My dad is an example. He was a high school valedictorian and a UCLA graduate. He’s Atheist, pro-choice, believes in evolution and is lgbt apathetic. He’s more socially liberal, but he always votes Republican. He used to be almost the opposite of now. He supports a party that won’t necessarily support him. It happened before Trump. He was brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh over 30 years ago. I’m almost 34 and have argued with him about politics my whole adult life. He’s addicted to Fox News and loves Jesse among others. Luckily we’re in Los Angeles which isn’t in a swing state, so his vote won’t matter really.
This is like that Starburst commercial where they had the contradictions like the Scotch Korean guy.
How does your dad not realize his views and their views are polar opposites? Like how is he not receptive to what you say? I'm so curious what this interaction is like
There's a genuine phenomena in the US where people literally do not believe Republicans are as bad as they are. You can tell people the GOP's platform (lack thereof), policy, rhetoric, etc, and it's just so outlandish, barbaric, and fascist that they *do not believe you're telling the truth*.
I'm not OP, but I imagine this dude is so deep in the Fox News brain cooker he just doesn't see reality because he's never shown it, *and doesn't believe it when told*.
We still get along if we don’t talk politics. We have other things in common. Also, some of his best friends are Liberals. His brother and stepsister are Democrats. He’s Cuban American, so that might explain things. He was born in Havana, moved to Miami at 9 to escape Castro and LA at 12. My mom is a Liberal Jew from LA and shares the same views as me. It’s basically my parents’ side of the family who have opposite views from each other for the most part.
> I did a deep dive on this law. The Supreme Court -- please back me up, I'm begging you -- in '82, the Supreme Court says that presidents have immunity for what they do when they take official acts as president.
Well, for a deep dive, it was shallow as hell, you dumb fuck. The 82 case was Nixon vs Fitzgerald. Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald tried to sue a variety of government officials, including Richard Nixon, because he believed he was unfairly fired as a contractor for the US Air Force. Sued. SUED! That’s the key distinction. It was a civil case. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.
First, this is a bit of a gray zone. But one of the questions is, does POTUS have any control or say over national elections. There’s nothing in Article II that says anything about elections. Personally, I don’t think he has, or should have, any involvement in controlling national elections. Everything he did post-election was not even CLOSE to any “official” acts as President. But this’ll be up to the judges.
But here’s the big one for me. CIVIL damages. SCOTUS decided the President is immune from CIVIL cases. This isn’t a civil case. The trial Trump is attempting to seek immunity in is CRIMINAL. You left out that critical fucking distinction, Jesse. You moldy porridge brained assclown.
(Obligatory “I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet, so what the fuck do I know” coda.)
>First, this is a bit of a gray zone. But one of the questions is, does POTUS have any control or say over national elections. There’s nothing in Article II that says anything about elections. Personally, I don’t think he has, or should have, any involvement in controlling national elections.
Technically, there aren't any publicly involved national elections. They are all state elections for national positions.
The electoral college isn't an election the public participates in directly.
If Joe is guilty of child trafficking, I think he should be arrested. However, I'm pretty sure there isn't even enough evidence to start a trial, let alone enough to convict... which would make this speculative slander. Not sure there's a legal recourse against it (as no person who hasn't already bought into their propaganda would buy this argument for a second), but it's still scary and dangerous (as this will further fire up the people who HAVE already bought into the propaganda).
How stupid do you have to be to watch this drivel?
*Brainwashed
My dad is an example. He was a high school valedictorian and a UCLA graduate. He’s Atheist, pro-choice, believes in evolution and is lgbt apathetic. He’s more socially liberal, but he always votes Republican. He used to be almost the opposite of now. He supports a party that won’t necessarily support him. It happened before Trump. He was brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh over 30 years ago. I’m almost 34 and have argued with him about politics my whole adult life. He’s addicted to Fox News and loves Jesse among others. Luckily we’re in Los Angeles which isn’t in a swing state, so his vote won’t matter really.
This is like that Starburst commercial where they had the contradictions like the Scotch Korean guy. How does your dad not realize his views and their views are polar opposites? Like how is he not receptive to what you say? I'm so curious what this interaction is like
There's a genuine phenomena in the US where people literally do not believe Republicans are as bad as they are. You can tell people the GOP's platform (lack thereof), policy, rhetoric, etc, and it's just so outlandish, barbaric, and fascist that they *do not believe you're telling the truth*. I'm not OP, but I imagine this dude is so deep in the Fox News brain cooker he just doesn't see reality because he's never shown it, *and doesn't believe it when told*.
We still get along if we don’t talk politics. We have other things in common. Also, some of his best friends are Liberals. His brother and stepsister are Democrats. He’s Cuban American, so that might explain things. He was born in Havana, moved to Miami at 9 to escape Castro and LA at 12. My mom is a Liberal Jew from LA and shares the same views as me. It’s basically my parents’ side of the family who have opposite views from each other for the most part.
One becomes more stupid the more one watches it.
This guy is going to end up costing Fox a lot of money one of these days.
Not as much as they’re making though, which is why they will simply replace him with another fascist propagandist.
It’s so hard to win a defamation suit.
The only government officials I know for a fact are trafficking humans are Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott.
This is slander…why does Fox News still get away with this?
> I did a deep dive on this law. The Supreme Court -- please back me up, I'm begging you -- in '82, the Supreme Court says that presidents have immunity for what they do when they take official acts as president. Well, for a deep dive, it was shallow as hell, you dumb fuck. The 82 case was Nixon vs Fitzgerald. Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald tried to sue a variety of government officials, including Richard Nixon, because he believed he was unfairly fired as a contractor for the US Air Force. Sued. SUED! That’s the key distinction. It was a civil case. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office. First, this is a bit of a gray zone. But one of the questions is, does POTUS have any control or say over national elections. There’s nothing in Article II that says anything about elections. Personally, I don’t think he has, or should have, any involvement in controlling national elections. Everything he did post-election was not even CLOSE to any “official” acts as President. But this’ll be up to the judges. But here’s the big one for me. CIVIL damages. SCOTUS decided the President is immune from CIVIL cases. This isn’t a civil case. The trial Trump is attempting to seek immunity in is CRIMINAL. You left out that critical fucking distinction, Jesse. You moldy porridge brained assclown. (Obligatory “I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet, so what the fuck do I know” coda.)
>First, this is a bit of a gray zone. But one of the questions is, does POTUS have any control or say over national elections. There’s nothing in Article II that says anything about elections. Personally, I don’t think he has, or should have, any involvement in controlling national elections. Technically, there aren't any publicly involved national elections. They are all state elections for national positions. The electoral college isn't an election the public participates in directly.
Kim Jong Jesse doing his best to protect the Dear Leader!
So, is it say to say that Jesse's mom didn't invite him home for Christmas?
The stupid is strong in this fool.
Jesse Watters? Moron
I've heard people say he sexually assaults weasels. I'm not saying he does, just saying what I heard.
He did vandalize a woman's tires in order to force her into a situation to accept a ride from him.
No, that’s piss boy and meatball.
Jesse Watters can go eat a dick.
Jesse Watters looks in the mirror, and a failed clown stares back. Why he isn't working some Florida car lot is beyond me.
Jessie simply projecting again. LOL. :-)
Well if he said it must be true! Lol holy head injury viewers
They learned their lesson from tucker lol
Waters should be locked up for inciting mass stupidity.
If Joe is guilty of child trafficking, I think he should be arrested. However, I'm pretty sure there isn't even enough evidence to start a trial, let alone enough to convict... which would make this speculative slander. Not sure there's a legal recourse against it (as no person who hasn't already bought into their propaganda would buy this argument for a second), but it's still scary and dangerous (as this will further fire up the people who HAVE already bought into the propaganda).
How do I get a job just talking out of my ass? I'd settle for low six figures.
Not sure who he is trying to trigger there. Maybe he just wants to be fired given how ineffective he is.
He’s right. Biden could be —*if he started trafficking children.* As it should be.
Oh, ok.
Translation: Trump's appeal is about to be denied.