[Verv]

Of course , unlike both @Godstud , or for that matter Donald Trump , I am an asexual. So, I don't ever run the risk of getting mixed up in such predicaments. ( Hey , I had to try to get the thread back on topic some how . )

That's not a real thing. It's a disorder.

You should go to a doctor and get your hormones checked.

[Tainari88]

It would be great to see Ramaswamy on the ticket with Trump. Probably a lot of Hindu hating liberal and leftie racists wouldn't like it, but Trump shouldn't pander to those people.

Do you like Ramaswamy? Tell it like it is? Rama man is your kind of Republican?

What is this political wave of Hindu religious dudes taking over Anglo-speaking nation's politics? Like your favorite dude, Rishi Sunak man. You got Vivek and then Rishi. They might become a dynamic duo in the future eh?

It is getting weird. Things are getting bad. Culture wars. Hypocrisy and some performances there on display.

Ramaswamy and Sunak.

It is time to go for a Hindu-inspired old-fashioned British hit from the past.

[Deutschmania]

Do you like Ramaswamy? Tell it like it is? Rama man is your kind of Republican?


What is this political wave of Hindu religious dudes taking over Anglo-speaking nation's politics? Like your favorite dude, Rishi Sunak man. You got Vivek and then Rishi. They might become a dynamic duo in the future eh?


It is getting weird. Things are getting bad. Culture wars. Hypocrisy and some performances there on display.

Ramaswamy and Sunak.

It is time to go for a Hindu-inspired old-fashioned British hit from the past.

In addition there is also the more prominent candidate , second to Trump himself of course , Nikki Haley . But it's just that she converted from Sikhism to United Methodism , the religion of her husband . Before her there was Bobby Jindal , who converted to Roman Catholicism , from Hinduism . I personally feel that there is not all that much of a leap from Hinduism to Catholicism , as it would be from Hinduism to evangelical Protestantism , given the statues that Catholics have , low church Protestants are more iconoclastic , and do not believe in regarding saints as intermediaries . But with that being said , in an ironic twist , just as their are so called Messianic Jews , who consider Jesus to be the divine Son of God , there are Hare Krishna devotees who regard Krishna to be an incarnation of Jesus , and therefore just as much an avatar ( divine incarnation ) . And in addition to these politicians of Indian descent , we have had Tulsi Gabbard , who has been an adherent of a Hare Krishna offshoot , called the Science of Identity Foundation . Hinduism has thereby come to have an impact upon our culture , and even Hindutva upon our politics . https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/ , https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2022-12-20/strange-tale-tulsi-gabbard I do find it odd though that supposed self proclaimed Christian nationalists might at times make common cause with their counterparts in other religions and nations . But I suppose that politics does make for strange bed fellows sometimes . And more to the point of this thread , and so as not to go too off topic , some Hindus have even taken to support , and even to quite literally worship Trump . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/man-in-india-builds-temple-for-us-president-donald-trump-worships-him-like-god/articleshow/74278282.cms , https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/13/donald-trump-india-hindu-supporters-new-delhi And now , since you posted videos , here are some videos that I shall post , the first to illustrate what I was referring to before , and the final , which is from a more recent rock star than the late George Harrison , of whom incidentally I am distantly related to , the music video to " Govinda" , by Crispin Mills , the son of Haley Mills , and his band Kula Shaker .

[Fasces]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3677.0.pdf


The D.C. Circuit affirms the district court's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment, emphasizing that any executive immunity he might have had as president does not protect him against this prosecution. This decision was made by 3 judges, and was unanimous. Pan and Childs were appointed by Joe Biden, while Henderson was appointed by HW Bush.

The court's analysis discusses the jurisdiction over the appeal, rejecting the argument that the court lacks jurisdiction due to the nature of the presidential immunity and double jeopardy claims. It delves into the question of executive immunity, noting the unique position of the president in the constitutional scheme but rejecting Trump's claim of absolute immunity from federal criminal prosecution for official acts as president.

The panel also writes

"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results."

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."

[late]

One way to look at that appeal is that it's a bomb.

Any move to support that appeal is going to blow up. Trump's best argument is that it's undemocratic. Which is true, but the Founding Fathers set up a limited democracy, and that would open up subsequent cases to arguments favoring elections to be more democratic. Republicans and conservatives (real conservatives) hate that idea. Republicans are a minority party, and the number of Republican voters is shrinking as a %. More democracy hits them where it hurts. Conservatives don't like it because they like the idea of limited democracy.

The rest of the arguments in his appeal are largely trash.

But, no matter what comes out of the courts, it will make history, and it will be.. interesting.

[Rancid]

but what about state's rights?

[wat0n]

So the SCOTUS reversed the decision, but using an argument different from any we discussed here.

PS: Actually, no, I'm reading further and this isn't quite the case. The SCOTUS is saying that only the federal government can enforce section 3 when it comes to federal office, but the states can do so regarding state office.

[Rancid]

PS: Actually, no, I'm reading further and this isn't quite the case. The SCOTUS is saying that only the federal government can enforce section 3 when it comes to federal office, but the states can do so regarding state office.

So much for states rights.

[wat0n]

So much for states rights.

It does make sense though.

[Rancid]

It does make sense though.

The ruling makes sense, but so much of states rights.