Trump has argued that he was never an officer of the United States to the Supreme Court. He says he wasn’t the president.
In 1982, Nixon v Fitzgerald, the court established that the president IS an officer of the United States, specifically the Chief Constitutional Officer of the Executive Branch, so if he wasn’t an officer, he wasn’t president. Apparently Habba doesn’t know how to google, much less how to research case law or she would have known. Fail #1

They also argue he didn’t personally engage in insurrection (he did, the election denial was an insurrection, all the fake electors were an insurrection, trying to invalidate millions of votes was an insurrection, trying to “find” enough votes to steal states he had lost is an insurrection, sending thousands to the Capitol to physically “stop the steal” was an insurrection) but they have completely ignored the “or given aid or comfort” part of the clause because he has absolutely given mountains of aid and comfort to those convicted of seditious insurrection by raising money for their defense, defending them publicly, calling them patriotic heroes, creating a song he sold for their benefit, and promising them pardons, so they have no defense to having given aid and comfort to insurrectionists along with most MAGA congresspeople. Prepare for their expulsion after Trump loses. Fail #2

Since he claims he was never an officer, so not really president, his immunity claims don’t even need to be litigated, only the actual president, highest OFICER in the American government AND the American military has any immunity and he says that was never him…and it’s only severely qualified immunity, not 100% total complete omnibus immunity…otherwise Biden/Harris would simply have Trump’s plane secretly shot down and claim total immunity….duh. Fail #3

Thanks Habba! Worst lawyer in American history trying some of the most important cases, and putting on invalid defenses she hasn’t thought through and in many cases completely forgetting to put on any defense at all. She’s the best lawyer in America that will stoop to defending Trump, and is guaranteeing he loses every case!

Holy shit! Lone Wolf and Cub! I have 3 omnibuses of that manga. Great stuff. I didn't know there were films.

The real Ronald Reagan was in favour of a social safety net for the truly needy, despite being known for the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which cut benefits for some of the better-off welfare recipients. Also, if you look at his position on immigration (granted amnesty in 1986) and gun control (banned open carry in California, banned sale of machine guns in 1986, lobbied for the ban on assault rifles in 1994) you'll find that he is politically far to the left of any of the current Republican presidential candidates.

The real Barack Obama proposed income tax rates lower than under Reagan, and if he's ever proposed socialist style wealth redistribution then I didn't hear about it. From over here he looks centre right poitically, so it's a little bit jarring to hear people talk about him as if he's a leftist!

Your video, daily show-jon stewart lampoons the omnibus bill, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ha Ha! Silly Americans. You'd never find that happening in Canada. Wait a minute, what's that? Stephen Harper? Omnibus Bill? .....Never mind.

that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.

I am not one who is threatened by hearing other points of view. Have no fears concerning my mental status. I recommend that you yourself also do not have any need to feel threatened when I point out that some of what you call 'historical context' is - in fact - personal opinion and interpretation.

a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection

No argument. That's government's only real role in this matter.

when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.

I will argue again that the real issue here is not 'corporations buying legislators'. The problem is corrupt legislators. Companies can't 'buy' what isn't 'for sale'. Again - your argument when you strip away the rhetoric is not against companies. Your argument is one that calls for greater limits on government.

you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations

Specifically, I have claimed that no company controls my life. And they don't.

if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie

To accurately (though informally) describe persons of a specific political philosophy.

it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.

Please supply your sourcing for this claim. If 80% of lending was 'fraudulent' as you claim, there would be massive prosecutions going on. There are no such prosecutions, because the lending agencies were (in fact) operating within the law. In harsh reality, many of the so-called 'predatory' lending tactics were encouraged by the federal government for the express purpose of increasing the number of people with homes (see repeal of Glass-Steagal).

when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice

Yes - by changing the political system so that politicians are held accountable for their actions. By not allowing politicians to pass laws without full disclosure, 75% full congressional majority votes, and tons of other restrictions that would prevent them from being able to influence the system. The problem is not companies. The problem is politicians who are never held accountable.

All political offices should have a single term limit, and then the candidate is banned for life from all political activity except voting in congresional & presidential elections. Politicians should not be elected. They shoudl be randomly drawn up for service akin to jury duty. All laws should require a 75% majority vote of the entire congress before passing. Only one law should be allowed per bill - no 'omnibus' bills. If some 'bad event' happens that is tied to the passage of a specific law, then all the politicians who voted for that law should be the ones held responsible. And on and on...

I've literally got a BILLION great ideas along these lines of "How to stop corporations from influencing the political system by imposing limits on politicians."

>> ^mauz15:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Falsus in unus, falsus omnibus (which is a fallacy)

Argumentum ad Logicam
Which is a fallacy fallacy.


Would only apply if tried to make an inductive argument based on the fallacy. I did not. At best the comment is misleading, and at worst, it is a mistake in logic.

"People who dislike bacon have no right to complain about bacon!" is a similar fallacy depending on the exact sentiment of the comment in question.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Falsus in unus, falsus omnibus (which is a fallacy)


Argumentum ad Logicam

Which is a fallacy fallacy.

^Falsus in unus, falsus omnibus (which is a fallacy)

Please note that i want to read the bills too. If these congresspeople are to represent us, then i want time for active citizens, lobbyists and the like to read the bill as well, that we can comment upon them prior to the vote. Or are we assuming that our representatives are wise enough to see every angle on these things?

Oh, the size of such documents is part of the problem too. Omnibus bills like this should also be illegal. The attaching of unrelated clauses is a form of political bribery at best and a form of blackmail at worst. This again, undermines the will of the people and even, at times, the representatives themselves. Are any of you aware of how the REAL ID act?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOfC76i2X9M

>> ^SpeveO:
Somehow I don't think Joe Biden, the man who bragged to Tim Russert about how the Patriot Act mirrored a lot of his proposed legislation in the Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act of 1995, is going to be part of the team that restores the American constitution.


Thanks for pointing that one out, I wasn't aware of it. Count that as a definite strike against him, but his scorecard from the ACLU is 91% in the 110th Congress (only because he missed a single crucial vote, after being named VP), and an 86% rating lifetime.

Obama's position on the Patriot act has been scrutinized, and while his ACLU scorecard shows 82% for FISA and Patriot votes, he's certainly talked a lot about wanting to replace them with better legislation that better protects people's rights (specifics are behind that link).

Contrast that to McCain's rating of 22% lifetime, with a 17% in the 110th Congress, and absolutely no mitigating commentary about it. He's even ducked voting against measures that would've precluded the CIA from using torture, even with his supposed opposition to torture (a minority view in the Republican party, mind you).

Goodness knows what Palin's scorecard would look like.

I'm standing by Obama and Biden being the team to restore the Constitution.

Somehow I don't think Joe Biden, the man who bragged to Tim Russert about how the Patriot Act mirrored a lot of his proposed legislation in the Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act of 1995, is going to be part of the team that restores the American constitution.

I'd like to see a link to a newspaper story for the claim that McCaskill does not support embryonic stem cell research, please. This St. Louis Post-Dispatch story makes it pretty clear that she is supporting Amendment 2.

If some time ago she was opposed to it, but has changed her mind -- so what? She now supports embryonic cell research, as described in Amendment 2. If she voted against a booby-trapped omnibus bill (the old "my opponent voted against money for our troops!" trick), or against a bill that didn't have the controls she favours -- so what? She supports embryonic stem cell research in Missouri, controlled as described in Amendment 2.