• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I like Trump now

Spice

Spice

StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Laniakea said:
Uh huh. So what you're saying is that serving 4 years as president and proving them wrong wasn't good enough, so he has to serve another 4 years as president to finally prove you guys wrong. Sounds good to me!
Vote him in!
Click to expand...
I've told you before, make note this time, please, I do not engage in your style of discourse. Just, please, move along.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
You believe that Trump argues for the legal
right to assassinate political rivals for some
reason other than to use it? Pray tell....
Click to expand...
I'm still praying you'll tell me where he said anything about wanting to assassinate his political rivals.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Laniakea said:
I'm still praying you'll tell me where he said anything about wanting to assassinate his political rivals.
Click to expand...
So far, he's only argued for the legal right to do so.
Why do you think he invests the effort to make this
right officially recognized, if not to use it?
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
So far, he's only argued for the legal right to do so.
Why do you think he invests the effort to make this
right officially recognized, if not to use it?
Click to expand...
Can you point to a source that reliably proves that he said he wants to right to assassinate his political rivals?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
I've offered them before.
You've never responded.

MSN

www.msn.com
www.rollingstone.com

Trump Lawyer Claims Presidential Immunity Covers Having Rivals Assassinated

Trump’s lawyers claimed a president can order the assassination of political rivals and avoid prosecution during a hearing on presidential immunity.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

Loading…

edition.cnn.com
Click to expand...
The article indicates their source is Mediaite, which turns out to be a far Left source (of course): Mediaite - Bias and Credibility

Even then, the allegation is that it was Roger Stone who had that discussion being alleged, not Donald Trump.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
I knew you wouldn't believe that his
lawyers argued this to SCOTUS.
To the faithful, Trump is without sin.
Click to expand...
That wasn't even the assertion you made. You claimed Trump wants the right to assassinate his political rivals, and then linked to a RollingStone article (a Leftist source) which sites Mediaite (a Far Leftist source) as a source to show that it was Roger Stone (again, NOT TRUMP) who may or may not have said what you claim Trump said.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Laniakea said:
That wasn't even the assertion you made. You claimed Trump wants the right to assassinate his political rivals, and then linked to a RollingStone article (a Leftist source) which sites Mediaite (a Far Leftist source) as a source to show that it was Roger Stone (again, NOT TRUMP) who may or may not have said what you claim Trump said.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the reasoning.
No surprise.
So it goes with the faithful.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Revoltingest said:
You don't understand the reasoning.
No surprise.
So it goes with the faithful.
Click to expand...
You'll have to try explaining your reasoning first. So far, all you've done is state mistruths about Trump, and then blame me for not excepting what you say at face value. I even clicked your link and read the article you cited as being the evidence for your claim, and it turned out to not say what you claimed it said.
The only reasoning I see you presenting to us is, "Orange man bad! Except it or you be bad too!", because....reasons!
 
Daemon Sophic

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Laniakea said:
You'll have to try explaining your reasoning first. So far, all you've done is state mistruths about Trump, and then blame me for not excepting what you say at face value. I even clicked your link and read the article you cited as being the evidence for your claim, and it turned out to not say what you claimed it said.
The only reasoning I see you presenting to us is, "Orange man bad! Except it or you be bad too!", because....reasons!
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. It was in fact the attorney for Trump, arguing that Trump should have immunity. Judge Sotomayor asks the question, and Trump's attorney says that "it would depend on the act, "but we could well see that as an official act."

Here is the recording....
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Daemon Sophic said:
You are incorrect. It was in fact the attorney for Trump, arguing that Trump should have immunity. Judge Sotomayor asks the question, and Trump's attorney says that "it would depend on the act, "but we could well see that as an official act."

Here is the recording....
Click to expand...
The actual quote was, "It would depend on the hypothetical, but we could well see that as an official act"..... and then cuts off due to editing.
Sure would have been nice if the editor would have allowed us to hear the entire answer, just as we were allowed to hear the entire question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top