Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I didn't think I was and considering what my character is, I get the feeling "wizard " is not in the game.
Alright fair I'll buy that but...
Another new thing I noticed after my break is that many town members seem to think a VTL is a lot more serious than what it actually is and should be reserved for serious situation
I'm going to have to VTL Wylted for trying to teach me things right under the post where I said I refuse to learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Why are you trying to bait the wizard into counter claiming you if there is no theme split?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@420-1776
Okay I assumed the 420 guy was someone that joined during my absence but after other people saying they don't recognize them I looked and it seems they just joined a week ago.
420 if you are an alt of someone tell us now so we can read you easier.
The people saying 420 should claim just because they are new are retarded so I'll go back and note who did that, I remember seeing at least one.
Created:
Posted in:
Immediate thoughts before starting...
- I don't know what kind of whacky meta strategies you nerds came up with during my absence and I refuse to learn.
- There is no theme split so obviously no point in anyone character claiming unless they just role claimed.
Okay now I'll read the DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think it would be fun if the nutter predictions were ones made on this website. It's been up for long enough that there should be plenty to work with.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If only I could find someone on this site who has actually read this ruling
Actually I...
and could explain how my detailed analysis of it is wrong...
Oh nevermind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Not sure why you think tecnological predition is a nutter thread designed by topic thread to be a nutter thread.
Are you kidding? Not a single prediction in there acknowledged the importance of the n-dimensional trapezoid continuum. Absolutely doomed to failure.
Alright fine, what prediction thread do you think we should keep an eye on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Most people that hate Trump, Trump could have never did Jan 6; they would want to impeach him. He could have advocated for abolishing ICE and most people who hate him would hate him for it.
What are you basing this on (besides vibes)?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
this ruling does not provide protection solely to Trump, but acknowledging that requires an objective prospective without partisan blinders on.
It applies solely to whoever the courts decide it applies to. Their decisions get appealed to the Supreme Court which means it applies solely to whoever the Supreme Court decide it applies to.
I guess we are lucky the Supreme Court doesn't have those partisan blinders on... right?
Created:
Looks as though this ruling could really help Trump making good on his promise of retribution if he gets elected…
Created:
Posted in:
Aw heck I remember trip being mentioned but thought it was just the moose guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
We need a thread topic dedicated to list of nutter ideas, that never, if rarely, come to fruition.
Here's one like that to bookmark for later https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/243-technological-predictions
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I can link you to the pdf and you can download it on the discord but it can be found on the Supreme court website under opinions
I have already read it.
No, because I actually read through the ruling and it says this would not apply to things the president thinks is official but is clearly intended to be for his own benefit. They also deferred to lower courts to determine what is and is considered official acts by their judgement
You already know what that means but I'll spell it out so that you can stop pretending that I am too stupid to understand what it means.
Make up based off of nothing in the actual Constitution that "official acts" can't be prosecuted -----> Intentionally leave "official acts" vague -----> Lower courts make a decision -----> Lower courts get appealed -----> Decision goes to Supreme Court -----> Supreme court is locked as conservative so they say immune if R pres. and not immune if D pres.
They could have spelled out what kinds of acts they wanted to make immune and which were not. It would have still been stupid and based on nothing from the Constitution but they could have done it and doing so would have guaranteed none of this "assassinating political rivals" stuff that Trump's Lawyer said was fine would even be in the conversation. The fact that they did not do so was not an oversight.
But anyway like I said I am aware of the fact that you already knew this. Please stop insulting my intelligence.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I concede he did insinuate there was a 1 in a million chance some retard could interpret it that way and get away with it.
So then you, Trump's lawyer, and the random dude you found a quote from in a news article all agree that assassinating a political rival could be viewed by the courts as an official act of the president. We will put aside the fact that you pinky promise that no president is likely to actually do that because likelihood of things happening isn't the topic.
The new ruling, based on absolutely nothing from the actual Constitution, gives the president the same kind of qualified immunity for official acts that we give to cops.
Now for the hard part...
Assassinating is an official act + Official acts are all immune to prosecution = ?????
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I read the article he said it was ludicrous and highly unlikely but mentioned a possibility. My impression is he thinks the possibility is infitesimally small
Stay on topic. You and I aren't talking about what is going to or likely to happen, we are talking about what the ruling does or does not allow. Do you disagree with this guy in the article you cited that the ruling allows this?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I still don't think Donald Trump's lawyer lied about that in official testimony like you claim but let's go back to the post where you first said that and what my response to that was.
You don't think that a political assassination could be argued to be part of a president’s role as commander in chief?Not a domestic one.Stephen Wermiel, a law professor specialising in the supreme court, said that such an action could be.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
falsely claiming this could open up the ability to assassinate rivals.
Falsely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Ever notice how every time you and I talk about him you talk about the COVID stuff and I don't, even as a response to you bringing it up? Maybe there's something to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Alright I'll vote RFK to protect us from anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage Jill Biden.
Or I'll just vote blue in my congressional races so that kind of bill doesn't reach the white house in the first place. That seems simpler.
Okay sure you've convinced me, blue down the ballot it is.
Created:
Maybe what I said in post 13 was wrong. Maybe you can't do better. Sad.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You don't think that a political assassination could be argued to be part of a president’s role as commander in chief?Not a domestic one.
Stephen Wermiel, a law professor specialising in the supreme court, said that such an action could be.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You don't think that a political assassination could be argued to be part of a president’s role as commander in chief under this new decision?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Maybe this is my fault for only implying that I wanted you to stop being a coward rather than outright saying it, so I'll outright say it now:
Stop being a coward and outright state whether you think the claim of the dissenting judges and Trump's lawyer that this essentially allows for political assassinations is accurate or inaccurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Meanwhile the guy is pro gay marriage, pro welfare, anti police, pro aabortion. He checks all the boxes and covid is over who cares.
As opposed to anti-gay marriage anti-abortion Biden?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It's not a law it's a court decision made by your side's judges.
To answer your question though it seems like an accurate interpretation from what I have seen and I agree with the dissenting judges that it is a bad thing.
You are implying that it is an inaccurate interpretation but you are not outright saying that it is.
To answer your question though it seems like an accurate interpretation from what I have seen and I agree with the dissenting judges that it is a bad thing.
You are implying that it is an inaccurate interpretation but you are not outright saying that it is.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
They dissented which means they don't agree with the decision. Low quality bait, you can do better.
Created:
Posted in:
All the negative charisma of Biden but without as much of that pesky ideological agreement.
I can't imagine why democrats aren't biting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
sounds like the rantings of a lunatic
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Created:
Posted in:
"I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yeah but didn't she keep jumping from banging one cult follower to another claiming that the previous ones weren't "alpha" enough? Like, if she has just banged all the followers and called herself an alpha that would be different but that's not how I remember hearing the story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
I think Karl Marx as president and Ayn Rand as VP would make for a strong combo. I considered Ayn Rand as president and Marx as VP but I think Rand has too much bottom energy to make that work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Sure, we can put brain worm man into consideration as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I have to vote for a dementia man, the question is which one. The R one or the D one?
Created:
He didn't do a good job at that either though.That is why I began my post by saying Biden was abysmal at the debate.
No, that is actually not why you said he was abysmal. This is why you said he was abysmal:
but there really is no format that can solve the problem of debating someone who has no regard whatsoever for reality coupled with a base that couldn’t care less.
If, however, you have changed your mind and now agree with me that's fine. I am a fan of conversion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Glad to hear you've been doing well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yeah that might work. There was a nice little dip in 2021 when COVID started killing a lot of them off, that's when I got mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Pretty well actually thanks for asking. The last few years have gone pretty good for me. DART doesn't seem to have changed much though.
How have you been?
How have you been?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
So am I in or are you worried I'm a fake?
Damn. Think, DD, think. What is something only the real DD would say?
Uhh... Uhh... SupaDudz is a nerd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
No one said this. Now your pulling a trump and trying to gaslight me.
Idk man, all the pro-jan 6 stuff kinda makes it seem like Trump himself is saying this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Like, there are specific and unavoidable reasons why that kind of thinking works for your side and not mine. The fact that RFK is a trash candidate and would make a trash president is all true but barely even enters into the equation. If you really wanted to discuss what those unavoidable reasons are though we would need a new thread dedicated to the topic that isn't a signups thread, which I didn't even realize was where you tagged me until after my last post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Clearly sending a message via vote doesn't work on the DNC or else they would have gotten the hint after 2016. Even if it did I live in a swing state to third party and staying home are both not an option.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Wylted I'm gay. Ignore the above post.
Created: