 10:02 am
Posted on 4/20/24 at 9:58 am to LookSquirrel
quote:
What goes around will come back around and it might bite "them" in the arse.
I look forward to the day when Bennie is in prison. Hopefully on made up, falsified charges. Let that bastard see how it feels.
But I would settle for him going to the gallows.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:00 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If Trump is elected Bennie is in danger of going to jail along with all of the J6 Committee members.
Lol, no they aren't. Republicans won't do squat.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:01 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
Sure Jan.
Literally not one person in this thread made any indication of believing that, outside of you. What a tremendous self own, Hank. You’re the most dim-witted poster in this thread. Only a complete moron would interpret the OP as you did.
ETA: just checked. No less than 5 people talking about who else this bill could get, Karma, and it coming back to bite them…..then Hank jumps in to “educate” us all because he is too dumb to understand the OP.
just beautiful. This post was edited on 4/20/24 at 10:04 am
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:02 am to TigerVespamon
quote:
if he is convicted and sentenced to prison.
Probably wouldn't need it at that point.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:04 am to BBONDS25
quote:You are losing it. My first post indicated that I did NOT ‘believe that.”
Literally not one person in this thread made any indication of believing that, outside of you. What a tremendous self own,
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:06 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
You are losing it. My first post indicated that I did NOT ‘believe that.”
quote:
ETA: just checked. No less than 5 people talking about who else this bill could get, Karma, and it coming back to bite them…..then Hank jumps in to “educate” us all because he is too dumb to understand the OP. just beautiful.
Neither did anyone else. You created a strawman and made a fool of yourself. You should be used to it. I mean it’s clearly Hank, but this take was so completely dumb and moronic I had a bit of pause that maybe it isn’t Hank. It is. You’re just starting to slow down, I think.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:40 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Neither did anyone else. You created a strawman and made a fool of yourself. You should be used to it. I mean it’s clearly Hank, but this take was so completely dumb and moronic I had a bit of pause that maybe it isn’t Hank. It is. You’re just starting to slow down, I think.
There’s no doubt this is Hank. He’s just not clever enough to maintain an alter without being seen thru almost immediately. Yet, he keeps on trying.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:44 am to TigerVespamon
pendulum gonna swing hard
Posted on 4/20/24 at 10:56 am to TigerVespamon
Third world level isht. I remember when these idiots were whining about "peaceful transition of power".
This post was edited on 4/20/24 at 10:57 am
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:01 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
And if Michelle Obama were on trial for murdering the sous chef, the GOP would have introduced identical legislation. That is DC.
Name one instance to support this shite take.
Posted on 4/20/24 at 11:02 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
A lot of posters are confusing the motivation (which is clearly partisan) with the applicability (which is general).
Hank, I don't think you will find many that are confusing anything; however,
quote:
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.
No, the OP quotes exactly from the newspaper story itself showing the specific motivation and the specific applicability.
The ensuing conversation is critical of the legislation because it is one in a series of acts that specifically target a former president, and more specifically target the soon to be nominee of a major political party.
The conversation didn't "turn". You posted about its general applicability which appears to be pretty moot to all the other discussion.
If the motivation is just how we may handle these situations in the future, then the proposed legislation would be grandfathered so that applied to future presidents. This would give them notice that their political opponents could seek to expose them to a loss of protection against a swarm of adversaries. Indeed, the bill sponsors even fear that this legislation will act as the deprivation of a vested right and have pre-emptively started arguing against this point in legislative announcements.
Instead, its just one in a series of acts where people aren't seeking public protection or order, but just trying to settle a petty squabble.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News