Orange Duce
Re: Orange Duce
Gettysburg…it was so much.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4425
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Orange Duce
He was just putting the Lincoln speech in a mini-memo:
DJT:
"What an unbelievable. I mean it was so much and so interesting and so vicious and so beautiful in so many different ways. It represented such a big portion of the the success of this country....."
Abe:
"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
I heard Joshua Chamberlain say that he slept with over 30,000 women in the course of his career.
Re: Orange Duce
Wonder if Trump wrote his speech on the back of an envelope on his way to the rally like Lincoln did when he wrote the Gettysburg address. I would say “unlikely.” Trump can scroll his name with a sharpie, but otherwise I’m not sure he knows how to write.
-
SCLaxAttack
- Posts: 1628
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:24 pm
Re: Orange Duce
I loved Jon Stewart's comment:
Trump - "Lee said 'Don't fight uphill, me boys.'"
Stewart - "I didn't know General Lee was a leprechaun."
Trump - "Lee said 'Don't fight uphill, me boys.'"
Stewart - "I didn't know General Lee was a leprechaun."
Re: Orange Duce
Trump is a forking moron. When it comes to stupid word salad making, Joe is a short order cook and Cheeto is a 5 star Michelin chef.SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:48 am I loved Jon Stewart's comment:
Trump - "Lee said 'Don't fight uphill, me boys.'"
Stewart - "I didn't know General Lee was a leprechaun."
Sure the Confederates didn't do so well going uphill to Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg. But the Union won a major victory going uphill to take Missionary Ridge in TN. Shots fired from above often went over the heads of the troops advancing uphill.
Trump is literally the last person on earth I would ever vote for.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 26004
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Orange Duce
I'm a little surprised that youth hasn't shared this back and forth on Twitter.
Perhaps hasn't made it to his Twitter feed?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/politics ... index.html
Perhaps hasn't made it to his Twitter feed?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/politics ... index.html
-
SCLaxAttack
- Posts: 1628
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:24 pm
Re: Orange Duce
Who watches the Oscars? Wasn't there a wedding at Mar-a-Lago he could have crashed?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 3:03 pm I'm a little surprised that youth hasn't shared this back and forth on Twitter.
Perhaps hasn't made it to his Twitter feed?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/politics ... index.html
Re: Orange Duce
Claim:
Donald Trump and Herbert Hoover are the only U.S. presidents on record who left office with fewer total jobs than when they entered office.
Rating:
True
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 1d97&ei=18
This is technically true, albeit with some glaring context. During the Trump administration, the U.S. experienced job growth every month from his inauguration in January 2017 through February 2020. Then, beginning in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic became a major reality in the U.S. and around the world. In the months that followed, millions of Americans lost their jobs, causing a massive dip in job growth and skyrocketing unemployment.
That's OK. Since right wing delusionals can blame Biden for world wide inflation even though he didn't cause it, then we patriots can blame tRump for the job losses.
Fair is far, right?
Donald Trump and Herbert Hoover are the only U.S. presidents on record who left office with fewer total jobs than when they entered office.
Rating:
True
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 1d97&ei=18
This is technically true, albeit with some glaring context. During the Trump administration, the U.S. experienced job growth every month from his inauguration in January 2017 through February 2020. Then, beginning in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic became a major reality in the U.S. and around the world. In the months that followed, millions of Americans lost their jobs, causing a massive dip in job growth and skyrocketing unemployment.
That's OK. Since right wing delusionals can blame Biden for world wide inflation even though he didn't cause it, then we patriots can blame tRump for the job losses.
Fair is far, right?
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Re: Orange Duce
LOL what GRIFT!
The mafia need to learn from 2XIMPOTUS o d
RNC is now just a bully!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna148272
The mafia need to learn from 2XIMPOTUS o d
RNC is now just a bully!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna148272
Re: Orange Duce
Trump’s big grift. Use my image and you pay 5%.CU88a wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 11:34 am LOL what GRIFT!
The mafia need to learn from 2XIMPOTUS o d
RNC is now just a bully!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna148272
Trump’ss trisl attorneys are trying to undermine the assumptions underlying a fair trial by attacking the possibility juries can be fail and objective. More subversion.
The MSM has failed to perform the function James Madison envisioned. Trump is benefitting from what the MSM is not covering.
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32363
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Orange Duce
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32363
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32363
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Orange Duce
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
NattyBohChamps04
- Posts: 2285
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm
Re: Orange Duce
I don't like the Clintons, but it's a fun comparison...
Hillary makes fools of half of Congress through 11 hours of hearings in a political hit job.
Sleepy Don is too old to stay awake on shortened days. Nods off multiple times and farts up a storm/craps his depends in a criminal trial.
Hillary makes fools of half of Congress through 11 hours of hearings in a political hit job.
Sleepy Don is too old to stay awake on shortened days. Nods off multiple times and farts up a storm/craps his depends in a criminal trial.
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4425
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Orange Duce
Liz Cheney, in the NY Times, about the guy some of you want to be your President again:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/opin ... court.html
"On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Donald Trump’s arguments that he is immune from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election. It is likely that all — or nearly all — of the justices agree that a former president who attempted to seize power and remain in office illegally can be prosecuted. I suspect that some justices may also wish to clarify whether doctrines of presidential immunity might apply in other contexts — for example, to a president’s actions as commander in chief during a time of war. But the justices should also recognize the profoundly negative impact they may have if the court does not resolve these issues quickly and decisively.
If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account.
The Jan. 6 House select committee’s hearings and final report in 2022 relied on testimony given by dozens of Republicans — including many who worked closely with Mr. Trump in the White House, in his Justice Department and on his 2020 presidential campaign. Special counsel Jack Smith’s election-related indictment of Mr. Trump relies on many of the same firsthand witnesses. Although the special counsel reached a number of the same conclusions as the select committee, the indictment is predicated on a separate and independent investigation. Evidence was developed and presented to a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.
The indictment and public reporting suggest that the special counsel was able to obtain key evidence our committee did not have. For example, it appears that the grand jury received evidence from witnesses such as Mark Meadows, the former Trump chief of staff, and Dan Scavino, a former Trump aide, both of whom refused to testify in our investigation. Public reporting also suggests that members of Mr. Trump’s Office of White House Counsel and other White House aides testified in full, without any limitations based on executive privilege, as did Vice President Mike Pence and his counsel.
The special counsel’s indictment lays out Mr. Trump’s detailed plan to overturn the 2020 election, including the corrupt use of fraudulent slates of electors in several states. According to the indictment, senior advisers in the White House, Justice Department and elsewhere repeatedly warned that Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud were false and that his plans for Jan. 6 were illegal. Mr. Trump chose to ignore those warnings. (Remember what the White House lawyer Eric Herschmann told Mr. Trump’s alleged co-conspirator John Eastman on Jan. 7, 2021: “Get a great f’ing criminal defense lawyer. You’re gonna need it.”) There is little doubt that Mr. Trump’s closest advisers also gave the federal grand jury minute-to-minute accounts of his malicious conduct on Jan. 6, describing how they repeatedly begged the president to instruct the violent rioters to leave our Capitol and how Mr. Trump refused for several hours to do so as he watched the attack on television. This historic testimony about a former president’s conduct is likely to remain secret until the special counsel presents his case at trial.
As a criminal defendant, Mr. Trump has long had access to federal grand jury material relating to his Jan. 6 indictment and to all the testimony obtained by our select committee. He knows what all these witnesses have said under oath and understands the risks he faces at trial. That’s why he is doing everything possible to try to delay his Jan. 6 federal criminal trial until after the November election. If the trial is delayed past this fall and Mr. Trump wins re-election, he will surely fire the special counsel, order his Justice Department to drop all Jan. 6 cases and try to prevent key grand jury testimony from ever seeing the light of day.
I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims (in Trump v. Thompson) before we could gain access to White House records. Court records and public reporting suggest that the special counsel also invested considerable time defeating Mr. Trump’s claims of executive privilege, which were aimed at preventing key evidence from reaching the grand jury. All of this evidence should be presented in open court, so that the public can fully assess what Mr. Trump did on Jan. 6 and what a man capable of that type of depravity could do if again handed the awesome power of the presidency.
Early this year, a federal appeals court took less than a month after oral argument to issue its lengthy opinion on immunity. History shows that the Supreme Court can act just as quickly, when necessary. And the court should fashion its decision in a way that does not lead to further time-consuming appeals on presidential immunity. It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later.
Mr. Trump believes he can threaten and intimidate judges and their families, assert baseless legal defenses and thereby avoid accountability altogether. Through this conduct, he seeks to break our institutions. If Mr. Trump’s tactics prevent his Jan. 6 trial from proceeding in the ordinary course, he will also have succeeded in concealing critical evidence from the American people — evidence demonstrating his disregard for the rule of law, his cruelty on Jan. 6 and the deep flaws in character that make him unfit to serve as president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/opin ... court.html
"On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Donald Trump’s arguments that he is immune from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election. It is likely that all — or nearly all — of the justices agree that a former president who attempted to seize power and remain in office illegally can be prosecuted. I suspect that some justices may also wish to clarify whether doctrines of presidential immunity might apply in other contexts — for example, to a president’s actions as commander in chief during a time of war. But the justices should also recognize the profoundly negative impact they may have if the court does not resolve these issues quickly and decisively.
If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account.
The Jan. 6 House select committee’s hearings and final report in 2022 relied on testimony given by dozens of Republicans — including many who worked closely with Mr. Trump in the White House, in his Justice Department and on his 2020 presidential campaign. Special counsel Jack Smith’s election-related indictment of Mr. Trump relies on many of the same firsthand witnesses. Although the special counsel reached a number of the same conclusions as the select committee, the indictment is predicated on a separate and independent investigation. Evidence was developed and presented to a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.
The indictment and public reporting suggest that the special counsel was able to obtain key evidence our committee did not have. For example, it appears that the grand jury received evidence from witnesses such as Mark Meadows, the former Trump chief of staff, and Dan Scavino, a former Trump aide, both of whom refused to testify in our investigation. Public reporting also suggests that members of Mr. Trump’s Office of White House Counsel and other White House aides testified in full, without any limitations based on executive privilege, as did Vice President Mike Pence and his counsel.
The special counsel’s indictment lays out Mr. Trump’s detailed plan to overturn the 2020 election, including the corrupt use of fraudulent slates of electors in several states. According to the indictment, senior advisers in the White House, Justice Department and elsewhere repeatedly warned that Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud were false and that his plans for Jan. 6 were illegal. Mr. Trump chose to ignore those warnings. (Remember what the White House lawyer Eric Herschmann told Mr. Trump’s alleged co-conspirator John Eastman on Jan. 7, 2021: “Get a great f’ing criminal defense lawyer. You’re gonna need it.”) There is little doubt that Mr. Trump’s closest advisers also gave the federal grand jury minute-to-minute accounts of his malicious conduct on Jan. 6, describing how they repeatedly begged the president to instruct the violent rioters to leave our Capitol and how Mr. Trump refused for several hours to do so as he watched the attack on television. This historic testimony about a former president’s conduct is likely to remain secret until the special counsel presents his case at trial.
As a criminal defendant, Mr. Trump has long had access to federal grand jury material relating to his Jan. 6 indictment and to all the testimony obtained by our select committee. He knows what all these witnesses have said under oath and understands the risks he faces at trial. That’s why he is doing everything possible to try to delay his Jan. 6 federal criminal trial until after the November election. If the trial is delayed past this fall and Mr. Trump wins re-election, he will surely fire the special counsel, order his Justice Department to drop all Jan. 6 cases and try to prevent key grand jury testimony from ever seeing the light of day.
I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims (in Trump v. Thompson) before we could gain access to White House records. Court records and public reporting suggest that the special counsel also invested considerable time defeating Mr. Trump’s claims of executive privilege, which were aimed at preventing key evidence from reaching the grand jury. All of this evidence should be presented in open court, so that the public can fully assess what Mr. Trump did on Jan. 6 and what a man capable of that type of depravity could do if again handed the awesome power of the presidency.
Early this year, a federal appeals court took less than a month after oral argument to issue its lengthy opinion on immunity. History shows that the Supreme Court can act just as quickly, when necessary. And the court should fashion its decision in a way that does not lead to further time-consuming appeals on presidential immunity. It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later.
Mr. Trump believes he can threaten and intimidate judges and their families, assert baseless legal defenses and thereby avoid accountability altogether. Through this conduct, he seeks to break our institutions. If Mr. Trump’s tactics prevent his Jan. 6 trial from proceeding in the ordinary course, he will also have succeeded in concealing critical evidence from the American people — evidence demonstrating his disregard for the rule of law, his cruelty on Jan. 6 and the deep flaws in character that make him unfit to serve as president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here."
-
ardilla secreta
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:32 am
- Location: Niagara Frontier
Re: Orange Duce
- IMG_7725.jpeg (187.64 KiB) Viewed 165 times
Re: Orange Duce
Trump drug concerns grow as he falls asleep in court AGAIN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmlP4Ds62BI
Dopey Donald again falls asleep - could the demented fool be under drug influence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmlP4Ds62BI
Dopey Donald again falls asleep - could the demented fool be under drug influence?
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Re: Orange Duce
dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:11 pm New York AG Asks Judge to Reject Trump’s [Civil Fraud] $175 Million Bond
If he DOES...THEN what?
...what a colossal waste of time ! "Justice" in NY is a joke.https://nypost.com/2024/04/22/us-news/t ... t-finance/
Speaking outside the courtroom Monday, Trump attorney Alina Habba blasted James for questioning the legitimacy of the bond and quipped to reporters that the money “isn’t green enough” for the attorney general.
“We wasted time,” Habba said. “The judge said he thought money market accounts go down under the amount — he doesn’t understand basic principles of finance.
“The attorney general and that judge realized quickly that they had no idea what they were talking about,” she said. “We came to an agreement that everything would be the same, we would modify terms, and that was it. This is where your taxpayer dollars are going, America. Right here: witch hunt after witch hunt.”
Trump lawyer Christopher Kise later piled on in a pointed media statement.
“Despite another flawed and desperate protest by the Attorney General, President Trump is pleased the Court determined the $175 miilion he posted in cash is worth $175 million, and the bond form in use in the New York court system for a century is in fact acceptable,” he said.
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4425
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: Orange Duce
Thanks for providing Alina Habba's view of the case. Pretty rich coming from you.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 3:05 amdislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:11 pm New York AG Asks Judge to Reject Trump’s [Civil Fraud] $175 Million Bond
If he DOES...THEN what?
https://nypost.com/2024/04/22/us-news/t ... t-finance/
Speaking outside the courtroom Monday, Trump attorney Alina Habba blasted James for questioning the legitimacy of the bond and quipped to reporters that the money “isn’t green enough” for the attorney general.
“We wasted time,” Habba said. “The judge said he thought money market accounts go down under the amount — he doesn’t understand basic principles of finance.
“The attorney general and that judge realized quickly that they had no idea what they were talking about,” she said. “We came to an agreement that everything would be the same, we would modify terms, and that was it. This is where your taxpayer dollars are going, America. Right here: witch hunt after witch hunt.”
Trump lawyer Christopher Kise later piled on in a pointed media statement.
“Despite another flawed and desperate protest by the Attorney General, President Trump is pleased the Court determined the $175 miilion he posted in cash is worth $175 million, and the bond form in use in the New York court system for a century is in fact acceptable,” he said.
The hearing was to evaluate the bond and void it if Trump and the surety didn't agree to new conditions, which they did. Knight Specialty Insurance Company will retain "exclusive control" of the $175 million account, and the company and Trump will provide a monthly account statement certifying that there are sufficient cash funds for the bond. The Company has agreed to designate an agent for service of process in New York in the event NY has to sue on the bond. And Trumo and the Company agreed that the terms of the bond cannot be amended without notice to the AG and approval of the court. Basic effort to tighten up the terms of the surety in the event NY has to execute its judgment.
All pretty routine fine tuning of an agreement while appeal is pending. But you take Habba's word for it that it was a "waste of taxpayer's money." Sure. Is there anything you aren't in the bag for here?