Todd Bonzalez

This, to my understanding, is how things already worked. We’ve just never had to draw the line before because we haven’t ever had to charge a former president with a crime. My understanding is that the SCOTUS refused to draw the line, not that they granted the office of president absolute immunity.

I guess I just don’t understand Sotomayor’s response. She says that Trump got the immunity he asked for, but that’s not true. He was asking for everything he did as president to be considered an “official act”, and they deferred to the lower courts.

It doesn’t appear that anything actually changed. I am assuming I am wrong on that, but none of the articles I have read so far have answered that question. There are just a lot of assertions that he was granted absolute immunity, which doesn’t match the language of the court’s opinion.

I would have preferred that they draw a line on specific acts not being considered “official acts”, especially as we draw the line between Trump’s presidency and his 2020 reelection campaign. I’m just not seeing a lot of honest discourse as to what this decision actually means from a legal perspective.

I’m a little confused. Isn’t their ruling just a deferral back to lower courts?

They didn’t grant him absolute immunity, they just reaffirmed the incredibly broad language in Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.

They’re not giving him immunity for everything he did as president, they just aren’t interested in being the authority that decides what is or isn’t an “official act”. They are letting lower courts decide that.

If there’s something I’m missing here, I would love to know, but it feels like people are misunderstanding this decision en masse.

Hell yeah on correctly recognizing what year was the first year of the 21st century! Thinking the new millennium started in 2000 is a pet peeve of mine.

This is where I divide Republicans into two groups:

• Evil people who believe that Republican lies will serve them in some way.
• Stupid people who will believe the most outrageous lies.

I love how I have a 100% success rate in assuming that a shithead in a news story is a Republican.

“Texas congressman” was maybe a giveaway, but still, Dems are never the ones doing this petty shit.

Look, it’s true that Trump is surrounded by horrible people who do horrible things, and that Religion, Pageantry, and Wealth are all vectors for child sex abuse.

But let’s not fall for the same intellectually bankrupt rhetoric of the far right. “Everyone who is a part of x is also a pedophile” arguments, with very few exceptions, are going to be bullshit.

Pedophile priests don’t validate your claim that all clergymen are pedophiles. There’s no evidence for it, you just hate Christianity.

The weirdness of child pageantry doesn’t validate your claim that everyone involved is a pedophile. One of the leading drivers of that industry is moms living vicariously through their daughters, which is still an issue, but not the same issue.

As for rich people. Sure, we can hate the ultra-rich, but you’re just being slanderous with the claim that every rich person is a pedophile. There’s literally no evidence of this, you’re just saying it because it’s a nasty thing to say.

I really hate this pattern of choosing accusations of pedophilia as a cudgel, just because it is such a severe accusation. Making this claim so baselessly comes across as rather extreme indifference to actual victims, since one clearly has no issue using a dishonest portrayal of child sex abuse just to smear political enemies.

Are you as certain of Rittenhouse’s culpability in the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, as you are about your claims about Wendy Rittenhouse’s involvement?

“Oh, you were misinformed about something worthy of a snopes article, have you considered that you might also be wrong in opposing murder?”

Get the fuck out of here with this fallacious nonsense. Kyle Rittenhouse has said he wanted to kill protesters. He’s as innocent as OJ Simpson.

This is 100% not true, and people have already shown you sources proving it yesterday. I know you hate losing a reason to hate liberals, but you’re just gonna have to accept that you were wrong about this one, kiddo. Either grow up, or leave this to the adults.

Brave of you to defend the “right” to discriminate against people for their sex/gender.

Coach is saying that these people actually believe that he has been “defending religion”, not that they believe that he has literal wounds all over his body from it.

You seem to be the one taking things a bit too literally.

We need to bait him into rallying in a liberal city. We could all show up and pretend to take him seriously and just wait for him to say something insane like this.

Then we could just yes-man him into doing embarrassing stuff. Hell yeah Mr. President, show us your beautiful wounded body. Take that shirt off. Do us a little dance. Jump up and down or something. C’mon, do a little fat man dance.

Interestingly enough, smoke detectors get more sensitive as they get older, but eventually they just stop working.

If your smoke detectors go off every time you cook, it’s time to replace them.

Oh yeah man, just have two homes in this economy. Great idea.

If you don’t know what a parasocial relationship is, you can always look it up.

OnlyFans is just one step below prostitution. They will vanish overnight when sex work is legal.

This is absolutely not true, and is absolutely dripping with sexism.

Settling for OnlyFans is ridiculous when there are literal TBs of porn out there.

People aren’t paying for porn. They’re paying for parasocial relationships.

Well, those people are fucking stupid, and I don’t intend to adjust my worldview to accommodate their stupidity. Same as the majority of Americans who believe in a magical man in the sky: The majority of people believing an obvious lie will never make the lie true, or the vile things they justify with that lie truly just.

If the AR-15 is the same as every other gun, someone needs to explain the reason why it is overwhelmingly the weapon of choice for mass shooters if they want that argument to be taken seriously.

If endorsing the heaps of dead children that the current interpretation of the 2A produces annually is how we “win”, are we really winning?

That term can mean a lot of things, but fascists definitely care about aesthetics. They frequently complain about how art has been neglected and the world has embraced functionalism and minimalism to a fault.

While this isn’t a terrible argument in a vacuum, most of these people have a very close minded idea as to what kinds of American art has value, but cutting arts funding this severely is just an invitation for more functionalism and minimalism.

Microsoft’s models run locally too. It doesn’t make a difference, because they are shipping everything you do home.