Orange Duce

[OCanada]

Trump is again attacking people he views as enemies as well as their spouses and families. It has been his go to for a long time. Gag order?? Well he is not much interested.

[ardilla secreta]

Yee-Haw!

IMG_6742.jpeg (91.75 KiB) Viewed 441 times

[PizzaSnake]

Yee-Haw!
IMG_6742.jpeg

Everything’s bigger in Tejas…

[NattyBohChamps04]

Cannon dragging her feet in the docs trial, helping Trump in the meantime.

Trump classified documents trial running about four months behind schedule

[old salt]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

[Typical Lax Dad]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

[MDlaxfan76]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

Criminals shouldn't be running for POTUS, but that's up to the GOP and its voters.

[Typical Lax Dad]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

Criminals shouldn't be running for POTUS, but that's up to the GOP and its voters.

If he were in the military, his actions would warrant a dishonorable discharge….but he gets Old Salt’s vote.

[old salt]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

Criminals shouldn't be running for POTUS, but that's up to the GOP and its voters.

If he were in the military, his actions would warrant a dishonorable discharge….but he gets Old Salt’s vote.

Never voted for Trump. Never will.
Being accused does not make someone a criminal.
Dishonorable discharges are not awarded without due process.

[Typical Lax Dad]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

Criminals shouldn't be running for POTUS, but that's up to the GOP and its voters.

If he were in the military, his actions would warrant a dishonorable discharge….but he gets Old Salt’s vote.

Never voted for Trump. Never will.
Being accused does not make someone a criminal.
Dishonorable discharges are not awarded without due process.

The only thing he won’t get from you is criticism…. The ONLY thing.

[old salt]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

Criminals shouldn't be running for POTUS, but that's up to the GOP and its voters.

If he were in the military, his actions would warrant a dishonorable discharge….but he gets Old Salt’s vote.

Never voted for Trump. Never will.
Being accused does not make someone a criminal.
Dishonorable discharges are not awarded without due process.

The only thing he won’t get from you is criticism…. The ONLY thing.

I've criticized him. Just not enough to please you.

[Kismet]

Comedian/Late Night host Jimmy Kimmel destroyed Orange Fatso with an EPIC response after Trump’s Truth Social sent Kimmel a legal “cease and desist” letter threatening to sue Kimmel and his show for stating on air that Truth Social is bleeding money and dropping in market value.

The feud started when Kimmel declared on his show that Truth Social had lost $73 million in value since it’s launch. Kimmel then declared, “This morning, I woke up to a letter from the Trump Media and Technology Group demanding that I apologize for and retract a statement I made on the air about his struggling social media platform, Truth Social. We talk a lot about Donald Trump here at the show in the same way paleontologists talk about apes, right? We're studying him but it's easy to forget sometimes that he actually sees this stuff. He's obsessed with himself and with what people say about him and because of that we have somehow found ourselves once again in the wisp-thin crosshairs of our crazy ex-president and his compatriots. I have to say, demanding a retraction for reporting the value of his company incorrectly is pretty darn hilarious — considering the fact he is on trial right now for reporting the value of his company incorrectly Maybe he should sue himself. But in all fairness, TMTG demanded an apology, so from the bottom of my heart, I want to say to Donald Trump and everyone at TMTG, I'm deeply sorry you're so bad at running companies!”

As for Saltine - while he may not love Orange Fatso he's THRILLED with ALL his policies.

[Typical Lax Dad]

3 trials at the same time during the heart of the campaign. No problem.

Criminals shouldn't be running for POTUS, but that's up to the GOP and its voters.

If he were in the military, his actions would warrant a dishonorable discharge….but he gets Old Salt’s vote.

Never voted for Trump. Never will.
Being accused does not make someone a criminal.
Dishonorable discharges are not awarded without due process.

The only thing he won’t get from you is criticism…. The ONLY thing.

I've criticized him. Just not enough to please you.

The totality of your documented support makes one realize that your criticism is likely disingenuous. That’s how you get down.

[Brooklyn]

Colorado judge rules tRump did engage in insurrection:


https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=c ... A1&PC=U531


Problem: while this was held as a matter of fact finding, she still has not decided that the law (or more correctly the 14th Amendment § 3) is applicable to one who has held executive office. The section reads as follows:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

As president tRump was an "officer" of the USA. The judge determined he gave the aid and comfort that is violative of the Amendment. On that basis it seems that § 3 is applicable but she remains uncertain. Now the appellate court will have to make a finding as to whether this is true or not.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Colorado judge rules tRump did engage in insurrection:


https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=c ... A1&PC=U531


Problem: while this was held as a matter of fact finding, she still has not decided that the law (or more correctly the 14th Amendment § 3) is applicable to one who has held executive office. The section reads as follows:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

As president tRump was an "officer" of the USA. The judge determined he gave the aid and comfort that is violative of the Amendment. On that basis it seems that § 3 is applicable but she remains uncertain. Now the appellate court will have to make a finding as to whether this is true or not.

So why do you want him elected president then?

[Brooklyn]

So why do you want him elected president then?

Stupid question.

But I'll gladly answer if you can prove I want him elected. You made the charge, the burden of proof is yours.

I'll wait ...

[NattyBohChamps04]

So why do you want him elected president then?

Stupid question.

But I'll gladly answer if you can prove I want him elected. You made the charge, the burden of proof is yours.

I'll wait ...

Your posts condemning Biden and welcoming Trump's win are the proof. Ball is in your court, why do you want Trump elected?

[Brooklyn]

Your posts condemning Biden and welcoming Trump's win are the proof. Ball is in your court, why do you want Trump elected?

You have not come close to meeting your burden of proof.

While it is true that I condemned Biden's actions in Gaza, I have praised his economics and judicial appointments. Click search for your proof.

Nowhere have I welcomed tRump back either. In fact I condemned it. Again, click search for proof.


Your move. I'll wait ...

[NattyBohChamps04]

Your posts condemning Biden and welcoming Trump's win are the proof. Ball is in your court, why do you want Trump elected?

You have not come close to meeting your burden of proof.

While it is true that I condemned Biden's actions in Gaza, I have praised his economics and judicial appointments. Click search for your proof.

Nowhere have I welcomed tRump back either. In fact I condemned it. Again, click search for proof.


Your move. I'll wait ...

No need my man, just look at your posts. We can draw the inference from them. Ball is still in your court.

Also, why do I need to show any proof when you constantly accuse half the forum of things we've never posted or said without any kind of proof? Is doing what you're to others frustrating?

Just look at your Siouan and Jewish comments on the Israel thread if you want proof of accusations without proof.

[Farfromgeneva]

So why do you want him elected president then?

Stupid question.

But I'll gladly answer if you can prove I want him elected. You made the charge, the burden of proof is yours.

I'll wait ...

Funny I don’t see this applying to all your claims when challenged.