Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 19: Law and Odour

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 12, 2012
21,298
40,390
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Mod Notice
* Thread monitored actively. User who drag it down will be removed

Specifically: reference to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and its counterpart 'Trumpanzee' or anything similar will no longer be allowed.

Personal attacks are also to be kept to a minimum.

As always, please submit ideas for the thread title by tagging Gethelred! Congrats to Nikita Blue for our new thread title!

Joe Biden, 46th President Thread is over there ->

< - Trump Part 18 is back there.
UPDATE: Trump Shooter named.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Log in to remove this ad.

Not great, and nothing. Just like Mitch McConnell refusing to even hold confirmation hearings for Obama's pick with 12+ months left in his term then ramming through Trump's in about a month wasn't received well by the wider public.

I'd have no issue at all with a Dem president expanding and stacking the court, pretty clear who started playing funny buggers first. And when they get to 27 SC members a few years down the track it might finally prompt them to have a re-think about appointments, term limits and how things work with the SC.
Fair enough. I guess thats one way to deal with it.
 
I would think the oath would make it a matter of military conscience to decide if the supreme court placing Donald Trump above the law was constitutional. If not, they should feel a compulsion to obey the president when asked to peacefully retire a few rogue judges.
Best to leave the wit to those that possess it.
 
It is not the Military's position to question the Supreme Court decisions, it is a requirement to defend the Constitution.
It is compulsory to follow legal orders.

Reading posts here that Seal Team 6 will be sent to assassinate judges and political opponents is absurd to say the least.
One can only assume their believe themselves to be humorous. It’s certainly not satire.
 
Whatever floats your boat. I don't agree with this type of assassination, or political violence as a vessel of change.
Status quo isn’t really working in the USA
Agree that violence generally is a bad option but sometimes it’s the least bad one

I’m very comfortable judging the value or lack thereof of others lives (have to do this every day to decide resource allocation in critically unwell patients)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Status quo isn’t really working in the USA
Agree that violence generally is a bad option but sometimes it’s the least bad one

I’m very comfortable judging the value or lack thereof of others lives (have to do this every day to decide resource allocation in critically unwell patients)

I agree status quo isn’t working. We have had possibly the worst presidents in history consecutively.
Objectively then, I guess you have to then concede that there are plenty of people on both sides who by your rhetoric are justified (in their minds) in political violence.

I totally understand that having a medical background myself, and I mean no disrespect…however…triaging and prioritising critically unwell patients is not a transferable skill when deciding who has value or lack there of as a person, politician etc. You aren’t assessing their value by any of the same metrics.

If you prioritise clinical resources for your patients based on if you deem them as ‘good people’ vs ‘bad people’ rather than their medical acuity and likelihood of recovery… then I would agree that you have transferable skill, however that would also make you a fairly poor and unethical medical professional.

I’m enjoying the banter however :)
 
I agree status quo isn’t working. We have had possibly the worst presidents in history consecutively.
Objectively then, I guess you have to then concede that there are plenty of people on both sides who by your rhetoric are justified (in their minds) in political violence.

I totally understand that having a medical background myself, and I mean no disrespect…however…triaging and prioritising critically unwell patients is not a transferable skill when deciding who has value or lack there of as a person, politician etc. You aren’t assessing their value by any of the same metrics.

If you prioritise clinical resources for your patients based on if you deem them as ‘good people’ vs ‘bad people’ rather than their medical acuity and likelihood of recovery… then I would agree that you have transferable skill, however that would also make you a fairly poor and unethical medical professional.

I’m enjoying the banter however :)
I am judging them by actions. Same way as I judge the patient who decides to assault my staff. Damn straight they aren’t gonna get the same care as the one who doesn’t
 
No he’d happily spread that around
jake-gyllenhaal-i-see-what-you-did-there-ez0w16p3ukrznd22.gif
 
I am judging them by actions. Same way as I judge the patient who decides to assault my staff. Damn straight they aren’t gonna get the same care as the one who doesn’t

Well thats different. You started off talking about resource allocation for critically unwell patients. If we are talking about assaultative patients thats a totally different kettle of fish.
 
Well thats different. You started off talking about resource allocation for critically unwell patients. If we are talking about assaultative patients thats a totally different kettle of fish.
Yeah was poorly explained by myself
The resource allocation part was the why I can view life as cheap/ assign a value to it

Which then means separately I can judge others deliberately on their actions, as I judge those who assault my staff.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top