Thread contenitore generico sugli USA

[alpha12000]

https://www.theamericanconservative....eid=7c0dc7b7cb

As part of its relentless lawfare against the former President Trump and his bid for re-election, the left has filed suit in several states to compel election officials in those states to keep him off their presidential primary and general election ballots in 2024. The highly partisan secretary of state in Maine has unilaterally removed Trump from the ballot by administrative decree.
The left argues that the former president is ineligible to run for re-election because he “engaged in insurrection” on January 6 and, as a result, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars him from running for re-election. Thus far, the results of this lawfare are mixed; some wins for the former president, some for his attackers.
Here’s a prediction for the new year: The Supreme Court will quickly and decisively shut down these extraordinary legal assaults. It will keep Trump on the ballot, and it will do so in a way that upholds the law and protects the Court from the ongoing efforts of the left to vilify the institution as partisan and corrupt.
None of the actions to boot Mr. Trump off the ballot have any merit; all are fatally flawed. The legal theories upon which they are based find no support in the text and original meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, in relevant part:
No person shall…hold any office…under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same….
As a threshold matter, Section 3 does not even apply to the presidency. The textual term “officer of the United States” refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones. Firmly established Supreme Court precedent is clear that “unless a person…holds his place by virtue of an appointment…he is not…an officer of the United States,” as stated in U.S. v. Mouat (1888).
The final clause of Article VI of the Constitution expressly provides that “all executive…officers…of the United States” shall take an oath to support the Constitution. The presidential oath is separately provided for in the final clause of Section 1 of Article II, and that clause does not describe the president as an officer of the United States. Trump did not take, and therefore did not violate, the Article VI oath referred to in Section 3.
Even if Section 3 did apply to the former president, there is no legal basis for any state election official to conclude that he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Both are serious crimes. Before a person can be said to have committed either one, the requisite facts and violation of law must be proven in the appropriate court of law, and the person convicted. Trump has been charged with many crimes in many different jurisdictions, but he has never been convicted, or even charged criminally, with insurrection or rebellion. During his second impeachment, he was acquitted regarding his actions on January 6. Of the hundreds of other people criminally charged for their activities on January 6, not one of them has been charged, much less convicted, of engaging in insurrection or rebellion.
Finally, even if there was a valid legal basis to conclude that Mr. Trump has engaged in insurrection or rebellion, that still does not empower various state election officials and state courts in different jurisdictions to keep the former president off their ballots for the 2024 election.
That is because the prohibition set forth in Section 3 is a bar to holding office only. Nothing in Section 3 prevents a person covered by its terms, even if guilty of insurrection, from running for office. The constitutional text is clear: “No person shall…hold any office….”
Section 3 is not self-executing. Congressionally enacted enforcement legislation is needed for the section to have legal effect. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly anticipates such Congressional action by providing that “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Salmon Chase, Thaddeus Stevens, and Lyman Trumbull, luminaries intimately involved in the drafting and enactment of the Fourteen Amendment, all agreed that Congress needed to enact legislation establishing an enforcement mechanism. Congress did so in 1870 when it passed “An Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment,” now codified in 5 U.S.C. 14a. That section of the U.S. Code provides that “Whenever any person holds office…contrary to… [Section 3] …the district attorney…shall…prosecute…the removal of such person from office.” The Congressionally specified enforcement mechanism that brings Section 3 into effect simply does not apply until after a person has been elected and takes office.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump and the Colorado GOP are appealing the Colorado decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The text of Section 3, and that of the 1870 enforcement legislation, give the Court a clear basis for overturning the Colorado decision, and shutting down the ballot-booting lawfare, without having to reach and decide politically explosive questions relating to whether Mr. Trump is barred by Section 3 from holding office because of his actions on and around January 6. Section 3 simply does not apply to candidates.
The Court will take this course, apply the law, keep Trump on the ballot, avoid being dragged into election year politics, and clear the way for the people to decide who they want to be their next president. That’s the way things should work in a constitutional democracy.

[alpha12000]

https://www.conservativereview.com/f...666294561.html

A routine traffic stop exposed shocking allegations against a former teacher from Idaho. The ex-teacher is accused of having sex with a minor and plying the teenage boy with alcohol and marijuana.
An officer with the Saint Anthony Police Department pulled over a vehicle for having no visible tail lights on Nov. 6, according to court documents. A teenage boy was reportedly in the driver's seat during the traffic stop. Police determined that the car belonged to 36-year-old Jessica Lawson.
East Idaho News reported, "The teenager told the officer that Lawson had allowed him to drive her car 'due to her being too drunk to drive,' according to police reports. Court documents say the minor admitted to having marijuana and was driven home by the officer."
In the morning, the parents of the minor contacted the Saint Anthony Police Department to report that their son had an improper relationship with Lawson — a former teacher at South Fremont High School. The boy alleged that Lawson got drunk, and she provided him with marijuana before the two had sex.
According to KIFI-TV, "Lawson later called the boy's mother and admitted to picking him up, driving him to her home and giving him alcohol."
Court documents say Lawson admitted to picking the teen up from his house, taking him to her house, and providing him with alcohol. However, she reportedly denied supplying marijuana to the boy but admitted that she had the drug in her home. Lawson allegedly denied that "anything else had occurred."
Police later arrested Lawson. She was charged with two felony counts of rape of a victim between 16 and 17 years old and whom the perpetrator was three or more years older than, as well as a felony count of controlled substance delivery, and the misdemeanor of dispensing alcohol to a minor, according to online records.
Lawson was booked into the Madison County Jail, and her bond is set at $250,000. Lawson has been ordered not to have any contact with the victim.
If convicted, Lawson faces up to life behind bars.
A spokesperson for the Freemont County School District told Law & Crime that Lawson had worked as a high school teacher from 2021 to the spring of 2023.
Lawson is no longer listed on the school’s staff page.

[Amati75]

https://www.theamericanconservative....eid=7c0dc7b7cb

As part of its relentless lawfare against the former President Trump and his bid for re-election, the left has filed suit in several states to compel election officials in those states to keep him off their presidential primary and general election ballots in 2024. The highly partisan secretary of state in Maine has unilaterally removed Trump from the ballot by administrative decree.
The left argues that the former president is ineligible to run for re-election because he “engaged in insurrection” on January 6 and, as a result, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars him from running for re-election. Thus far, the results of this lawfare are mixed; some wins for the former president, some for his attackers.
Here’s a prediction for the new year: The Supreme Court will quickly and decisively shut down these extraordinary legal assaults. It will keep Trump on the ballot, and it will do so in a way that upholds the law and protects the Court from the ongoing efforts of the left to vilify the institution as partisan and corrupt.
None of the actions to boot Mr. Trump off the ballot have any merit; all are fatally flawed. The legal theories upon which they are based find no support in the text and original meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, in relevant part:
No person shall…hold any office…under the United States…who, having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same….
As a threshold matter, Section 3 does not even apply to the presidency. The textual term “officer of the United States” refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones. Firmly established Supreme Court precedent is clear that “unless a person…holds his place by virtue of an appointment…he is not…an officer of the United States,” as stated in U.S. v. Mouat (1888).
The final clause of Article VI of the Constitution expressly provides that “all executive…officers…of the United States” shall take an oath to support the Constitution. The presidential oath is separately provided for in the final clause of Section 1 of Article II, and that clause does not describe the president as an officer of the United States. Trump did not take, and therefore did not violate, the Article VI oath referred to in Section 3.
Even if Section 3 did apply to the former president, there is no legal basis for any state election official to conclude that he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Both are serious crimes. Before a person can be said to have committed either one, the requisite facts and violation of law must be proven in the appropriate court of law, and the person convicted. Trump has been charged with many crimes in many different jurisdictions, but he has never been convicted, or even charged criminally, with insurrection or rebellion. During his second impeachment, he was acquitted regarding his actions on January 6. Of the hundreds of other people criminally charged for their activities on January 6, not one of them has been charged, much less convicted, of engaging in insurrection or rebellion.
Finally, even if there was a valid legal basis to conclude that Mr. Trump has engaged in insurrection or rebellion, that still does not empower various state election officials and state courts in different jurisdictions to keep the former president off their ballots for the 2024 election.
That is because the prohibition set forth in Section 3 is a bar to holding office only. Nothing in Section 3 prevents a person covered by its terms, even if guilty of insurrection, from running for office. The constitutional text is clear: “No person shall…hold any office….”
Section 3 is not self-executing. Congressionally enacted enforcement legislation is needed for the section to have legal effect. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly anticipates such Congressional action by providing that “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Salmon Chase, Thaddeus Stevens, and Lyman Trumbull, luminaries intimately involved in the drafting and enactment of the Fourteen Amendment, all agreed that Congress needed to enact legislation establishing an enforcement mechanism. Congress did so in 1870 when it passed “An Act to Enforce the Fourteenth Amendment,” now codified in 5 U.S.C. 14a. That section of the U.S. Code provides that “Whenever any person holds office…contrary to… [Section 3] …the district attorney…shall…prosecute…the removal of such person from office.” The Congressionally specified enforcement mechanism that brings Section 3 into effect simply does not apply until after a person has been elected and takes office.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump and the Colorado GOP are appealing the Colorado decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The text of Section 3, and that of the 1870 enforcement legislation, give the Court a clear basis for overturning the Colorado decision, and shutting down the ballot-booting lawfare, without having to reach and decide politically explosive questions relating to whether Mr. Trump is barred by Section 3 from holding office because of his actions on and around January 6. Section 3 simply does not apply to candidates.
The Court will take this course, apply the law, keep Trump on the ballot, avoid being dragged into election year politics, and clear the way for the people to decide who they want to be their next president. That’s the way things should work in a constitutional democracy.

As part of its relentless lawfare against the former President Trump and his bid for re-election, the left has filed suit in several states to compel election officials in those states to keep him off their presidential primary and general election ballots in 2024. The highly partisan secretary of state in Maine has unilaterally removed Trump from the ballot by administrative decree


Un ottimo esempio di come lefggere sempre e solo in base alle prorpie camere di risonna non sia cosa mai "buone e giusta".


Tutte le cause, in tutti gli stati, sono state presentate da elettori bipartisan , alcune da gruppi di elettori repubblicani e basta, ergo prima asserzione che l' articolo fa per la propria camera di risonanza che e' FALSA :

"..the left has filed suit .."


Seconda asserzione FALSA:



".... The highly partisan secretary of state in Maine has unilaterally removed Trump from the ballot by administrative decree.."


Un gruppo di elettori, bipartisan ha fatto domanda in tale senso, e COME PER LEGGE statale del Maine e' compito del Segretario di Stato determinare l' elegibilita', sia tali elettori che gli avvocani di Trump hanno presentato le loro opinioni, la SegStato del Maine ha interpretato l' articlo costituzionale come la corte suprema del CO e quindi ha estromesso Trump.


Mi fermo qui.. semplcimente per farle notare, come informarsi solo ed esclusivamente dalle proprie camere di risonanza alla ricerca della conferma del priorio bias riaece solo nell' unico obbiettivo di rendere le sue capacita' informative uguali a quelle di una persona che s'informa sui memes di facebook.

[Milanista]

Foxnews quella condannata a pagare 748 milioni di $ per sparare cazzate?

Quella che dava ti ad un giudice si è difesa dice di che nessuna persona razionale dovrebbe prendere sul serio le motivate che sparano in loro opinionisti (aka Tucker Carlson al epics)..?

Guardi che la Fox l’ unica cosa che fa è ”rage farming”, sparare idiozie per la
Base fessa di Maga e per le persone
le cui fonti principali d informazione sono i memes di Facebook…

Almeno in questo caso fix ha avuto la decenza di mettere la parola “alleged”… per evitare poi di dover pagare altre multe per diffamazione…


Ma, tralasciando le cose utili a ricordarsi al riguardo di Foxnews, la notizia è riportata su tutte le principali fonti informative in USA, nulla di segreto… sono atti pubblici….

Vi è un accusa di una relazione non resa pubblica… ma da quello ad annullare un caso che ha prove sostanziali e con vari imputati che si son già dichiarati colpevoli…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scusami Amati, hai per caso un link? Questa è grossa @Amati75

[alpha12000]

As part of its relentless lawfare against the former President Trump and his bid for re-election, the left has filed suit in several states to compel election officials in those states to keep him off their presidential primary and general election ballots in 2024. The highly partisan secretary of state in Maine has unilaterally removed Trump from the ballot by administrative decree


Un ottimo esempio di come lefggere sempre e solo in base alle prorpie camere di risonna non sia cosa mai "buone e giusta".


Tutte le cause, in tutti gli stati, sono state presentate da elettori bipartisan , alcune da gruppi di elettori repubblicani e basta, ergo prima asserzione che l' articolo fa per la propria camera di risonanza che e' FALSA :

"..the left has filed suit .."


Seconda asserzione FALSA:



".... The highly partisan secretary of state in Maine has unilaterally removed Trump from the ballot by administrative decree.."


Un gruppo di elettori, bipartisan ha fatto domanda in tale senso, e COME PER LEGGE statale del Maine e' compito del Segretario di Stato determinare l' elegibilita', sia tali elettori che gli avvocani di Trump hanno presentato le loro opinioni, la SegStato del Maine ha interpretato l' articlo costituzionale come la corte suprema del CO e quindi ha estromesso Trump.


Mi fermo qui.. semplcimente per farle notare, come informarsi solo ed esclusivamente dalle proprie camere di risonanza alla ricerca della conferma del priorio bias riaece solo nell' unico obbiettivo di rendere le sue capacita' informative uguali a quelle di una persona che s'informa sui memes di facebook.

A parte l'interpretazione di cosa si intenda con "left" ho apprezzato il tuo intervento. E non c'è necessità che mi dia del lei o del voi. Non credo tutto a quello che leggo della mia parte politica, che non è necessariamente M.A.G.A. ma trovo spesso buoni spunti di riflessione, perché certe opinioni non possono, o non dovrebbero, essere semplicemente espunte.

[Amati75]

Scusami Amati, hai per caso un link? Questa è grossa @Amati75

Non la sapevi...?
E' divertentissima:


Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues Nobody Really Believes Tucker Carlson Is Reporting Facts

When Tucker Carlson says on his show “[r]emember the facts of the story; these are undisputed" no reasonable person would believe that he was about to state facts. At least, that was Tucker Carlson's own argument in defending himself from a libel suit.


https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/g...porting-facts/


In pratica, solo un fesso puo' credere che cio' che Tucker gli dice sia reale e fattuale... e lo ha affermato lui stesso ( i suoi avvocati) davanti ad un giudice.

[Amati75]

A parte l'interpretazione di cosa si intenda con "left" ho apprezzato il tuo intervento. E non c'è necessità che mi dia del lei o del voi. Non credo tutto a quello che leggo della mia parte politica, che non è necessariamente M.A.G.A. ma trovo spesso buoni spunti di riflessione, perché certe opinioni non possono, o non dovrebbero, essere semplicemente espunte.

Si parla in contesto, quindi negli USA "left" e' qualsialsi persona che ha idee politiche NON conservatrivci, o per definizione stessa, o meglio per sintetizzare = DEM,

Il problema di trarre spunti di riflessione e quindi alla fine arrivare a conclusioni, in base ad articoli che asseriscono falsita' , e' che le proprie premesse ed opinioni sono quindi basate su, falsita' e quindi l' interpretazione di un fatto NON equivale a cio' che e' la realta'.

[alpha12000]

Si parla in contesto, quindi negli USA "left" e' qualsialsi persona che ha idee politiche NON conservatrivci, o per definizione stessa, o meglio per sintetizzare = DEM,

Il problema di trarre spunti di riflessione e quindi alla fine arrivare a conclusioni, in base ad articoli che asseriscono falsita' , e' che le proprie premesse ed opinioni sono quindi basate su, falsita' e quindi l' interpretazione di un fatto NON equivale a cio' che e' la realta'.

Appunto, quindi un anche un votante repubblicano, rispetto alla visione conservatrice, potrebbe essere di sinistra. In questo senso la semplificazione dell'articolo non è poi veramente errata.
Però io, come tantissime altre persone, non baso le mie conclusioni esclusivamente su quello che scrivono i giornali online. D'altra parte tante persone, di entrambi i partiti, neppure leggono.

[Amati75]

Appunto, quindi un anche un votante repubblicano, rispetto alla visione conservatrice, potrebbe essere di sinistra. In questo senso la semplificazione dell'articolo non è poi veramente errata.
Però io, come tantissime altre persone, non baso le mie conclusioni esclusivamente su quello che scrivono i giornali online. D'altra parte tante persone, di entrambi i partiti, neppure leggono.

Appunto no… nel contesto USA “left” è usato esclusivamente per chi NON vota GOP, che non sia in Repubblicano, nel caso un Repubblicano che non vota GOP e’ descritto come “RINO”.

Quindi l’ articolo sta asserendo falsità, e mi sono fermato solamente a due righe… e solo in due righe ve ne erano due.

Non so su cosa si basa lei, sto semplicemente facendo notare come le camere si risonanza che proporzionano le conferme del bias , l’unico risultato reale che ottengono, è dare la descrizione di una “realtà” che non esiste… i famosi”fatti alternativi”….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alpha12000]

Appunto no… nel contesto USA “left” è usato esclusivamente per chi NON vota GOP, che non sia in Repubblicano, nel caso un Repubblicano che non vota GOP e’ descritto come “RINO”.

Quindi l’ articolo sta asserendo falsità, e mi sono fermato solamente a due righe… e solo in due righe ve ne erano due.

Non so su cosa si basa lei, sto semplicemente facendo notare come le camere si risonanza che proporzionano le conferme del bias , l’unico risultato reale che ottengono, è dare la descrizione di una “realtà” che non esiste… i famosi”fatti alternativi”….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ci sono anche nomignoli più simpatici, ma per educazione non li scrivo. Riguardo al resto non c'è necessità di ripetersi. Se l'articolo è falso, come saranno falsi gli altri che posterò, ti conviene fare un post unico preventivo di smentita.