Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Republican Party was officially founded March 20, 1854. The Founders were republican but it was not an official party at that time. The two primary political parties were the Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party which was a different entity than the party formed in 1854.Newsbleat just can't help but propagandize.
The Republican Party DID exist in those times. Ever heard the term "Jeffersonian Republican"? Of course you have. It's just that during the "Era of Good Feelings" (which was AFTER the period Newsbleat speaks of) political parties disappeared until Andrew Jackson, racist, slaver and genocidal dirtbag established what is todays' dimocrap scum party.
Publications and writers who don't know basic History can't be trusted to get anything else right.
Nice try, though
I asked for a link. Not a display of your embarrassment for not being able to provide one....cuck.Weak and pathetic. Obviously you didn't listen to any of the oral arguments because you are a puny brain Dem sheeple. Run along and live your pathetic sheeple existence in ignorance moron.
There has never been, in Human History, ever, a politcal party called "Democrat-Republican". Never. Not ever..The Republican Party was officially founded March 20, 1854. The Founders were republican but it was not an official party at that time. The two primary political parties were the Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party which was a different entity than the party formed in 1854.
Newsweek got it exactly right.
You should listen to the arguments in court.I seriously doubt that.
You are expected to arrive to the discussion informed dummy.I asked for a link.
Yeah there's a difference between ABSOLUTE and absolute....no one is asking for blanket permission to rape and murder. Pretty sure the subject is limited to Official acts.You should listen to the arguments in court.
You're not interested in a link.I asked for a link. Not a display of your embarrassment for not being able to provide one....cuck.
Or you could take the high road and admit you made it up.
YAWWWWWN....GJ's are a dime a dozen these days.Who is "they?" Trump could have prosecuted Hillary but didn't because he had no case. Trump is being prosecuted because the DoJ, state of NY, and state of GA have cases authorized by grand juries.
From what? From exactly what we're seeing right now, using lawfare to attack a political opponent and contorting written law to force a guilty verdict. Given that federal law is a sprawling word mountain of latent interpretations subject to an indefinite product in the hands of politically inconsistent human judges it is quite understandable that some form of protection would be needed.
Taking it to extremes of rediculous hypotheticals doesn't really do the subject justice since the entire reaction of the court is one in response to an existing extreme.
No, it doesn't mean that a POTUS can rape, murder or persecute with impunity. It means that law cannot be weaponized for political gain.
The orange don is claiming in court total immunity. That if he does commit any crime he would have to be impeached first and Congress would have to explicitly declared that action not an official act.Yeah there's a difference between ABSOLUTE and absolute....no one is asking for blanket permission to rape and murder. Pretty sure the subject is limited to Official acts.
I don't think so....I think this is an excellent opportunity for SOTUS to perform it's most relevant function: Define Federal law.Immunity is not a license it"s a protection.
A distinction without a difference.
It’s really used in the way any future president decides to.
That’s why it cannot ever be.
Another distinction with no difference.Not the only one. They're not asking for permission to murder or rape.
Because you don’t think. Certainly not outside of your immediate needs.I don't think so....I think this is an excellent opportunity for SOTUS to perform it's most relevant function: Define Federal law.
This particular one is long overdue.
Well the Encyclopedia Brittanica agrees with my 'bullshit' as you put it. And anybody who thinks I'm a leftist has never read my posts. And I am a pretty fair student of history as well. It is true that Jefferson used the term "Republican' instead of the full name of the party, but officially it was the Democratic-Republican Party. The present day Republican Party was not established until mid 19th Century.There has never been, in Human History, ever, a politcal party called "Democrat-Republican". Never. Not ever..
It is a totally made up bullshit word invented by stupid academics to attempt to label something they don't understand.
In fact, in those days, calling yourself a 'democrat' could get you shot. Calling someone else a democrat could get you called out for a duel.
The French Revolutionaries called themselves 'democrats' and America wanted nothing to do with them or their nonsense.
It's not important other than to note how leftist filth love to take possession of words. There has never been, ever, anywhere on thtis Planet a 'democrat-republican' political party. Only in the minds of stuid and lazy academics.
www.britannica.com
I don't mean to belabor the point and I do respect your views on just about everything else.Well the Encyclopedia Brittanica agrees with my 'bullshit' as you put it. And anybody who thinks I'm a leftist has never read my posts. And I am a pretty fair student of history as well. It is true that Jefferson used the term "Republican' instead of the full name of the party, but officially it was the Democratic-Republican Party. The present day Republican Party was not established until mid 19th Century.
Democratic-Republican Party | History & Ideology
Democratic-Republican Party, first U.S. opposition political party. After proponents of a strong central government formed the Federalist Party (1791), those who favored states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution formed the Republican Party under the leadership of Thomas...
The Republican Party, retroactively called the Democratic-Republican Party (a term coined by historians and political scientists)
Origins of party name[edit]
In the 1790s, political parties were new in the United States and people were not accustomed to having formal names for them. There was no single official name for the Democratic-Republican Party, but party members generally called themselves Republicans and voted for what they called the "Republican party", "republican ticket" or "republican interest".[116][117] Jefferson and Madison often used the terms "republican" and "Republican party" in their letters.[118] As a general term (not a party name), the word republican had been in widespread usage from the 1770s to describe the type of government the break-away colonies wanted to form: a republic of three separate branches of government derived from some principles and structure from ancient republics; especially the emphasis on civic duty and the opposition to corruption, elitism, aristocracy and monarchy.[119]
The term "Democratic-Republican" was used by contemporaries only occasionally,[23] but is used by modern political scientists.[120] Historians often refer to the "Jeffersonian Republicans".[121][122][123] The term "Democratic Party" was first used pejoratively by Federalist opponents.[124][125] Historians argue that the party died out before the present-day Democratic Party was formed. However, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt Democratic politicians proudly claim Jefferson as their founder.[1]
And? Aim high then negotiate.The orange don is claiming in court total immunity.
It's rare that we ever agree, but I more or less agree with you here. In most contexts, immunity is a limited concept that doesn't extend as far as some of its current detractors are implying, but on the other hand, we have a heavily politicized system that has no problem with selectively applying enforcement in favor of the regime in power. Granted, I'm not sure if immunity really matters either way when laws are selectively applied. The legal standard of America at this point more closely resembles the corruption of Brazil now.Wait until the next leftwing President gets a hold of these powers you are currently rooting for a President to have OP...
