Motorin' Posted October 3 Posted October 3 4 hours ago, Tiberius said: Yup, after he called up a mob to attack the capital, police officers died He was also driving the get away car in the Gretchen Witmer kidnapping scheme, but the guy's got a led foot and sped away in the nick of time. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 3 Posted October 3 1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said: This thread is funny. Bad comment about their supreme leader and they all immediately jump to defend. Any comments about the content? Not really. Typical. Anything against supreme leader is a lie! Lol. The best part is that if he does lose, he's very likely going to prison. For real crimes he provably committed. What always sort of intrigues me about the Trump as Felon discussion is that like many liberal martyrs, there typically isn't a simple open/shut case in the mix. On the classified document scandal we predictably have a Washington establishment that protects people like Biden and Clinton from harsh action for complete disregard of protocol (and in Biden's case, over many years) yet prosecutes Trump with an eye toward life in prison. With the Carrol civil case, it requires the temporary reimagining of statues designed to protect the integrity of the justice system to forgo statutes and litigate issues. The Smith case leaks like a sieve. The Hur case tied up tight. Alvin Bragg launches a criminal probe that required substantial legal gymnastics to pursue, Letitia James pursues a case that flies directly in contrast with the way business is done in NYC for decades. Georgia, you have an unusually dirty bird running the show, all sorts of money changing hands, yet onward we roll. There is ample evidence that blind trust in institutions can get you killed in this country, and law enforcement has been weaponized at times against undesirables. A friend of mine is heavily involved in NYS politics, an attorney from NYC area, and he told me one time that a significant number of politicians from down that way are corrupt. You look at the stories involving Cuomo (nursing home scandal, cooked books, the SUNY Poly scandal, sexual assault), the former AG Dan Schneiderman and his dirty deeds, former Governor Elliot Spitzer...and it's really not all that big a stretch to question just about anything that comes out of DC. Whatevs. 1 1 2
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What always sort of intrigues me about the Trump as Felon discussion is that like many liberal martyrs, there typically isn't a simple open/shut case in the mix. On the classified document scandal we predictably have a Washington establishment that protects people like Biden and Clinton from harsh action for complete disregard of protocol (and in Biden's case, over many years) yet prosecutes Trump with an eye toward life in prison. With the Carrol civil case, it requires the temporary reimagining of statues designed to protect the integrity of the justice system to forgo statutes and litigate issues. The Smith case leaks like a sieve. The Hur case tied up tight. Alvin Bragg launches a criminal probe that required substantial legal gymnastics to pursue, Letitia James pursues a case that flies directly in contrast with the way business is done in NYC for decades. Georgia, you have an unusually dirty bird running the show, all sorts of money changing hands, yet onward we roll. There is ample evidence that blind trust in institutions can get you killed in this country, and law enforcement has been weaponized at times against undesirables. A friend of mine is heavily involved in NYS politics, an attorney from NYC area, and he told me one time that a significant number of politicians from down that way are corrupt. You look at the stories involving Cuomo (nursing home scandal, cooked books, the SUNY Poly scandal, sexual assault), the former AG Dan Schneiderman and his dirty deeds, former Governor Elliot Spitzer...and it's really not all that big a stretch to question just about anything that comes out of DC. Whatevs. Len, you LOVE comparing things that are not comparable. To you a flick in the ear is the same as being hit with a sledgehammer. Both are assault! A fart in a shared elevator is as bad as getting acid thrown in your face. Sorry this is fun, i should have stopped at the first example. Trump is on tape admitting he should not be showing classified documents and showing them anyway. Not comparable to anything anyone did before. This one isn't grey. It's black and white. Intent to break the law. Spin however you want but it isn't reasonable to reasonable people. It's not in the same ballpark, stratosphere, or universe. 2 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 3 Posted October 3 11 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Len, you LOVE comparing things that are not comparable. To you a flick in the ear is the same as being hit with a sledgehammer. Both are assault! A fart in a shared elevator is as bad as getting acid thrown in your face. Sorry this is fun, i should have stopped at the first example. Trump is on tape admitting he should not be showing classified documents and showing them anyway. Not comparable to anything anyone did before. This one isn't grey. It's black and white. Intent to break the law. Spin however you want but it isn't reasonable to reasonable people. It's not in the same ballpark, stratosphere, or universe. You were flipping your biscuits about Trump supporters and how they view all this. I offered commentary on why supporters of Trump might feel that the justice might be skewed here, and some of the weird stuff that accompanies prosecution from a Dem admin, Dem DOJ, and Dem leaning AGs. If you don't care, that's fine with me but why throw your hands up, close you eyes and ears when someone offers an opinion. The outcome of the DOJ case against Trump has yet to be determined, L, though the DOJ is doing its level best to shape the narrative so that people like you have already decided guilt. There is virtually always gray in the law, and the Supreme Court rendered an opinion on immunity that changed the narrative on the Smith case. If you're naive enough to think anything is black and white, that's silly. Under the assumption that a career poli like Biden somehow completely misunderstood the rules regarding handling/holding/pilfering classified documents...and the notion that special consideration is given to special individuals. By definition, someone allowed to operate outside the law..just because...is afforded special treatment and what is black and white is certainly not. Question--do you accept the SC decision on Presidential immunity the correct, black and white interpretation of the law? 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 46 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: This isn't how the convo went at all but good try. It is. Review the posts. Are you going to try and tell me now you're well versed on inflation? You going to tell me you were aware at that time that it had fallen to a manageable (even preferred) %? How about this. I'll stalk your posts. And call you out every time you are spewing a talking point you dont understand. I'm betting you'll be calling me names quick because you have ZERO information to back up the talking points. Sure you'll do a little googling after I do. But that won't save shite positions.
Starr-Bills Posted October 3 Posted October 3 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You were flipping your biscuits about Trump supporters and how they view all this. I offered commentary on why supporters of Trump might feel that the justice might be skewed here, and some of the weird stuff that accompanies prosecution from a Dem admin, Dem DOJ, and Dem leaning AGs. If you don't care, that's fine with me but why throw your hands up, close you eyes and ears when someone offers an opinion. The outcome of the DOJ case against Trump has yet to be determined, L, though the DOJ is doing its level best to shape the narrative so that people like you have already decided guilt. There is virtually always gray in the law, and the Supreme Court rendered an opinion on immunity that changed the narrative on the Smith case. If you're naive enough to think anything is black and white, that's silly. Under the assumption that a career poli like Biden somehow completely misunderstood the rules regarding handling/holding/pilfering classified documents...and the notion that special consideration is given to special individuals. By definition, someone allowed to operate outside the law..just because...is afforded special treatment and what is black and white is certainly not. Question--do you accept the SC decision on Presidential immunity the correct, black and white interpretation of the law? Let’s not change the subject to SCOTUS. the documents case suggests that the felon kept and attempted to conceal this fact AFTER he had been notified of his requirement to return the documents. as added color there is evidence they were not securely stored that they were shared with people not cleared to have access to them and potentially that they were given to foreign agents The first part is enough for him to be guilty and the difference between Clinton and Biden is when they were asked, they cooperated and returned the documents in question. Just like when you get a speeding ticket in a group of cars and they only pulled you over other peoples crimes are not excuse for your crimes. It’s just the way the legal system in the United States works. 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 3 Posted October 3 3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Question--do you accept the SC decision on Presidential immunity the correct, black and white interpretation of the law? Your question is VERY gray. I accept the spirit of the law but then you can go on and say everything a president does is official, which is patently absurd, and exactly what Trump lawyers are arguing. Fortunately the imbecile wasn't president when he broke this law. Black and white, 100% guilty. He's on tape saying I can't do this now, I could have when i was president.
Tiberius Posted October 3 Author Posted October 3 7 hours ago, Doc said: Kilng on. lol 2 hours ago, Motorin' said: He was also driving the get away car in the Gretchen Witmer kidnapping scheme, but the guy's got a led foot and sped away in the nick of time. Sure, joke about trying to steal an election, the end of the republic 1
Tenhigh Posted October 3 Posted October 3 8 hours ago, Tiberius said: Day one Who are you going to attack, Tibsy?
Tiberius Posted October 3 Author Posted October 3 29 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: Who are you going to attack, Tibsy? Hopefully nothing. You getting excited about a right wing dictatorship? 1
aristocrat Posted October 3 Posted October 3 He was president once and the world didn’t end and neither did our republic. Same will happens if he’s elected again. 1
Starr-Bills Posted October 4 Posted October 4 2 minutes ago, aristocrat said: He was president once and the world didn’t end and neither did our republic. Same will happens if he’s elected again. Bad take. He will feel immune from consequences because he will be. We see how he will act when he feels he is. See below. 1 2
Tenhigh Posted October 4 Posted October 4 27 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Hopefully nothing. You getting excited about a right wing dictatorship? What do you mean "hopefully nothing "? What is the "something"?
Backintheday544 Posted October 4 Posted October 4 For the it’s not immune argument, this is huge: 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 4 Posted October 4 5 hours ago, Starr-Bills said: Let’s not change the subject to SCOTUS. the documents case suggests that the felon kept and attempted to conceal this fact AFTER he had been notified of his requirement to return the documents. as added color there is evidence they were not securely stored that they were shared with people not cleared to have access to them and potentially that they were given to foreign agents The first part is enough for him to be guilty and the difference between Clinton and Biden is when they were asked, they cooperated and returned the documents in question. Just like when you get a speeding ticket in a group of cars and they only pulled you over other peoples crimes are not excuse for your crimes. It’s just the way the legal system in the United States works. I understand you would prefer to bypass SCOTUS, but I prefer not to do that. This is the second time a poster used a speeding ticket analogy, and it’s as silly now as it was the first time it was raised. I do agree that law enforcement picks and chooses winners and losers in the game of life, and in politics, pretty much all bets are off when it comes to ethics, behavior and who gets pursued for what and when. Following your logic, allowing members of the political class in power to break the law without consequence, while attempting to place another in jail for life is the problem. 5 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Your question is VERY gray. I accept the spirit of the law but then you can go on and say everything a president does is official, which is patently absurd, and exactly what Trump lawyers are arguing. Fortunately the imbecile wasn't president when he broke this law. Black and white, 100% guilty. He's on tape saying I can't do this now, I could have when i was president. Excellent, you concur with the SC decision. A jury may well end up coming to the conclusion you’ve jumped to, time will tell. Or, perhaps not.
L Ron Burgundy Posted October 4 Posted October 4 3 hours ago, aristocrat said: He was president once and the world didn’t end and neither did our republic. Same will happens if he’s elected again. He was also the worst president in the history of our republic. A criminal. A con man. So why? 2
aristocrat Posted October 4 Posted October 4 6 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: He was also the worst president in the history of our republic. A criminal. A con man. So why? i'd say biden is the worst president in our history. not even close 1
Recommended Posts