Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[Postvieww]

More statements calling for protests? They're not needed. But hey, let's agree that if anyone is truly idiotic enough to think that Jeffries means that people should resort to violence to get what they want then you and I can call those people out and tell them how wrong they are. Agreed?

The Democrats are inciting violence, again

Congressional Democrats Hold Rally To Decry Elon Musk’s Influence In Federal Government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwsGldS1ZA Congressional Democrats on Trump Administration Closing USAID Headqu

rumble.com

 

[BPPLEE]

Firstly, this isn't about Biden. Secondly, he revised the scheme so that it didn't contradict the SP decision. Thirdly, your are using schoolyard arguments ('Sir, he did it sir, so why can't I') and that doesn't fly. And fourthly, you avoided answering the question. Which is, a I said upstream, an answer in itself.

Thanks for your input.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe

Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’​

I know you think it’s a schoolyard argument but actually it’s just pointing out the hypocrisy

 

[Bradskii]

Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’​

It's been explained why he was allowed to do what he did. I'll not wasted my time explaining it yet again to it someone who was intent on ignoring the explanation the first time.

 

[Diamond72]

1. Would he? And I'm afraid that I personally think the answer to that is yes.
2. Would you support him in doing so?

Why do you feel a need to have an opinion? Can we not be non partisan observers? Non-partisan observation is a crucial aspect of understanding complex issues objectively.

This is a double edged sword. First everyone wants to have an opinion. (right, wrong or indifferent) Then they want to convert everyone to their way of thinking. Even when they demonstrate a lack of ability to think things through.

We see this with the transgender people. Their life is a mess, they do not have a clue. Yet they want us to support and encourage them in their destructive behavior.

 

[Bradskii]

[Another video]

Sorry, I don't get it. Why are you posting a different video that's showing the same thing? We already discussed this. The point that you thought that you were making the first time was invalid. Making exactly the same point a second time doesn't then make it valid.

I dunno...maybe you believe that if you keep repeating something false then it gradually becomes true. Trump has the same problem. Could it be contagious?

 

[Bradskii]

Why do you feel a need to have an opinion? Can we not be non partisan observers? Non-partisan observation is a crucial aspect of understanding complex issues objectively.

There's nothing to observe. It's a hypothetical (what is it with them that throws so many people?).

You live in the US. I'm asking you if you think that SC decisions can be ignored. Even if there was something to observe, even if it actually happened then there'd be no complex issue to be determined. They are either the court that makes the ultimate decision - and and you accept it. Or you don't.

We see this with the transgender people. Their life is a mess, they do not have a clue. Yet they want us to support and encourage them in their destructive behavior.

That must be up for Clumsiest Segue of The Week. It had absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand whatsoever, either in fact or as used as a metaphor. But hey, at least you got that off your chest.

 

[BPPLEE]

It's been explained why he was allowed to do what he did. I'll not wasted my time explaining it yet again to it someone who was intent on ignoring the explanation the first time.

Good, I didn’t want to have to explain it to you. It’s a waste of time

 

[Diamond72]

I'm asking you if you think that SC decisions can be ignored.

Again we are dealing with hypotheticals because in this case a stay was granted.

In theory of course it could be ignored because there is a glitch in the system. Perhaps something that needs to be fixed. This could lead to a constitutional crisis. It could lead to the need for a new government. Is Trump our last president? Are we going to have a new form of Government in North America that includes Mexico and Canada?

The U.S. Marshals Service operates under the authority of the Department of Justice, which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. The President, as the head of the executive branch, does have ultimate authority over the U.S. Marshals through the Department of Justice. The Attorney General, who is appointed by the President, oversees the Department of Justice and, by extension, the U.S. Marshals Service.

I assume you mean Supreme Court and not South Carolina.

 

[Bradskii]

Again we are dealing with hypotheticals because in this case a stay was granted.

I assume you mean Supreme Court and not South Carolina.

Yes. The Supreme Court.

 

[Postvieww]

Sorry, I don't get it. Why are you posting a different video that's showing the same thing? We already discussed this. The point that you thought that you were making the first time was invalid. Making exactly the same point a second time doesn't then make it valid.

I dunno...maybe you believe that if you keep repeating something false then it gradually becomes true. Trump has the same problem. Could it be contagious?

Actually we didn’t discuss this you posted your opinion of how benign the words fight in the streets were but I assure you if these same statements were made by unhinged Republicans liberals would take those words at face value and protest vigorously.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually we didn’t discuss this you posted your opinion of how benign the words fight in the streets were but I assure you if these same statements were made by unhinged Republicans liberals would take those words at face value and protest vigorously.

You and I would both be pointing out that violence was not called for. And those who took to violence would and should be punished. The phase 'fighting for your rights' is all too common. The problem would be if some idiots took it literally. We of course wouldn't. We'd only be at fault if we didn't immediately denounce it and made no move to end it.

 

[A2SG]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe

Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’​

I know you think it’s a schoolyard argument but actually it’s just pointing out the hypocrisy

Okay, let me try to explain this by using a story. A parable, if you will...

Let's say Donald Trump and Elon Musk are in line at McDonalds. Trump wants to order a Big Mac, but he forgot his wallet. So he pulls out a gun and demands that Elon Musk give him five bucks. Clarence Thomas, who happens to be in line behind them says, "No, Donald, you can't do that." "Okay," Trump says, as he puts the gun away. "Elon, may I borrow five bucks, please?" Elon gladly gives him five bucks, and Donald gets his Big Mac.

Same thing. Biden wanted to do something, but the way he went about doing it was ruled unconstitutional. So he found a different way to do it that wasn't unconstitutional. So, basically, the Supreme Court didn't stop Biden from his goal, just like Clarence Thomas didn't stop Donald Trump from getting a Big Mac.

-- A2SG, did that clear things up for ya?

 

[Pommer]

Just what democrats wanted to do with court packing . I am sure you would have supported that .

I must have been asleep during the time when Democrats tried to pack SCOTUS by adding Justice positions to that bench.

 

[Pommer]

Your post brings back memories of the great Rush Limbaugh who often spoke of mind numbed robots and brains full of mush.

Great thinkers always castigate their political rivals with schoolyard taunts!

 

[Nithavela]

Has any right wing person stated plainly that they would oppose trump if he ignored a SC decision in this thread, yet?

 

[Postvieww]

I must have been asleep during the time when Democrats tried to pack SCOTUS by adding Justice positions to that bench.

I said they wanted to not that they did. They threatened it often maybe you were asleep.

 

[BPPLEE]

Okay, let me try to explain this by using a story. A parable, if you will...

Let's say Donald Trump and Elon Musk are in line at McDonalds. Trump wants to order a Big Mac, but he forgot his wallet. So he pulls out a gun and demands that Elon Musk give him five bucks. Clarence Thomas, who happens to be in line behind them says, "No, Donald, you can't do that." "Okay," Trump says, as he puts the gun away. "Elon, may I borrow five bucks, please?" Elon gladly gives him five bucks, and Donald gets his Big Mac.

Same thing. Biden wanted to do something, but the way he went about doing it was ruled unconstitutional. So he found a different way to do it that wasn't unconstitutional. So, basically, the Supreme Court didn't stop Biden from his goal, just like Clarence Thomas didn't stop Donald Trump from getting a Big Mac.

-- A2SG, did that clear things up for ya?

Did Trump boast "Clarence Thomas didn't stop me "
Like Biden boasted?

 

[A2SG]

Did Trump boast "Clarence Thomas didn't stop me "
Like Biden boasted?

He probably had his mouth too full with his Big Mac, and wishing he had threatened the cashier for free fries.

-- A2SG, but I forget, is boasting bad now? Or is that another only bad when Democrats do it thing....

 

[BPPLEE]

He probably had his mouth too full with his Big Mac, and wishing he had threatened the cashier for free fries.

-- A2SG, but I forget, is boasting bad now? Or is that another only bad when Democrats do it thing....

What Biden said is a lie according to you

 

[wing2000]

Over ruling an activist judge months and years after the corrupt judge has imposed a corrupt ruling and caused harm can hardly be called justice. Again who can deal with a judge who is violating his oath?

You've been asked to address the op's question multiple times....

Are you afraid to take a stand - either way?

Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

Yes or No.